A WORK-LIFE APPROACH BRITTAN LEE DAVIS Bachelor Of

Home , Microaggression

LGBQ WORKPLACE DISCRIMINATION, MICROAGGRESSIONS, AND

RELATIONAL SUPPORTS: A WORK-LIFE APPROACH

BRITTAN LEE DAVIS

Bachelor of Science in Psychology

Baldwin-Wallace University

May 2008

Master of Education in Community Agency Counseling

Cleveland State University

May 2011

submitted in partial fulfillment of requirement for the degree

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN URBAN EDUCATION, SPECIALIZATION IN

COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGY

at the

CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY

AUGUST 2017

©COPYRIGHT BY BRITTAN LEE DAVIS 2017

We hereby approve the dissertation of

Brittan L. Davis

Candidate for the Doctor of Philosophy in Urban Education, Counseling Psychology Degree

This Dissertation has been approved for the Office of Doctoral Studies, the College of Education and Human Services,

and CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY, College of Graduate Studies by:

______Dissertation Chairperson: Donna E. Schultheiss, Ph.D.

C.A.S.A.L. ______Department & Date

______Methodologist: Michael Horvath, Ph.D.

Psychology ______Department & Date

______Justin C. Perry, Ph.D.

College of Education, University of Missouri, Kansas City ______Department & Date

______Julia C. Phillips, Ph.D.

C.A.S.A.L. ______Department & Date

______Graham B. Stead, Ph.D.

Curriculum and Foundations ______Department & Date

July 20, 2017 Candidate’s Date of Defense

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am thankful to so many – mentors, scholars, friends, and family – whose

creativity, intellectual contributions, encouragement, compassion, strength, and

friendship have made the completion of my dissertation and degree possible. I must first,

however, express my deepest gratitude for my family, whose endless love and inspiration

sustains me. Kim, Jeff, Shane, Kellee, and Sharman – your strength, endurance, and love

have motivated me to continue through this journey and I carry your love with me no

matter how far the geographical distance between us. And to the Hirschbecks – thank you

for being a second family and for your compassionate encouragement throughout all of

my academic endeavors. I would be remiss if I did not also thank those family members

who have departed. Grandma Donna, Grandpa Ron, Becky, and C.C. – your felt presence

and my desire to make you proud helped to pull me up whenever I fell and pushed me to

keep working toward my educational and career goals even when I felt like giving up.

To my many mentors and supervisors along the way, I am deeply appreciative for all of your support and guidance. Dr. Deb Esty – thank you for introducing me to the field of counseling psychology during my undergraduate studies and for your support in

nurturing my feminist identity. Drs. Julia Phillips, Katharine Hahn Oh, and Donna

McDonald – you have modeled what it means to be a strong, resilient, intelligent, and

empathetic woman in the field, I am thankful for you introducing me to relational cultural

theory and emotion focused theory in my clinical work, and I have been inspired by our

many dialogues on social justice and our mutual commitment to advocacy. Drs. Graham

Stead, Justin Perry, and Sarah Toman – thank you for expanding my mind in relation to

vocational psychology, for your confidence in me to co-author our vocational psychology

publications, for many moments of levity and discussions on art, and for your unwavering support throughout this process. Dr. Elizabeth Welfel – I am appreciative for your guidance along the way, for your encouragement to apply for the doctoral program, and for trusting me to serve as a teaching assistant for your beloved MMPI course. Dr.

Michael Horvath, thank you for you wisdom, patience, and encouragement to help me get through the statistical analyses. Dr. Elliot Ingersoll – thank you for inspiring me to be radical in all that I do. Dr. Logan Lamprecht – I am grateful for our many heartfelt

conversations, for the fond memories of co-facilitating Gestalt experiential marathons

and interpersonal growth groups, and for your ability to ground me in the strength of my

clinical skills to remind me that I am good at what I do. Dr. Stephanie Judson – I am

thankful for your authenticity and empathy that helped nurture my spirit along the way,

and for our many deeply mutually empathic conversations that validated my struggles

and stimulated me to keep moving forward on this journey. Dr. Donna Schultheiss – I

feel privileged to have had the opportunity to work with you over the span of my nine

years of graduate work – you have inspired me through your resilience, you have pushed

me to strive for more than what I thought possible, and you have nurtured my intellectual

growth of relational perspectives of working and the work-life/work-family interface.

Your guidance throughout my graduate work made this project feasible.

I am grateful for the University of Pennsylvania’s Counseling and Psychological

Services, especially Laura Collins, Nicole Nardone, Nathaniel Amos, Jane Kotler, and

Drs. Batsi Bvunzawabaya, Soumya Madabhushi, Michele Downie, Di O’Neill, Heather

Hersh, Marilia Marien, Beth Mark, Yuhong He, Matthew LeRoy, and David Glassman –

your support and encouragement helped to bring this paper to life. Dr. Cyndy Boyd – I

am thankful for our heartfelt conversations on social justice and LGBTQ+ concerns, your

kindness, and for your help and backing throughout this grueling process. Dr. Bill

Alexander – I am so grateful to have had your support throughout this process, your kind

and lighthearted spirit, and for our many conversations that brought laughter to the air

and provided a much-needed distraction from the stress of dissertation. And I am deeply

appreciative of my supervisor, Dr. Michal (Miki) Saraf, whose encouragement and validation made the completion of my dissertation possible. Miki, you have contributed greatly to my growth as a practitioner and scholar through your strength, resilience, intellect, and kindness. I am fortunate to have had you in my life during this challenging year, and I have been forever moved by our incredibly meaningful and reflective conversations.

I thank my many friends and emotional supports to guide me through the most challenging of days and sticking by my side even when I had no energy left to give. I am very grateful for all individuals who have impacted my development and me, but I am especially thankful for Dr. Martha Webb, Peggy Spaeth, Carrie Kozak Hietala, Deidra

McPherson, Deniz Durmuş, Gloria Vaquera-Little, Jessica Lewis, John Ambrose, Karen

Gygli, Bob Kolesar, Kirby Broadnax, Linda Driscoll, Lisa and Reid Ayers, Paula Woods,

Phyllis Harris, Regina Webb, Nicole Thomas, Gail Weiss and the Brooke family, Ellen

Feder, and Senoria Page. To my Division 17 friends – especially Drs. Melanie Lantz,

Evelyn Hunter, Douglas Knutson, Kerrie Wilkins-Yel – thank you for your support and our many fun memories shared at conferences. I am also thankful for the friends I have acquired through my training at Cleveland State University; particularly, Erica Wiley

Whiteman, Iva Musa, Dean Malec, Brian Fitts, Sara Nardone, Irina Bransteter, and Robin

Leichtman. Sneha Pitre – thank you for being such a huge support throughout our doctoral work and our term as SAS Co-Chairs, for our shared love of food, and for your constant optimism. Tiffany Williams – I know I would not have gotten through our nine years of graduate training had you not been by my side. You were there through it all and kept me motivated to keep going, because “I’m not walking across that stage without you.” And to my friendships formed at Penn CAPS – Drs. Derik Yager Elorriaga,

Michelle Murray, Valeriya Spektor, Vanessa Dabel, and Matt Poon – I feel fortunate to have landed amongst such intelligent, caring, and simply amazing individuals. Your support and laughter throughout my internship year provided me with the energy needed to complete my dissertation.

Lastly, I want to thank my very important chosen family – Edward Alix and

Mariana Ortega, the Torres family (Olga, Hugo, Ronald, Hugo), and the Ortega family

(Roberto and Norma). Ed, words cannot express how incredibly grateful I am to have you

in my life and for all of the support you have offered me throughout my studies. I have

learned so much from your free spirit, generosity, compassion, optimism, and love of life.

Thank you for always brightening my day! To my partner, Dr. Mariana Ortega, I am not

sure if I could have gotten through my doctoral degree had you not been by my side. I am

so fortunate to have such an intelligent, creative, caring, and passionate partner. Our deep

conversations on feminist and queer theories, our shared love for art and travel, and our

commitment to social justice has moved me and has contributed greatly to intellectual

and personal growth. Thank you for being such a loving and supportive partner! And to

our furry children – Koko, Euclid, and Stevie – you have been my beating heart with fur

and legs, and have loved me unconditionally.

LGBQ WORKPLACE DISCRIMINATION, MICROAGGRESSIONS, AND

RELATIONAL SUPPORTS: A WORK-LIFE APPROACH

BRITTAN LEE DAVIS

ABSTRACT

This study of 385 lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer-identified individuals examined perceived social support (friends, family, and significant others) as a moderator of the relationship between workplace heterosexism and work-life outcomes (work-life interference, and life and job satisfaction), as well as the relationship between homonegative microaggressions and work-life outcomes (work-life interference, and life and job satisfaction). Confirmatory factor analysis supported the measurement model used in this study. Structural equation modeling results indicated that perceived social support did not significantly moderate the relationship between workplace heterosexism and work-life outcomes or the relationship between homonegative microaggressions and work-life outcomes. However, the structural equation modeling analysis demonstrated good fit for both structural models and indicated that workplace heterosexism was significantly related to work-life outcomes, as was perceived social support. These findings suggest not only that it is important to consider heterosexism and microaggressions in understanding work-life interference and job and life satisfaction but also that perceived social support plays an important role in these relationships.

Implications for these complex relations are discussed for both counseling interventions and further research.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT …………………………………………………………………………... viii

LIST OF TABLES ………………………………………………………………...….. xiii

LIST OF FIGURES …………………..…………………………………………….…. xiv

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………...…………. 1

Workplace Heterosexist Discrimination and Stigmatization ……………...…… 7

Workplace Discrimination ……………………………………………..………. 12

Workplace Heterosexist Discrimination …………………………….…… 15

Microaggressions …………………………………………………….………… 17

Sexuality-based Microaggressions …....……………………..………..... 19

Assumed Deviance ……………………………………..……..... 21

Second-Class Citizenship ………………………………..……... 22

Assumptions of Gay Culture …………………………..……...... 23

Stereotypical Knowledge and Behavior ………………………... 24

Minority Stress Theoretical Model …………………………………...... …...…. 25

Relational and Psychology of Working Understanding of Support …………..... 30

Relationships as Support with Regard to the Work-Life Interface …………….. 36

Work-Life Interference ……………………………………………….…….….. 39

Job and Life Satisfaction ………………………………………...…………...... 47

Summary …………………………………………………………………...…... 51

Hypotheses ………………………………………………………………...….... 53

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE …………………………………………….. 54

Workplace Heterosexist Discrimination ……………………………….…..... 56

Sexuality-Based Microaggressions ………………………………………...... 65

Relationships as Supports with Regard to the Work-Life Interface ……….... 70

Work-Life Interference …………………………………………………….... 76

Job and Life Satisfaction ………………………………………………….…. 86

Summary ……………………………………………………………….……. 93

Hypotheses …………………………………………………………….…….. 97

III. METHODOLOGY ……………………………………………………………... 99

Participants ………………………………………………………………..…. 99

Sampling Procedures ……………………………………………………...…. 107

Measures ………………………………………………………………...…… 109

Demographic Questionnaire ……………………………………...….. 109

Workplace Heterosexist Experiences Questionnaire………………..... 109

Homonegative Microaggressions Scale …………………………….... 111

Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support ………………... 116

Work Interference with Life Domains Scale ……………………….... 118

The Satisfaction with Life Scale …………………………………...… 125

Job Satisfaction …………………………………………………...….. 127

Research Design ………………………………………………………...…… 128

Hypotheses ………………………………………………………………...… 129

Data Analytic Procedures …………………………………………………..... 130

Measurement Models ……………………..………………………..... 133

Full Model ……………………………………………………….....…. 139

Assessing Goodness of Fit ………………………………………..…... 139

Primary Analyses …………………………………………………...... 140

IV. RESULTS ………………………………………………………………………... 142

Overview of Analyses ……………………………………………………...... 142

Preliminary Analyses …………………………………………………..…...… 143

Data Screening ……………………………………………………...... 143

Assumptions of Multivariate Normality …………………………...... 144

Reliabilities of Measured Variables ……………………………..…..... 145

Correlations between Measured Variables ………………………...... 147

Exploratory Factor Analysis ……………………………………………...…... 147

Homonegative Microaggressions Scale …………………………...... 150

Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support ...... 152

Work Interference with Life Domains Scale ………………………..... 152

Job Satisfaction and Satisfaction with Life ………………………....… 154

Exploratory Factor Analysis of Latent Constructs …………………..... 155

Item Parceling for Workplace Heterosexist Experiences Questionnaire…….... 159

Moderation Analysis ………………………………………………………….. 160

Residual Centering Approach for Moderation in SEM ………………………. 162

Model Identification …………………………………………………………... 164

Measurement Model Fit …………………...………………………………...... 165

Target Model Fit …………………………………………………………...... 177

Model Conclusion …………………………………………………………...... 184

V. DISCUSSION …………………………………………………………………… 185

Findings and Interpretations ………………………………………………….. 186

Workplace Heterosexism and Work-Life Outcome ………………….. 187

Perceived Social Support and Work-Life Outcome ………………...... 188

Homonegative Microaggressions and Work-Life Outcome …………. 190

Perceived Social Support as a Moderator …………………………..... 191

Limitations ………………………………………………………………...…. 193

Implications ………………………………………………………………...… 201

Implications for Theory ……………………………………………..... 202

Implications for Research …………………………………………...... 207

Implications for Practice …………………………………………...… 210

Conclusion …………………………………………………………………..... 216

REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………………….. 218

APPENDICES ………………………………………………………………………... 279

A. Demographic Questionnaire ………………………………………………….. 279

xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Demographic Characteristics of the Sample …………………………..……… 100

2. Skewness and Kurtosis Values Pre- and Post-Square

Root Transformations ………………………………………………….....…... 146

3. Zero-Order Correlations Post-Transformations ……………………………..... 149

4. Summary of Exploratory Factor Analysis Results for Latent

Constructs Using Principal Axis Factoring ………………………………...…. 158

5. Summary of Exploratory Factor Analysis Results for Latent

Constructs without JSS Using Principal Axis Factoring ………….………...... 161

6. Parameter Estimates Coefficients for Confirmatory Factor Analyses ………... 170

7. Parameter Estimates Coefficients for Main Effects Model ………………..…. 173

8. Measurement Model Fit ……...……………………………………………..… 175

9. Parameter Estimates Coefficients for Workplace Heterosexism

Structural Equation Model …………………………………………………..... 183

10. Parameter Estimates Coefficients for Homonegative

Microaggressions Structural Equation Model …………………………...... …. 183

11. Model Fit Indices …………………………………………………………..…. 183

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Hypothesized Model ………………………………………………………….. 6

2. Target Model for Workplace Heterosexist Experiences ……………………… 131

3. Target Model for Homonegative Microaggressions ………………………….. 132

4. Measurement Model for Workplace Heterosexist Experiences

Latent Construct …………………………………………………………….… 135

5. Measurement Model for Homonegative Microaggressions Latent

Construct …………………………………………………………………….... 135

6. Measurement Model for Work-Life Outcome Latent Construct ……..…….… 136

7. Measurement Model for WHEQ  Work-Life Outcome Interaction

Latent Construct ………………………………………………………………. 137

8. Measurement Model for HMS  Work-Life Outcome Interaction

Latent Construct …………………………………………………………….… 138

9. Confirmatory Factor Analysis on Measurement Model ………...…..………... 167

10. Confirmatory Factor Analysis on Measurement Model with

Unstandardized Regression Weights …………………………………………. 168

11. Confirmatory Factor Analysis on Measurement Model with Standardized

Regression Weights …………………………………………………………... 169

12. Main Effects Model with Unstandardized Regression Weights ……………… 171

13. Main Effects Model with Standardized Regression Weights ………………… 172

14. Unstandardized Parameter Estimates of the Workplace Heterosexism

Structural Equation Model …………………………………………………… 179

xiv

15. Standardized Parameter Estimates of the Workplace Heterosexism

Structural Equation Model …………………………………………………… 180

16. Unstandardized Parameter Estimates of the Homonegative Microaggressions

Structural Equation Model …………………………………………………… 181

17. Standardized Parameter Estimates of the Homonegative Microaggressions

Structural Equation Model …………………………………………………… 182

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Antigay prejudice toward the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT)

community is deeply engrained in the sociocultural and sociopolitical fabric of the United

States (Lehavot & Lambert, 2007). Despite recent social and political advancements for

sexual minorities, hate crimes based on sexual orientation remains rampant throughout

the U.S., as the majority (92%) of gay men and lesbians report having been victims of

verbal assault based on their sexuality (Herek, 2000). Estimates indicate that between

2007-2008, 16%-68% of individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual have

experienced workplace discrimination (Human Rights Campaign, HRC; 2009). This is

further complicated because most states do not have laws in place that would protect

individuals from discrimination based on their sexual orientation (HRC, 2009). Although, workplace discrimination in the general population has been correlated with various negative outcomes of well-being and work, such as depression (e.g., Hammond, Gillen,

& Yen, 2010; Silverschanz, Cortina, Konik, & Magley, 2008), physical and emotional health (e.g., Pavalko, Mossakowski, & Hamilton, 2003), life satisfaction (e.g., Konrad,

Moore, Ng, Doherty, & Breward, 2013; Moore, Konrad, Yang, Ng, Doherty, 2011), anxiety (e.g., Silverschanz et al., 2008), substance problems (e.g., Rospenda, Richman,

& Shannon, 2008; Silverschanz et al., 2008), life and job stressors (e.g., Rospenda et al.,

2008) organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and tension (e.g., Sanchez & Brock,

1996), there is a dearth of literature on the work and well-being outcomes of workplace discrimination amongst sexual minorities – and even more limited scholarship on the impact of discrimination on other life domains (i.e., work-life/work-family conflict, interference, and balance) (cf. Minnotte, 2012).

The limited existing research on workplace discrimination based on an individual’s sexuality has been shown to significantly impact career development and the career decision-making process (e.g., Chung, 2001; Croteau, Anderson, Distefano, &

Kampa-Kokesch, 2000). For instance, sexual minority employees can engage in job-

tracking and self-employment to minimize potential discrimination in the workplace

(Chung, Williams, & Dispenza, 2009), or cope with workplace discrimination by

quitting, remaining silent, confronting the discrimination, or seeking social support

(Chung, 2001). Additionally, an increasing body of scholarship has incorporated minority

stress theory (Meyer, 1995, 2003), which assumes minority stressors (i.e., workplace

heterosexist discrimination, internalized heterosexism, and expectations of stigma)

adversely affect psychological well-being and job satisfaction (e.g., Brewster & Moradi,

2010; Velez, Moradi, & Brewster, 2013; Waldo, 1999). Therefore, the minority stress

theoretical model (Meyer, 1995, 2003) will be used to explore the negative work-life

outcomes of perceived discrimination and microaggressions.

Although literature exploring workplace discrimination of sexual minorities (e.g.,

Badgett, Lau, Sears, & Ho, 2007; Chung, Williams, Dispenza, 2009; Croteau, Anderson,

VanderWal, 2008; Giuffre, Dellinger, & Williams, 2008; Ragins, 2008; Ragins, Singh, &

Cornwell, 2007; Saari, 2001) has begun to emerge in the past decade, there is a dearth of

scholarship on sexuality-based workplace microaggressions (Anderson & Croteau, 2013).

Microaggressions are short-lived everyday behavioral, verbal, or environmental

indignities that communicate hostile, offensive, or adverse insults and slights toward

minorities. Thus, in addition to overt acts of discrimination, it is also imperative to further

knowledge of sexuality-based workplace microaggressions and their associated outcomes

(Anderson & Croteau, 2013).

Given that working is a fundamental facet of life, affording a means of survival, structure, and connection to others (Blustein, 2013; Juntunen, 2006; Richardson, 2012;

Quick & Tetrick, 2010), experiencing workplace discrimination is likely to have a deleterious effect not only on individuals’ work lives, but also on their personal lives.

Vocational psychology has long studied work-family and work-life conflict, spillover, and interference, (e.g., Demerouti, Bakker, & Butlers, 2004; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000;

Muse & Pichler, 2011; Netemeyer, Boles, & McMurrian, 1996; Perrone, Wright, &

Jackson, 2009; Schultheiss, 2006), and the importance of supports for individuals trying to balance the responsibilities of work and home/life (e.g., Cinamon, Weisel, & Tzuk,

2007; Matthews, Bulger, & Barnes-Farrell, 2010; Schultheiss, 2006). Although the work- family interface has been an area of growing interest within vocational psychology (e.g.,

Richardson, 2012; Schultheiss, 2009; Whiston & Keller, 2004), such scholarship has rarely been inclusive of sexual minorities and has failed to adequately address the effects of workplace discrimination experienced by sexual minorities (cf. Minnotte, 2012;

Sawyer, Thoroughgood, & Cleveland, 2015).

Notwithstanding some emergent scholarship on work and family integration (e.g.,

Bailyn & Harrington, 2004; Fletcher & Bailyn, 2005; Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux,

& Brinley, 2005; Premeaux, Adkins, & Mossholder, 2007), limited research has focused

on marginalized identities. With the exception of Minnotte’s (2012) exploration of the

impact of sex, race, and age discrimination on work-to-life conflict, and Sawyer’s (2012)

exploration on the heterosexual bias in the measurement of work-family conflict,

identity-based discrimination and its impact on work-life interference has not been the

subject of previous empirical investigation. As such, it is important to further our

understanding of sexual minority-based discrimination and work-life interference, as well

as important contextual factors (i.e. relational support) that contribute to LGBQ

individuals’ job and life satisfaction (Croteau et al., 2000; Ragins, 2008; & Ragins et al.,

2007).

Existing career theories are based on assumptions about identity that do not apply to many sexual minority workers (e.g., Chung, 1995; McCarn & Fassinger, 1996; Ragins,

2004). Such theories are based on an implicit assumption that sexuality is unwavering and stable over the span of one’s life – which is often not the case for many sexual minority individuals (Diamond, 2008; Ragins, 2004). Many sexual minority workers do not self-identify as LGBQ until later in their careers, and the decision to disclose their sexual identity is often a significant life event that is fraught with struggle and stress

(Meyer, 2003; Ragins, 2004). Further, the adverse psychological and physical health, and job-related outcomes of workplace heterosexism (Waldo, 1999) can be conceptualized as a minority stressor.

As the psychology of working framework (Blustein, 2001) makes primary the importance of working in one’s life, acknowledges the work-life interface, and highlights the importance of relationships in one’s work and personal lives, it will be used as a theoretical foundation to examine the work-life impact of frequently experienced sexuality-based discrimination. This approach will add to our existing knowledge of the day-to-day work experiences of LGBQ individuals, the influence of sexuality-based discrimination and microaggressions on the work-life interface, and the importance of relational connection in work and life contexts. Knowledge gained through this investigation can also inform clinical practice, as this holistic conceptualization of the work-life interface in the context of sexuality-based discrimination can inform intervention across life domains.

Consistent with research that has focused on the interconnectedness of career development and relationship quality with others and society (e.g., Blustein, 2001;

Blustein, 2011; Blustein, Prezioso, & Schultheiss, 1995; Blustein, McWhirter, & Perry,

2005; Blustein, Schultheiss, & Flum, 2004; Motulsky, 2010; Schultheiss, 2003, 2006,

2007), this investigation will focus on the significance of relationships in work and life contexts. This study will assess the moderating effect of social support (i.e., friends, family, and romantic relationships) in the relationship between homonegative microaggressions and work-life outcomes (i.e., work-life interference and job and life satisfaction) and the relationships between workplace heterosexism and the same work- life outcomes. Specifically, it is hypothesized that experiences of sexuality-based workplace microaggressions and other heterosexist workplace experiences can negatively impact the work-life interface and work and life satisfaction, that that social support will

5 moderate this relationship. This will be accomplished by assessing the degree to which homonegative microaggressions and workplace heterosexism are associated with work- life outcomes (i.e., work interference with life, job satisfaction, and life satisfaction). The model developed to test the hypothesized relationships appears in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Hypothesized Model

In this model, the full scope of work-life outcomes is captured using one latent construct: work-life outcomes, encompassing five indicators of work interference with life (i.e., household management, family, friends, romantic relationships, and community involvement), one indicator of job satisfaction, and one indicator of life satisfaction.

Additionally, the hypothesized model will explore the effect of homonegative micoaggressions and workplace heterosexism on the aforementioned work-life outcomes.

The hypothesized model in this study also proposes that the effect of homonegative

microaggressions and workplace heterosexism on work-life outcomes will be moderated

by perceived social support. As stated above, previous research has related workplace

heterosexism to mental health job outcomes (e.g., Brewster & Moradi, 2010; Velez,

Moradi, & Brewster, 2013; Waldo, 1999), but has not investigated work-life interference

as an outcome nor has such research explored homonegative microaggressions as another

predictor of work-life outcomes. In the subsequent sections, each construct in the

hypothesized model will be conceptually and operationally defined.

Workplace Heterosexist Discrimination and Stigmatization

Despite the growing visibility of LGBQ issues in both psychological scholarship

and popular culture media outlets (e.g., Phillips, Ingram, Smith, & Mindes, 2003),

heterosexism continues to be a constant experience in the lives of many LGBQ individuals (Smith & Ingram, 2004). Heterosexism has been defined as an ideological structure of society that rejects, degrades, and stigmatizes any behavior, relationship, identity, or community that is in opposition to the status quo of heterosexuality (Herek,

1992). This bias toward heterosexuality, as the taken-for-granted standard, and the naturalization of heteronormativity through performativity and mechanisms of power and control within dominant discourses (Butler, 1997), has limited the ability of sexual minorities to construct and talk about their own LGBQ identities within the workplace

(Reingardė, 2010). As highlighted by Foucault (1978), the dominant discourse of heterosexuality replicates unequal power relationships between the heterosexual majority and the queer individuals who fall in the margins, and heteronormativity is an act of power to silence sexual minorities who live beyond the heterosexual norm (Priola, Lasio,

De Simone, & Serri, 2014). The construct of heterosexism contains the institutional and

7 individual heterosexist prejudice, as well as the overt and covert violence and bias of others (Smith & Ingram). In addition to overt antigay violence, sexual minorities also frequently experience subtle heterosexism (Smith & Ingram). Research suggests the majority of individuals from the U.S. hold heterosexist beliefs (Yang, 1999), national surveys disclose that most LGB individuals have been the target of sexuality-based physical or verbal attacks, vandalism, or stalking (e.g., Kaiser Family Foundation, 2001), and schools have been deemed unsafe for LGBT youth (e.g., Kosciw, Greytak, Palmer, &

Boesen, 2014). Further, the most recent report by the Federal Bureau of Investigation

(2014) ranked hate crimes of sexual minorities as the second most prevalent type of hate crime reported (20.8%), after race (48.5%) and ahead of religion (17.4%).

Therefore, antigay prejudice toward the LGBTQ community is embedded in sociocultural and sociopolitical institutions, systems, and structures of the United States

(Lehavot & Lambert, 2007), and sexuality-based hate crimes are common within the

U.S., as most gay men and lesbian women (92%) report having been the target of sexuality-based verbal assaults (Herek, 2000). Between 2007 and 2008, 16%-68% LGBT individuals reported having experienced workplace discrimination, which is complicated by the absence of laws in most states that would protect individuals from sexuality-based discrimination in many contexts of their lives, including the workplace (HRC, 2009). In

July 2015, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) documented an opinion that Title VII’s bar on sex discrimination also includes employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. In the same month, members of Congress introduced the Equality Act, which would expand on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, to also include

sexual orientation. Despite the apparent movement forward, it is uncertain as to whether

courts faced with Title VII sexual orientation or gender identity employment

discrimination claims will concur with the EEOC’s recommendation (Berger, 2015).

Additionally, it is seems unlikely that the Equality Act will pass the GOP-controlled

Senate and House of Representatives, as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act

introduced has failed several times with similar political party composition within the

House and Senate (Michaels, 2015). Therefore, until LGBQ individuals have the same

federal protections afforded to other social identity groups, sexual minorities will be subjected to continued and legal stigmatization and discrimination within the multiple domains of their everyday lives, including the workplace.

Workplace stigmatization is a pervasive means of constant devaluation of an individual based on his/her/their membership in a particular marginalized group (Ragins et al., 2007). Invisible stigmas (i.e. sexuality) have unique challenges than other, more visible, stigmas (i.e. race, sex, gender, disability, and size), due to the underlying stressors related to identity management, challenges connected to disclosure of the marginalized identity, and the sociocultural embeddedness of discrimination against such marginalized populations is often seen as acceptable (Ragins et al., 2007; Ragins,

Cornwell, & Miller, 2003). Heterosexism differs from racism or sexism in that heterosexism is entrenched in deep fear, minority sexualities may perpetuate courtesy stigmatization, and varying religious groups often condemn homosexuality. The fear associated with sexual minorities is rooted in non-sexual minority individuals’ worry that they could be perceived as gay, that they might actually be gay, or that they could become gay (Ragins et al., 2003). Additionally, the invisibility or concealment of

9 minority sexualities within the workplace can lead to courtesy stigmatization, where one is assumed to be gay or lesbian as a result of communicating with someone who has a non-heterosexual identity (Ragins et al., 2003). This extra stigmatization can amplify the fear of coming in contact with LGBQ-identified persons, which could intensify the isolation that many sexual minorities feel in work settings (Prince, 2013). Consequently, individuals who have an invisible stigmatized identity experience unique stressors in comparison to individuals with visible stigmatized identities.

Compared to individuals with visible stigmatized identities, a constant disclosure decision of sexual minority identities is a primary work barrier for LGBQ individuals

(Chung, 2001; Chung et al, 2009; Ragins, 2008; Ragins et al., 2007; Ragins et al., 2003).

Research has suggested that sexual minorities do not disclose their invisible identity to the same degree across the multiple domains of their lives (Clair, Beatty, & MacLean,

2005; Ragins, 2004, 2008). Such inconsistency in disclosure decisions has been suggested to negatively impact the well-being and job outcomes of sexual minorities

(Ragins, 2008). Scholarship on sexual identity disclosure disconnects between work and life domains has identified three states—identity denial, identity disconnects, and identity integration—that contribute to the level of disclosure and impact the risk and type of workplace discrimination (Ragins, 2008). Identity denial is the refusal to acknowledge one’s own sexual minority identity in various work and nonwork contexts (Ragins, 2008).

Such concealment can result in increased psychological distress, which has been described in the literature as a “private hell” (Smart & Wegner, 2000, p. 229). Identity disconnects refer to the varying degrees of disclosure at work and in personal life. Sexual identity incongruence can have adverse psychological outcomes, due to the stress induced

by the management of who knows one’s identity, the capacity to cope potential feelings

of inauthenticity, and the constant risk of possibly being outed (Ragins, 2004, 2008;

Swann, 1987). Identity integration entails a full disclosure of the sexual minority identity in both personal and professional domains. Identity integration has been suggested to contribute to a greater sense of authenticity, alignment with allies and other LGBQ individuals within the work setting, and strengthen support networks (Ragins, 2008).

However, this model does not take into account fluidity of sexuality, the varying systems of which individuals are embedded outside of work (e.g., religious community, family, community service), and it fails to address the intersection of multiple oppressed identities.

Two stigma theory-based models of workplace sexual identity management (Clair et al., 2005; Ragins, 2004) purport the decision to disclose a sexual minority identity is based not only on individual differences and contextual conditions, but also on the anticipated consequences of disclosure, such as the perceived risks of discrimination, loss, disenfranchisement, and prejudice (Croteau et al., 2008). Despite potential advantages of disclosure (i.e., increased authenticity, support from LGBQ community, and identity congruence across contexts), the experience or observation of such negative consequences of disclosure heightens the degree of concealment (Button, 2001; Croteau et al., 2008; Ragins, 2008; Ragins & Cornwell, 2001). The stigma-based home-work disclosure model (Ragins, 2004), posits a continuum of disclosure and concealment decisions whereby the process of disclosure is comprised of three antecedents: centrality of the sexual identity to the person and his/her/their psychological processes, possible results of the disclosure, and level of environmental support (Ragins, 2008). Whereas the

stigma-based interpersonal diversity disclosure model (Clair et al.) makes central the tension between a desire for authenticity and the fear of stigmatization and discrimination in disclosure decisions, which occur at interpersonal, individual, and environmental levels.

The perception of environmental supports within the workplace can buffer the negative consequences of disclosures (Ragins, 2008). Three main sources of environmental support contribute to LGBQ disclosure decisions in work and nonwork domains – the perceived company of other LGBQ persons who have revealed their sexual identities, existence of external support systems and allies, and presence of institutional policies that offer validation and protection for sexual minorities (Ragins, 2008). These sources of environmental support can offer a “safe haven” for sexual minorities that buffers the experiences of discrimination and provides more opportunities for individuals to be out at work (Ragins, 2004, p. 97). The safe-haven hypothesis suggests that LGB individuals develop career paths and choose work based on their perception of the ability to disclose their sexual identity in the workplace and have workplace protections from discrimination (Ragins, 2004). Consequently, LGB individuals may utilize vocational choice to minimize likelihood of workplace discrimination (Chung, 2001; Chung &

Harmon, 1994), which can constrain the choice of careers for sexual minorities due to lack of legal protection from discrimination (Herrschaft & Mills, 2002; Morrow, Gore, &

Campbell, 1996).

Workplace discrimination. Work discrimination has been defined as unjust treatment of individuals based on a stigmatized identity that does not impact job performance (Chung, 2001). Pervasive systemic vocational challenges and barriers of

diverse workers can be external (i.e., discriminatory workplace practices, hostile

workplace environments) or internal (i.e., internalized oppression) (Fassinger, 2008).

Internalized oppression in the workplace is often the result of external barriers and manifests in diminished work self-efficacy and confidence (Fassinger, 2008). The disadvantages that challenge minorities in the workplace are either active (i.e., unequal

salaries, unfair performance evaluations) or passive (i.e., absence of role models or

mentors, lowered expectations), and either major (i.e., harassment, violence, lack of

gender-neutral restrooms) or minor (i.e., denial of support, occupational typecasting) in

nature (Fassinger, 2008). Whether major or minor, active or passive, or external or

internal, all types of disadvantage and barriers that minority populations encounter can

result in negative psychological and organizational outcomes (Fassinger & Galllor,

2006).

The barrier of interpersonal and institutional racism is the foundation from which

all vocational disadvantages (i.e., insufficient social resources, underprivileged

educational experiences, shortage of mentors, low expectations for achievement) stem

(Blustein, 2006; Fouad & Kantamneni, 2008). Additionally, societal factors, such as

employment laws, affect the employee outcomes of perceived workplace racial

discrimination (Triana, Jayasinghe, and Pieper, 2015). Research has indicated that

perceived racial discrimination in the workplace is correlated with adverse physical and

psychological health outcomes (Triana, Jayasinghe, et al.). Existing literature has shown

that perceived racial discrimination in the workplace negatively effects job satisfaction

(e.g., Ensher, Grant-Vallone, & Donaldson, 2001; Valentine, Silver, & Twigg, 1999),

integration at work (e.g., Burke, 1991), job commitment (e.g., Burke; Ensher et al.), and

13 job attitudes (e.g., Triana, Jayasinghe, et al.). Further, perceived workplace discrimination has been related to increased job turnover intentions (e.g., Foley, Kidder, & Powell,

2002; Triana, García, & Colella, 2010). Perceived racial discrimination in the workplace has also been linked to increased workplace tension, role conflict and ambiguity, and decreased organizational commitment (Sanchez & Brock, 1996). In an examination of

Black women, perceived workplace discrimination increased job stress, reduced the efficacy of interpersonal workplace relationships, and decreased perceptions of job advancement and the development of work skills (Mays, Coleman, & Jackson, 1996).

Empirical evidence has also linked perceived racial discrimination in the workplace to a number of psychological outcomes, such as stress and tension at work

(e.g., Wated & Sanchez, 2006), decreased psychological well-being (e.g., Jasinskaja-

Lahti, Liebkind, & Perhoniemi, 2006), post-traumatic stress disorder symptomatology

(e.g., Buchanan & Fitzgerald, 2008), and overall psychological health (e.g., Rospenda et al., 2009; Triana, Jayasinghe, et al., 2015). Similar outcomes have been documented in scholarship on gender-based workplace discrimination (Fassinger, 2008). Sexual harassment experiences have been related to adverse psychological, physiological, and job-related outcomes among women (Fitzgerald, Drasgow, Hulin, Gelfand, & Magley,

1997). Additionally, scholarship on workplace discrimination has suggested that harassment, discrimination, and misogynist workplace climates have a negative effect on the mental and physical health of women, and can decrease job satisfaction and trust in the organization (e.g., Fassinger, Arseneau, Paquin, Walton, Giordan, Asay, et al., 2006;

Fitzgerald, et al., 1997; Miner-Rubino & Cortina, 2004). Further, research on hostility in the workplace has indicated a strong relationship between workplace discourteousness

14 and negative outcomes, such as decreased workplace morale, satisfaction, commitment, and productivity (e.g., Cortina, Magley, Williams, & Langhout, 2001; Pearson,

Andersson, & Wegner, 2001). Following this trend, a growing body of literature has explored the work outcomes of sexuality-based discrimination.

Workplace heterosexist discrimination. Perceived heterosexism in the workplace has been correlated with numerous unfavorable work outcomes, such as reduced job satisfaction (e.g., Button, 2001; Driscoll, Kelley, & Fassinger, 1996; Griffith

& Hebl, 2002; Waldo, 1999), organizational commitment (Button, 2001), hiring discrimination (e.g., Horvath & Ryan, 2003), and organizational self-esteem (Ragins &

Cornwell, 2001), as well as increased job anxiety (Griffith & Hebl, 2002) and turnover intentions (Ragins & Cornwell, 2001). Workplace heterosexist discrimination has also been shown to significantly impact career development and the career decision-making process (e.g., Chung, 2001; Croteau et al., 2000). Such negative outcomes of heterosexist discrimination are often intensified by the nonexistent federal protection of sexual minorities in the workplace (HRC, 2009).

To conceptualize workplace heterosexist discrimination, Chung (2001) proposed a three-dimensional model of LGB workplace discrimination that was based on preexisting theories of sexuality-based discrimination (e.g. Chung, 1995; Griffith, 1980;

Levine & Leonard, 1984). The first two dimensions—formal versus informal and potential versus encountered—workplace discrimination, are based on Levine and

Leonard’s (1984) model, whereas the third dimension—perceived versus real—is rooted in Griffith’s (1980) model of workplace discrimination. Formal discrimination includes unfair policies, denial of promotions, or unequal salaries between heterosexual

15 individuals and those who identify as LGBQ (Chung, 2001). Informal discrimination refers to the climate at work, harassment, and prejudice (Chung, 2001). In the second dimension, potential discrimination is the expectation that discrimination will ensue following disclosure, and encountered discrimination consists of discriminatory events that the person has actually experienced (Chung, 2001; Chung et al., 2009). This three- dimensional model of workplace discrimination recognizes the multifaceted nature of workplace discrimination and sexual identity management strategies that attempt to control for any discriminatory events. Although it is important to understand the various dimensions and outcomes of sexuality-based workplace discrimination, such research remains steeped in sexual identity and discrimination management, as well as coping strategies (e.g., Button, 2001; Chung, 2001; Anderson, Croteau, Chung, & DiStefano,

2001; Croteau et al., 2008; Ragins, 2008; Ragins & Cornwell, 2001).

More recently, a number of scholars have furthered the field’s perception of the dynamic nature of sexual identity development (e.g., D’Augelli, 2006; Fukuyama &

Ferguson, 2000; Rosario, Schrimshaw, & Hunter, 2004) and the complexities inherent in identifying as LGBQ in a predominately heterosexist society (Prince, 2013). Such scholarship has challenged the assumption that coming out in social and workplace contexts is integral to attain a positive and cohesive identity (Prince). Additionally, particular within- and between-group differences among the LGBT community may influence work trajectories and the process of sexuality identification (Fassinger &

Arseneau, 2007). Although the aforementioned vocational psychology literature has increased understanding of sexual minority work experiences, research on the interface between work and life domains and the buffering effect of social supports outside of the

workplace have remained largely unexamined. Additionally, workplace discrimination

has mainly focused on less frequent, highly potent experiences of discrimination rather

than addressing the nuances of daily covert heterosexist discrimination, such as sexuality-

based microaggressions (Anderson & Croteau, 2013).

Microaggressions

Research involving microaggressions has gained increased attention in recent

years. Even though the term microaggressions was originally developed in relation to

racial discrimination (see Pierce, Carew, Pierce-Gonzalez, & Willis, 1978), contemporary

scholarship has applied microaggressions to other marginalized groups, such as ethnic

and religious minorities, persons with disabilities, women, and sexual minorities (see

Sue, 2010 for a review). In contrast to overt assaults and crimes motivated by prejudice and fear of people viewed as “the other,” microaggressions are defined as “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative slights and insults toward members of oppressed groups” (Nadal, 2008, p. 23).

The term racial microaggressions was first introduced in the 1970s (see Pierce et al., 1978), but was rarely mentioned in psychology and education scholarship over the following three decades. Despite few attempts to reintroduce the concept of microaggressions into academic literature (e.g., DeJesus-Torres, 2000; Solorzano, Ceja,

& Yosso, 2000), most research during this period focused only on blatant and overt forms of racism (Nadal, 2013). It was not until 2007, that the term racial microaggressions was reintroduced and a theoretical taxonomy was developed to describe the various ways

racial microaggressions are experienced by people of color in everyday life (see Sue,

Capodilupo, Torino, Bucceri, Holder, Nadal, & Esquilin, 2007).

Three modes of microaggressions have been identified—microassaults,

microinsults, and microinvalidations (Sue et al., 2007). Microassaults are nonverbal or

verbal derogations, such as avoidant behavior, name-calling, or discriminatory actions

toward an intended target (Nadal, 2013). Microassaults are conscious and purposeful

discriminatory behaviors, which most closely align with old-fashioned discrimination

(Shelton & Delgado-Romero, 2013). For example, maliciously calling a woman a

“bitch,” or telling a Latino to “speak English if you want to live here” are both

microassaults. Microinsults are frequently unconscious nonverbal or verbal ways of

communication that demonstrate insensitivity, disrespect, and degrade a person’s identity

or cultural heritage (Nadal, 2013). Microinsults are disparaging and offensive

communications that are meant to articulate the relative inferiority of certain social

groups (Shelton & Delgado-Romero). For instance, when a person of color is told that

they are not qualified for a position due to assumed incompetence or when a person with

a physical disability is spoken to in a patronizing manner. Finally, microinvalidations are

often unconscious nonverbal and verbal communications that reject, dismiss, or

invalidate the lived realities of individuals within oppressed social groups (Nadal, 2013).

Microinvalidations are meant to ostracize, invalidate, or nullify the feelings, ontological

reality, or thoughts of marginalized social groups (Sue, 2010). An example might include

a professor telling a female student that she complains of sexism excessively. Such a

message, though seemingly harmless, nullifies the lived reality of sexism that women

experiences on a consistent basis. As microinvalidations and microinsults are often

committed outside of an individual’s consciousness, they are considered to be more insidious than microassaults (Shelton & Delgado-Romero). However, microinvalidations

are the most dangerous of all three, because an alternative and oppressive reality is

unknowingly forced upon marginalized groups (Shelton & Delgado-Romero).

Sexuality-based microaggressions. Despite the strong theoretical arguments for

sexuality-based microaggressions, there is a dearth of empirical scholarship focusing on

sexual minority experiences with, and reactions to, microaggressions based on their

sexuality (Nadal, Wong, Issa, Meterko, Leon, & Wideman, 2011). Although research has suggested that sexuality-based microaggressions have resemblances to gender, racial, and

ability-based microaggressions (Nadal, Rivera, & Corpus, 2010; Sue & Capodilupo,

2008), opposing scholarship has posited that while sexism and racism have become more subtle, unconcealed and deliberate heterosexism is systematically and interpersonally widespread (Nadal et al., 2010). A 2009 federal investigation (U.S. Department of Justice

– Federal Bureau of Investigation) reported that sexuality-based hate crimes increased

dramatically, but hate crimes related to ethnicity, race, or religion had not. Other

corroborating research has suggested that a large majority of sexual minorities (94%)

report experiencing at least one hate crime during their life (Herek, Cogan, & Gillis,

2002). Therefore, in addition to daily sexuality-based microaggressions, LGBQ individuals must also cope with a heterosexist society that supports overt and deliberate hate crimes.

Further, literature has suggested that sexuality-based microaggressions deviate from those related to gender or race due to the invisibility of sexual identity (e.g., Shelton

& Delgado-Romero, 2013). In comparison to targets of racial microaggressions, the

19 invisibility of sexual identity makes it difficult for LGBQ individuals who experience sexuality-based microaggressions to associate the feelings of invalidation or bewilderment to the behaviors of another (Shelton & Delgado-Romero). As such, internalized heterosexism is propagated through the silencing purpose of sexuality-based microaggressions, which help maintain the invisibly to sexual identity and reinforce heteronormativity (Shelton & Delgado-Romero). This internalized oppression of internalized heterosexism can be even more psychologically harmful than overt external oppressive actions (Speight, 2007). Additionally, the strong societal policing of sexuality and the indoctrination of heterosexism creates an environment where even the most well- intentioned individuals unconsciously communicate sexuality-based microaggressions

(Shelton & Delgado-Romero).

Supporting the view that microaggressions are regularly overlooked, leaving many perpetrators of such sexuality-based microaggressions ignorant of their own sexuality-based microaggressive behaviors or speech, many sexual minorities respond to microaggressions in passive or accepting ways (Nadal, Issa, Leon, Meterko, Wideman, &

Wong, 2011). Due to the subtle and often inadvertent nature of microaggressions, many perpetrators of microaggressive speech or behaviors are often not cognizant of most of their actions. However, when sexual minorities act passively or accept such microaggressions, it becomes likely that they develop internalized heterosexism as a result of constantly repressing their emotional reactions or having their emotional reactions invalidated or rendered null (Szymanski, 2005). Comparable to studies on racial and gender-based microaggressions, the short-term emotional reactions (i.e., anger,

20 distress, shame, and sadness) and chronic conditions are potential consequences of the amassing of sexuality-based microaggressions (Sue, 2010).

Despite the dearth of research on sexuality-based microaggressions, Nadal and colleagues (2010) introduced a categorical taxonomy of sexuality-based microaggressions, which consists of ten themes—use of derogatory or heterosexist language toward sexual minorities, expectation that sexual minorities should conform to heteronormative cultural norms, assumption that all sexual minorities are the same, exoticization and objectification of sexual minorities, disrespectful treatment through gazes of discomfort or disapproval, denial of the existence of a heterosexist society whereby heterosexual individuals dismiss sexual minorities’ assertions of heterosexist experiences, assumption of sexual pathology/abnormality in sexual minorities, rejection of the existence of heterosexism, microassaults through harassment or fear of physical threat, and environmental microaggressions.

Assumed deviance. This type of microaggression involves the assumption that

LGBQ individuals are sexual deviants and/or sexually promiscuous (Nadal, 2013). This frequently takes the form of an unintentional microaggressions, whereby a person makes a comment assuming sexual pathology in LGBQ individuals without recognizing that there are sexual minorities in the room. These microinsults of inherent pathology are steeped in biases and stereotypes about LGBQ people and are conveyed through indirect remarks or actions. Such assumptions can lead to differential treatment (e.g., keeping physical distance from sexual minorities in the workplace) and social isolation (e.g., not going to lunch with LGBQ colleagues for fear that such action would be misinterpreted by others).

Second-class citizenship. This theme of microaggressions includes the

unconscious and conscious distaste and apprehension towards sexual minorities (Nadal,

2013). This microaggression does not always take the form of overt negative reactions;

rather, nonverbal communications of laugher, facial expressions, and stares convey an uneasiness that could negatively impact the sexual minority who experiences it (Nadal,

2013). However, disapproving microaggressions may be more overt in nature, such as

being told by family members that she/he/they are “going to hell” or that the family will

not attend the wedding/commitment ceremony of the sexual minority family member

(Nadal, 2013, p. 64). Second-class citizenship microaggressions by family members often

inflict great pain on sexual minorities after coming out, as LGBQ individuals may feel as

though their family denies or is angry about their sexual identity. Further, family

members can cease communication with the LGBQ individual, which results in the

microaggressions of “uncomfortable silence” (Nadal, 2013, p. 65).

Bisexual and pansexual (i.e., being romantically, sexually, and/or emotionally

attracted to people of all sexual and gender identities) individuals often experience this form of microaggression differently than lesbian women and gay men. As the dominant discourse only acknowledges monosexuality (i.e., being romantically, sexually, and emotionally attracted to same-sex or opposite-sex individuals, exclusively), bisexual and pansexual individuals can experience disapproval and negative reactions from their heterosexual, lesbian, and gay counterparts. As a result of a lack of understanding of fluid sexualities within the LGBT community, bisexual and pansexual individuals could feel invalidated and denied of their sexual identity (Nadal, 2013).

Assumptions of gay culture. This microaggression is a message that conveys heterosexuality as “natural” or “normal” and any same-sex behavior, desire, or fantasy is deemed “unnatural” or “abnormal” (Nadal, 2013, p. 57). Heteronormative messages are closely tied with gender norms and expressions, as dominant discourse dictates socially appropriate ways to interact with others based on binary notions of gender and sex (see

Halberstam, 2012), and determines how one should dress, talk, and act to abide by the heterosexual dominant discourse. Therefore, because sexual minorities depart from the norm, they are assumed to be abnormal, unattractive, and any gender or sexuality violation is considered alarming.

Heteronormativity also invades society through the presumption that everyone is heterosexual if his/her/their sexual orientation is not discussed, announced, or assumed due to gender norm violations (Nadal, 2013). These microaggression experiences can produce pressure for sexual minorities to publicize their sexuality or to come out in every social situation, including the workplace, even though it is never expected for heterosexual individuals to discuss such intimate details about their sexuality (Nadal,

Rivera, & Corpus, 2010). Given that heteronormativity is indoctrinated into the sociocultural fabric of the U.S., heteronormative statements can be unintentional and the consequences of heteronormativity may not be fully understood. When scanning the social environment and relationships, sexual minorities may infer that anyone who expresses heteronormative statements perceives same-sex behaviors, desires, and fantasies to be immoral, deviant, and abnormal; therefore, preventing them from reveling their sexuality to their loved ones, colleagues, and friends (Nadal, 2013).

Stereotypical knowledge and behavior. This microaggression encompasses any

statements that convey the existence of a universal experience of all gay men, lesbian

women, or bisexual women and men (Nadal, 2013). The comments are often

stereotypical, such as the notion that all lesbian women are butch and have stereotypically-masculine occupations (e.g., construction worker, physical education teacher, etc.) or that all gay men are effeminate and hold stereotypically-feminine occupations (e.g., hairstylist, fashion consultant, etc.). Additionally, bisexual individuals are often recognized as having a universal experience that marginalizes them from both their heterosexual counterparts and the lesbian and gay community. As a result, bisexual individuals are less likely to disclose their sexual identity (Herek, 2009), have a greater desire to conceal their sexuality, and are more easily able to pass as heterosexual than lesbian women or gay men (Rust, 1993). Further, due to their lack of involvement in the lesbian and gay community, bisexual individuals are assumed to be heterosexual more often than lesbian women and gay men. Bisexual individuals often receive the message that their sexuality is nonexistent or transient (Sarno & Wright, 2013) and tend to feel disconnected from the lesbian and gay community (Balsam & Mohr, 2007), which could make them more vulnerable to the heterosexist and gender-conforming expectations inherent in the dominant discourse. Despite the distinct stereotypes that are applied to gay men, lesbian women, bisexual men and women, and queer men and women, some stereotypes of universality apply to the LGBQ community as a whole. For instance, coming out is often seen as an essential and normative experience, LGBQ individuals are assumed or expected to be familiar with everyone else in the LGBTQ community, and to be a representative for the entire LGBTQ community (Nadal, 2013).

Minority Stress Theoretical Model

The term minority stress, was defined as “a state intervening between the sequential antecedent stressors of culturally sanctioned, categorically ascribed inferior status, resultant prejudice and discrimination, the impact of these forces on the cognitive structure of the individual, and consequent readjustment or adaptational failure” (Brooks,

1981, p. 84). Therefore, minority stress is the unique stress that is experienced simply due to being a member of a minority group that is marginalized (Smith & Ingram, 2004). The theoretical model of minority stress (Meyer, 1995, 2003) is inferred from various sociological and psychological theories that have examined the adverse effects of social conditions, such as stigma and prejudice, on the lives of stigmatized individuals and groups (e.g., Allport, 1954; Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998; Goffman, 1963; Link &

Phelan, 2001). Meyer (2003) described three core assumptions of minority stress: minority stress as unique, chronic, and socially-based. Minority stress is unique, because minority individuals must demonstrate more adaptational effort to cope with additional stressors than those who are not stigmatized. Minority stress is also chronic, as the dominant discourse that stigmatizes minorities is rather stable. Finally, minority stress is socially-based due to the social processes inherent in cultural, institutional, and structural forces that construct discourses that marginalize individuals. Alienation, internalized societal evaluations of a marginalized identity, and negative life events related to sexual identity can all result in minority stress (Smith & Ingram). These strains illustrate the stress that is characteristic of being a member of a minority group, whose culture, values, and experience are in opposition to those of a majority (Smith & Ingram). In short,

LGBQ minority stress is the entirety of sexual minority experiences within the dominant heterosexist culture (Meyer, 1995, p. 39).

In a study of gay men, Meyer (1995) further developed the theoretical model of minority stress by operationalizing minority stress into three categories: perceived stigma, internalized homophobia, and prejudice events. Perceived stigma refers to unfair treatment of a person because of his/her/their sexual orientation. Internalized homophobia relates to the negative views about same-sex relationships, behaviors, and attractions that have become internalized by the LGB individual. And prejudice events include the discriminatory, biased, and violent actions of others directed toward sexual minorities.

Even though the intensity of prejudice events can vary from the more subtle occurrences of bias to overt verbal or physical attacks and harassment, according to the theoretical model of minority stress (Meyer, 1995), acute negative emotional reactions may also result from rather innocuous discrimination (Smith & Ingram, 2004). Experiences of heterosexism have been suggested by extant literature to have a direct negative effect on the psychological and physical well-being of sexual minorities (e.g., Cochran & Mays,

1994; D’Augelli & Hershberger, 1993; Diaz, Ayala, Bein, Jenne, & Marin, 2001; Meyer,

1995; Rosario, Rotheram-Borus, & Reid, 1996; Smith & Ingram, 2004; Waldo, 1999).

Experiences of heterosexism—both external and internal—have been positively correlated with anxiety, depression (Diaz et al., 2001), guilt, distress (Meyer, 1995), insomnia, somatic symptoms (Ross, 1990), and suicide attempts (Cochran & Mays,

2000a; Paul, Catania, Pollack, Moskowitz, Cachola, Mills, et al., 2002). Further, Waldo

(1990) demonstrated that workplace heterosexism was positively related to adverse psychological and physical health, and job-related outcomes. The experience of

sexuality-based victimization interrupts the view of the world as logical and meaningful;

therefore, decreases the survivors’ sense of security in the world around them and

increases their felt vulnerability (Garnets, Herek, & Levy, 1990). Consequently, survivors

of the victimization attempt to reestablish the lost order in their surrounding environment

by questioning why they were the recipients of the victimization, which often results in

the accusation and devaluation of self (Garnets et al.). Such blaming and devaluing of

one’s self, increases the use of drugs and experiences of health-related symptoms (i.e.,

nightmares, sleep disturbances, diarrhea, headaches, anxiety, uncontrollable crying, and

agitation), and the worsening of personal relationships (Garnets et al.). Additionally,

antigay victimization can also result in severe reactions such as posttraumatic stress

disorder (McDevitt, Balboni, Garcia, & Gu, 2001).

In regards to minority stress, four sources of threat have been proposed:

categorization threat, distinctiveness threat, threat to the value of social identity, and

threat to acceptance (Branscombe, Ellemers, Spears, & Dossje, 1999). Categorization

threat involves others grouping individuals based on a social identity when such group

membership is unrelated to the particular context. Distinctiveness threat includes the

denial of group membership, even when such categorization would be beneficial or

appropriate. Threats to the value of a social identity comprise the devaluation of a social

identity, such as questioning the morality or competence of that particular minority group

(Meyer, 2003). And threat to acceptance involves the negative feedback and possible

rejection from the minority group to which the individual seeks belonging. Such

perceived stigma can be related to adverse mental health and social functioning outcomes

(Meyer, 2003). For gay men, the anticipated social rejection has been suggested to have

more negative outcomes of psychological distress than lived negative experiences (Ross,

1985). Therefore, attending to the social relationships of sexual minorities is of the

utmost importance, as loss of supports can have a more deleterious effect on one’s well-

being than the experience of discrimination itself (Crocker et al., 1998; Pinel, 2002;

Steele, 1997).

As a result of these threats, sexual minorities may choose to conceal their sexual

identity in an attempt to shield themselves from harm (e.g., being fired from a job or

being attacked) or as a response to their own shame or recrimination (D’Augelli &

Grossman, 2001). However, such concealment can rebound and create its own form of

stress—relational and internalized (Miller & Major, 2000)—due to the additional

cognitive load and persistent preoccupation with secrecy (Smart & Wegner, 2000).

Regarding sexual minorities in the workplace, Croteau (1996) found that the concealment

of sexual identity and fear of workplace heterosexist discrimination are widespread and

often result in negative physical and psychological health, and job-related outcomes

(Waldo, 1999). Additionally, sexual identity concealment interferes with ability to form

relationships with other LGBQ individuals (Meyer, 2003) who could positively impact

self-esteem and well-being (Frable, Platt, & Hoey, 1998; Postmes & Branscombe, 2002).

Sexual minority stress has been suggested to negatively impact romantic

relationships (Lewis, Kholodkov, & Derlega, 2012) and has been correlated with relationship dissatisfaction and intimate partner violence (e.g., Balsam & Syzmanski,

2005; Frost & Meyer, 2009; Otis, Riggle, & Rostosky, 2006; Otis, Rostosky, Riggle, &

Hamrin, 2006; Riggle, Rostosky, & Horne, 2010). For instance, when partnered lesbian women are conflicted about when, how, and with whom to disclose their sexual identity,

there appears to be an increased amount of stress on the individual and relationship

(Suter, Bergen, Daas, & Durham, 2006). Women in same-sex relationships seem to have

greater romantic relationship satisfaction when there is less dissimilarity in the degree of outness between partners, lower levels of internalized heterosexism, increased partner support, and when the relationship is of a longer duration (Lewis et al.). Frequent discrimination and internalized heterosexism increases stress, which may result in poor romantic relationship quality (Otis, et al.).

Although sexual minority identity has been linked to various stress processes (i.e., internalized heterosexism, concealment, and anticipation of rejection), the theoretical model of minority stress also considers stress-ameliorating factors that moderate the relationship between discrimination and mental health outcomes (Meyer, 2003). Allport

(1954) purported that minorities respond to prejudice with resilience and various forms of coping while other research has noted that minority status is not merely linked to stress; rather, increased cohesiveness and solidarity often result from minority stress

(Branscombe, Schmitt, & Harvey; Miller & Major, 2000; Postmes & Branscombe, 2002).

Meyer (2003) asserted that individual coping (e.g., coping styles and strategies, resilience, and social support systems), social support, the LGBQ community can mitigate the negative effects of minority stress. However, through the stress of the continual process of coming out, sexual minorities learn to conquer and cope with adversity (Morris, Waldo, & Rothblum, 2001). As such, sexual minorities develop alternative structures and supports that enhance their minority group status to combat minority stress (Morris et al., 2001; Weinberg & Williams, 1974). Therefore, despite the adverse outcomes of antigay violence and discrimination, such experiences can also

provide an opportunity for personal growth in surviving and potentially thriving in such

adversity (Garnets et al., 1990).

Relational and Psychology of Working Understanding of Support

Over the span of the previous three decades, many career theories have

recognized the influential role of contextual factors, such as environmental barriers and supports, in career development (Kenny & Medvide, 2013). For instance, the original stage theory of Super (1957) was expanded to acknowledge a coalescing of career and relational contexts through the life-space structure (Super, 1980). The life-space theory consists of core roles that individuals employ to design their lives, and positions career development and choice inside a collection of social roles occupied by an individual

(Hartung, 2013). Additionally, social cognitive career theory (SCCT; Lent, Brown, &

Hackett, 2000) focuses on the influence of environmental supports (e.g., family, community, teachers) on beliefs of self-efficacy, converting interests into goals and behaviors, and positive outcome expectations (Lent, 2013). However, such theories of career still assume a degree of choice and autonomy that may not be available to individuals of disenfranchised social locations (Kenny & Medvide). As such, career theories founded in ‘decision-making’ and ‘development’ creates a discourse that privileges the work lives of people who possess the social, economic, and political capital needed to ‘choose’ work (Blustein, 2011). Therefore, the psychology-of-working

perspective recognizes that work-based decisions, progression, changes, and experiences

are not merely a result a personal agency, but are instead, embedded in relational

interactions with a wide-ranging collection of external influences (Blustein, 2011).

Another important shift in discourse that the psychology of working perspective

offers vocational psychology is that working is inherently relational (Blustein, 2011). The

psychology of working framework explicitly includes a relational standpoint, as it gives

emphasis to the significance of connections in work and directs attention to the often-

ignored unpaid caregiving work, which is primarily women’s work (Motulsky, 2010;

Richardson, 1993; Schultheiss, 2003, 2009). In recognizing the impact of relationships on

individuals’ work, and vice versa, and the dearth of literature that has studied the

intersection of work and relationships, Schultheiss, Palma, Predagovich, & Glassock

(2001) suggest, that an understanding of how relationships influence career development

has been lacking in vocational psychology literature.

Notwithstanding the growing body of literature on relational perspectives of

working in the past decade (e.g., Blustein, 2004, 2006; Blustein et al., 2004; Flum, 2001a;

Juntunen, 2006; Schultheiss, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009; Schultheiss, Kress, Manzi, &

Glassock, 2001; Schultheiss et al., 2002), scholarship has not taken a strong feminist position concerning relational approaches (cf. Flum, 2001b; Motulsky, 2010; Schultheiss,

2003). As a result, there has been little examination of power, culture, and gender dynamics, despite the very patriarchal domain of career and work. However, recent research has been progressively more attentive to issues of social class (e.g., Blustein,

2006; Liu & Ali, 2005). A more unconcealed use of feminist relational psychology

(Gilligan, 1982; Josselson, 1996) and relational cultural theory (Jordan, 1997; Jordan,

Kaplan, Miller, Stiver, & Surrey, 1991; Jordan, Walker, & Hartling, 2004; Miller, 1976;

Miller & Stiver, 1997; Walker & Rosen, 2004) would greatly add to relational analyses of

vocation, as it would make explicit marginalization and oppression, and would explore

31 the meaning of relationships and connection in ways that research on support and attachment have not yet been able (Motulsky, 2010). As such, this framework is well- suited for the study of the importance of relational supports for sexual minorities have experienced workplace heterosexist discrimination and microaggressions.

A relational cultural approach (cf. Schultheiss, 2007) to working places marginalized individuals in the context of connections and disconnections with others, themselves, and culture rather than giving into society’s dominant discourse of agential individuals who are fully capable of making decisions and who also happen to be in relationships. Based on this rhetoric, Lidderdale, Croteau, Anderson, Tovar-Murray, and

Davis (2007) developed a model of workplace sexual identity management based on

Social Cognitive Career Theory (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1996), which purports that previous learning experiences, self-efficacy, anticipated consequences, and past and current contextual influences impact the decision of sexual identity management within the workplace. This theory suggests that cognitions are the primary determinants of the decision to disclose one’s sexual identity; therefore, an individual’s beliefs pertaining to his/her/other-gendered ability or inability to complete a particular behavior (i.e., self- efficacy) and beliefs about the possible outcomes of such behaviors (i.e., anticipated consequences) will influence the behavior that will be put into action (Croteau et al.,

2008). Despite an increased understanding of the impacts of sexuality-based workplace discrimination, sexual identity management, disclosure decisions, and an acknowledgement of environmental influences, many existing career theories contend there is an essentialized ‘self’ that is agential, individualistic, and reduced to concepts such as self-efficacy, cognitions, beliefs, and decisions. Thus, exploring the phenomena

of workplace discrimination, microaggressions, and stigma through a more relational lens

might shed light on the importance of social supports in managing work-life interference.

Such a consideration is crucial in the investigation of sexual minorities, as many have

experienced recurring disconnections throughout the course of their lifetimes (Espelage,

Aragon, & Birkett, 2008; Meyer, 2003; Panchankis, 2007) and have constantly dealt with

repeated disclosure decisions (Beals, & Peplau, 2001; D’Augelli & Grossman, 2001;

Ragins, 2008).

Although coming out is often viewed as a one-time occasion within the dominant

discourse of the heteronormative social fabric of the U.S., disclosure decisions, or coming out, is a never-ending endeavor in the various work and nonwork domains that sexual

minorities traverse. Although the concealment of one’s sexual identity has been linked to

increased levels of emotional stress, psychological strain, and stress-related illnesses

(Pachankis, 2007; Ragins, 2008; Smart & Wegner, 2000), the fear of harassment, assault,

and discrimination loom as potential consequences once one’s sexuality is revealed or

disclosed (Ragins et al., 2007; Ragins, 2008). Research has indicated that up to 75% of lesbian women and gay men experience physical threats or attacks post-disclosure of their sexual identity (D’Augelli & Grossman, 2001). This stress and fear associated with disclosure decisions carries across varying contexts, such as work, family of origin, and any new relationships being developed. Several researchers have considered the decision to disclose a sexual minority identity to be one of the hardest career challenges faced by

LGBQ employees (e.g., Button, 2004; Chrobot-Mason, Button, & DiClementi, 2001;

Ragins, 2004; Ragins, et al., 2007). The decision to disclose one’s sexuality and the

33 subsequent relational consequences often crosses the boundary of work and into the domain of life.

In comparison to non-sexual minority individuals, research has indicated the relationships LGBQ individuals have with their parents or guardians are often greatly challenged, especially around the time of coming out or when parents learn that their child is lesbian, gay, bisexual, or queer (D'Augelli, Grossman, & Starks, 2005; Tharinger

& Wells, 2000). Prior research has emphasized the role that family rejection has in predicting metal and physical health outcomes among LGB adolescents and adults

(D’Augelli & Grossman, 2001; D’Augelli et al., 2005). In a qualitative study of adult same-sex couples’ relationships with parents, only a small minority expressed any semblance of positive feelings in their conversations about family support (Rostosky,

Korfhage, Duhigg, Stern, Bennett, & Riggle, 2004). Therefore, understanding the nuances of ‘family’ within LGBQ populations—including both ‘families of origin’ and

‘families of choice’—is important to the investigation of the moderating effect of social supports, including family, in the relationship between workplace heterosexist discrimination and adverse work-life outcomes.

Research on sexual minority identity management has highlighted the continuous stress experienced by sexual minorities in having to constantly decide when and whether to conceal their sexuality (Hatzenbuehler, 2009). Such decisions to conceal or disclose one’s sexual identity can result in increased uncertainty and ambiguity in interpersonal relationships (Hatzenbuehler) and those with concealed sexual identities regularly engage in frequent self-monitoring (Pachankis, 2007), which can negatively impact the connectedness one feels in relationships. This continuous phenomena of keeping parts of

34 one’s self out of personal relationships in order to preserve the relationship is best described as the relational paradox (Brown & Gilligan, 1992; Gilligan, 1982; Miller,

1988; Miller & Stiver, 1997)—that is, being perpetually disconnected from others, despite being in the presence of family, friends, colleagues, and romantic relationships.

As such, understanding the importance of connection through relational supports, the impact of disconnection with relationships, or the effect of nonexistent social support is crucial to the investigation of LGBQ individuals’ experiences of workplace heterosexist discrimination and microaggressions.

The psychology of working perspective (Blustein, 2006) will, therefore, be used as an underlying framework in this investigation due to its explicit roots in moving the field of career counseling to acknowledge the lives of those individuals who have been consistently overlooked or forgotten in vocational psychology research, because of their social class or other forms of social oppression (Blustein, Kenna, Gill, & DeVoy, 2008).

The psychology of working perspective also holds a central belief that working is a fundamental element of human experience and should be a main focus of attention in counseling practice (Peterson & González, 2005). However, core to human experience, growth, and development is interconnection and relatedness (Gilligan, 1982; Jordan et al.,

1991), whereby growth-fostering relationships are essential in healthy developmental processes (Gilligan, 1982; Jordan, 1997; Jordan et al., 2004; Miller & Stiver, 1997;

Walker & Rosen, 2004) and in developing a deeper understanding the interface of work and family life (Blustein, 2011; Flum, 2001b; Schultheiss, 2007). As such, the impact that relational supports have on reducing work-life interference will be explored in this

35 investigation, as a means of providing a relational understanding of workplace discrimination and microaggressions.

Relationships as Support with Regard to the Work-Life Interface

Social support is a broad construct that has been connected to various health outcomes in general populations (e.g., Brummett, Mark, Siegler, Williams, Babyak,

Clapp-Channing, et al., 2005); however, it is important to address factors of minority groups (e.g., discrimination, internalized negativity, and associated attributions) that influence perceptions of social support satisfaction in sexual minority individuals (Burns,

Kamen, Lehman, & Beach, 2012; Lewis, Kholodkov, & Derlega, 2012). Hatzenbeuhler

(2009) noted that perceived social support within the psychological mediation model could be eroded through experiences of discrimination, which may result in negative mental health outcomes. For instance, through daily assessments of discrimination, sexual minorities were less satisfied with their social support on days in which discrimination was experienced, resulting in psychological distress (Hatzenbuehler,

Nolen-Hoeksema, & Dovidio, 2009). Scholarship on social support satisfaction in sexual minorities is merited for three practical reasons (Burns et al.). First, the type and implications of social support in sexual minorities seems to differ from heterosexual individuals. Relative to heterosexual adults, sexual minority individuals tend to receive more support from friends than family (Dewaele, Cox, Van den Berghe, & Vincke, 2011) and friendships in LGB adolescents decreased psychological distress more than non- sexual minority adolescents (Ueno, 2005). Second, LGB adults with low levels of satisfaction with social support have increased suicidality, depression, and social anxiety

(Hatzenbuehler, 2009). Third, in longitudinal studies, perceived social support predicted

36 recovery from mental health diagnoses (Kamen, Cosgrove, McKellar, Cronkite, & Moos,

2011) and psychotherapy outcomes (Beckner, Howard, Vella, & Mohr, 2010).

As a minority stressor resulting from heterosexist discrimination, internalized heterosexism has been linked to many negative outcomes in romantic and non-romantic relationships among LGB individuals (Frost & Meyer, 2009). Coleman, Rosser, and

Strapko (1992) suggested that the shame, anxiety, and devaluation triggered by internalized heterosexism are most likely manifested in interpersonal relationships.

LGBQ individuals may, therefore, avoid long-term and deeply intimate relationships with other sexual minorities and/or pursue possibilities of sexual expression without interpersonal closeness (Frost & Meyer). As such, internalized heterosexism appears to affect relationship functioning and quality of both male and female same-sex relationships (e.g., Balsam & Szymanski, 2005; Otis, Rostosky, et al., 2006) and seems to reduce relationship maintenance efforts when confronted with partner conflicts (Gaines,

Henderson, Kim, Gilstrap, Yi, Rusbult, et al., 2005).

In non-romantic relationships, internalized heterosexism has been associated with loneliness (Szymanski & Chung, 2001), decreased overall support, and reduced support from other sexual minorities (Shidlo, 1994), which can affect the quality of familial, friendships, and other social relationships (Frost & Meyer, 2009). Even though the theoretical model of minority stress has posited that environmental factors (e.g., discrimination, prejudice) are responsible for the construction of internalized heterosexism and the resultant psychosocial problems, the theory leans more toward an individual psychological view than a contextualized perspective that accounts for sociocultural and political influences (Szymanki, Kashubeck-West, & Meyer, 2008).

Therefore, feminist (cf. Brown, 1988; 1994; Enns, 2004; Worell & Remer, 2003),

relational cultural (cf. Brown & Gilligan, 1992; Gilligan, 1982; Miller, 1988; Miller &

Stiver, 1997), and psychology of working (cf. Blustein, 2004, 2006; Blustein et al., 2008)

theories add to the understanding of the minority stress theoretical model by providing a

richer description of supports and the importance of relationships in work and life.

Vocational psychology has started to include “the importance of sociopolitical

forces” (Blustein, McWhirter, & Perry, 2005, p. 142) when examining the career

development of marginalized populations, including sexual minorities (Schmidt, Miles, &

Welsh, 2011). For instance, Schultheiss (2003) utilized a relational approach to

emphasize the significance of sociocultural background and social support in individuals’

career development. As such, the relational context of sexual minorities (e.g., whether

relationships are supportive vs. hostile toward one’s sexual identity) may affect career

development and work (Schmidt et al., 2011). Further, the “life span, life-space”

approach to career development (Super, 1990) and the theory of career construction

(Savickas, 2005) acknowledge the sociocultural contexts, particularly those of marginalized populations, of which career development and work are embedded. In

further developing Super’s “life span, life-space” approach to career development,

Savickas employs a social constructionist standpoint that acknowledges sociocultural contexts as not only influencing career development, but also as an adaptation to environmental contexts that drives career development (Schmidt et al.). Therefore, sexual minorities likely experience social contexts that contain heterosexism, discrimination, and microaggressions, which possibly effects, or even controls, career development.

Finally, with the intention of reducing injustice and oppression (e.g., heterosexism) at a

systemic level, Blustein et al. (2005) offered an emancipatory communitarian approach to

career theories. This approach “is ‘emancipatory’ in that it strives for the liberation of

subordinated groups; and it is ‘communitarian’ in that it emphasizes compassion in social

relationships on individual and societal levels” (Schmidt et al., 2011, p. 295). Such an

approach expands the focus of career development to include both the individual and the social environment, rather than focusing on only one domain.

Work-Life Interference

Scholarship on the intersection of work and family domains has increased extensively over the past two decades (e.g., Casper, Eby, Bordeaux, Lockwood, &

Lambert, 2007; Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Greenhaus

& Powell, 2006; Richardson, 2012; Schultheiss, 2009; Whiston & Keller, 2004). This

shift in vocational psychology dismantled the previously existing assumption that

achieving balance between work and family domains could be achieved through the

performance of traditional gender roles (King, Huffman, & Peddie, 2013). Families and

couples operate as social entities, as the construction and meaning is both formally (e.g.,

marriage and adoption laws, discrimination policies) and informally (e.g., sociocultural norms and beliefs) dictated (Mohr, Selterman, & Fassinger, 2013). Schultheiss (2006) and other scholars in the work-life scholarship movement (e.g., Blustein, Schultheiss, &

Flum, 2004; Richardson, 2013) have proposed an inclusive view of family that would

recognize sexual minorities, single-parent homes, unmarried partners without children, families of choice, and any other relationship in which a feeling of family or home develops.

Work-family interface includes all of the experiences that occur at the intersection between the domains of work and family (Richardson, 2000). The most well-known perspectives that address this interface are work-family conflict (e.g., Carlson & Kacmar,

2000; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992; Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn,

Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964; Netemeyer et al., 1996), work-family enrichment (e.g.,

Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000) and work-family balance (e.g.,

Behson, 2005; Greenhaus, Collins, & Shaw, 2003; House, 1981), which often rely on role theory (Katz & Kahn, 1978) to explain the multiple roles that affect work and life/family.

Work roles have been defined as the engagement in activities that result in the distribution of monetary resources and services that support living (Piotrkowski,

Rapoport, & Rapoport, 1987). Family roles include commitment, participation, and accountability to a group of individuals related by biology, marriage, or adoption

(Piotrkowski et al.). However, such a notion of family is heterocentric and does not account for unmarried partnerships, polyamorous relationships, and families of choice that LGBQ individuals often create (Allen, Herst, Bruck, & Sutton, 2000). Even though work-stressors negatively affect LGBQ and non-sexual minority individuals alike, sexual minorities are exposed to these stressors within the sociocultural/sociopolitical environment of stigmatization, invisibility, and aloneness (Fassinger, 2000). In response to such limited notions of work-family interface, feminist and relational cultural theorists

(e.g., Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999; Richardson, 2002; Schultheiss, 2006; Walker &

Rosen, 2004) have urged vocational psychology to recognize the cultural embeddedness and the dynamic relational nature of the work-life interface.

Relational perspectives have focused on contextual influences of work and life and have made central the role of social networks, families, cultural factors, and peers in the work lives of individuals (e.g., Blustein, Schultheiss, & Flum, 2004; Flum, 2001a;

Josselson, 1992; Richardson, 2009, 2012; Schultheiss, 2003, 2007). Melding relational- cultural theory (Jordan, 2009; Miller, 1987), feminism, cultural psychology, and psychodynamic theory, Schultheiss (2007) proposed four tenets of relational cultural theory that would be relevant to vocational psychology—familial influence is crucial to vocational development, work is inherently relational, the work-life interface, and challenge individualistic discourse through relational narratives. This use of relational- cultural theory brings relationships and culture to the foreground of theories of work

(Blustein, 2011). The work-life interface body of literature has primarily focused on the importance of workplace social support and family support (e.g., Frone, Russell, &

Cooper, 1992; Hammer, Kossek, Yragui, Bodner, & Hansen, 2009; Kossek, Pichler,

Bodner, & Hammer, 2011). High levels of negative person-environment interactions

(Brofenbrenner & Ceci, 1994), such as family or work pressure and expectations, have been associated with increased work-family conflict (e.g., Frone, Yardley, & Markel,

1997; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1986; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000), whereas high levels of positive person-environment interactions, such as partner or family support, has been suggested to decrease the degree of negative spillover between family and work (e.g.,

Bolger, DeLongis, Kessler, & Wethnington, 1989; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000; Weiss,

1990).

Recent scholarship has addressed the complex and reciprocal interactions of work and relationships (Blustein, 2001, 2006; Hall et al., 1996; Schultheiss, 2003, 2007). For

instance, some literature on work-family has described the circular interactions between

family and work stress, emphasizing the give-and-take nature of work and life domains

(e.g., Barnett & Hyde, 2001; Ford, Heinen, & Langkamer, 2007; Schultheiss, 2006).

Additionally, investigations on the work-relationship connection have also suggested the

negative outcomes of relationships, such as the growing body of scholarship on

workplace bullying (e.g., Baillien, Neyens, DeWitte, DeCuyper, 2009; Lee &

Brotheridge, 2006). Such relational influences could be even more traumatic when

manifested by harassment, discrimination, and violence based on social identities such as,

race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, ability status, and age (Blustein, 2011). However,

despite the growing body of literature on work-life and work-family interface, balance,

enrichment, and conflict, most research has adopted a heterocentric view of family and

life, whereby only heterosexual individuals with children have been considered (Dunne,

2000; King et al., 2013; Schultheiss, 2006). In a review of work-family research in

management and organizational psychology, no studies covered LGBT families (Casper

et al., 2007). This is especially problematic, as LGBT family research in other disciplines,

such as sociology and family psychology, commonly ignore the work experiences of

sexual minorities (King et al.).

Working is a fundamental component of life, which offers means of survival,

connection to others, and structure in individuals’ lives (Blustein, 2006, 2008, 2013;

Richardson, 1993, 2012; Quick & Tetrick, 2010). However, many sexual minority

individuals are confronted with constant difficult decisions surrounding disclosure of

their stigmatized identity, overt and legal discrimination, and the subtle and daily experiences of sexuality-based microaggressions. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer-

identified individuals often cope with such discrimination in isolation, as research has

shown that sexual minorities have significantly less social support than heterosexuals, including less family connectedness (Eisenberg & Resnick, 2006), and a lesser amount of

satisfaction with their social supports (Plöderl & Fartacek, 2005). Additionally, many sexual minorities feel isolated from their families of origin, as a result of growing up with a nuclear family whom likely does not share the same minority status, which deprives sexual minorities from a sense of community in a fundamental way that not experienced by other marginalized groups (Prince, 2013). Therefore, exploring the work-life interface

among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer-identified individuals and their experiences of

workplace discrimination is a much needed line of research to better understand the

connections and disconnections through relationships and the work-life impact of

sexuality-based discrimination.

Research has indicated that sexual minorities often experience rejection or

perceive future rejection by their families (Laird & Green, 1996; Rostosky, et al., 2004).

Stress and isolation of rejection and lack of parental support is often carried into

adulthood, as many sexual minorities do not disclose their sexuality to their family of

origin or lose their family after doing so (D’Augelli, Hershberger, & Pilkington, 1998;

Mohr & Fassinger, 2003; Schope, 2002). As such, many sexual minority adults create

families of choice, including current partners, sexual minority friends and support allies,

former partners, and select family members (Barker, Herdt, & de Vries, 2006; Riggle,

Whitman, Olson, Rostosky, & Strong, 2008). The boundaries between friendship and

sexual or romantic relationships are often very complex for sexual minorities in

comparison to heterosexual individuals (Diamond & Dube, 2002, Nardi, 1999). Such

43 blurred boundaries could be due to a lack of LGBQ-specific social scripts and few cultural examples of romantic partnerships. For example, research has indicated that even though many lesbian relationships begin as friendships, turn into romantic love, and then later become sexual relationships, some women have difficulty gauging the sexual interest of friends and determining when the relationship is shifting (Rose, Zand, & Cini,

1993).

Additionally, lesbian women and gay men have been suggested to remain friends with formal sexual partners at a much higher rate than their heterosexual counterparts

(e.g., Solomon, Rothblum, & Balsam, 2004; Weinstock, 2004). When ending a romantic relationship, Harkless and Flowers (2005) reported that lesbian women and gay men were more likely than their heterosexual peers fear the loss of the friendship and, thus, find it important to maintain friendships with ex-partners. The norms of LGBQ communities, limited LGBQ networks, and the benefits inherent in transforming relationships with partners into friendships, may encourage same-sex partner to remain friends even after their romantic relationship ends (Nardi, 1999, Weinstock, 2004).

Peplau and Fingerhut (2007) reported that most partnered lesbian women and gay men are in dual-income relationships and tend to divide chores and share tasks more fairly than heterosexual individuals. Additionally, sexual minority couples tend to be more highly educated than their heterosexual counterparts (Black, Sanders, & Taylor,

2007). However, based on a 2000 U.S. Census, a sizeable number of both same-sex (33% lesbian women and 22% gay men) and opposite-sex couples (45%) have children

(Simmons & O’Connell, 2003). Comparatively speaking, LGBQ and non-sexual minority parents use similar strategies to balance family and work, such as developing positive

44 social connections and thoughtfully considering work decisions (O’Ryan & McFarland,

2010). Workplace flexibility for both lesbian and non-sexual minority parents has been seen as a benefit for families (Mercier, 2006). Additionally, consistent with research on heterosexual couples, autonomy of job roles, fewer hours at work, and supportive work- family policies and culture reduced work-family conflict in lesbian parents (Tuten &

August, 2006). However, work characteristics typically affecting heterosexual couples, such as hours at work and organizational support, were not related to relationship conflict in lesbian couples (Goldberg & Sayer, 2006). Gender dynamics in sexual minority versus sexual majority individuals might contribute the differences in work-life balance and work-life conflict (King, Huffman, & Peddie, 2013). Specifically, employment, childcare, household work is typically more equitably shared in lesbian partnerships than heterosexual couples (Patterson, Sutfin, & Fulcher, 2004).

Strain and expectations for LGBQ parents may differ from those of heterosexual couples, as LGBQ parents may also experience pressures and expectations from their social identity group that clash with dominant discourse (King et al.). One’s sexual identity could make it difficult for LGBQ individuals to satisfy the demands of family and work. For instance, sexual minorities may feel inauthentic by not disclosing their

LGBQ identity in workplace and social environments that stigmatize sexual minority identities or they may be confronted by discrimination, both of which could cause interference between work and life behaviors (King et al.). LGBQ parents are also likely to experience conflict between their sexual minority and parental identities (King et al.), as they are embedded in the U.S. dominant discourse that values a traditional view of family consisting of opposite-sex parents with children (Collins, 1998). LGBQ parents

may feel torn between desiring to openly express their sexual identity, while also wanting

to guard their children from any harmful consequences of heterosexism (King et al.).

Further, LGBQ parents must cope with the additional burden of having to prepare their

children for potential future discrimination (Litovich & Langhout, 2004).

The minority stress theoretical model (Meyer, 1995, 2003) posits that in addition to the common everyday stress that affects nonminorities, LGBQ individuals must also manage distal stressors (e.g., violence, discrimination, and microaggressions) and proximal stressors (e.g., identity management, anticipation of rejection, and internalized heterosexism) in the workplace, which has been related to mental health consequences

(Meyer, 2003). Ragins, Singh, and Cornwell (2007) have indicated that the unique minority stressor of having to disclose a nonheterosexual identity is correlated with career outcomes and job attitudes. Therefore, extending the minority stress theoretical model to cover LGBQ parents and couples without children could reveal that a sexual minority identity worsens the stress inherent in the work-family interface (King et al.). As such,

LGBQ parents and couples typically experience more stressors than heterosexual

individuals and LGBQ parents often experience more stressors than sexual minorities

without children (King et al.). Meyer (2003) has found that individuals whose sexual

identity is core to their sense of self can moderate the effects of sexual minority stress and

well-being (Meyer, 2003). Additionally, research has found that having lower levels of

internalized heterosexism/homophobia is positively related with the extent to which an

individual is ‘out’ at work (Rostosky & Riggle, 2002). However, such disclosure decisions do not happen in a vacuum, because in sexual minority partnerships, when one partner is out the other is also “guilty by association,” which highlights the work-life

46 interface in disclosure decisions (Rostosky & Riggle, 2002; p. 412). Therefore, this study will expand upon previous vocational psychology research that has alluded to the relationship of support and work-life balance (e.g., Carlson & Perrewé, 1999; Roxburgh,

1999; Van Daalen, Willlemsen, & Sanders, 2006) by examining the role of support – beyond that of spousal and/or organizational support – in the reduction of work-life interference.

Job and Life Satisfaction

Scholarship on the relationship between work and life domains has been explained by theories that draw upon work-life conflict (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985) and work-life enrichment (Rothbard, 2001) or enhancement (Greenhaus & Parasuraman,

1999) perspectives (Georgellis, Lange, & Tabvuma, 2012). As research on work-life conflict is based on theories of scarcity and resource drain, it argues that because work and family demands are jointly conflicting, the work-family interface is full of tension and time and strain demands from either the work or life domains can result in lower workplace well-being (Allen et al., 2000; Greenhaus & Beutell). Whereas, a work-life enrichment or enhancement perspective is based on role accumulation research that emphasizes the positive interaction between work and family life, as there exists the potential for positive spillover of attitudes, behaviors, and emotions (Ruderman, Ohlott,

Panzer, & King, 2002). Work and family experiences can have enriching effects on individuals’ overall well-being and participation in both family and work lives can create a buffer for negative experiences in either life role (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). Such enrichment has been positively related to leadership abilities, multi-taking, and psychological functioning, all of which in turn lead to increased job satisfaction (e.g.,

Carlson, Kacmar, Wayne, & Grzywacz, 2006; Hunter, Perry, Carlson, & Smith, 2010;

Masuda, McNall, Allen, & Nicklin, 2012; Van Steenbergen, Ellemers, & Mooijaart,

2007).

The Job Descriptive Index (JDI; Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969) suggested five facets of job satisfaction—coworkers, work, pay, supervision, and promotion opportunities. Although each of these facets has been empirically researched, some have received more attention than others (Simon, Judge, & Halvorsen-Ganepola, 2010). For instance, of all the facets, work satisfaction has been most highly correlated with overall job satisfaction and has the strongest relationship with outcomes (Hulin & Judge, 2003).

Both job and life satisfaction has been frequently studied as outcomes of work-family conflict (Whiston & Cinamon, 2015). Decreased job satisfaction has been related to major life events, such as marriage and birth of a first child (e.g., Georgellis et al., 2012), satisfaction with coworkers (e.g., Simon et al., 2010), and work-family conflict (e.g.,

Bruck, Allen, & Spector, 2002). Similarly, decreased life satisfaction has been related to work-family conflict (e.g., Braunstein-Bercovitz, Frish-Burstein, & Benjamin, 2012), coworker satisfaction, and job satisfaction (e.g., Simon et al., 2010). Whereas, increased job and life satisfaction have been positively correlated with work-family enrichment and positive spillover (e.g., Hunter, Perry, Carlson, & Smith, 2010; Masuda et al., 2012) and work-life balance (e.g., Greenhaus, Collins, & Shaw, 2002; Haar, Russo, Suñe, & Ollier-

Malaterre, 2014). However, both job and life satisfaction are negatively impacted by workplace discrimination (e.g., Dickson, 2008; Foley & Lytle, 2015; Moore et al., 2011;

Taylor, McLoughlin, Meyer, & Brooke, 2013)

Research has suggested that perceived discrimination in non-sexual minority populations has negative impacts on job and life satisfaction (e.g., Ensher et al., 2001;

Taylor et al., 2013; Sanchez & Brock, 1996). Similar findings emerge in sexual minority scholarship, as workplace heterosexism has been negatively correlated to job attitudes and satisfaction (e.g., Prati & Pietrantoni, 2014; Ragins & Cornwell, 2001; Velez &

Moradi, 2012; Velez, Moradi, & Brewster, 2013). Disclosure-focused sexual identity management strategies have been demonstrated to mediate the relationship between workplace heterosexism and job satisfaction (e.g., Ragins, 2004; Velez, Moradi, &

Brewster), whereby the suppression of a social identity, such as one’s sexual identity, can have a negative effect on job satisfaction and turnover intentions (Griffith & Hebl, 2002;

Madera, King, & Hebl, 2012). Despite scholarship that suggests that higher levels of disclosure-based sexual identity management strategies can increase job satisfaction

(Velez, Moradi, & Brewseter), heterosexist workplace environments can mediate the relationship between workplace outness and job satisfaction (Prati & Pietrantoni). As such, workplace discrimination can influence LGBQ individuals’ degree of outness, which in turn, results in decreased job satisfaction and internalized heterosexism (Button,

2001; Ellis & Riggle, 1996; Madera, King, & Hebl; Prati & Pietrantoni; Ragins &

Cornwell, 2001; Ragins et al., 2007; Velez & Moradi; Velez, Moradi, & Brewster;

Waldo, 1999). Further, sexuality-based workplace discrimination has been negatively correlated with life satisfaction (Huffman, Watrous-Rodriguez, & King, 2008). In an investigation of supports and sexual-based workplace discrimination, Huffman et al.

(2008) found that supervisor support was positively related to job satisfaction, coworker support was positively related to life satisfaction, and organizational support was

positively related to degree of outness. Such findings make apparent the negative impact

of workplace discrimination on life and job satisfaction, as well as the important

buffering effect of supports.

Minority stress theoretical model (Meyer, 1995, 2003) postulates LGBQ

individuals’ experiences of heterosexist discrimination, internalized heterosexism, and expectations of stigmatization are related to negative psychological (e.g., Brewster &

Moradi, 2010; Lewis, Derlega, Griffin, & Krowinski, 2003; Newcomb & Mustanski,

2010), vocational (e.g., Chung, 2001; Croteau et al., 2008; Ragins, 2008), and life outcomes (e.g., Huffman et al., 2008). When roles that define a person’s identity are threatened, such individuals are likely to negatively appraise the source of the threat

(Carlson & Kacmar, 2000; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Lazarus, 1991). Therefore, it can be assumed that a discriminatory workplace can threaten the identity of LGBQ individuals, which can result in negative appraisal of the workplace and subsequently decreased overall job satisfaction. Indeed, workplace heterosexist discrimination has been correlated with increased psychological distress and decreased job satisfaction (e.g.,

Lyons, Brenner, & Fassinger, 2005; Ragins & Cornwell, 2001; Velez, Moradi, &

Brewster, 2013; Waldo, 1999). However, vocational psychology scholarship on the outcomes of sexuality-based workplace discrimination has failed to recognize the impact that such discrimination can have on life satisfaction. Therefore, this study will address this gap in the literature by examining heterosexist workplace discrimination and microaggression outcomes of both job and life satisfaction.

Summary

Using psychology of working (Blustein, 2006) and relational work-life interface

perspectives as foundational frameworks within a minority stress theoretical model

(Meyer, 1995, 2003), this study will address the dearth of existing literature focusing on individuals, as part of families (i.e., biologically related or chosen), other than the traditionally studied individuals in married, heterosexual partnerships with children

(Schultheiss, 2003). This preliminary investigation seeks to establish that relational supports are vital for sexual minorities, especially during sexuality-based workplace discrimination and microaggression experiences. Relationships for sexual minorities could be even more important than for their non-sexual minority counterparts, as many sexual minorities face social isolation in many areas of their lives, including that of their nuclear family; often growing up in families that do not have similar experiences in heterosexually-defined cultures and do not share the same minority status (Prince, 2013).

Prevailing psychology scholarship on sexuality generally, and vocational psychology specifically, have ignored the importance of relationships in the construction of sexual identity and meaning, even when studying work experiences of sexual minorities. Therefore, this investigation will explore the potential moderating role of social support, as relationships are an important component of psychological health

(Miller & Stiver, 1997), self-esteem, and self-efficacy (Cutrona, 1996). However, many sexual minorities experience strained relationships in work and life contexts (e.g.,

Mercier, 2006; Rostosky, Korfhage, et al., 2004). By understanding the experiences of sexuality-based microaggressions in a relational work-life context, an intersection between work and life contexts is apparent. Specifically, stress following everyday

experiences of workplace discrimination and microaggressions can spillover into one’s

personal relationships, as can one’s personal relationships spillover into the workplace;

possibly exacerbating negative consequences of workplace microaggressions. As such,

relational supports in work-life contexts of sexual minorities will be explored to bridge

the gap between investigations that have focused exclusively on either context, thereby

not recognizing the intersection of life and work domains (Collin & Young, 2000) or only

focusing on workplace discrimination without attending to one’s life outside of work.

From a psychology of working perspective, this study aligns with Blustein, Schultheiss,

and Flum’s (2004) assertion that it is not feasible to analyze working without also attending to relational components.

Given the absence of empirical research on sexuality-based microaggressions and the increased scholarship on workplace discrimination, this study aims to address this gap in the literature. This investigation will explicitly explore experiences of sexuality-based microaggressions and heterosexism in the workplace, as well as the relational, and work- life outcomes of such subtle and frequently occurring discriminatory experiences.

Furthermore, this study will examine the importance of social supports in mitigating the

negative work-life effects of microaggression and heterosexism in the workplace.

Research on racial and ethnic minority experiences of microaggressions in the

workplace has reported increased stress levels and decreased feelings of well-being as a

result of daily experiences of subtle, yet powerful, forms of discrimination (Kern &

Grandey, 2009). However, there is a dearth of research exploring microaggressions experienced by sexual minorities in work and life contexts. Further, scholarship on the

work-family interface—both theoretical and empirical—has predominately focused on a

52 limited conceptualization of family. As such, a work-life approach (Keeney et al., 2013) will be used to determine the degree to which negative work experiences (i.e., heterosexism and microaggressions) interfere with life and potentially decrease job and life satisfaction.

Hypotheses

It is hypothesized that there will be a positive relationship between the experience of homonegative microaggressions and negative work-life outcomes (i.e., work interference with life and job and life satisfaction). It is hypothesized that there will be a positive relationship between workplace heterosexist experiences and negative work-life outcomes (i.e., work interference with life and job and life satisfaction). It is also hypothesized that perceived social support will moderate these relationships. Specifically, higher levels of perceived social support is hypothesized to buffer the negative impact that homonegative microaggressions and heterosexist workplace discrimination has on work-life outcomes.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Many researchers have studied workplace discrimination based on sexual identity

and have found several recurring themes including decreased job (e.g., Prati &

Pietrantoni, 2014; Ragins & Cornwell, 2001) and life satisfaction (e.g., Huffman et al.,

2008; Liddle et al., 2004), psychological adjustment (Smith & Ingram, 2004), and

increased psychological distress (e.g., Carter, Mollen, & Smith). Although the

relationship between workplace heterosexist discrimination and adverse work and psychological outcomes has been well-documented, most empirical scholarship on

workplace heterosexism has ignored microaggressions and the interface of work and

other life domains (Anderson & Croteau, 2013), and has focused predominately on sexual

identity management (e.g., Anderson et al., 2001; Chung, 2001, 2009; Croteau, 1996;

Croteau et al., 2000; Croteau et al., 2008; Griffin, 1992; Lance, Anderson, & Croteau,

2010; Lonborg & Phillips, 1996). This work has largely adopted a theoretical position

that assumes negative work-related outcomes can be reduced if sexual minorities

perceive themselves to be a good fit with the environment (e.g., Lyons et al., 2005; Velez

& Moradi, 2012).

Career theories have mostly been based on research conducted on heterosexual

samples and, therefore, have failed to capture the unique processes and experiences

affecting the careers of LGBQ workers (e.g., Dunkle, 1996; Fassinger, 1996; Lonborg &

Phillips; Mobley & Slaney, 1996; Prince, 2013). Although many career theories address

individual-career fit (e.g., Greenhaus, Callanan & Godshalk, 2000; Sullivan, 1999),

sexual minority workers are confronted with additional issues of fit associated with their

LGBQ identity (Lonborg & Phillips). Additionally, there is a need for LGBT vocational psychology research to shift to a more holistic understanding of the daily experiences of heterosexism within the workplace by recognizing the harmful effects of homonegative microaggressions (Anderson & Croteau, 2013). Despite the pervasiveness of discrimination toward sexual minorities in everyday society and the workplace, vocational psychology research addressing the complexities and consequences associated with workplace discrimination and LGBQ-identified individuals’ work-life interface is severely lacking. Such consideration is crucial in the investigation of sexual minorities, as many have experienced recurring disconnections across their lifespan (Espelage et al.,

2008; Meyer, 2003; Panchankis, 2007) and life-space (cf. Super, 1957, 1990).

Research has suggested that sexual minorities report less satisfaction with their

social support and experience more psychological distress during instances of

discrimination (Hatzenbuehler, Nolen-Hoeksema, & Dovidio, 2009) than individuals

with dominant sexual identities. Studies on the connection between work and personal

relationships have indicated various negative outcomes of hostile relationships (e.g.,

Baillien et al., 2009; Lee & Brotheridge, 2006). However, scholarship on sexual minority workplace discrimination has predominately focused on work-based support (i.e.,

supervisor and coworker support, and LGB-supportive climate), while ignoring the

importance of relationships outside of the workplace. As such, a broader

conceptualization of social support, beyond that of the workplace, must be considered to

better understand the potential moderating effect of support for sexual minorities;

especially in the context of the relational paradox of concealing one’s sexual identity in

order to foster relationships in the workplace

The broad extant work-life literature, has commonly examined the importance of

both workplace and family support (e.g., Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992; Hammer et al.,

2009; Kossek et al., 2011). Research has suggested that sexual minorities experience

work-life interference (Sawyer, 2012) in the domains of family, friends, romantic

relationship(s), and household management. Therefore, the integration of a broader

conceptualization of LGBQ workplace discrimination, the inclusion of life domains, and

an examination of relational connections and disconnections will facilitate a more comprehensive understanding of the work-life interface for sexual minority workers, and, thus, expand the empirical knowledge base on sexuality-based discrimination (Nadal et al., 2011).

Workplace Heterosexist Discrimination

Heterosexism has become increasingly hidden and indirect, further privileging heterosexuality and preserving heteronormativity within the social and political systems of the U.S. (Dermer, Smith, & Barto, 2010; Walls, 2008). Research on sexuality-based discrimination, harassment, and homonegativity has highlighted the damaging mental health impact of overt and covert anti-sexual minority discrimination (e.g., Hill &

Willoughby, 2005; Meyer, 2003; Szymanski, 2005; Walls, 2008). For instance, LGBT

individuals are more likely than their non-sexual minority counterparts to label

discrimination as a major barrier to living a satisfying life (Mays & Cochran, 2001). This

is further complicated by the reality that many sexual minorities live and work in largely

heterosexual environments, where they may even feel isolated and marginalized by other

social minority groups (Huffman et al., 2008; Meyer, 1995; Waldo, 1999). As a result of

such workplace heterosexism, sexual minorities are likely to experience various negative

work-related outcomes (e.g., Huffman et al., 2008; Lyons, Brenner, & Fassinger, 2005;

Prati & Pietrantoni, 2004; Ragins & Cornwell, 2001; Sawyer, 2012; Waldo, 1999), and

adverse mental health outcomes (e.g., Carter et al., 2014; Smith & Ingram, 2004; Waldo,

1999).

Within the framework of minority stress theory, Carter, Mollen, and Smith (2014)

examined whether locus of control moderated the relationship between the psychological

distress of sexual minorities and the experiences of workplace heterosexist events and

internalized heterosexism (N = 165; Mage = 37.89, SD = 12.21). Participants were mostly male (60.60%), lesbian or gay (32.70% and 55.80%, respectively), highly educated

(23.20% with a bachelor’s degree and 36.6% with a master’s or doctoral-level degree), partnered (54.30%), and in suburban or urban (47% and 42.10%, respectively) settings in a Southwest geographic region (66.10%). The findings suggested that internalized heterosexism, workplace heterosexist events, and locus of control were all positively related to psychological distress. Additionally, locus of control was positively related to both internalized heterosexism and psychological distress. Findings indicate that locus of control did not moderate the relationship between internalized heterosexism and

psychological distress; however, locus of control did moderate the relationship between

workplace heterosexist events and psychological distress.

Consistent with the important role of coping in Meyer’s minority stress theory

(2003), such findings suggest that locus of control may serve as a significant resiliency

factor in moderating the relationship between workplace heterosexism and psychological

distress (Carter, Mollen, & Smith, 2014). However, this study is limited in its

generalizability, as there were low proportions of racial/ethnic minorities and those who

identify as bisexual. Further, the authors indicated that the cross-sectional correlational

design of the study does not assert a cause-effect relationship; therefore, alternative

explanations for the observed results cannot be ruled out (e.g., Heppner, Kivlighan, &

Wampold, 1999). Despite the limitations, the study provided support for the minority

stress theory in which workplace heterosexism served as a predictor of psychological distress with locus of control as a moderator.

In a sample of 97 lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals (Mage = 34.69, SD = 9.99)

recruited in two medium-sized mid-Atlantic cities, Smith and Ingram (2004) investigated

the relationship between workplace heterosexism, unsupportive social interactions, and psychological adjustment The sample consisted of mostly men (59%), gay or lesbian-

identified individuals (55% and 30%, respectively), who were romantically partnered

(62%), and highly educated (31% having a bachelor’s degree, 27% having a master’s degree, and 8% having a doctoral or professional degree). To determine the relationship between unsupportive social interactions and workplace heterosexism, and depression and psychological distress outcomes, Smith and Ingram conducted two hierarchical multiple regression equations—one including minimizing responses and the other

including blaming responses. Findings indicate that minimizing responses were uniquely

related to psychological distress, above and beyond the covariates—LGB community involvement and level of outness—and heterosexist discrimination experiences. Findings

suggest that blaming social interactions were not significantly correlated with any of the

outcome measures. However, a negative interaction between blaming responses and

workplace heterosexism was significantly related to psychological distress and

depression outcomes, indicating a moderating effect of blaming responses in the

relationship between heterosexism and psychological outcomes.

Additionally, research findings suggested that, when controlling for LGB

community involvement and level of outness, as heterosexism increases, both

psychological distress and depression increase—irrespective of low or high levels of

blaming social interactions (Smith & Ingram, 2004). Further, higher levels of blaming

unsupportive social interactions were positively related to increased depression and

psychological symptomatology, even when workplace heterosexism was low. As blaming

unsupportive social interactions elicited depression regardless of the amount of

workplace heterosexism experienced, blaming responses within social networks might be

a more noticeable stressor than heterosexism. This significant relationship between

workplace heterosexism and decreased psychological adjustment is supported by the

theory of minority stress (Meyer, 1995, 2003), as even low frequencies of unsupportive social interactions and workplace heterosexism can be harmful to mental health (Smith &

Ingram). Additionally, findings indicate that unsupportive social interactions from both

LGB and non-minority social networks are likely to be psychologically distressing.

Despite these significant contributions, many limitations exist. Specifically, causality

cannot be implied due to the cross-sectional nature of the data, the research relied on self-

report retrospective data, the sample was likely not representative of the larger LGB

population, and the sample did not include many individuals identifying as bisexual.

To investigate the sexual identity management in the workplace, Ragins, Singh,

and Cornwell (2007) explored the antecedents that affect the degree of disclosure of a

sexual minority identity at work with a sample of 534 (Mage = 41) lesbian, gay, and

bisexual individuals. The sample was mostly men (68%), gay or lesbian-identified

individuals (92.9%), White (67.6%), highly educated (38.6% with bachelor’s, 28.2% with

master’s, and 17.9% with doctoral degrees), and from a variety of occupations. Findings

suggested that sexual minorities are less likely to disclose their sexual identity and feared

more negative consequences of disclosure when they perceived working with mostly

heterosexual coworkers or supervisors. In addition, LGB workers who did not have

supportive coworkers or supervisors feared more negative consequences of their

disclosure than those who perceived their relationships with coworkers and supervisors to

be supportive. Further, even though LGB individuals who had past experiences of

discrimination feared disclosure more than those who had no past discrimination, they

were surprisingly more likely to disclose their sexual identity than those who had no past

discrimination experiences. As such, past experiences of discrimination may heighten

fears of disclosure, but may also encourage LGB individuals to disclose to increase

psychological coherence between private and public identities (Ragins et al., 2007).

In short, findings suggested that a fear of disclosure had a negative relationship with workplace and career experiences, and psychological well-being, as those who had greater fear of disclosure had negative career and job attitudes, more stress-related

symptomatology, and fewer promotions than those who had less fear (Ragins, Singh, &

Cornwell, 2007). Result also indicated the importance of supportive relationships in the

workplace (i.e., coworker and supervisor support), as such supports decreased the fear of

disclosure. Despite the contributions of this study, several limitations exist. Specifically,

the cross-sectional design limited the ability to assume causal relationships, a reliance on

self-report retrospective data, and a low (30%) response rate. In addition, the findings

may not generalize to the LGB population, as researchers only included those individuals

who had not disclosed or had not fully disclosed their sexual identity at work, the sample was limited in diversity, and the recruitment of participants from gay rights organizations

may have resulted in participants who are have more supports, are more out, and have a

greater sense of community than the general LGB population. Lastly, the sample was

consistent with previous studies (cf. Button, 2001; Chrobot-Mason, et al., 2001; Griffith

& Hebl, 2002) in its high organizational tenure, which may support Ragins (2004) safe-

haven hypothesis—even when career opportunities offering greater compensation and

better fit, individuals may be less inclined to leave their organization that offers some

amount of safety.

LGB vocational psychology has predominately concentrated on sexual identity

management (e.g., Anderson et al., 2001; Chung, 2001, 2009; Croteau, 1996; Croteau et

al., 2008; Lance et al., 2010). For instance, Lance, Anderson, and Croteau (2010)

validated the revised Workplace Sexual Identity Management Measure (WSIMM-R) on a

sample of 64 lesbian (53.1%), gay (40.6%), and bisexual (0.06%) K-12 educators (age

range = 25-62). Findings suggested that both passing and covering subscales were

positively correlated with counterfeiting (i.e., construction of a false heterosexual

appearance) and avoidance of personal discussions/questions, whereas both passing and

covering sexual identity management strategies were negatively correlated with identity

integration. Both implicitly out and explicitly out subscales were negatively correlated

with counterfeiting and avoidance of personal discussions/questions, whereas both

implicitly and explicitly out sexual identity management strategies were positively related

to identity integration. In addition, Lance et al. found that most participants described

themselves as being implicitly or explicitly out (45.3% and 31.3%, respectively), as

opposed to covering or passing (17% and 5%, respectively). These findings suggested

that LGB individuals are, for the most part, at least partially out in the workplace.

However, this study is consistent with other research presented thus far, as it was

extremely limited in sample size, sample diversity, and had a reliance on self-report

measures.

In a study to expand and validate Chung’s (2001) model of LGB workplace

discrimination and coping strategies, Chung, Williams, and Dispenza (2009) conducted

semi-structured, individual interviews with 17 (Mage = 37.2, SD = 7.32) gay men (n = 9)

and lesbian women (n = 8) in a major metropolitan Southern city. The sample was mostly

White (n = 12) and educated (n = 7 with at least a bachelor’s degree), and from a variety

of occupations. A team of nine graduate students—two gay men and seven heterosexual women; eight master’s students and one doctoral student—coded interviews based on

Chung’s Work Discrimination Model (Chung, 2001) and Chung’s coping strategy

framework (Chung, 2001). Of the 35 reported discrimination incidents, consensus was

reached on the following codes within the Work Discrimination Model: informal

discrimination (71%; n = 25), formal discrimination (29%; n = 10), encountered

discrimination (86%; n = 30), and potential discrimination (14%; n = 5). Although there were 35 reported incidents of discrimination, vocational choice coping strategies were only mentioned in nine of the cases, resulting in the two codes – job tracking (67%; n =

6) and self-employment (33%; n = 3). Of the six participants who mentioned identity

management strategies, none used acting or passing coping strategies. Rather, the

following three codes emerged: covering (33%, n = 3), explicitly out (22%; n = 2), and

implicitly out (11%; n = 1).

Findings related to discrimination management strategies in this study challenged

the model proposed by Chung (2001), as only three codes surfaced – nonassertive

strategies (i.e., silence and quitting), social support, and confrontation (Chung et al.,

2009). Silence was the most frequently used coping strategy (47%), followed by support

from coworkers, friends, and partner (27%, 13%, and 10%, respectively), avoidance

(23%), and confronting offender, human resources, and supervisor (23%, 23%, and 17%,

respectively). Findings suggest that participants were more likely to seek support from

coworkers, friends, and romantic partners, than family (7%) or mental health

professionals (7%). As such, LGB individuals may feel less supported by their family of

origin, isolated due to unique marginalized identity (in comparison to other family

members), and LGB individuals may be disconnected from family of origin post coming

out. This study expands our knowledge of LGB workplace sexual identity and

discrimination management; however, several limitations exist. For instance, the sample

was limited in size and diversity, had possible researcher and coder bias, and most

participants were more open and out regarding their sexuality.

As such, sexual minority workplace discrimination, especially informal

encountered discrimination, is a frequent experience for LGB individuals (Chung et al.,

2009). Findings indicate that workplace heterosexism is related to high levels of psychological distress (Carter, Mollen, & Smith, 2014; Ragins, Singh, & Cornwell, 2007;

Smith & Ingram, 2004), as well as various negative work outcomes and decreased workplace social supports (Ragins, Singh, & Cornwell). Further, locus of control appears to be positively related to internalized heterosexism and psychological distress (Carter et

al.), and has been suggested to have a moderating effect on the relationship between

workplace heterosexism and psychological distress (Carter et al.). Additionally, even

though unsupportive relationships with LGB and non-sexual minority social networks are prone to be psychologically distressing, unsupportive relationships that are blaming in nature appear to be a strong predictor of depression regardless of the degree of workplace heterosexism experienced (Smith & Ingram). To cope with workplace heterosexism, sexual minorities are likely to partake in sexual identity management strategies (Chung et al., 2009; Lance et al., 2010). The most frequently used coping mechanisms were silence and social support (Chung et al.). Support from coworkers, friends, and romantic partners were more likely to be used by sexual minorities to cope with discrimination than support from family (Chung et al.).

Even though extant research has contributed greatly to our understanding of sexual minority workplace discrimination, it has focused predominately on workplace sexual identity management (e.g., Chung et al., 2009; Lance et al. 2010; Ragins, Singh, &

Cornwell, 2007) and the negative psychological outcomes of workplace heterosexism

(e.g., Carter et al., 2014, Smith & Ingram, 2004). Therefore, there is a dearth of

scholarship on both the work-life impacts of workplace heterosexism (i.e., work-life

interference and job and life satisfaction), as well as limited research on sexuality-based

microaggressions. Although social interactions and supports have been studied in relation

to workplace heterosexism (e.g., Smith & Ingram), there is a shortage of empirical

investigations that measure supports outside of the workplace (i.e., friends, family, and

romantic partner) as a potential moderator between workplace heterosexism and work-

life outcomes. Therefore, this study will expand on existing workplace discrimination

literature by exploring the impact that both workplace heterosexism and

microaggressions have on work-life interference and job and life satisfaction, as well as

the moderating effect of social supports.

Sexuality-Based Microaggressions

Racial microaggressions and related theoretical taxonomy were developed to describe the various ways racial microaggressions are experienced by people of color in everyday life (see Sue et al., 2010). Despite the origin of microaggressions focusing primarily on racial discrimination (see Pierce et al., 1978), contemporary scholarship has applied microaggressions to other marginalized groups, such as ethnic and religious minorities, persons with disabilities, women, and sexual minorities (see Sue, 2010 for a review). Research has suggested that sexuality-based microaggressions have resemblances to gender, racial, and ability-based microaggressions (Nadal, Rivera, &

Corpus, 2010; Sue & Capodilupo, 2008). Despite the strong theoretical arguments for sexuality-based microaggressions, there is a dearth of empirical scholarship focusing on sexual minorities’ experiences with sexuality-based microaggressions (Nadal, Wong, et al., 2011). Therefore, to better understand sexuality-based microaggressions, it is crucial

to also review existing literature on racial and gender microaggressions, as well as

homonegative microaggressions.

A study exploring racial microaggressions experienced by Latina/o Americans and how such discrimination is expressed differently based on ethnicity, gender, or nativity was examined in a sample of 311 Latina/o Americans (Mage = 24.8, SD = 8.44)

(Nadal, Mazzula, Rivera, & Fujii-Doe, 2014). The majority of participants in the study

were women (77.2%), Dominican (n = 89, 28.6%), born in the United States (n = 242,

77.8%), heterosexual (n = 260, 83.6%), and with at least a high school diploma (n = 226,

72.7%). Latinas experienced more school and workplace microaggressions than Latino

men, younger Latinas/os experienced more microinvalidations than older Latinas/os, and

Latinas/os with lower levels of education were more likely to experience

microinvalidations, as well as microaggressions (Nadal, Mazzula, et al.). The results

uphold previous research suggesting that racial ethnic minorities experience

microaggressions (Nadal, Mazzula, et al.). Additionally, the results provided support for

heterogeneity in experiences of microaggressions based on intersecting social identities,

such as age, gender, and education level. This finding is particularly important, as most research on microaggressions has homogenized individuals within the social identity

group being studied (Nadal, Mazzula, et al.). However, this study is limited due to its

sample size and participants who were disproportionately women, heterosexual, lower

educational level, U.S.-born, and Dominican. Further, this study is limited due to its

reliance on only one measure, as correlational and predictive statistical analyses could not

be conducted.

Understanding the various possible multiple intersecting social identities, Balsam,

Molina, Beadnell, Simoni, and Walters (2011) conducted a series of studies to develop and validate the LGBT People of Color Microaggressions Scale. After the item generation and validation studies, the authors conducted a third study to explore the impact of LGBT people of color microaggressions on psychological distress, perceived discrimination, and LGBT identity. The sample consisted of 297 LGBT people of color participants (Mage = 33.0, SD = 10.4) who were mostly women (50.2%; 37.7% were men;

2.0% MTF/M2F; 3.0% FTM/F2M; 3.0% genderqueer; and 3.7% as other gender identity), lesbian (31.0%; 26.0% were gay; 22.0% bisexual; 10.4% queer; 1.9% two- spirit; and 8.7% “other” sexual identity), and were highly educated with the majority

(70.7%) having at least a college degree or a graduate or professional degree (31.3%).

Significant racial differences emerged, as Asian Americans had higher LGBT people of color microaggressions than Latina/o and African American LGBT individuals. Further, men reported experiencing more LGBT people of color microaggressions than women, and lesbian and gay people of color experienced more microaggressions than bisexual women and men. LGBT people of color microaggressions was significantly correlated with depression, perceived stress, stigma sensitivity, internalized homonegativity, and identity superiority. Further, findings indicated that LGBT discrimination decreased life satisfaction. Findings supported previous research on perceived stress and the psychological outcomes of microaggressions, and expanded racial and sexuality-based microaggressions scholarship to explore the intersection between the two social identities. Limitations of the study consisted of a small and demographically-restricted sample, as well as limited outcome variables. Specifically, the study did not examine the

impact of microaggressions on work-life interference or job and life satisfaction, nor did the study explore the importance of social supports in mitigating the effects of microaggressions.

Sexuality-based microaggressions were explored in a qualitative investigation on

26 sexual minority college students enrolled in an introductory psychology class (Mage =

25.7, SD = 10.43) (Nadal, Issa, et al., 2011). The participants were mostly women

(57.7%), White or Latina/o (42.3% and 38.5%, respectively), and gay men or bisexual women (42.3% and 38.5%, respectively). Of the six researchers, only one openly identified as gay, one as bisexual, and four as heterosexual. Transcribed and coded data from focus groups revealed the following eight themes: use of heterosexist terminology, assumption of a homogeneous LGBT experience, supporting heteronormative behaviors and culture, exoticization, denial of the existence of heterosexism, uneasiness and condemnation of LGBT experience, belief of LGBT sexual pathology or abnormality, and intimidating behaviors (Nadal, Issa, et al.). Multiple participants in each of the different focus groups endorsed all eight themes. This study provided empirical support for the LGBT microaggressions taxonomy proposed by Nadal et al. (2010). However, participants in this study reported experiences of both covert and overt discrimination, which differs from research on non-sexual minority women and people of color, as such microaggressions are predominately covert and indirect interactions. Despite the importance of this study in better understanding LGBT microaggressions, it was limited due to the sample imbalance regarding gender, sexual identity, and racial identity.

Further, the questions were developed and data was coded based on a preexisting specific model (Sue, 2010) and taxonomy (Nadal et al., 2010). Additionally, the research team

was predominately heterosexual, which could have impacted their ability to identify the

nuances of sexuality-based microaggressions. Lastly, the study and microaggressions

taxonomy focuses primarily on the experience of sexuality-based microaggressions, with

little regard of the work-life outcomes and the importance of social supports.

Existing scholarship on microaggressions has suggested that microaggressions

negatively impact the minority populations that experience them, namely people of color

(e.g., Nadal et al., 2014), women (e.g., Capodilupo, Nadal, Corman, Hamit, Lyons, &

Weinberg, 2010), individuals with disabilities (e.g., Keller & Galgay, 2010), as well as

LGB people (e.g., Nadal et al., 2011), and LGBT people of color (e.g., Balsam et al.).

Findings indicated that LGBT individuals experience many of the microaggressions

proposed in the original taxonomy (Nadal, et al., 2010)— heterosexist terminology,

homogenization of the LGBT experience, upholding heteronormative behaviors and

culture, exoticization, rejection of the reality of heterosexism, discomfort and disapproval

of LGBT individuals, pathologizing sexual minorities, and intimidation (Nadal et al.,

2011). Additionally, findings indicated that intersecting oppressed identities impact the

frequency of microaggression experienced. Specifically, Asian American LGBT individuals seemed to experience more LGBT people of color microaggressions than

Latinos/as and African Americans, and lesbian and gay people of color had a higher frequency of microaggressions than bisexual men and women of color (Balsam et al.,

2011). Further, Latinas experienced a higher frequency of microaggressions than Latinos, younger Latinas/os experienced more microaggressions than older Latinos/as, and

Latinas/os with lower education levels experienced a higher frequency of microaggressions than more educated Latinas/os (Nadal et al., 2014).

Despite the contributions of extant scholarship on microaggressions, there is a dearth of quantitative research on sexuality-based microaggressions and an even more limited body of literature on the work-life outcomes of microaggressions and the potential moderating effect of social supports. Therefore, this study aims to expand on this gap in current scholarship through the investigation of work-life interference and job and life satisfaction outcomes of sexuality-based microaggressions, in addition to the moderating effect of social supports. Additionally, through an exploration of sexuality- based microaggressions, this study seeks to expand on extant workplace heterosexist discrimination, which will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the various covert and overt discriminatory experienced by LGBQ individuals.

Relationships as Supports with Regard to the Work-Life Interface

Social support is a protective factor against aversive mental health consequences connected to minority stress (e.g., discrimination) faced by sexual minority individuals

(Meyer, 2003). In addition, research has suggested the moderating effect of social support on the impact of psychological outcomes of various negative experiences, such as discrimination (e.g., DeGarmo & Martinez, 2006; Jasinskaja-Lahti et al., 2006; Rostosky,

Riggle, Gray, & Hatton, 2007). Vocational psychology has begun to recognize the significance of sociocultural contexts and social supports in the career development and work of almost all individuals (e.g., Savickas, 2005, Schultheiss, 2003, Super, 1990). For instance, research has supported a relationship between social supports and the career development of sexual minorities (e.g., Nauta, Saucier, & Woodard, 2001; Schmidt et al.,

2011; Schmidt & Nilsson, 2006) and college adjustment in racial and ethnicity minority populations (e.g., Dennis, Phinney, & Chuateco, 2005). Therefore, when examining the

70 relationship between perceived heterosexism, homonegative microaggressions, and work- life interference outcomes, it seems theoretically and empirically sound to include social supports as a moderator.

Although perceived support has been widely researched in relation to career development and sexual minorities, LGBT individuals often face strained relationships due to stigma, discrimination, and societal expectations of heteronormativity. Diamond

(2003) purported that same-sex couples often have to learn how to balance their identity as a romantic couple against the societal norm that is often non-supportive. Additionally, many lesbian women and gay men perceive less social support from family of origin than do non-sexual minority individuals (Elizur & Mintzer, 2003; Kurdek, 2006; Oetjen &

Rothblum, 2000). Research has suggested that homonegativity from families of origin can be regular and extensive (Dudley, Rostosky, Riggle, Duhigg, & Brodnicki, 2005), and the minority stress that one partner faces has negative impacts on his/her/their partner

(Kurdek, 2000; Otis, Riggle, & Rostosky, 2006; Rostosky & Riggle, 2002). As such, exploring three dimensions of social support – family, friends, and romantic partner – will provide more support to the hypothesis of social supports as a moderator, as well as identifying which support seems to be most helpful to LGBQ individuals when confronted with workplace discrimination and microaggressions.

As a result of the growing body of literature on career development of LGBT college students, Schmidt, Miles, and Welsh (2011) investigated the impact of discrimination and social support on career development and adjustment to college in a sample of 189 LGBT undergraduate students (Mage = 20, SD = 1.85). The sample was mostly women (59.8%; with 35.4% men, 3.2% FTM/F2M transgender men, and 1.6%

MTF/M2F transgender women), White/Caucasian (79.9%) and all participants indicated a lesbian, gay, or bisexual identity. Social support was positively related college adjustment and negatively related to career indecision and perceived discrimination. The model of perceived discrimination, social support, and the interaction of the two were statistically significant and accounted for 9% of the overall variance in career indecision.

Individuals with high levels of perceived discrimination and high levels of social support had lower vocational indecision than those who had low social support. Findings suggested that social support and perceived discrimination accounted for 20% of the variance in college adjustment; however, the interaction was not statistically significant.

Therefore, social support did not have a moderating effect on the relationship between perceived discrimination and adjustment. Although this investigation contributed to the growing body of literature addressing the unique impact of social support on the career development of LGBT individuals, several limitations exist. Specifically, the measure of discrimination was an experimenter-designed instrument with no psychometric studies of reliability and validity and the sample was limited in diversity and sexual identities, which may reduce generalizability of findings. Additionally, the study focused solely on perceived discrimination without regard to microaggressions and lacked an intersectional examination of multiple aspects of identity. Therefore, the present study will attempt to fill this gap in the literature through the use of a more diverse sample of LGBQ employees, more inclusive work-life outcomes rather than just career-related, and attending to microaggressions, as well as workplace heterosexism.

As minority stressors, such as heterosexist discrimination and stigmatization have been demonstrated to affect social support, Rostosky, Riggle, Gray, and Hatton (2007)

explored the committed partnerships of 40 same-sex couples (20 female couples; 20 male couples) and the relational outcomes of minority stress. The mean age for participants was 34.5 years (SD = 9.05) and the sample was mostly European or American White

(85%), highly educated (32% had college degrees and 31.3% has postbaccalaureate graduate or professional degrees), and had been in a romantic partnership between six months and two years (35%) where they cohabitate with their partner (89.5%). Most participants (94%) were out to their family of origin; however, only a fraction (34%) perceived their family to be supportive and/or accepting of their sexual identity.

Additionally, 75% of the participants indicated that they liked their partner’s family, but only 36% of the participants indicated that their family openly accepted their partner into their lives. Within the perceptions of discrimination and stigma factor, 33 of the 40 couples situated their minority stress and discrimination within the larger sociocultural context. Specifically, over half of the couples discussed discrimination by institutions

(i.e., religious and legal) that unjustly disadvantaged their family and/or rendered their partnerships and families as insignificant, the discrimination felt by society’s assumption that same-sex relationships are brief and impermanent, negative stereotypes of gay men and lesbian women, the assumptions that same-sex couples must adhere to gender- defined roles and limitations, and a lack of visible positive LGB role models. This lack of positive LGB role models led to many of the participants feeling socially isolated with very few social supports and models of positive same-sex partnerships. Couples reported varying degrees of experienced and anticipated rejection of their relationships. The most common experience of rejection or fear of rejection was related to families of origin, whereby sexual minority couples experienced familial uneasiness with the partnership, a

73 denial of the existence of the relationship or partner, and unconcealed attempts to sabotage the relationship.

Such experiences and anticipation of rejection resulted in hypervigilance in social settings/relationships, as well as concealment of one’s sexual identity. Specifically, almost half of the couples hid their relationship from others when they anticipated potential rejection and viewed this behavior as a “survival tactic” (p. 396). Despite a lack of social support, many of the participants reported regularly disclosing their sexual identity to family members, friends, and coworkers. In addition, participants indicated that they had low expectations of the longevity of their romantic relationship, they avoided or rejected LGB individuals who were open about their sexuality in public settings, and had an internal struggle to accept their sexual identity. Finally, participants indicated using four general types of coping strategies: self-acceptance, reframing negative experiences to empower rather than diminish sense of self, creating social support systems, and ignoring, compartmentalizing, or externalizing experiences of rejections. In short, this study emphasized the significant role of social supports in same- sex couples’ perceptions of discrimination and the well-being of the self and the relationship. Many couples longed for positive role models and indicated that the lack of access to this type of social support worsened feelings of isolation. Additionally, many couples perceived the support received from family greatly contributed to the well-being of the self and the partnership. Despite the important findings of this study, several limitations exist. For instance, the sample was limited in diversity and results may not generalize to most LGBQ couples, the study did not consider intersecting oppressed identities, and the impact of such minority stress and relationships were not addressed. As

such, the present research aims to make more explicit the moderating effect of social

supports in the relationship between minority stressor and work-life interference

outcomes.

As such, findings clearly indicate a strong relationship between social support and

various outcomes. Even in the presence of frequent perceived discrimination, sexual

minorities with high levels of social support were less likely to have vocational

indecision than those with low levels of social support (Schmidt et al., 2011). However, despite the positive effect of social supports, many sexual minorities experience a

shortage of positive LGB role models, as well as anticipated and experienced social relationship rejection; particularly, with families of origin (Rostosky et al., 2007).

Additionally, many same-sex couples experience larger sociocultural discrimination that

stains personal and romantic relationships (Rostosky et al., 2007). Therefore, sexual

minorities have varying degrees of outness within their many relationships. Scholarship

suggests that same-sex couples perceive significantly less parental and romantic

partnership support and more friendship support than mixed-sex couples (Blair &

Holmberg, 2008). Thus, due to chronic minority stress and reduced social supports—

family of origin and coworkers—sexual minorities are likely to rely more on strong

social relationship with friends and families of choice.

Relational factors in vocational psychology research have been recognized as an

influential role in career development (Kenny & Medvide, 2013). Further, minority stress

theory (Meyer, 2003) has posited social support to be a protective factor against potential

negative mental health outcomes correlated with minority stress (e.g., discrimination) of

LGBQ individuals. Additionally, a growing body of scholarship has supported the

moderating effect of social support in the relationship between negative experiences, such

as discrimination, and psychological outcomes (e.g., DeGarmo & Martinez, 2006;

Jasinskaja-Lahti et al., 2006; Rostosky et al., 2007). Despite the increasing scholarship on

social support in vocational psychology, sexual minorities have been largely ignored or

samples have been lacking in-group diversity, which has made such findings difficult to

generalize to the larger LGBQ community. Additionally, research on social supports in

the career experiences of LGBQ individuals have primarily focused on one domain (i.e.,

work or personal life); therefore, the present study seeks to fill this gap in the literature by

including a work-life interference outcome measure, as well as exploring social supports

outside of the workplace.

Work-Life Interference

Scholarship on the work-life interface acknowledges that work is embedded in

individuals’ lives (e.g., Richardson, 2002; Schultheiss, 2006), which provides a sense of

belongingness and social inclusion (Flum, 2001). It has been suggested that work can

serve as a means of embedding an individual in his/her/their culture or it can be a place of

disconnection and isolation (Blustein, Schultheiss, & Flum, 2004). As such, the invisible

and artificial boundary between work and personal life has erroneously attempted to

separate work from an individual’s familial, cultural, and social life contexts (Schultheiss,

2006). This false schism is apparent in the extant literature on LGBQ workplace

discrimination and experiences of microaggressions, as such research has tended to focus

exclusively on either work or life contexts. Even though some scholars have begun to

address the barriers and advantages that present in the work-life interface for same-sex couples (e.g., Perrone, 2005), there is overwhelming underrepresentation of LGBQ

individuals, partnerships, and families in work-family/work-life scholarship (Allen et al.,

2000; Sawyer, 2012).

Previous research has associated work-life conflict with many negative outcomes,

such as strain, distress, decreased job and life satisfaction, social withdrawal, lowered organizational commitment, and reduced marital satisfaction (e.g., Demerouti et al.,

2004; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Hill & Willoughby, 2005; MacDermid & Harvey,

2006). This relationship of conflict between work and nonwork domains has resulted in

interdisciplinary scholarship that attempts to explain factors that intensify and ameliorate

such conflict (Minnotte, 2012). Super’s (1990) career model underscores the interaction

of personal and environmental influences on the career development of individuals.

Therefore, environmental or contextual factors have the capacity to affect attitudes

towards and satisfaction with an employer or job, home life, and perception of support. A

stress-reaction understanding of work-home interference assumes that strain caused by

work-related stressors negatively impacts health and well-being (e.g., Cohen, 1997;

Grant-Vallone, & Donaldson, 2001). A primary work-related stressor for sexual

minorities is that of discrimination, including harassment, employment termination, loss

of career opportunities, and violence (e.g., Driscoll et al., 1996).

LGBT individuals are more likely than their heterosexual counterparts to identify

discrimination as being a primary barrier to living a fulfilling life (Mays & Cochran,

2001). As such, sexual minorities experience decreased job (e.g., Prati & Pietrantoni,

2014; Ragins & Cornwell, 2001) and life satisfaction (e.g., Huffman et al., 2008; Liddle et al., 2004), as well as time- and strain-based work-life interference (Sawyer, 2012), as a result of workplace heterosexism. However, workplace discrimination has been largely

ignored within the body of literature focusing on work-life/work-family conflict, despite

its association with negative work and personal well-being outcomes. Additionally,

because work-life/work-family scholarship has been primarily focused on a limited

conceptualization of family (i.e., White, heterosexual, married, middle-class, couples

with children) that excludes the work-life conflict/interference of LGBQ individuals

(Sawyer, 2012), a broader body of literature had to be reviewed for this investigation.

Building on previous research that focused on the impact of negative workplace

relationships on work-nonwork conflict, Minnotte (2012) used the 2002 National Study

of the Changing Workforce data (N = 2,335, Mage = 40.89, SD = 12.67) to explore the

relationship between sex, race, and age discrimination, and work-life conflict. The

sample consisted of almost equal representation of men and women (52% and 48%,

respectively), who were fairly educated (31% with some college, 20% with a college

degree, and 9% with a postgraduate degree), mostly White (75%), and in legally married

(59%) dual-earner households (51%). The demographic information did not include

sexual identity. Findings suggested that perceived sex discrimination was related to work-

life conflict and accounted for 2.4% of the overall variance. Sex discrimination was also

correlated with coworker and supervisor support, whereby sex discrimination and support accounted for 28.8% of the overall variance. Perceived race discrimination was

associated with work-life conflict and accounted for 1.8% of the overall variance. Race

discrimination was also related to coworker and supervisor support, whereby race

discrimination and support accounted for 28.9% of the overall variance. Finally,

perceived age discrimination was correlated work-life conflict and accounted for 1.3% of

the overall variance. Age discrimination was associated with coworker and supervisor

78 support, whereby age discrimination and support accounted for 29.3% of the overall variance.

Such findings suggest that perceived workplace discrimination is positively related to work-life conflict (Minnotte, 2012), which provides support for the present investigation. However, several limitations were evident, as sexual identity and sexuality- based workplace discrimination were not included in the analysis, support was limited to only the work context, and work-life conflict was measured with only six items that failed to capture various aspects of work-life conflict. Further, results of the multiple regression analyses did not support a moderating effect of workplace social supports

(coworker and supervisor) in the relationship of workplace discrimination and work-life conflict. Such findings might suggest that given decreased perceived support as an outcome of workplace discrimination, individuals may be more inclined to receive social support from individuals outside of the work environment (i.e., family, friends, and romantic partners). Therefore, this study seeks to fill this gap in the scholarship through the exploration of social support in the personal rather than work domain.

To address the limited focus on the importance of varying supports in work- family literature, Muse and Pichler (2011) explored the impact of different forms of social support (i.e., work-life benefit use, family support, and supervisor work-family support) on work-interference-with-family and family-interference-with-work using a sample of 209 lower-skilled workers. The sample consisted of mostly men (83%) and

Caucasian individuals (85%) who were older than 40 years-of-age (79%). Findings indicated that benefit use was not significantly related to either work-interference-with- family or family-interference-with-work. Nevertheless, supervisor support was

significantly correlated with both work-interference-with-family and family-interference-

with-work. Family support, however, was only significantly related to family-

interference-with-work, but not work-interference-with-family. Both family support and

supervisor support were significantly related to job dedication, whereas only supervisor

support was significantly correlated with task performance and interpersonal facilitation.

Additionally, neither work-interference-with-life nor life-interference-with-work were

significantly correlated with any of the job performance variables. Although such

findings provide further support for the importance of supervisor support in reducing work-interference-with-life and life-interference-with-work in lower-skilled workers, a more interesting finding was the negative relationship between family support and job performance variables. This negative relationship seemed to expand on work-family spillover models (e.g., Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985), which hypothesize that participation in and commitment to one life role, such as the family role, can decrease commitment to and performance in other life roles, such as the work role (Muse & Pichler). Even though this exploration expanded on work-family/work-life scholarship, it was limited by a

cross-sectional design that prevents causation analyses, it did not acquire sexual identity

information, had a narrow conceptualization of support, and did not attend to factors that

could impact perceived support (e.g., discrimination and microaggressions). Therefore, the present study seeks to fill this gap in the literature by providing an analysis of the effect that discrimination can have on various forms of social support, which will influence the degree of work-life interference and job and life satisfaction.

To better understand the work-family interface, Matthews, Bulger, and Barnes-

Farrell (2010) used a sample of 622 individuals (Mage = 37.2, SD = 13.4) to explore the

relationship between work social support and work role stressors, and how such work

role stressors are related to work-family conflict. The sample consisted mostly of women

(61.3%), who were married (52.7%) or in a serious relationship (17.8%), with no children

under the age of 18 living at home (59.6%), and with at least a high school (45.7%) or

Bachelor’s level of education (36.2%). Demographic characteristics did not include

sexual identity. Results indicated that supervisor support reduced work role conflict,

ambiguity, and work-family conflict; however, coworker support only decreased work

role conflict and ambiguity. As such, coworker support might be better conceptualized as

a resource, which colleagues can utilize to better understand their work roles and

expectations, but there may be little coworkers can do to lessen perceived conflicting

work-family obligations (Matthews et al.). Similarly, as family support reduced family-

to-work conflict, but not work-to-family conflict, individuals may feel there is little

support that they can receive from their families that will help reduce the conflicting

obligations at work. Findings indicated that work role conflict related to increased work

role ambiguity, work-to-family conflict, and family-to-work conflict. Work role ambiguity was associated with heightened work-to-family and family-to-work conflict.

Work-to-family conflict was positively correlated with family-to-work conflict. Although

results from this study are informative to extant work-family-work-life scholarship, it was

limited in the diversity of the sample and lacked attention to sexual minorities and

alternative constructions of ‘family.’ Further, the study did not investigate possible

antecedents to perceptions of support and/or conflict, and there was an absence of varying

life domains outside of the construct ‘family.’ Therefore, the present investigation will

attempt to fill these gaps in the literature through a purposeful investigation of possible

antecedents of perceived support and work-life conflict (i.e., workplace discrimination

and microaggressions), the potential moderating effect of support, a more diverse sample with primary focus on sexual minorities, and a broader conceptualization of the life domain to include dimensions beyond family.

As work-family scholarship has mostly ignored sexual minorities, Sawyer (2012) explored the degree to which LGB individuals experience work-family conflict. The sample consisted of 41 LGB individuals (Mage = 39.71), who were mostly women

(65.9%), lesbian-identified (43.9%; 26.8% identifying as gay, 26.8% identifying as

bisexual), White (85.4%), cohabitating (75.6%; 22% legally married), highly educated

(29.3% with at least a Bachelor’s; 31.7% with a Master’s degree, 19.5% with a PhD, and

2.4% with a PsyD), and without children (70.7%). Results indicated that ‘passing’ as a

sexual identity management strategy was significantly related to overall work-family

conflict, as well as work-family strain and behavior, as well as family-work strain and

behavior. The sexual identity management strategy of covering was also significantly

correlated with overall work-family conflict, and work-family strain and time behavior.

Unpredictably, the sexual identity management strategy of being implicitly out at work

also had a significant positive relationship with family-work time-based conflict. The

sexual identity management strategy of being explicitly out at work was negatively

correlated with work-family strain-based conflict. These findings indicated that sexual

minority individuals who try to pass as heterosexual or hide their sexuality at work are

more likely to experience increased work-family conflict than LGB individuals who are

open about their sexuality.

Regarding level of outness with friends and family, both passing and covering

were significantly related to overall work-family conflict, work-family behavior, and

family-work behavior, whereas, only covering was correlated with family-work strain

(Sawyer, 2012). Being explicitly out with friends and family was negatively related to

overall work-family conflict, as well as family-work strain-based conflict, and family-

work time-based conflict. As such, passing as a non-sexual minority or covering

strategies with friends and family may contribute to increased work-family conflict, while

being explicitly out can decrease work-family conflict in LGB individuals to an even

greater extent than being implicitly out in the workplace. Concerning social support, both

organizational support and family support were significantly related to overall work-

family conflict and work-family time-based conflict. Organizational support was

correlated with work-family strain-based conflict and work-family behavior-based

conflict, whereas, family support was related to family-work strain-based conflict and

family-work behavior-based conflict. Therefore, individuals who perceive more

organizational and familial support will likely experience decreased work-family conflict.

Regarding sexuality-based workplace discrimination, experience of workplace

heterosexism was significantly related to overall work-family conflict, as well as work-

family strain- and time-based conflict (Sawyer, 2012). Fear of sexuality disclosure in the

workplace was correlated with overall work-family conflict and work-family time-based

conflict. The findings from this research highlighted the intersection of work and family

domains in the lives of sexual minorities, as the degree and fear of outness, level of

perceived social support, and workplace heterosexism contributed to work-family

conflict. Despite this investigation’s contribution to the work-family/work-life

scholarship, several limitations exist. Specifically, the small sample size was small and had limited diversity, and the correlational analytic design did not allow for path analyses or an analysis of the moderating effect of social support. Further, the study focused on workplace heterosexism with no regard to microaggressions and only explored work-life conflict in the two dimensions of work and family—not the broader domain of life (i.e., community, romantic partnership, household management, etc.)—which could have led to a misunderstanding of the meaning of ‘family’ (i.e., biological family and/or family of choice). Therefore, the present investigation will attempt to fill these gaps though a larger more diverse sample, a structural equation analytic procedure that will explore the potential moderating effect of social support, exploration of both microaggressions and workplace heterosexism as possible antecedents of work-family outcomes, and an investigation of work-life interference across multiple life domains, as well as job and life satisfaction outcomes.

As such, findings indicated that sex, race, and age discrimination were significantly correlated with work-life conflict, as well as coworker and supervisor support (Minnotte, 2012). Supervisor support was negatively related to work-inference with family and family-interference-with-work (Muse & Pichler, 2011). However, family support was only negatively correlated with family-interference-with-work, but not work- interference-with-family (Muse & Pichler). Additionally, findings suggested that neither life-interference-with-work nor work-interference-with-life were significantly related to job performance outcomes (Muse & Pichler). Findings supported the work-family spillover hypothesis, as individuals who perceived more family support had decreased job performance (Muse & Pichler). Research suggested that supervisor and coworker support

increased perception of family support and decreased work role conflict and ambiguity;

however, only supervisor support decreased work-to-family conflict (Matthews, et al.,

2010). Although family support has been suggested to reduce family-to-work conflict and

work role conflict and ambiguity, it does not seem to reduce work-to-family conflict.

Therefore, because only supervisor support has been indicated to reduce work-to-family

conflict, support from coworkers and family may not be perceived as influential enough

to reduce conflicting work-family obligations (Matthews et al.).

Findings from limited empirical research focusing on the work-family interface in

LGB individuals suggested a correlation between different sexual identity management

strategies and work-family and family-work conflict (Sawyer, 2012). Passing and

covering were significantly correlated with work-family and family-work conflict

(Sawyer). As such, the more out a person is with friends and family seemed to contribute

to decreased levels of work-life conflict. Additionally, individuals who perceived more

family and organizational support were less likely to experience work-life conflict

(Sawyer). Findings supported the assumptions of a work-life interface in sexual minority

populations, as workplace heterosexism, the degree and fear of outness, and level of

perceived social support have been suggested to contribute to work-family conflict

(Sawyer).

Although several scholars have urged for a more inclusive definition of family

within work-family scholarship (e.g., Allen et al., 2000, Fassinger, 2000, Schultheiss,

2006), work-family/work-life literature has largely overlooked unmarried and same-sex couples (Allen et al., 2000; Fassinger, 2000). Further, workplace discrimination and microaggressions, as antecedents of work-family/work-life conflict, have been

85 insufficiently studied in work-family/work-life scholarship (Minnotte, 2012). Therefore, the present investigation attempts to fill this gap in the literature by expanding on

‘stressors’ and ‘pressures’ in work-family conflict and work-home interference research

(e.g., Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992) to include the

‘stressor/pressure’ of workplace discrimination and microaggressions. Further, this study will utilize the minority stress theory model (Meyer, 1995, 2003) to explore the potential moderating effect of social support in the relationship between workplace discrimination and microaggressions and the work-life outcomes of interference, and job and life satisfaction.

Job and Life Satisfaction

Job and life satisfaction have been extensively studied in vocational psychology; particularly, in studies on the theory of work adjustment (Dawis, England, & Lofquist,

1964; Dawis & Lofquist, 1984). Existing research has indicated that lifelong consistent life conditions can influence life satisfaction (Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2002), but recent major life experiences, such as being terminated from a job or transferring to a new place of employment, are more likely to have a negative effect on life satisfaction (Lucas,

2004). Extant scholarship has suggested that job satisfaction can be negatively impacted by both work- and non-work-related factors, such as work hours, income, the workplace environment, social support in the workplace, personality, work-life conflict, and disposition (e.g., Arthur, Edens, Bell, & Bennett, 2003; Dormann & Zapf, 2001; Eby et al., 2005; Eby, Maher, & Butts, 2010; Georgellis & Lange, 2012; Georgellis et al., 2012).

Specific to the job and life satisfaction in the lives of sexual minorities, some research has indicated that perceived heterosexism is related to decreased job satisfaction

and well-being (e.g., Lyons et al., 2005; Smith & Ingram, 2004; Ragins & Cornwell,

2001; Waldo, 1999), whereas other investigations have suggested that this relationship is

less evident (see Croteau, 1996; Croteau et al., 2000). Nevertheless, a growing body of

research has linked workplace climates that are nonsupportive of sexual and gender-

transgressive minorities to decreased job and life satisfaction and well-being (e.g.,

Brewster, Velez, DeBlaere, & Moradi, 2012; Griffith & Hebl, 2002; Huffman et al.,

2008; Liddle, Luzzo, Hauenstein, & Schuck, 2004)

To expand on the theory of work adjustment, Lyons, Brenner, and Fassinger

(2005) used a sample of 397 lesbian, gay, and bisexual employees (Mage = 33.89, SD =

9.62) to test the extent to person-organization fit mediates and moderates the relationship between workplace heterosexism and job satisfaction. The sample consisted of mostly lesbian-identified (45.8%) White (89.2%) women (59.2%), who were highly educated

(56.4% completed at least some graduate school or had a Master’s, or doctoral/professional degree), and worked full-time (68.8%). Findings indicated that workplace heterosexism and person-organization fit perceptions were both related to job satisfaction. Workplace heterosexism was significantly correlated with person- organization fit. Experiences with workplace heterosexism were significantly related to job satisfaction over that of person-organization fit. Therefore, sexual minorities who experience workplace heterosexism may have diminished job satisfaction due to low levels of person-organization fit. Although this study expanded the hypothesis of theory of work adjustment, which posits that cultural variables would influence rather than alter person-organization fit and subsequent workplace outcome variable, several limitations exist. Specifically, the research lacked diversity in the sample, which reduces the

87 generalizability of the findings. Further, the study did not attend to social supports or the work-life interface, nor did it focus on microaggressions as a potential antecedent of job and life satisfaction. As such, the present study will expand on this literature through the use of minority stress theoretical model and the psychology of working to go beyond the notion of theory of work adjustment. Further, this investigation will explore both microaggressions workplace heterosexism, as antecedents to various work-life outcomes—work-life interference and job and life satisfaction.

In a study of the varying types of support available to sexual minority employees,

Huffman, Watrous-Rodriguez, and King (2008) used a sample of 99 LGB-identified individuals (Mage = 36.5, SD = 8.78) to explore the relationship between the form of support and the outcomes of degree of outness and job and life satisfaction. The sample consisted of mostly gay or lesbian-identified (95.7%), White (84.0%), men (61.7%), who were highly educated (40.4% with a college degree and 38.3% with at least some completed postgraduate coursework or degree), not involved in a committed relationship

(52.1%), and had no children (85.1%). Findings indicated that all three forms of support—supervisor support, coworker support, and LGB-supportive climate—were significantly related to both job and life satisfaction, whereas, only coworker support and

LGB-supportive climate were correlated with outness at work. Additionally, job and life satisfaction were significantly related. Results provide further evidence that varying types of support can impact job and life satisfaction, and that LGB-supportive climate and coworkers can influence the degree to which sexual minorities are out in the workplace.

Although this study contributed greatly to LGBT vocational psychology literature, it was limited by its small sample that was not diverse in demographic representation, and it

lacked attention to possible antecedents of social support in the workplace (i.e.,

discrimination). Further, the research only focused on workplace supports and, therefore,

did not address life variables outside of the workplace (i.e., family, friends, and romantic

partners) that could contribute to life satisfaction. The present investigation aims to

expand on this research through an explicit exploration of both workplace discrimination

and microaggressions, as antecedents to support and job and life satisfaction.

Additionally, the present study will include work-life domains, attend to supports outside

of the workplace, and utilize minority stress theory as a structural equation model to test

the network of relationships among the aforementioned constructs.

To better understand the relationship between workplace outness and job

satisfaction, Prati and Pietrantoni (2014) used a sample of 1,460 LGB employees in Italy

(Mage = 36.63, SD = 8.36) to study the mediating effect of workplace heterosexist climate

and the moderating role of anticipated discrimination the connection between workplace

outness and job satisfaction. The sample consisted of mostly gay men (68.7%; where

only 23.4% identified as lesbian women, 3.3% as bisexual men, and 4.4% as bisexual

women), who were Italian citizens (98.5%), and were highly educated (55.3% reported

having a professional/master’s/doctoral degree and 37.4% reported having a college or

high school degree). Findings indicated that workplace heterosexist climate, workplace

outness, and anticipated discrimination were all significantly related to job satisfaction.

Additionally, both workplace heterosexist climate and anticipated discrimination were

significantly correlated with workplace outness. Results indicated a significant interaction

between workplace outness and anticipated discrimination on job satisfaction, as well as

between workplace heterosexist climate and anticipated discrimination on job

satisfaction. Therefore, workplace heterosexist climate was found to have a direct mediator effect between workplace outness and job satisfaction and that anticipated discrimination had a moderating effect on the relationship between workplace outness and job satisfaction (Prati & Pietrantoni). Although this study contributed to existing findings that discrimination impact workplace outness and job satisfaction (e.g., Ragins,

2004; Ragins et al., 2007), it was limited in its generalizability due to the Italian-based sample with limited diversity. Further, the research did not address supports within or outside of the workplace and only investigated the work domain of LGB individuals’ lives. Additionally, the investigation did not measure perceived experiences of discrimination and/or microaggression, which limited its ability to study possible antecedents of outness in the workplace. Therefore, the present investigation will attempt to expand on this literature through an exploration of work-life variables, the potential moderating effect of support, and experienced workplace heterosexism and microaggressions.

Expanding on the research suggesting the existence of a disproportionate level of stress associated with marginalized identities, Velez, Moradi, and Brewster (2013) studied 326 sexual minority employees (Mage = 38.42, SD = 12.11) to examine the extent

to which minority stressors— anticipated stigma, workplace discrimination, identity

management strategies, and internalized heterosexism—related to psychological distress

and job satisfaction. The sample consisted of mostly White/Caucasian (80%), exclusively

lesbian or gay-identified (62%, with 22% bisexual-identified, 13% mostly lesbian or gay,

and 3% other minority orientation), women (53%, with 43% as men, 2% as MTF/M2F

transgender, 2% as other genders, and less than 1% at FTM/F2M transgender), who were

90 highly educated (50% with a professional/master’s/doctoral degree, 33% with a college degree, and 14% with some college education), and had full-time employment (79%).

Results indicated that through the mediating role of avoiding sexual identity management strategy, both internalized heterosexism and workplace heterosexist discrimination had positive indirect links with psychological distress. Through the mediating role of integrating sexual identity management strategy, both internalized heterosexism and workplace heterosexist discrimination had negative indirect links with job satisfaction.

Through the mediating role of integrating sexual identity management strategy, anticipated stigma had a positive indirect link with job satisfaction. Findings suggested a significant interaction between internalized heterosexism, workplace discrimination, and gender. For men, the relationship between workplace heterosexist discrimination and psychological distress were significant at both high and low levels of internalized heterosexism. For women, the relationship between workplace heterosexist discrimination and psychological distress was only significant at high levels of internalized heterosexism.

Addition findings indicated that all three sexual identity management strategies

(i.e., counterfeiting, avoiding, and integrating), as well as internalized heterosexism, were all significant moderators between workplace heterosexist discrimination (Velez, Moradi,

& Brewster, 2013). For the interaction between workplace heterosexism and internalized heterosexism, the indirect link with job satisfaction was stronger for LGB individuals with low levels of internalized heterosexism than individuals with higher levels of internalized heterosexism. LGB individuals with a low degree of counterfeiting and avoiding sexual identity management strategies had higher levels of job satisfaction than

for LGB individuals with higher levels of counterfeiting and avoiding sexual identity

management strategies. Finally, LGB individuals with a high degree of integrating sexual identity management strategies had higher levels of job satisfaction than for LGB individuals with lower levels of integration. Findings from this study expanded on the extant scholarship of minority stress theory through the exploration of the relationships between a comprehensive set of minority stressors and psychological and vocational outcomes. Despite the contributions of this study to the field, the study was limited in its relatively homogeneous sample and its absence of experienced microaggressions as a potential antecedent of negative vocational and psychological outcomes. Further, the research utilized a comparatively individualistic model that did not attend to social supports and it did not account for additional life outcomes other than psychological distress. Therefore, the present investigation will attempt to fill these gaps in the literature through an examination of the relationship between minority stressors (i.e., workplace heterosexism and microaggressions) and work-life outcomes, and the potential moderating effect of social supports, through the same minority stress theoretical model.

As such, findings indicated that workplace heterosexism was negatively correlated with job satisfaction (Lyons et al., 2005; Velez, Moradi, & Brewster, 2013).

Additionally, person-organization fit of LGB individuals was positively related to job satisfaction (Lyons et al.). Thus, sexual minorities who experience increased levels of workplace heterosexism may have reduced job satisfaction due to perceptions of poor organizational fit (Lyons et al.). Findings suggested that support (i.e., coworker, supervisor, and LGB supportive climate) was positively related to both life and job satisfaction (Huffman et al., 2008). Coworker support and workplace climate have been

related in predictable ways to job and life satisfaction (Huffman et al.; Prati &

Pietrantoni, 2014). Additionally, findings suggested that workplace and internalized

heterosexism were negatively correlated with job satisfaction.

Although research has suggested that perceived discrimination in non-LGBQ

populations is negatively related to job and life satisfaction (e.g., Ensher et al., 2001;

Taylor, McLoughlin, Meyer, & Brooke, 2013; Sanchez & Brock, 1996), scholarship

focusing on sexual minorities has been limited (cf. Prati & Pietrantoni, 2014; Ragins &

Cornwell, 2001; Velez & Moradi, 2012; Velez, Moradi, & Brewster, 2013). Further,

LGBQ workplace discrimination and microaggressions, as antecedents of job and life satisfaction, have been insufficiently studied in vocational psychology. Therefore, the present investigation attempts to fill these gaps in the literature through the inclusion of job and life satisfaction as work-life outcomes of workplace heterosexism and microaggressions. Additionally, this study will explore the potential moderating effect of social support on the relationship between workplace discrimination and microaggressions and job and life satisfaction.

Summary

Sexual minority workplace discrimination is a common experience for LGB individuals (Chung et al., 2009). Research has suggested that workplace heterosexism is related to psychological distress (Carter et al., 2014; Ragins, Singh, & Cornwell, 2007;

Smith & Ingram, 2004), as well as various negative work outcomes and decreased workplace social supports (Ragins, Singh, & Cornwell). Additionally, the original taxonomy of sexuality-based microaggressions (Nadal et al., 2010) has been demonstrated to capture LGBT individuals’ experiences of microaggressions (Nadal, et

al., 2010). Research findings indicate that intersecting oppressed identities impact

frequency of microaggression experiences (e.g., Balsam et al., 2013; Nadal, et al., 2014).

Existing scholarship suggests that LGBT stigmatization and prejudice are related to

psychological distress outcomes, such as demoralization, suicide, guilt, and traumatic

stress response (Meyer, 1995). Further, LGBT victimization has been shown to increase

depressive symptomatology and decrease life satisfaction and self-esteem (Russell,

Toomey, Ryan, & Diaz, 2014).

To cope with such heterosexism, particularly in the workplace, sexual minorities

are likely to use sexual identity management strategies (Chung et al., 2009; Lance et al.,

2010). Scholarship has identified silence and social support to be the most frequently used coping mechanisms (Chung et al.). Sexual minorities are more likely to receive support from coworkers, friends, and romantic partners than support from family (Chung et al.). LGBQ individuals may be less inclined to receive support from families of origin than non-sexual minorities, due to the frequent stressors sexual minorities have related to family of origin – discrimination, inaccessibility, and rejection (Balsam, Beadnell, &

Molina, 2013). Compared to men, sexual minority women seem to be more negatively affected by the stress induced by relational stigmatization, such as the stigmatization experienced in parenting, family of origin, and vicarious trauma (Balsam et al.).

Existing scholarship (e.g., DeGarmo & Martinez, 2006; Jasinskaja-Lahti et al.,

2006; Rostosky, Riggle, Gray, & Hatton, 2007) indicates a robust relationship between social support and various outcomes. Even though social support from romantic partners, family, and friends has been negatively correlated with depression (Oetjen & Rothblum,

2000), same-sex couples perceive considerably less parental and romantic partnership

support and more friendship support than opposite-sex couples (Blair & Holmberg,

2008). Research has indicated that even when sexual minorities are confronted with

frequent perceived discrimination, social support can have a moderating effect on vocational decision-making (Schmidt et al., 2011). However, many LGBQ individuals experience an absence of encouraging LGB role models and tend to have experienced and anticipated social relationship rejection; especially with families of origin (Rostosky et al., 2007). Further, larger systemic and sociocultural discrimination has been suggested to add additional strain on LGBQ individuals’ personal and romantic relationships

(Rostosky et al., 2007) Therefore, due to the fears of social rejection and frequent experiences of discrimination, sexual minorities engage in different levels of outness within their various relationships (Oetjen & Rothblum).

Research has indicated that workplace discrimination is related to work-life conflict, as well as supervisor and coworker support (Minnotte, 2012). Even though supervisor support has been suggested to reduce work-interference-with-life, family and coworker support only reduced life-interference-with-work (Muse & Pichler, 2011). As such, coworkers and family are likely perceived to be less able to reduce competing work-life obligations than a supervisor (Matthews et al., 2010). Research has supported the work-family spillover hypothesis, as individuals who perceived high levels of family support also had decreased job performance (Muse & Pichler)

Finally, existing research indicates a negative relationship between workplace heterosexism and job satisfaction (Lyons et al., 2005; Velez, Moradi, & Brewster, 2013).

Previous scholarship has suggested that support (i.e., coworker, supervisor, and LGB supportive climate) was positively correlated with both job and life satisfaction (Huffman

et al., 2008). Coworker support and workplace climate have been positively related to job

and life satisfaction (Huffman et al.; Prati & Pietrantoni, 2014). Additionally, research

indicates that workplace and internalized heterosexism were negatively related to job

satisfaction.

Despite the increasing body of conceptual and empirical literature on the

vocational experiences of sexual minorities, common limitations exist. For instance,

samples have been lacking in diversity beyond that of sexual identity, which further

perpetuates the sexuality-based microaggression of assumption of homogeneity.

Specifically, the samples are largely White, gay- or lesbian-identified, cisgender men and women, who are highly educated. Another limitation is the assumption that the work experiences of LGB individuals occur in a vacuum, as extant literature on LGB workplace discrimination lacks a work-life interface theoretical approach and, thus, fails to recognize work-life outcomes of workplace heterosexism. Further, research has predominately focused on more overt and direct forms of workplace heterosexism rather than microaggressions (Anderson & Croteau, 2013). Nadal et al. (2011) has posited that

expanding the empirical knowledgebase on sexuality-based discrimination is crucial to

counseling psychologists’ attempts at preventing mental and physical health disparities in

sexual minorities. As such, the present study will attempt to fill these gaps in the extant

scholarship.

Given the dearth of scholarship on work-life interference beyond heterosexual,

married, couples with children (cf. Sawyer, 2012), the present study aims to explore a

broader conceptualization of work-life interference—beyond that of the family—in a

sample of sexual minorities. Additionally, most research on sexual minorities—career-

related and broader psychological constructs included—has not acquired a sample of

within-group diversity. As such, sexual minorities who have an identity beyond that of

lesbian or gay, are racial or ethnic minorities, are of lower educational level and

socioeconomic status, and those who are not cisgender, have been largely ignored.

Further, research on workplace discrimination and the work-life interface have largely

occurred in two separate vacuums (cf. Minnotte, 2012), and research that has explored

workplace heterosexism has not been inclusive of microaggressions (Anderson &

Croteau) and has not included supportive relationships beyond those experienced in the

workplace (e.g., Chung et al., 2009; Lance et al., 2010). Given the lack of research in these areas, one of the principal aims of this investigation is to study utilize minority stress theory (Meyer 1995, 2003) to assess the relationship between minority stressors— workplace heterosexism and microaggressions—and work-life outcomes, such as work- life interference and job and life satisfaction. As research has suggested that social support can reduce the adverse outcomes of work-related stress among mainly heterosexual samples (e.g., Witt & Carlson, 2006), the present study will analyze the moderating effect of social supports in the relationship between the aforementioned minority stressors and work-life outcomes.

Hypotheses

97 satisfaction). It is also hypothesized that perceived social support will moderate the relationships between the experience homonegative microaggressions and heterosexist workplace discrimination, and work-life outcomes (i.e., work interference with life and job and life satisfaction). Specifically, perceived social support is hypothesized to buffer the relationship of homonegative microaggressions and heterosexist workplace discrimination on work-life outcomes.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Participants

Three-hundred and eighty five participants identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual or queer were included in the current study. Inclusionary criteria for participants in this study consisted of being at least 18 years old, identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or queer, and being employed at least part-time (i.e., working at least 10 hours per week) within the six months prior to completion of the survey and within the U.S. Individuals who identify as transgender/trans*/gender nonconforming were also included in the present study if they also identify as a sexual minority. Recruitment for participants occurred over the span of two months.

There were initially a total of 470 participants. Four participants were removed due to not meeting the identification criteria, as they reported identifying as heterosexual.

There were 26 participants who were removed because they did not consent to taking the survey. An additional 55 participants were removed because they discontinued taking the survey prematurely, which resulted in a total of 192 incomplete measures (i.e., 47 incomplete HMS, 36 incomplete MSPSS, 54 incomplete SWLS, and 55 incomplete JSS).

Table 1 Demographic Characteristics of the Sample

Variable n Sample % Discrimination Reporting Complaint with HR 47 12.2 Lawsuit 4 1.0 Told Supervisor/Manager 86 22.3 Told Coworkers 123 31.9 Told Romantic Partner 240 62.3 Told Friends Outside of Work 272 70.6 Told Family of Origin 50 13.0 Discrimination Possibly Based on Other Identities 94 24.4 Woman 16 3.9 Race 5 1.3 Intersection of Multiple Identities 12 2.9 Disability 1 .3 Mental Health 1 .3 Gender or Trans* Identity 13 3.2 Weight 1 .3 Religion 1 .3 Other 44 10.7 Sexual Identity Lesbian 128 33.2 Gay 79 20.5 Bisexual 91 23.6 Queer 222 57.7 Asexual 14 3.6 Demisexual 21 5.5 Fluid 25 6.5 Table continues

100

Pansexual 51 13.2 Same Gender Loving 17 4.4 Man Who Has Sex with Men 10 2.6 Woman Who Has Sex with Women 20 5.2 Skoliosexual 6 1.6 Sexual Identity Not Listed 6 1.6 Gender Identity Woman 233 60.5 Man 66 17.1 Transgender 55 14.3 FTM/F2M 20 5.2 MTF/M2F 3 .8 Cisgender 77 20.0 Genderqueer 60 15.6 Intersex 2 .5 Gender Nonbinary 59 15.3 Two Spirit 8 2.1 Bigender 3 .8 Agender 13 3.4 Androgynous 21 5.5 Third Gender 2 .5 Genderfuck 6 1.6 Transsexual 6 1.6 Boi 9 2.3 Gender Identity Not Listed 11 2.9 Gender Expression Masculine 118 30.6 Feminine 173 44.9 Fluid 49 12.7 Nonconforming 79 20.5 Table continues

101

Normative 17 4.4 Sub 9 2.3 Dom 10 2.6 Transfeminine 2 .5 Femme 78 20.3 Butch 29 7.5 Stud 2 .5 Gender Expression Not Listed 18 4.7 Social Supports Family of Origin 332 86.2 Family of Choice 289 75.1 Partner(s) 314 81.6 Coworkers 296 76.9 Peers 257 66.8 Employer(s)/Supervisor(s) 242 62.9 Friends 370 96.1 Professor(s)/Mentor(s) 202 52.5 Student(s)/Mentee(s) 141 36.6 Employee(s)/Supervisee(s) 154 40.0 Extended Family 240 62.3 Neighbor(s) 166 43.1 Community 216 56.1 Social Support Not Listed 20 5.2 LGBTQ Community Involvement Attending LGBTQ Community Events 335 87.0 Membership to LGBTQ Political Action Group(s) 134 34.8 Open Advocate for LGBTQ Concerns in Workplace 212 55.1 Member of Diversity Taskforce in Workplace 77 20.0 Attending LGBTQ Political Events/Rallies 224 58.2 Subscribing to LGBTQ Magazine/Social Media Group 312 81.0 Table continues

102

Talking to Members in Community/Neighborhood 244 63.4 Involvement Not Listed 50 13.0 Online Activism/Community Involvement 4 1.0 Leadership for LGBTQ Organization 6 1.6 College Campus/School LGBTQ 5 1.3 Activism/Group Research on LGBT Issues 5 1.3 Grassroots Organizer 3 .8 Trans-Centric Nonprofit 2 .5 Intersectional Social Justice 1 .3 LGBTQ Church 3 .8 Queer Friendly Healthcare Provider 1 .3 Student of Gender, Sexuality, Feminist Studies 1 .3 Volunteer for LGBTQ Community 2 .5 LGBTQ Youth Organizer 3 .8 Little to No Involvement 8 2.1

Note. N = 385.Participants were able to select multiple indicators for each identity; therefore, the n and sample percentage of each demographic variable will not equal the N or 100% of the sample.

No pattern related to participant demographics and discontinuation of the survey emerged. Therefore, a total of 85 participants excluded from the analyses, which yielded a completion rate of 77.93%. See Table 1 for a summary of participant demographics.

A total of 385 (233 woman-identified, 66 man-identified, 77 cisgender, 55 transgender, 60 genderqueer, 59 gender nonbinary, 21 androgynous, 13 agender, 8 two- spirit, 6 genderguck, 6 transsexual, 9 boi, 2 intersex and 11 “gender identity not listed:”

[2 questioning, 3 fluid, 1 butch, 1 femme, 1 iso-male, 1 transmasculine, and 1 autigender]) lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer-identified individuals were included in the present study. The distribution for gender was 60.5% woman-identified, 17.1% man-

103

identified, 20.0% cisgender, 14.3% transgender (20 FTM/F2M and 3 MTF/M2F), 15.6%

genderqueer, 15.3% gender nonbinary, 5.5% androgynous, 3.4% agender, 2.1% two-

spirit, 1.6% genderfuck, 1.6% transsexual, 2.3 boi, and 0.5% intersex). Participant ages

ranged from 18-64 years old (M = 30.18; SD = 8.88). Participants self-identified their racial background as 301 (78.2%) Non-Hispanic White/European American, 27 (7.0%)

Hispanic/Latino/a/x, 17 (4.4%) African American/Black, 8 (2.1%) Asian

American/Asian, 6 (1.6%) American Indian/Alaska Native, 1 (0.3%) Native

Hawaiian/Pacific Islander), and 25 (6.5) as a racial identity that was not listed (10

Biracial, 5 Multiracial, 2 Jewish, 5 Middle Eastern, 2 Caribbean, and 1 Cajun).

Participants were primarily from city/metropolitan/urban locations: 135 (35.1%) city, 122

(31.7%) major metropolitan area, 49 (12.7%) urban, 39 (10.1%) suburban, 28 (7.3%) small town, and 9 (2.3%) rural. The geographic region of participants consisted mostly of individuals from the East Coast: 81 (21.0%) South Atlantic, 59 (15.3%) New England, 59

(15.3%) Mid-Atlantic, 80 (20.8%) East North Central, 31 (8.1%) West North Central, 47

(12.2%) Pacific, 11(2.9%) Mountain, 10 (2.6%) West South Central, and 6 (1.6%) East

South Central.

With regard to sexual identity, the majority of participants identified as lesbian (n

= 128, 33.2%), gay (n = 79, 20.5%), bisexual (n = 91, 23.6%), and queer (n = 222,

57.7%). However, given the complex and discursive nature of identities, many

participants indicated identifying with more than one sexual identity descriptor.

Participants also identified as pansexual (n = 51, 13.2%), fluid (n = 25, 6.5%), woman who has sex with women (n = 20, 5.2%), same gender loving (n = 17, 4.4%), asexual (n =

14, 3.6%), man who has sex with men (n = 10, 2.6%), skoliosexual (n = 6, 1.6%), and

104

“sexual identity not listed:” (2 gray ace, 1 demi romantic, 1 gynephilic, 1 polyromantic, and 1 sapiosexual). With regard to gender expression, which differs from gender identity, the majority of participants identified as feminine (n = 173, 44.9%), masculine (n = 118,

30.6%), nonconforming (n = 79, 20.5%), femme (n = 78, 20.3%), and fluid (n = 49,

12.7%). Participants also identified as butch (n = 29, 7.5%), normative (n = 17, 4.4%), dom (n = 10, 2.6%), sub (n = 9, 2.3%), transfeminine (n = 2, 0.5%), stud (n = 2, 0.5%), and “gender expression not listed:” (2 androgynous, 2 transmasculine, 2 stemme, one bear, one questioning, one hard femme, one not masc, one male-presenting, one queer, one soft butch, one tomboy, and one “does not like labels”).

Two-hundred fifty two (65.5%) participants indicated they were employed full- time, 29 (7.5%) part-time, 18 (4.7%) full-time (3.9%) or part-time (0.8%) graduate students, 16 (4.2%) full-time (2.9%) or part-time (1.3%) undergraduate students, 13

(3.4%) not employed but were actively looking for employment, 3 (0.8%) disabled, and

54 (14%) indicated “employment status not listed:” (responding with a combination of the aforementioned statuses, temporary employment, graduate assistantships, and volunteer work).The majority of participants had a bachelor’s degree (n = 132, 34.3%) or a professional or graduate degree (n = 141, 36.6%). The remaining participants reported completing some graduate school (n = 34, 8.8%) some college (n = 57, 14.8%), an associate’s degree (n = 15, 3.9%) high school or GED (n = 4, 1.0%), and some high school (n = 2, 0.5%). Participants also represented diverse socioeconomic brackets in regards to household income (M = $69,140.79, SD = $159,980.83).

With regard to relationship status, almost half (44.9%) of the participants indicated being in a monogamous relationship with either someone of the same gender (n

105

= 113, 29.4%) or another gender (n = 48, 12.5%). Eleven percent of participants indicated being in a polyamorous relationship with either individuals of the same gender (n = 20,

5.2%) or another gender (n = 23, 6.0%). Seventeen percent of participants reported

currently dating individuals of the same gender (n = 48, 12.5%) or of another gender (n =

17, 4.4%). Fourteen percent of participants indicated being married to either someone of

the same gender (n = 40, 10.4%) or another gender (n = 15, 3.9%). Ten percent of

individual reported being in an open relationship with either a same-gender partner (n =

23, 6.0%) or other-gender partner (n = 17, 4.4%). The majority (89.6%) of the

participants reported having no children (n = 345), whereas 5.2% reported having one

child (n = 20), 2.9% reported having two children (n = 11), 1.3% reported having three

children (n = 5), 0.3% reported having four children (n = 1), 0.5% reported having five

children (n = 2), and one participant reported having 41 children (0.3%). Additionally,

the majority (94.8%) of participants reported having zero dependents (n = 365), whereas

the remaining participants indicated having one dependent (n = 2, 0.5%), two dependents

(n = 1, 0.3%), grandchildren as dependents (n = 1, 0.3%), one or more dogs as dependents (n = 7, 1.8%), one or more cats as dependents (n = 7, 1.8%), or other pets as dependents (n = 2, .05%).

Participants indicated a variety of individuals who constitute what they consider to be “family.” The majority of participants reported family consisting of blood relatives

(n = 351, 91.2%), extended family (n = 254, 66.0%), partner/s (n = 241, 62.6%), and close friend/s (n = 247, 64.2%). The remaining participants reported family consisting of in-law/s or parent/s of partner (n = 136, 35.3%), adoptive family member/s (n = 103,

26.8%), children/child (n = 57, 14.8%), and mentor/s (n = 50, 13.0%). With regard to

106

family members to which one is out, the majority of participants indicated being out to

sibling/s (n = 306, 79.5%), more than one parental figure (n = 276, 71.1%), cousin/s (n =

251, 65.2%), and aunt/s and uncle/s (n = 246, 63.90%). Over one-third of participants

reported being out to niece/s and nephew/s (n = 143, 37.1%), and in-laws or parent/s of

partner (n = 145, 37.7%). The remaining participants reported being out to a parent (n =

100, 26.0%), stepparent/s (n = 56, 14.5%), and adoptive family (n = 13, 3.4%).

Conversely, 9.4% of participants reported that they are not out to anyone in their family

(n = 36).

Following the experience of workplace discrimination based on one’s sexual

identity, the majority of participants reported the incident to individuals outside of the

work setting, such as friends outside of work (n = 272, 70.6%), romantic partner/s (n =

240, 62.3%), and family of origin (n = 50, 13.0%). When the workplace discrimination

was disclosed to individuals within the work setting, participants reported telling

coworkers (n = 123, 31.9%), telling their supervisor or manager (n = 86, 22.3%), filing a

complaint with human resources (n = 47, 12.2%), and filing a lawsuit (n = 4, 1.0%).

Additionally, almost one-quarter of participants (24.4%) indicated that the discrimination that they experienced could have been based on other identities, such as woman (n = 16,

3.9%), gender or trans* identity (n = 13, 3.2%), intersection of multiple oppressed identities (n = 12, 2.9%), race (n = 5, 1.3%), disability (n = 1, 0.3%), mental health (n =

1, 0.3%), weight (n = 1, 0.3%), religion (n = 1, 0.3%), or other (n = 44, 10.7).

Sampling Procedures

As being a sexual minority is an invisible minority identity and, therefore, more

difficult to solicit participants, purposive, criterion, and snowball sampling methods were

107

utilized. Purposive, judgment, or quota sampling procedures refer to the deliberate

selection of individuals based on particular characteristics that will yield a sample of

participants that reflects and can be generalized to the population of interest (Howitt &

Cramer, 2011). Criterion sampling procedures refer to the recruitment of participants who must meet specific inclusionary criteria to be able to participate, and snowball or chain- referral, sampling refers to the use of existing study participants to recruit future participants from their acquaintances (Howitt & Cramer).

Participants were solicited via announcement on LGBT-related pages and groups of a well-known social media outlet, Facebook. The keywords for searching Facebook pages and groups consisted of the following: (a) LGBTQ, (b) LGBT, (c) lesbian, (d) gay,

(e) bisexual, and (f) queer. An exhaustive list of 39 groups and 198 liked pages were used to solicit participants for the present investigation, and the author attempted to acquire a diverse list of groups and pages (i.e., “Military LGBT PRIDE Month 2017,” “LGBT

Hiking Club – Stonewall Columbus,” “Queer Anarchism,” “Queer People of Color

Collective,” “Queer Undocumented Immigrant Project,” “LGBT for Trump,” and “Log

Cabin Republicans”). The search for groups/pages ceased once the author reached an acceptable number (i.e., acquiring more groups/pages than the 200 participants needed for this investigation) and an adequate degree of diversity in groups/pages (i.e., soliciting participants from various geographical locations in the U.S. through LGBT community center pages, varying occupations through union pages, varied interests, diverse intersecting identities, and differing political leanings). Although the group/pages used in the present study do not favor any one particular sexual or gender identity, it is possible that the disproportionate number of lesbian, bisexual, and queer-identified cisgender

108

women is due to the author’s gender presentation in her Facebook photo. Participants

were directed to an electronic version of the survey, linked from the call for participants

post. The survey was administered electronically via SurveyMonkey, whereby electronic

consent was required prior to the commencement of data collection. Approval from the

Cleveland State University Institutional Review Board (IRB) was sought prior to

conducting the present study. Upon completion of the survey, participants had the

opportunity to enter a drawing for one of fifty $20 Amazon Gift Cards.

Measures

Demographic Questionnaire. The demographic questionnaire requested

information related to the following demographic information: age, race/ethnicity, gender

identity (e.g., cisgender woman/cis-woman, cisgender man/cis-man,

genderqueer/androgynous/genderfuck, intersex, agender/genderless/non-gendered, non-

binary, bi-gender, two spirit, third gender), gender expression (e.g., masculine, feminine,

gender-fluid), sexual identity (e.g., gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer), relationship status (e.g.,

monogamous committed relationship/marriage, polyamorous committed

relationship(s)/marriage, single, dating), relationship type (e.g., same-sex, opposite-sex,

both sexes), type of employment (e.g., field and level), full-time/part-time work status,

highest educational degree obtained, number of children or other dependents, geographic

population (e.g., metropolitan, suburban, and rural), and state of residency (see Appendix

A). Given the complex and discursive nature of identity, participants were able to

indicate any number of identifiers under a given identity category.

Workplace Heterosexist Experiences Questionnaire. The Workplace

Heterosexist Experiences Questionnaire (WHEQ; Waldo, 1999) is a self-report

109 instrument that measures the subjective assessment of sexuality-based harassment and discrimination in the workplace, ranging from subtle and covert discrimination to overt and hostile harassment (see Appendix B). The measure contains 22 Likert-type items that measure indirect forms of heterosexism that are manifested due to lack of inclusivity in language and behavior, and overt forms of anti-gay behavior in the workplace that are prejudicial and malicious in intent. Participants are presented with the stem, “During the past six months in your workplace, have you ever been in a situation where any of your coworkers or supervisors…” followed by items rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (never) to 4 (most of the time). The present investigation altered the timeframe from the past 24 months to the past six months to remain consistent with other time-limited measures. Sample items include “…told offensive jokes about lesbians, gay men, or bisexual people (e.g., “fag” or “dyke” jokes, AIDS jokes)?” and “…avoided touching you (e.g., shaking your hand) because of your sexual orientation?” Items were developed through interviews with employed LGB individuals and a content analysis of the relevant literature (e.g., Friskopp & Silverstein, 1995; Woods, 1993). Similar to measures of workplace-based sex discrimination and sexual harassment (e.g., Fitzgerald,

Shullman, Bailey, Richards, Swecker, Gold, Ormerod, & Weitzman, 1988; Gelfand,

Fitzgerald, & Drasgow, 1995), items were written in behavioral terms and designed to measure the frequency of workplace discrimination and harassment during a time-limited period. Items were presented to participants of a conference on diversity and sexual orientation in the workplace, and were revised following their recommendations. Scale development was conducted on two samples: 180 participants gathered from two LGB community events in a medium-sized Northeastern city (54.4% men and 90.3% White;

110

Mage = 37.7, SD = 7.8) and 107 participants gathered from an LGBT community center mailing list in a small Midwestern city (65.4% men and 93.5% White; Mage = 39.0, SD =

11.1).

Prior studies have evidenced good internal consistency (α = .93; Waldo, 1999).

Evidence for concurrent validity has been supported by predictable relationships with

health problems, psychological distress, perceptions of workplace tolerance of

heterosexism, job satisfaction (r = .32, .38, .53, -.24, respectively; Waldo), evaluation of

LGB supportiveness at the workplace, person-organization fit, job satisfaction, turnover intentions, (r = -.69, -.38, -.36, .28, respectively; Velez & Moradi, 2012), and psychological distress (r = .28; Carter et al., 2013). Specifically, higher levels of workplace heterosexist discrimination has been demonstrated to be negatively correlated with job satisfaction (Velez & Moradi; Waldo), person-organization fit and LGB- supportive climates (Velez & Moradi), and positively related to psychological distress and health conditions (Carter et al.; Waldo), turnover intentions (Velez & Moradi), and internalized heterosexism (Carter et al.). In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.89 for the WHEQ.

Homonegative Microaggressions Scale. The Homonegative Microaggressions

Scale (HMS; Wright & Wegner, 2012) is a self-report instrument that measures the subjective assessment of perceived microaggressions based on sexual orientation across four subscales: Assumed Deviance, Second-Class Citizen, Assumptions of Gay Culture, and Stereotypical Knowledge and Behavior (see Appendix C). The measure contains 27

Likert-type items that are rated on 5-point scale ranging from 1 (hardly ever/never/not at all) to 5 (consistently/a great deal). Initially, 30 items of sexual minority

111

microaggressions were developed to parallel the taxonomy of racial microaggressions

(Sue et al., 2007) that categorized experiences of racial microaggressions into the

following themes: alien in one’s own land, criminality/assumption of criminality, second-

class citizen, ascription of intelligence, assumption of inferiority, colorblindness, denial

of racial reality, pathologizing cultural values/communication styles, denial of individual

racism, and environmental racial microaggressions, and the general themes of

microinsults, microinvalidations, and microassaults. Professors who were experts in

microaggressions/and or sexual minority issues, including one who has studied sexual

minority stress extensively, one who is an expert in microaggressions, and two who are

experts in sexual minority discrimination, were consulted prior to the pilot study to

ensure that items generated for the HMS adequately addressed the construct across the 11

themes.

A pilot study consisting of the original 30 items and one open-ended question for

each theme (e.g., “How often has someone done something else other than what is listed

above, to make you feel like your values or communication style are wrong or bad?) was

conducted on 28 individuals (53.6% men, 64.3% White, 50% gay-identified; Mage = 27,

SD = 6.22) from LGB social networking sites, listservs, and online communities (Wright

& Wegner). Based on feedback from the same aforementioned experts in the field, seven items were added to the HMS following the pilot study and another eight items were added based on participant responses to the open-ended questions, resulting in a 45-item measure.

An exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the 45-item HMS (Wegner,

2014). The sample consisted of 120 participants (Mage = 34, SD = 11.6) who were mostly

112

White (86%), gay-identified (55%), cisgender men (56%). Four factors emerged related

to assumptions of criminality and deviance (Assumed Deviance), the person as a less important member of society (Second-Class Citizen), sexual minorities within a heteronormative and heterosexist society (Assumptions of Gay Culture), and stereotypes assigned to sexual minorities (Stereotypical Knowledge and Behavior) (Wegner). The remaining items associated with the other seven themes were deleted. Therefore, items were reduced to 33 that directly related to homonegative microaggressions associated with the four factors identified above.

A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on the remaining 33 items.

Goodness-of-fit indices and residual analyses recognized several problems with the exploratory model confirmation (Wegner, 2014). Six items had an unsatisfactory fit with the proposed theoretical model and were subsequently excluded. The final model, consisting of 27 items, was then retested for goodness-of-fit and confirmed the four- factor solution of the exploratory factor analysis (Wegner).

The Assumed Deviance subscale consists of nine Likert-type items that measure microaggressions based on the presumption that sexual minorities are fundamentally flawed and sexual deviants (Wegner, 2014). Sample items from this subscale include,

“How often have people assumed you have HIV/AIDS because of your sexual orientation?” and “How often have people told you it’s wrong to be gay or said you were going to hell because of your sexual orientation?” The measure demonstrated good internal consistency (α = .85). Evidence for concurrent validity was supported by predictable relationships with identity superiority (r = .40), need for acceptance (r = .39), internalized homonegativity (r = .32), identity confusion (r = .29), and difficult process of

113

sexual orientation development (r = .22) (Wegner). Specifically, increased levels of

assumed deviance microaggressions was demonstrated to be positively related to identity

superiority (i.e., viewing heterosexual-identified people as inferior to sexual minorities), need for acceptance (i.e., negatively affected by other’s views of sexual identity), internalized homonegativity (i.e., negative views and feelings of one’s own sexual identity), identity confusion (i.e., uncertainty or confusion about one’s own sexual identity), and difficult process of sexual orientation development (i.e., perception of one’s

own sexual identity development as being slow and difficult). In the present study,

Cronbach’s alpha was .82 for the Assumed Deviance subscale.

The Second-Class Citizen subscale consists of eight Likert-type items that measure exposure to statements that describe sexual minorities as lesser members of society (Wegner, 2014). Sample items from this subscale include, “How often have people told you not to disclose your sexual orientation in some context (like work or school)?” and “How often have people made statements about why gay marriage should not be allowed?” The measure demonstrated good internal consistency (α = .83, Wegner).

Evidence for concurrent validity was supported by predictable relationships with need for acceptance (r = .44), identity superiority (r = .34), difficult process of sexual orientation development (r = .28), identity confusion (r = .27), need for privacy and identity concealment (r = .24), and internalized homonegativity (r = .23) (Wegner). Specifically, increased levels of second-class citizen microaggressions was positively related to need for privacy (i.e., viewing one’s own sexual identity as being private and highly personal information, and carefully monitoring other’s knowledge of sexual identity) and concealment (i.e., concealing one’s sexual identity from family, world, and religion), in

114 addition to the aforementioned constructs. In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was .83 for the Second-Class Citizen subscale.

The Assumptions of Gay Culture subscale consists of five Likert-type items that measure experiencing overgeneralizations of the believed cultural norms and outward behavior of sexual minorities in a heterosexist society (Wegner, 2014). Sample items from this subscale include, “How often have people of the same sex assumed you were attracted to them simply because of your sexual orientation?” and “How often have people made statements about LGB individuals using phrases like ‘you people’ or ‘you know how gay people are’?” Internal consistency was adequate (α = .76). Evidence for concurrent construct validity was supported by predictable relationships with need for acceptance (r = .40), difficult process of sexual orientation development (r = .26), need for privacy and identity concealment (r = .24), (Wegner). In the present study,

Cronbach’s alpha was .82 for the Assumptions of Gay Culture subscale.

The Stereotypical Knowledge and Behavior subscale consists of five Likert-type items that measure exposure to assumptions that sexual minorities conform to certain stereotypes, such as gay and bisexual men being more knowledgeable about interior design and fashion, and lesbian and bisexual women being more knowledgeable about carpentry and sports (Wegner, 2014). Sample items from this subscale include, “How often have people either told you to be especially careful regarding safe sex because of your sexual orientation or told you that you don’t have to worry about safe sex because of your sexual orientation?” and “How often have people assumed you were more sensitive

(if you are a man) or less sensitive (if you are a woman) than you are?” Internal consistency was good (α = .82). Evidence for concurrent validity was supported by

115

predictable relationships with need for acceptance (r = .31), identity superiority (r = .31),

(Wegner). In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was .79 for the Stereotypical

Knowledge and Behavior subscale.

Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. The Multidimensional

Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS; Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet, & Farley, 1988) is a

self-report instrument that measures the subjective assessment of the adequacy of social

support across three subscales based on source of support – friends, family, and

significant other (see Appendix D). The measure contains 12 Likert-type items that are

rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (very strongly disagree) to 7 (very strongly

agree). Scale development was conducted on a sample of 275 undergraduate students

(49.5% women; Mage = 18.6, SD = .88) in an introductory psychology course. Items were developed from a review of the relevant literature (e.g., Holahan & Moos, 1983; Moos &

Moos, 1981; Sarason, Levine, Basham, & Sarason, 1983) and addressed relationships with friends, family, and a significant other in the following three areas: respect (i.e., people looking up to individual as a role model and/or leader), social popularity (i.e., recognized and well-regarded by others), and items directly associated with perceived social support (i.e., receiving help and support from others).

An exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the original 24 items. One significant factor emerged that included 12 items specifically related to sources social support. Those items that focused on respect and popularity did not form consistent and conceptually strong factors and were subsequently excluded (Zimet et al., 1988). Further, the authors changed the 5-point Likert-type scale to a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (very strongly disagree) to 7 (very strongly agree). A principal components factor analysis of

116 the 12 remaining items was conducted and three factors emerged that related to the source of social support: perceived support from friends, family, and a significant other

(Zimet et al., 1988).

The Friends subscale consists of four Likert-type items that measure perceived social support from friends (Zimet et al., 1988). Sample items from this subscale include

“I have friends with whom I can share my joys and sorrows” and “My friends really try to help me.” Test-retest reliability with an interval ranging from two to three months after initial questionnaire completion for the Friends subscale was r = 0.75 (Zimet et al.).

Internal consistency estimates from the existing literature were α = .87, .89, .85 (Boşol,

2008; Canty-Mitchell & Zimet, 2000; Zimet et al., respectively). Concurrent validity was supported by predictable relationships with adolescents’ perceptions of caring by family members (r = .33; Canty-Mitchell & Zimet), depression (r = -.24, -.44; Eker & Arkar,

1995; Clara et al., 2003, respectively), and anxiety (r = -.36; Eker & Arkar). Specifically, increased levels of perceived friend support was demonstrated to be negatively correlated with depression and anxiety. In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was .94 for the

Friends subscale.

The Family subscale consists of four Likert-type items that measure perceived social support from family (Zimet et al., 1988). Sample items from this subscale include

“My family really tries to help me” and “I can talk about my problems with my family.”

Test-retest reliability with an interval ranging from two to three months after initial questionnaire completion for the Family subscale was r = 0.85 (Zimet et al.). Internal consistency estimates from the existing literature were α = .87, .91, .87 (Boşol, 2008;

Canty-Mitchell & Zimet, 2000; Zimet et al., respectively). Concurrent validity was

117 supported by predictable relationships with adolescents’ perceptions of being cared for by family members (r = 0.76; Canty-Mitchell & Zimet), depression (r = -0.43, -0.21; Clara et al., 2003; Eker & Arkar, 1995, respectively), and anxiety (r = -0.25; Eker & Arkar,

1995). Specifically, increased levels of perceived familial support was demonstrated to be negatively related to depression and anxiety. In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was

.93 for the Family subscale.

The Significant Other subscale consists of four Likert-type items that measure perceived social support from a significant other (Zimet et al., 1988). Sample items from this subscale include “There is a special person who is around when I am in need” and “I have a special person who is a real source of comfort to me.” Test-retest reliability with an interval ranging from two to three months after initial questionnaire completion for the

Significant Other subscale was r = 0.72 (Zimet et al.). Internal consistency estimates from the existing literature were α = .92, .91, .91 (Boşol, 2008; Canty-Mitchell & Zimet, 2000;

Zimet et al., respectively). Concurrent validity was supported by a predictable relationship with depression (r = -.22, -.21; Clara et al., 2003; Eker & Arkar, 1995).

Specifically, increased levels of perceived support from one’s significant other was demonstrated to be negatively correlated with depression. In the present study,

Cronbach’s alpha was .99 for the Significant Other subscale.

Work Interference with Life Domains Scale. The Work Interference with Life

Domains Scale (WILDS; Keeney, Boyd, Sinha, Westring, & Ryan, 2013) is a self-report instrument that measures time and strain-based work interference with life across eight domains: health, family, household management, friendships, education, romantic relationship(s), community involvement, and leisure (see Appendix E). Time-based

118

interference occurs when time demands in one role inhibits one from meeting

expectations in other roles, and strain-based interference occurs when the pressures of

one role creates strain, anxiety, and discomfort that makes it challenging to meet other

role expectations (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). The measure contains 48 Likert-type

items that are rated on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly

agree). Scale development was based on a pilot study and two subsequent studies to

determine factors and theoretical correlates. Initially, 80 items were developed from an

extensive review of the relevant literature (e.g., Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992;

Greenhaus & Powell, 2003; Super, 1980; Swindle & Moos, 1992) and consulting

established scales of work-life and work-family conflict (e.g., Carlson, Kacmar, &

Williams, 2000; Netemeyer, Boles, & McMurrian, 1996). A pilot study was conducted on

54 individuals (48% women, 85% White, 67% with a college degree or higher, 69%

married, 48% with children living at home; Mage = 44, SD = 11) from several public settings, such as airports, train station, and 5k run/walk. Thirty-two items were excluded for one or more of the following reasons: minimal variance, small item-total correlation, empirical and conceptual redundancy, and high correlation with an item from another dimension (e.g., between a strain-based and a time-based item). These revisions resulted in a 48-item measure.

An exploratory factor analysis was not performed due to strong empirical and theoretical evidence to indicate alternative models a priori (Keeney et al., 2013). The sample consisted of 1811 individuals who were recruited via email (46% men, 90%

White, 51% with a graduate degree, 68.5% married, 44% with children living at home;

Mage = 38, SD = 11.25). A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on the remaining

119

48 items. Sixteen significant factors emerged that included two forms of interference

(time and strain) within the previously identified the eight domains of work-life

interference (Keeney et al.). A content analysis of the top seven journals that have been

known to publish articles related to work-family conflict was conducted and found that

the majority of the articles (18 out of 25) did not distinguish between the form—time and strain—of conflict (Carlson, Kacmar, & Williams, 2000). Further investigations on work-

life conflict have demonstrated difficulty distinguishing between time- and strain-based

conflict due to similarity in items (e.g., Noor, 2004) Further, it is common for scholarship

on work-family conflict to combine strain- and time-based conflict into a combined

general measure of work-family conflict (e.g., Cinamon, 2010; Matthews, Kath, &

Barnes-Farrell, 2010). Additionally, as the present investigation is more interested in a

heuristic measure of work-family interference, a time- or strain-based level of analysis is

not needed. As such, this study will combine time- and strain-based forms of interference

in each of the dimensions, which will form five subscales that are the most theoretically

relevant to this study. These include: household management (e.g., Goldberg & Perry-

Jenkins, 2007; Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007), community involvement (e.g., Lewis, Derlega,

Berndt, Morris, & Rose, 2001; Riggle et al., 2008; Russell & Richards, 2003), family

(e.g., Riggle et al., 2008; Weston, 1991), friendships (Green, 2000; Konik & Stewart,

2004), and romantic relationship(s) (e.g., Jordan & Deluty, 2000; Mercier, 2006;

Rostosky et al., 2007).

The Household Management Time- and Strain-Based Interference subscales each

consist of three Likert-type items that measure interference with the duties needed to

maintain a household, such as grocery shopping, cleaning, making household repairs or

120

improvements, paying bills, and lawn care (Keeney et al., 2013). Household management

does not include caring for children or other dependents (Keeney et al.). Sample items for

the Household Management Time-Based subscale include “The time I spend on work

cuts into the time I’d like to spend on household management” and “The amount of time my work takes up makes it difficult to find enough time for household management”

(Keeney et al.). Internal consistency estimated from the existing literature was α = .94

(Keeney et al.). Concurrent validity was supported by predictable relationships with work

interference with family (r = .48), and mental health (r = -.26) (Keeney et al.). Sample

items for the Household Management Strain-Based subscale include “My work keeps me

from household management more than I would like it to” and “Due to all the pressures

from work, sometimes I am too stressed to engage in household management” (Keeney et

al.). Internal consistency estimated from the existing literature was α = .92 (Keeney et

al.). Concurrent validity was supported by predictable relationships with work

interference with family (r = .56), job satisfaction (r = -.32), turnover intentions (r = .27),

life satisfaction (r = -.27), and mental health (r = -.41) (Keeney et al.). Specifically,

increased levels of work-life household management interference was demonstrated to be

positively related with interference with family and job turnover intentions, and

negatively correlated with mental health, job satisfaction, and life satisfaction. In the

present study, Cronbach’s alpha was .95 for the Household Management Time- and

Strain-Based Interference subscale.

The Community Involvement Time- and Strain-Based Interference subscales each

consist of three Likert-type items that measure interference with community activities,

such as political campaign or fundraiser participation, volunteering, or attending

121

community meetings (Keeney et al., 2013). Sample items for the Community

Involvement Time-Based subscale include “The time I spend on work cuts into the time

I’d like to spend on community involvement” and “The amount of time my work takes up

makes it difficult to find enough time for community involvement” (Keeney et al.).

Internal consistency estimated from the existing literature was α = .93 (Keeney et al.).

Concurrent validity was supported by predictable relationships with work interference

with family (r = .38), (Keeney et al.). Sample items for the Community Involvement

Strain-Based subscale include “Due to all the pressures from work, sometimes I am too

stressed to engage in community involvement” and “Stress from work makes it harder for

me to be fully involved in community involvement” (Keeney et al.). Internal consistency

estimated from the existing literature was α = .94 (Keeney et al.). Concurrent validity was

supported by predictable relationships with work interference with family (r = .54), job

satisfaction (r = -.27), turnover intentions (r = .24), life satisfaction (r = -.26), and mental

health (r = -.37) (Keeney et al.). Specifically, increased levels of work-life community involvement interference was demonstrated to be positively related with interference with

family and job turnover intentions, and negatively correlated with mental health, job

satisfaction, and life satisfaction. In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was .97 for the

Community Involvement Time- and Strain-Based Inference subscale.

The Family Time- and Strain-Based Interference subscales each consist of three

Likert-type items that measure interference with family activities, such as taking care of or visiting parents, attending family functions, spending time with a sibling, taking care of a child (e.g., driving to and from daycare/school, feeding, dressing, parent-teacher meetings, etc.), and spending time with a pet (Keeney et al., 2013). Sample items for the

122

Family Time-Based subscale include “The time I spend on work cuts into the time I’d like to spend on my family” and “The amount of time my works takes up makes it difficult to find enough time for my family” (Keeney et al.). Internal consistency estimated from the existing literature was α = .94 (Keeney et al.). Concurrent validity was supported by predictable relationships with work interference with family (r = .63), and mental health (r = -.26) (Keeney et al.). Sample items for the Family Strain-Based subscale include “Stress from work makes it harder for me to be fully involved in my family” and “After engaging in work activities, I am often too frazzled to focus on my family” (Keeney et al.). Internal consistency estimated from the existing literature was α

= .93 (Keeney et al.). Concurrent validity was supported by predictable relationships with work interference with family (r = .76), job satisfaction (r = -.30), turnover intentions (r =

.26), life satisfaction (r = -.30), and mental health (r = -.45) (Keeney et al). Specifically, increased levels of work-life family interference was demonstrated to be positively related with interference with family and job turnover intentions, and negatively correlated with mental health, job satisfaction, and life satisfaction. In the present study,

Cronbach’s alpha was .92 for Family Time- and Strain Based Interference subscale.

The Friendship Time- and Strain-Based Interference subscales each consist of three Likert-type items that measure interference with friendships, such as not having time or being able to engage in activities with friends outside of work (Keeney et al.,

2013). Sample items for the Friendship Time-Based subscale include “The time I spend on work cuts into the time I’d like to spend on friendships” and “The amount of time my work takes up makes it difficult to find enough time for friendships” (Keeney et al.).

Internal consistency estimated from the existing literature was α = .94 (Keeney et al.).

123

Concurrent validity was supported by predictable relationships with work interference with family (r = .51), turnover intentions (r = .21), life satisfaction (r = -.20), and mental health (r = -.27) (Keeney et al.). Sample items for the Friendship Strain-Based subscale include “After engaging in work activities, I am often too frazzled to focus on friendships” and “Due to all the pressures from work, sometimes I am too stressed to engage in activities related to friendships” (Keeney et al.). Internal consistency estimated from the existing literature was α = .92 (Keeney et al.). Concurrent validity was supported by predictable relationships with work interference with family (r = .62), job satisfaction (r = -.31), turnover intentions (r = .29), life satisfaction (r = -.30), and mental health (r = -.45) (Keeney et al.). Specifically, increased levels of work-life friendship interference was demonstrated to be positively related with interference with family and job turnover intentions, and negatively correlated with mental health, job satisfaction, and life satisfaction. In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was .94 for Friendship Time- and

Strain-Based subscale.

The Romantic Relationship(s) Time- and Strain-Based Interference subscales each consist of three Likert-type items that measure interference with romantic relationship, such as not having time or being able to go on dates or spending time with a significant other (Keeney et al., 2013). Sample items for the Romantic Relationship(s)

Time-Based subscale include “The time I spend on work cuts into the time I’d like to spend on romantic relationship(s)” and “The amount of time my work takes up makes it difficult to find enough time for romantic relationship(s)” (Keeney et al.). Internal consistency estimated from the existing literature was α = .93 (Keeney et al.). Concurrent validity was supported by predictable relationships with work interference with family (r

124

= .52), life satisfaction (r = -.20), and mental health (r = -.29) (Keeney et al.). Sample items for the Romantic Relationship(s) Strain-Based subscale include “After engaging in work activities, I am often too frazzled to focus on romantic relationship(s)” and “Due to all the pressures from work, sometimes I am too stressed to engage in activities related to romantic relationship(s)” (Keeney et al.). Internal consistency estimated from the existing literature was α = .93 (Keeney et al.). Concurrent validity was supported by predictable relationships with work interference with family (r = .62), job satisfaction (r = -.32), turnover intentions (r = .28), life satisfaction (r = -.31), and mental health (r = -.47)

(Keeney et al.). Specifically, increased levels of work-life romantic relationship(s) interference was demonstrated to be positively related with interference with family and job turnover intentions, and negatively correlated with mental health, job satisfaction, and life satisfaction. In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was .95 for Romantic

Relationship(s) Time- and Strain-Based subscale.

The Satisfaction with Life Scale. The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS;

Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) is a self-report instrument that measures the subjective assessment of global life satisfaction (see Appendix F). The measure contains five Likert-type items that are rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Sample items include “In most ways my life is close to my ideal” and “I am satisfied with my life.” Scale development was conducted on a sample of 176 undergraduate students in an introductory psychology course. Demographic information of the sample used in the scale development study was not reported. Forty-eight items were developed from a review of the relevant literature (e.g., Diener, 1984; Shin &

125

Johnson, 1978; Tatarkiewicz, 1976) and addressed cognitive-judgmental process of life

satisfaction and positive and negative affect.

An exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the original 48 items. One

significant factor emerged that included five items specifically related to perceived

satisfaction with life. Those items that focused on positive and negative affect did not

form consistent and conceptually strong factors and were subsequently excluded (Diener

et al., 1985). As each of the five SWLS items is scored on a Likert-type scale from 1 to 7,

the possible range of scores on the questionnaire is from 5 (low satisfaction) to 35 (high satisfaction). A principal axis factor analysis of the five remaining items was conducted and one factor emerged related to satisfaction with life that accounted for 66% of the total variance. Test-retest reliability with an interval of two months after initial questionnaire completion for the SWLS was r = .82 (Diener et al.). Internal consistency estimates from the existing literature were α = .87, .87, .91, .88, .75 (Diener et al.; Foley & Lytle, 2015;

Goh, Ilies, & Wilson, 2015; Huffman et al., 2008; Santilli, Nota, Ginevra, & Soresi,

2014, respectively). Concurrent validity was supported by predictable relationships with

work satisfaction (r = .31; Foley & Lytle), self-efficacy (r = .21; Foley & Lytle), chronic

work discrimination (r = -.15; Foley & Lytle), everyday discrimination (r = - .18; Foley

& Lytle), agency hope (r = .48; Santilli et al.), pathways to hope (r = .25; Santilli et al.),

career adaptabilities (concern, control, curiosity, and confidence: r = .42, .32, .36, .31,

respectively; Santilli et al.), work-family conflict (r = -.27; Goh et al.), supervisor support

(r = .27; Huffman et al.), coworker support (r = .42; Huffman et al.), LGB-supportive

climate (r = .21; Huffman et al.), and job satisfaction (r = .34; Huffman et al.).

Specifically, increased levels of life satisfaction has been demonstrated to be positively

126

correlated with work/job satisfaction (e.g., Foley & Lytle; Huffman et al.), self-efficacy

(e.g., Foley & Lytle), agency hope and pathways to hope (e.g., Santilli et al.), career

adaptability (Santilli et al.), supervisor and coworker support (e.g., Huffman et al.), and

LGB-supportive climate (e.g., Huffman et al.). Additionally, increased levels of life

satisfaction has been demonstrated to be negatively related to chronic work

discrimination and everyday discrimination (e.g., Foley & Lytle), and work-family

conflict (e.g., Goh et al.). In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was .89 for SWLS.

Job satisfaction. The Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire Job

Satisfaction Subscale (MOAQ-JSS; Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh, 1979) is a self-report instrument that measures affective and cognitive components of global job satisfaction (see Appendix G). The measure contains three Likert-type items that are rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Demographic information of the scale development study was not reported. Sample items include “All in all I am satisfied with my job” and “In general, I don’t like my job.”

Internal consistency estimates from the existing literature were α = .84, .82, .77, .88

(Bowling & Hammond, 2008; Bruck, Allen, & Spector, 2002; Cammann et al.; Dickson,

2008, respectively). Concurrent validity was supported by predictable relationships with

job complexity (r = .46; Bowling & Hammond), role conflict (r = -.32; Bowling &

Hammond), organizational constraints (r = -.39; Bowling & Hammond), interpersonal

conflict at work (r = -.29; Bowling & Hammond), work-family conflict (r = -.41, -.30, -

.50; Bowling & Hammond; Bruck et al.; Dickson, respectively), strain-based work

interference with family (r = -.23; Bruck et al.), behavior-based work interference with

family and family interference with work (r = -.27, -.36, respectively; Bruck et al.), work

127

interference with family and family interference with work (r = -.28, -.24, respectively;

Bruck et al.), supervisor social support (r = .47, .53; Bowling & Hammond; Dickson, respectively), supervision satisfaction (r = .54; Bruck et al.), co-worker social support (r

= .33; Bowling & Hammond), co-worker satisfaction (r = .54; Bruck et al.), family

responsibilities discrimination (r = -.62; Dickson), family supportive organization perceptions (r = .59; Dickson), organizational attachment (r = .79; Dickson), turnover intentions (r = -.74; Dickson) and perceived organizational support (r = .46; Bowling &

Hammond). Specifically, increased levels of job satisfaction has been demonstrated to be positively correlated with supervisor and co-worker social support (e.g., Bowling &

Hammond), supervisor and co-worker satisfaction (e.g., Bruck et al.), perceptions of family support (e.g., Dickson), and organizational attachment (e.g., Dickson) and support

(e.g., Bowling & Hammond). Additionally, increased levels of job satisfaction has been demonstrated to be negatively related to interpersonal conflict at work and work-family conflict (e.g., Bowling & Hammond), strain- and behavior-based work interference with family (e.g., Bruck et al.), work-family interference (e.g., Bruck et al.), turnover intentions and family responsibilities discrimination (e.g., Dickson). In the present study,

Cronbach’s alpha was .74 for JSS.

Research Design

The proposed research utilized a non-experimental ex post facto design. An ex

post facto research design seeks to identify causal or functional relationships among

variables. Causal-comparative designs commonly involve the inclusion of pre-existing or

formally derived groups to investigate the variance between or among those groups on the dependent or outcome variable (Schenker & Rumrill, 2004). In causal-comparative

128 designs, the independent variables are categorical and not experimentally manipulated

(Schenker & Rumrill). Therefore, the proposed research will use an ex post facto research design to examine sexual minority experiences of heterosexism in the workplace that have occurred within the natural environment rather than developing a true experiment that would produce and subject participants to heterosexist events during the study.

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses were tested. Refer to Figure 1 for the hypothesized structural model.

1. It is hypothesized that there will be a positive relationship between the experience

of homonegative microaggressions and negative work-life outcomes (i.e., work

interference with life and job and life satisfaction).

2. It is hypothesized that there will be a positive relationship between workplace

heterosexist experiences and negative work-life outcomes (i.e., work interference

with life and job and life satisfaction).

3. It is hypothesized that perceived social support (i.e., scores on the MSPSS) will

moderate the relationship between the experience of homonegative

microaggressions (i.e., scores on the HMS) and work-life outcomes (i.e., scores

on the WILDS, SWLS, and JSS). Specifically, higher levels of perceived social

support is hypothesized to decrease the effect of homonegative microaggressions

on work-life outcomes.

4. It is hypothesized that perceived social support (i.e., scores on the MSPSS) will

moderate the relationship between workplace heterosexist experiences (i.e., scores

on the WHEQ) and work-life outcomes (i.e., scores on the WILDS, SWLS, and

129

JSS). Specifically, higher levels of perceived social support is hypothesized to

decrease the effect of workplace heterosexist experiences on work-life outcomes.

Data Analytic Procedures

Preliminary analyses will be conducted on the data collected. Specifically,

descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients will be provided for the demographic

data and each of the measures. The statistical analysis method for the proposed research

was Structural Equation Modeling (SEM; Bollen, 1989) using Amos 23.0 Graphics

Software (Arbuckle, 2014) to test the relationship between study variables (See Figures

#3 and 4 for depiction of the target model).

SEM is a general term that has been used to describe a variety of multivariate

statistical procedures that can be used to evaluate the validity of substantive theories with latent constructs. Although structural modeling is analogous to path analysis in that both

refer to correlations among latent constructs, relationships in structural models can be

specified as directional or correlational (Quintana & Maxwell, 1999). For this reason,

Quintana and Maxwell recommend that each exogenous (predictor variables) should be

given the opportunity to freely correlate with all other exogenous variables except for

when there exists convincing justification to limit correlations. However, the paths

between endogenous (outcome variables) and exogenous constructs should be based on

theory and methodological issues, and directional paths in cross-sectional designs can be

supported by previous theory and research that propose that one construct precedes

another (Quintana & Maxwell).

130

Figure 2 Experiences Heterosexist for Workplace Target Model

131

Figure 3 Target Model for Homonegative Microaggressions

132

Lei and Wu (2007) argue that the goal of SEM is to establish whether the hypothesized model is consistent with the data collected. This consistency or general compatibility is referred to as goodness of fit (Quintana & Maxwell, 1999) or model-data fit (Lei & Wu). In addition to the evaluation the fit of the model, SEM also assesses the strength of relationships between constructs, directionality of relationships between constructs, moderation, and mediation. Baron and Kenny (1986) described moderators as variables that strengthen and/or change the direction of the relationship between two or more variables, whereas mediators are variables that change directionality, or intervenes, between the relationships of two or more variables. As such, the proposed research has one moderating construct – perceived social support. It is hypothesized that perceived social support will change the positive relationship between homonegative microaggressions, heterosexist experiences, and work-life interference, such that higher levels of perceived social support will decrease negative work-life interference outcomes

related to workplace heterosexism and microaggressions.

Measurement models. As the fit of the full model, containing both measurement

and structural models, can be affected by poorly fitting measurement models (Martens,

2005), the fit of the measurement models was examined prior to the testing of the

hypotheses. In the present study, four latent variables were used in the full model, with

each measured by multiple indicators. The WHEQ latent construct was measured by five

parcels of the WHEQ (Figure 5); the HMS latent construct was measured by four

subscales of the HMS (Figure 6); the Outcome latent construct was measured by seven

indicators consisting of the five subscales of the WILDS, the SWLS, and the JSS (Figure

7) and the two Interaction latent constructs (one for each structural model to represent the

133 moderation) were measured by the unstandardized residuals of the regression analyses of all first-order effect indicators (Figures 8 and 9). The fit of these four measurement models within the full model was assessed using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA;

Anderson & Gerbing, 1988), and the factor loadings were examined to determine whether they are significantly different from zero and are in the hypothesized direction.

Additionally, the overall fit for each measurement model was evaluated using goodness of fit indices. Even though chi-squared tests have often been used to assess the fit of CFA and SEM models to the data, research has suggested that the chi-squared test is too sensitive to sample size, which erroneously results in the rejection of adequate models (Bentler, 1990; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Therefore, multiple alterative goodness of fit indices have bene developed and the seven, including the chi-squared test, that were used in this study were the χ2 test (CMIN/DF), the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), the Bentler-Bonett Normed Fit Index (NFI), the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), the

Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Parsimony Normed Fit Index (PNFI), and the Root

Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA).

134

Figure 4

Measurement Model for Workplace Heterosexist Experiences Latent Construct

Figure 5

Measurement Model for Homonegative Microaggressions Latent Construct

135

Figure 6

Measurement Model for Work-Life Outcome Latent Construct

Note. Household = Household Management Subscale of Work Interference with Life Domains Scale (WILDS); Family = Family Subscale of WILDS; Friends = Friendship Subscale of WILDS; Romantic = Romantic Relationship(s) Subscale of WILDS; Community = Community Involvement Subscale of WILDS; SWLS = Satisfaction with Life Scale; JSS = Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire Job Satisfaction Subscale.

136

Figure 7

Measurement Model for WHEQWork-Life Outcome Interaction Latent Construct

137

Figure 8

Measurement Model for HMSWork-Life Outcome Interaction Latent Construct

138

Full model. Prior to assessing the fit of the full model, the fit of all of the

measurement models within the full model were assessed using CFA, and the factor

loadings were examined to determine whether they are significantly different from zero

and in the hypothesized direction. The overall fit for all of the measurement models

within the full model was assessed using the following goodness of fit indices: the χ2 test

(CMIN/DF), the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), the Bentler-Bonett Normed Fit Index

(NFI), the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Parsimony

Normed Fit Index (PNFI), and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA).

After the assumptions of SEM were assessed and it was determined that the latent constructs were adequately operationalized by their indicators, the fit of the full model to the data was measured. To examine whether perceived social support moderated the relationship between workplace heterosexist experiences and work-life outcomes, and the relationship between homonegative microaggressions and work-life outcomes, two separate SEM moderation models were tested using the residual centering approach to moderation in SEM (Little, Bovaird, & Widaman, 2006).

Assessing goodness of fit. To assess the fit of the target models, the following goodness of fit indices were examined: χ2 test (CMIN/DF), the Goodness of Fit Index

(GFI), the Bentler-Bonett Normed Fit Index (NFI), the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), the

Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Parsimony Normed Fit Index (PNFI), and the Root

Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). These goodness of fit indices reflect both incremental and stand-alone measures that have been supported for use in counseling psychology research (Martens, 2005). Consistent with established criteria for examining fit indices, a criterion of 0.95 was used to establish excellent model fit (Hu &

139

Bentler, 1999) and a criterion of 0.90 to establish adequate fit for TLI and CFI (Weston &

Gore, 2006). For the NFI, a value between 0.90 and 0.95 was considered marginal, a value greater than 0.95 was considered good, and a value less than 0.90 was considered to be a poor fitting model (Bentler & Bonnet, 1980). A criterion of less than or equal to 0.05 was used to indicate excellent fit, a value between 0.06 and 0.08 was used to indicate adequate fit, and a value of 0.08 was used to indicate mediocre fit for the RMSEA (Hu &

Bentler; Schumacker & Lomax, 2010). For the GFI, a value between 0.90 and 0.95 was considered marginal, a value greater than 0.95 was considered good, and a value less than

0.90 was considered to be a poor fitting model (Bollen, 1990; Miles & Shevlin, 1998).

Although it is possible to achieve parsimony within the 0.50 region, a threshold of greater than or equal to 0.90 for PNFI values was used in the present study (Mulaik, James, Van

Alstine, Bennet, Lind, & Stilwell, 1989). Finally, models were considered to demonstrate good fit if the χ2 test was statistically non-significant at the 0.05 level (Barrett, 2007).

However, the χ2 test has been shown to reject good fitting models when used on large

sample sizes; therefore, the present study examined this index with caution (Bentler &

Bonnet, 1980; Hu & Bentler). Thus, for the model to demonstrate good fit to the data, all

of the goodness of fit indices, with the exception of the χ2 test, must have met the

aforementioned cut-off criteria.

Primary analyses. In order to test Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, and 4, as specified

previously, the path coefficients between the four latent constructs in each of the two

structural equation models were investigated. Specifically, it was hypothesized that HMS

would have a significant positive relationship with negative work-life outcomes (i.e.,

Hypothesis 1), and WHEQ would have a significant positive relationship with negative

140 work-life outcomes (i.e., Hypothesis 2). Additionally, it was hypothesized that MSPSS would moderate the aforementioned relationships (i.e., Hypotheses 3 and 4).

141

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

Overview of Analyses

In this chapter, the results of the analyses are reported. First, preliminary analyses

will be presented. The methods of screening for missing data and for statistical anomalies are described, the reliabilities and distributional assumptions of all variables are assessed,

and the correlations between study variables are provided. Second, Exploratory Factor

Analyses (EFA) of each of the measures and of each of the latent constructs are reported.

The method of parceling for the WHEQ latent construct is described. Third, the residual

centering approach for moderation in Structural Equation Modeling will be discussed.

Fourth, the measurement models for WHEQ, HMS, MSPSS, and Work-Life Outcome,

and both of the Interaction latent constructs are evaluated using Confirmatory Factor

Analyses (CFA). Fifth, the fit of the measurement model will be evaluated. And finally,

after the satisfactoriness of the structural model is confirmed, the hypotheses are tested.

All preliminary analyses and EFAs were conducted in IBM SPSS Statistics Software 24

(IBM Corp., 2016), and all CFAs and SEMs analyses were conducted using AMOS 23.0

(Arbuckle, 2014).

142

Preliminary Analyses

Data screening. Between July 3, 2016, and September 7, 2016, 615 participants

had accessed the online questionnaire used to gather the data in this study. The initial step

in the data screening process was to include only those participants who consented to take the survey. Of the 615 participants who followed the link to the online questionnaire,

only 470 participants consented to participate in in the study. The second step in the data screening process was to include only those participants who met the inclusionary criteria of being least 18 years old, identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or queer, and being employed at least part-time (i.e., working at least 10 hours per week) within the six months prior to completion of the survey and within the U.S. Based on the demographic questionnaire, four participants indicated that they identify as heterosexual; therefore, they were removed from the sample. Data were then screened for missing data points. Of the remaining 466 participants, 79 did not complete the questionnaire in its entirety (i.e.,

41 discontinued after completed the WHEQ, 10 discontinued after completing the

MSPSS, 28 discontinued after completing the WILDS, and one discontinued after completing the LSS). All items in the questionnaire were forced response; therefore,

participants were unable to complete the survey without responding to each question. The large percentage of participants who did not complete the survey (17% of participants who met the inclusionary criteria) may be a result of both the forced responding method and the length of the questionnaire (projected to be between 30 and 45 minutes), and is a limitation of this study.

In order to examine confounding effects of demographic variables on the study variables, a Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was performed. The total

143

subscale scores of primary study variables were used as dependent variables and

demographic variables were used as independent variables. To minimize Type I error, the

per comparison alpha level was fixed to .001. Results of the multivariate analysis

suggested that there were no significant differences in study variables based on

participant race, gender identity, gender expression, sexual identity, geographic region,

employment status, income, highest degree earned, social supports, and relationship

status. These demographics were chosen to determine whether significant differences in

study variables emerged based on various social identities that extant literature suggests could have confounding effects on experiences of discrimination, perceived social support, and the work-life interface.

Assumptions of multivariate normality. The means, standard deviations, skewness, kurtosis, and coefficient alpha levels for each indicator variable for this study are displayed in Table 2. All statistics are based on a sample size of 385. Following the best practices for SEM (Martens, 2005), the skewness and kurtosis of study variables

were examined, considering normality with values of skewness and kurtosis within the

range of -2 to 2 (e.g., Field, 2000 & 2009; Gravetter & Wallnau, 2014; Lomax, 2001;

Trochim & Donnelly, 2006). The standard error for skewness with N = 385 is .124, and

the standard error for kurtosis for N = 385 is .248. Therefore, prior to conducting any

additional analyses, the non-normal variables were transformed using square root

transformations in order to obtain normal distributions. Square root transformation was

chosen due to its moderate effect on distribution shape (as it is weaker than the logarithm

and cube root transformation), its ability to be used to reduce right and left skewness, and

because it has the advantage of being able to be applied to zero values. Following the

144

transformations, all variables except for the Assumed Deviance subscale of the HMS

(Skewness = 1.256; Kurtosis = 2.115) produced skewness and kurtosis values within the

threshold of +/-2, indicating that the variables were normally distributed. Research has

suggested that kurtosis values of within the range +/-7 are acceptable for SEM analyses, signifying that the transformed values for the Assumed Deviance subscale of the HMS could be considered normally distributed (Curran, West, & Finch, 1996). However, the use of transformations in the present study poses a limitation to the findings, as the study compared transformed data to other measures that yielded normal distributions of data.

Normal probability plots were also assessed and demonstrated linear distributions with univariate normality. In addition, bivariate scatter plots exhibited elliptical shapes, which

supports the assumptions of bivariate normality of variables.

Reliabilities of measured variables. All measured variables in the present study

demonstrated adequate reliability (α > .80), except for the Stereotypical Knowledge and

Behaviors subscale of the HMS (α = .79) and the Job Satisfaction subscale of the

Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire (α = .74). The creator of the

Stereotypical Knowledge and Behaviors subscale reported an internal consistency alpha

coefficient of .82; therefore, the measure of Stereotypical Knowledge and Behavior used

in the present study demonstrated acceptable reliability. Conversely, previous scholarship

using the Job Satisfaction subscale of the Michigan Organizational Assessment

Questionnaire has found internal consistency estimates ranging from .77 to .88

(Cammann et al.; Dickson, 2008, respectively).

145

S; WILDS – S; MSPSS – Household zen Subscale

Experiences Experiences SWLS = MSPSS; MSPSS – S – SCC = Second Class Citi S – SCC = Second FA = FamilyFA = Subscale of rkplace Heterosexist Experiences rkplace Heterosexist Romantic Relationship(s) Subscale of WILD Romantic Relationship(s) Subscale pical Knowledge and Behavior Subscale of HM Subscale Knowledge and Behavior pical EQ4 = Parcel 4 of Workplace Heterosexist of 4 EQ4 = Parcel ent Questionnaire Job Satisfaction Subscale; Satisfaction Job ent Questionnaire ggressions Scale (HMS); HM rk InterferenceDomains Scale with Life (WILDS); WILDS – HM = Social Support (MSPSS); MSPSS – tionnaire; WHEQ2 = Parcel 2 of Wo WHEQ2 = Parcel 2 of tionnaire; st-Square Root Transformations (N = 385) ubscale of Homonegative Microa ubscale of Homonegative ure Subscale of HMS; HMS – SKB = Stereoty ure Subscale of = Friendship Subscale of WILDS; WILDS – RR = Subscale of WILDS; = Friendship e Heterosexist Experiences Questionnaire; WH Experiences e Heterosexist LDS; JSS = Michigan Organizational Assessm LDS; JSS = Michigan Organizational ensional Scale of Perceived ensional Scale of Perceived ace Heterosexist Experiences Ques ace Heterosexist WHEQ1 = Parcel 1 of Workpl WHEQ1 = Parcel 1 of Table 2 Pre- and Po Skewness and Kurtosis Values Note. Satisfaction with Life Scale. Scale. Life with Satisfaction Questionnaire; WHEQ3 = Parcel 3 of Workplac WHEQ3 = Parcel 3 of Questionnaire; FR = Friends Subscale of MSPSS; WILDS – FA = Family Subscale of Wo SO = Significant Other Subscale of Multidim SO = Significant Other Subscale WILDS – FR of WILDS; Management Subscale CI = CommunityInvolvement Subscale of WI of HMS; HMS – AGC = Assumptions of GayCult Questionnaire; HMS – AD = Assumed Deviance S Questionnaire;

Variable M SD Alpha Skewness Kurtosis Skewness Kurtosis Skewness Post-Transformation Kurtosis Variable M Pre-Transformation Skewness SD 1. WHEQ1 Alpha 2. WHEQ2 3. WHEQ3 2.04 4. WHEQ4 1.13 5. HMS – AD 2.38 6. HMS – SCC 2.18 14.31 2.76 7. HMS – AGG 15.38 8. HMS – SKB 2.29 10.37 – SO 2.85 9. MSPSS 9.61 20.47 – FA 10. MSPSS 2.60 5.27 5.90 18.31 – FR 11. MSPSS .65 4.59 FA 12. WILDS – .66 23.29 4.24 19.53 HM 13. WILDS – .64 8.83 20.82 FR 14. WILDS – .66 .80 6.86 .83 20.83 RP 15. WILDS – 2.03 4.81 .82 19.91 CI 16. WILDS – 3.05 5.98 .79 17. JSS 20.78 6.23 1.45 .99 18. SWLS 1.70 6.01 .93 1.89 1.09 5.14 6.45 .94 1.04 12.47 .92 6.71 .95 1.11 21.60 14.91 1.86 -.89 3.49 .94 .52 5.44 -.52 1.08 1.02 .95 .55 -1.35 — .97 3.66 6.98 -.23 .96 -.68 .89 -.52 1.26 -.76 .35 — -.53 -.71 — — 1.75 -.30 .15 2.12 — .89 .77 — -.63 -.49 — -.41 — — — -.25 — -.62 — — — -.59 -.43 -.12 — — — — — — — -.60 -1.09 — — — — — — —

146

Correlations between measured variables. The zero-order correlations between

measured variables, post-transformations, in the present study are displayed in Table 3. In

accordance with the hypotheses, all significant relationships were in the predicted

direction. Additionally, multicollinearity of measured variables (i.e., HMS, WHEQ,

MSPSS, WILDS, JSS, and SWLS) was assessed using Variance Inflation Factor (VIF)

and tolerance tests. To test for multicollinearity, ID number of the participants was used

as the dependent variable in a linear regression analysis. Further, all four subscales of the

HMS, the three subscales of the MSPSS, and the four item-parceled subscales of the

WHEQ served as independent variables in the previously mentioned linear regression.

Previous research has suggested that extreme multicollinearity is present when VIFs surpass ten or Tolerance scores are below .10 (Allison, 1999). Multicollinearity was not detected in the data and, therefore, the assumption of collinearity was met.

Exploratory Factor Analysis

Exploratory factor analyses (EFA) were performed on each of the instruments

used in the present study and on each of the latent constructs to examine whether the

factors that emerged in the data corresponded with what previous scholarship would expect. Determining what factors to retain was based on three criteria. First, the percentages of variance among variables that were explained by each factor were examined. Second, Kaiser’s (1970) criterion of eigenvalues of at least one was used to determine the number of factors to be retained. Third, the eigenvalue scree plots were

examined using Cattell’s (1966) method of drawing a scree line through the point at

which the eigenvalues become horizontal to inform the number of factors to be retained.

147

Even though factor solutions with an eigenvalue threshold of greater than one are

often considered to be appropriate solutions (Kaiser, 1958), scholarship has suggested

that determining the number of factors exclusively on eigenvalues greater than one could

erroneously represent the appropriate number of factors (Gorsuch, 1983). Additionally,

the scree plot as a determinant of factors to be retained is susceptible to subjectivity and

ambiguity, especially in low variable to factor ratio and with small sample sizes

(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Further, exploratory factor analyses are prone to researcher

subjectivity in determining the factor solution that best encapsulates the data, as there is

no statistical dictate for deciding factors to be retained (Haynes, Smith, & Hunsley,

2011).

The factorability of each of the instruments and latent constructs was examined

through the iterative process of EFA using Principal Axis Factoring (Worthington &

Whittaker, 2006). The criteria for Kaiser’s (1970) measure of sampling adequacy (the

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin MSA) was considered mediocre with a value between .5 and .7,

good with a value between .7 and .8, great with a value between .8 and .9, and superb

with values greater than .9 (Hutcheson & Sofroniou, 1999). The criteria for the Bartlett’s

test of sphericity was considered to be significant with a p value less than .05 and highly

significant with a p value of less than .001. When the criteria for both the Kaiser-Meyer-

Olkin MSA and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity were met, it was determined that the correlation matrix was appropriate for factor analysis. Oblimin (oblique) rotation was

applied to all EFA, as the anticipated generated factors were expected to be correlated.

Factor retention was determined by investigation of eigenvalues and scree plots

(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).

148

—

e of WILDS; JSS = e of WILDS; nagement Subscale of nagement Stereotypical Knowledge Stereotypical ty Involvement Subscal ty Involvement S – HM = Household Ma S – HM of HMS; HMS – SKB = Questionnaire; WHEQ3 = Parcel 3 of Workplace d Deviance Subscale of Homonegative PSS); MSPSS – FA = Family Subscale of MSPSS; fe Domains Scale (WILDS); WILD Workplace HeterosexistWorkplace Experiences onal Scale of Perceived Social Support (MS sfaction with Life Scale. sfaction with Life -.01 — mantic Relationship(s) Subscale of WILDS; WILDS = Communi – CI WILDS Subscale of WILDS; Relationship(s) mantic e of Work Interference with Li tionnaire; WHEQ2 = Parcel 2 of ubscale of HMS; HMS – AGC = Assumptions Culture Gay of Subscale rkplace Heterosexist Experiences Questionnaire; HMS – AD = Assume action Subscale; SWLS = SWLS Sati action Subscale; = Significant Other Subscale of Multidimensi -Transformations (N = 385) 10* -.07 -.05 -.01 -.10 -.07 -.05 -.01 10*

WHEQ1 = Parcel 1 of HeterosexistWorkplace Experiences Ques < .01 < .05 < .05 p p 10. - FA MSPSS 11. - FR MSPSS -.14** 12. - FA WILDS -.13* -.07 13. - HM WILDS -.19** .25** 14. -.05 - FR WILDS .24** -.19** .25** 15. - RR WILDS -.06 .21** -.32** .20** .22** 16. - CI WILDS -.33** .19** .17** .21** -.12* 17.JSS .26** -.22** .20** .21** .24** .25** 18. SWLS -.17** .19** -.16** .22* .18** -.13* .14** .28** .20** .20** .23** .15** .13* .22** -.16** .23** -.33** — -.17** -.11* .14** .16** -.30** .16** .25** .13** -.21** -.38** .08 .17** .21** .13* .18** -.21** .18** -.38** .36** .17** .09 .04 -.04 -.22** .17** -.23** .14** — -.23** .15** .02 -.03 -.03 -.23** -.01 -.19** .10 -.21** -.05 -.11* -.19** — -.10 -.10 .09 -.03 -.12* .71** -.05 .35** .03 -.06 .72** .13* — .72** -.02 .67** .35** .11* .64** .32** .60** -.10 -.27** — .76** -.26** .58** -.20** — -.29** .62** -.24** -.27** .60** -.23** -.25** -.19** — — .45** Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 WHEQ1 — — — WHEQ2 — Variable 1 .71** .72** .68** WHEQ3 1. .67** .79** WHEQ4 2. .74** 3. 4. 5. HMS - AD 6. HMS - SCC 7. HMS - AGC .47** 8. HMS - SKB .50** .48** 9. MSPSS - SO .47** .43** .46** .44** .33** .52** -.06 .49** .29** .49** .50** -.10 .33** — .42** .77** -. .34** .69** — .71** .60** .60** — .64** — and Behavior Subscale of HMS; and Behavior Subscale MSPSS – SO – RR = Ro WILDS – Subscale of WILDS; WILDS FR = Friendship WILDS; MSPSS – FR = FriendsMSPSS; Subscale of WILDS – FA = Family Subscal Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire Job Satisf Assessment Questionnaire Organizational Michigan ** Heterosexist Experiences Questionnaire; WHEQ4 = Parcel 4 of Wo Microaggressions Scale (HMS); HMS – SCC = Second Class Citizen S * Note.

Table 3 Zero-Order Correlations Post

149

Homonegative microaggressions scale. The factorability of the 27 items of the

Homonegative Microaggressions Scale (HMS; Wegner 2014; Wright & Wegner, 2012)

was examined through EFA. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin MSA was superb at .93 and

Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (χ2 (351) = 5491.21, p < .001), suggesting that

the correlation matrix was appropriate for factor analysis. The scree plot indicated

consideration of five- four- and three-factor solutions.

The initial model had five factors with eigenvalues greater than one and it

explained 53.87% of the total variance. Within this five-factor model, item loadings

demonstrated a substantial divergence from the four-factor model originally proposed by

Wegner (2014) and items demonstrated acceptable, but less than desirable loadings. The

subsequent process required an appraisal of individual items for possible removal. Item

reduction was determined by items that demonstrated cross-loadings in excess of .32 on

two or more factors and by items that had a factor loading less than .40 (Pett, Lackey, &

Sullivan, 2003; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Items not meeting the aforementioned

criteria were deleted one at a time and followed by another EFA to ensure each

succeeding item also needed to be removed. In total, four items (items numbers 20, 17, 6,

and 1) did not satisfy this criteria and were, therefore, omitted from further analysis in an

attempt to retain the four-factor model proposed by Wegner.

Another iteration of Principal Axis Factoring was performed with the remaining

23 items. The eigenvalues suggested a five-factor model that accounted for 54.30% of the total variance. Oblimin rotation was applied and the scree plot suggested either four- or five- factor solutions. The remaining items within this five-factor solution did not demonstrate cross-loadings in excess of .32 on two or more factors and the items had

150

factor loadings greater than .4; therefore, all items were retained. Two additional EFAs

using Principal Axis Factoring were employed using a fixed number of factors (four- and

three-factor solutions) as the extraction method rather than extracting factors based on

eigenvalues greater than one. Despite efforts to retain the four-factor solution originally

intended by Wegner (2014) by using the present data, items did not load onto factors in a

pattern that made theoretical sense.

One potential reason for poor factor retention between Wegner’s four-factor

solution and solutions proposed in the present study is demographic differences between both samples. Specifically, Wave One and Wave Two of Wegner’s population was comprised largely by White (85.8% and 71.2%, respectively), gay-identified (54.2% and

38.7%, respectively), cisgender men (55.8% and 54.6%, respectively) in comparison to the current sample, which was comprised by 78.2% White, 20.5% gay-identified, 17.1% cisgender men. The difference in sample demographics between the original factorability study and the present investigation could indicate that the lesbian-, queer-, and bisexual- identified cisgender women experience microaggressions differently than their gay- identified cisgender men counterparts. For example, sexual minority women may report to a lesser degree experiencing the following items from the HMS: (a) “How often have people assumed you have HIV/AIDS because of your sexual orientation,” (b) “How often have people assumed you were a pedophile, and (c) “How often have people physically shielded their child/children from you?” Another possible explanation for the discrepancy in factor structures between the two studies is that the original factor solution has only been investigated once through a single EFA and one Confirmatory Factor Analysis

(Wegner). A third potential justification for the discrepancy in factor structure is that the

151

original factor solution was based on a sample that was compensated for their time completing the survey through Amazon Mechanical Turk. Consequently, the present study decided to preserve the four-factor solution proposed by Wegner despite its potential limitations, as each factor demonstrated adequate internal consistency reliability and the factor structure is grounded in theory.

Multidimensional scale of perceived social support. The factorability of the 12 items of the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS; Zimet et al.,

1988) was examined through EFA. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin MSA was great at .845 and

Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (χ2 (66) = 5784.218, p < .001), suggesting that

the correlation matrix was appropriate for factor analysis. The scree plot indicated

consideration of a three-factor solution.

The model had three factors with eigenvalues greater than one and it explained

87.81% of the total variance. Retention of items was determined through assessment of

factor loadings and cross loadings. All items were retained, as all items had factor

loadings greater than .4 and did not load onto more than one factor with a factor loading

of greater than .3 (Pett et al., 2003; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). The three-factor solution

aligned perfectly with the three factors proposed in the present study.

Work interference with life domains scale. The factorability of the 30 items of

the Work Interference with Life Domains Scale (WILDS; Keeney et al., 2011) was

examined through EFA. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin MSA was superb at .95 and Bartlett’s

test of sphericity was significant (χ2 (435) = 14723.492, p < .001), suggesting that the

correlation matrix was appropriate for factor analysis. The scree plot indicated

consideration of five- and six-factor solutions.

152

The initial model had six factors with eigenvalues greater than one and it explained 84.84% of the total variance. Retention of items was determined through assessment of factor loadings and cross loadings. All items were retained, as all items had factor loadings greater than .4 and did not load onto more than one factor with a factor loading of greater than .3 (Pett et al., 2003; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001), with the exception of cross-loadings in excess of .3 between the strain-based interference items on the Friendships and Family subscales. The high cross loadings may be explained by the confluence of family and friends, as in the family-of-choice relational dynamic that is typical amongst LGBQ individuals. Additionally, within this six-factor model, item loadings demonstrated consistency with the original factor structure of the five domains of time- and strain-based interference employed in this study, with the exception of the family domain. Specifically, the six-factor model extracted separate factors for family time- and strain-based interference rather than a combined factor, as initially proposed in this study. Both of these limitations of the six-factor model could be explained by the following: (a) LGBTQ individuals may define family differently than non-sexual minority individuals to denote family-of-choice or family-of-origin, (b) LGBTQ individuals may experience more strain and less time with family-of-origin, (c) LGBTQ individuals might not place as high of an emphasis on family as they do the other domains and (d) the WILDS was normed on a heterosexual sample.

Another iteration of Principal Axis Factoring with Oblimin rotation was performed using a fixed number of factors (five-factor solution) as the extraction method rather than extracting factors based on eigenvalues greater than one. The five-factor model accounted for 77.55% of the total variance and items diverged greatly from the

153

five domains of time- and strain-based interference proposed in this study. Specifically,

time- and strain-based interference items related to romantic relationships loaded onto

two factors (one comprised of family strain-based interference items and friendships

time- and strain-based interference items). As with the aforementioned six-factor

solution, the discrepancy between the factor solution in the present study and the domains

proposed in the creation of the WILDS could be explained by the convergence of family,

romantic partners, and friends in the lives of sexual minorities. Additionally, due to the

WILDS being normed on a heterosexual sample, LGBQ individuals may require a

different factor structure that accounts for this fluidity of friendships, romantic

relationships, and family for sexual minorities. However, for the purposes of the current

study, the means of the five subscales (Household Management, Community

Involvement, Family, Friendship, and Romantic Relationships) that were based on the

time- and strain-based domains developed by the authors of the scale (i.e., Keeney et al.,

2011), were used in the CFA and SEM, as each factor demonstrated good internal

consistency reliability and is grounded in theory.

Job satisfaction and satisfaction with life. Separate EFAs were conducted on both the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985)

and the Job Satisfaction Scale (JSS; Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh, 1979). The factorability of the five items of the SWLS was examined through EFA using principal axis factoring. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin MSA was great at .87 and Bartlett’s test of

sphericity was significant (χ2 (10) = 1181.269, p < .001), suggesting that the correlation

matrix was appropriate for factor analysis. The scree plot indicated consideration of a

154

one-factor solution for the SWLS. Items loaded onto the single factor of the SWLS with

loadings ranging from .58 (item 5) to .89 (item 3).

The factorability of the three items of the JSS was examined through EFA using

principal axis factoring. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin MSA was mediocre at .54 and

Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (χ2 (3) = 478.185, p < .001), suggesting that

the correlation matrix was appropriate for factor analysis. The scree plot indicated

consideration of a one-factor solution for the JSS. Items loaded onto the single factor of

the JSS with loadings ranging from .28 (item 3) to .97 (item 1).

Exploratory factor analysis of latent constructs. An EFA was conducted on the

means of the aforementioned factors of each measure with subscales (14 in total) and the

three-unidimensional scales in the present study (i.e., WHEQ, SWLS, and JSS) to

investigate how the subscales and unidimensional measures loaded into latent constructs.

The rationale for conducting an EFA with the means of the subscales and unidimensional

scales was to develop latent constructs for the CFA and SEM analyses. The factorability

of the 17 items was examined through EFA using Principal Axis Factoring Analysis. The

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin MSA was determined to be great at .85 and Bartlett’s test of

sphericity was significant (χ2 (105) = 2801.395, p < .001), which suggested that the correlation matrix was appropriate for factor analysis. The scree plot indicated consideration of three- and four-factor solutions.

The initial model had three factors with eigenvalues greater than one and it explained 54.05% of the total variance. Retention of items was determined through assessment of factor loadings and cross loadings. All items were retained, as all items had factor loadings greater than .4 and did not load onto more than one factor with a factor

155

loading of greater than .3 (Pett et al., 2003; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). The first factor consisted of the five subscales of the WILDS and accounted for 29.36% of the total variance. The second factor extracted was comprised of all four of the HMS subscales and the WHEQ unidimensional measure, and accounted for 16.73% of the total variance.

Finally, the third factor consisted of all three of the MSPSS subscales, as well as the

SWLS and JSS unidimensional measures, and accounted for 7.96% of the total variance

(see Table 4). This three-factor structure diverged from the hypothesized structural model

in the present study, as the SWLS and JSS were hypothesized to be outcome variables

rather than additional moderators to the proposed MSPSS. This discrepancy could be

explained by the significant correlations between LSS and the three subscales of the

MSPSS (Friendships, Significant Other, and Family) in the present study (r = .11, .35, and .13 respectively), as well as the high correlations between SWLS and the three subscales of the MSPSS (Friendships, Significant Other, and Family) in the present investigation (r = .32, .35, and .35, respectively).

Another iteration of Principal Axis Factoring with Oblimin rotation was performed using a fixed number of factors (four-factor solution) as the extraction method rather than extracting factors based on eigenvalues greater than one. The four-factor model accounted for 57.79% of the total variance. All items were retained, as all items had factor loadings greater than .4 and did not load onto more than one factor with a factor loading of greater than .3 (Pett et al., 2003; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). The first factor consisted of the five subscales of the WILDS and accounted for 29.52% of the total variance. The second factor extracted was comprised of all four of the HMS subscales and the WHEQ unidimensional measure, and accounted for 16.77% of the total variance.

156

The third factor consisted of all three of the MSPSS subscales, as well as the SWLS unidimensional measure, and accounted for 8.13% of the total variance. Finally, the last factor consisted solely of the JSS unidimensional measure and accounted for 3.7% of the total variance. This four-factor structure deviated from the hypothesized structural model in the present study, as the SWLS continued to load onto the factor with the three subscales of the moderator, MSPSS. This discrepancy could be explained by the high correlations between SWLS and the three subscales of the MSPSS (Friendships,

Significant Other, and Family) in the present study (r = .32, .35, and .35, respectively).

A final iteration of Principal Axis Factoring with Oblimin rotation was performed using the parceled subscales for the WHEQ. The four-factor model with eigenvalues greater than one and it explained 59.24% of the total variance. Retention of items was determined through assessment of factor loadings and cross loadings. The JSS was not retained, as it did not reach a factor loading greater than .4 and cross-loaded onto three factors (factors 1, 2, and 3). The first factor consisted of the four parceled subscales of the

WHEQ and accounted for 31.33% of the total variance. The second factor extracted was comprised of all four of the WILDS subscales, and accounted for 15.22% of the total variance. The third factor retained consisted of the three subscales of the MSPSS and the

SWLS unidimensional measure, and accounted for 6.96% of the total variance. Finally, the fourth factor consisted of all four of the HMS subscales, and accounted for 5.74% of the total variance (see Table 5). This three-factor structure diverged from the hypothesized structural model in the present study, as the SWLS and JSS were hypothesized to be outcome variables rather than additional moderators to the proposed

MSPSS.

157

Table 4

Summary of Exploratory Factor Analysis Results for Latent Constructs Using Principal

Axis Factoring (N = 385)

Factor Loadings Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 WILDS – FR .87 -.18 -.16 WILDS – FA .86 -.25 .03 WILDS – RO .84 -.20 -.14 WILDS – HM .80 -.17 -.09 WILDS – CI .72 -.20 -.08 HMS – SCC .20 -.89 -.27 HMS – AD .17 -.85 -.30 HMS – AGG .23 -.83 -.24 HMS – SKB .13 -.74 -.14 WHEQ_Total .31 -.56 -.25 SWLS -.26 .21 .81 MSPSS – FR -.05 .30 .46 MSPSS – SO .05 .17 .46 MSPSS – FA -.08 .30 .44 JSS -.35 .26 .30 Eigenvalues 4.77 2.86 1.74 % of variance 29.36 16.73 7.96 Note. WILDS-FR = Friend Subscale of Work Interference with Life Domains Scale (WILDS); WILDS-FA = Family Subscale of WILDS; WILDS-RO = Romantic Relationship(s) Subscale of WILDS; WILDS-HM = Household Management Subscale of WILDS; WILDS-CI = Community Involvement Subscale of WILDS; HMS-SCC = Second Class Citizen Subscale of Homonegative Microaggressions Scale (HMS); HMS-AD = Assumed Deviance Subscale of HMS; HMS-AGG = Assumptions of Gay Culture Subscale of HMS; HMS-SKB = Stereotypical Knowledge and Behavior Subscale of HMS; WHEQ_Total = Workplace Heterosexist Experiences Questionnaire; SWLS = Satisfaction with Life Scale; MSPSS-FR = Friend Subscale of Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS); MSPSS-SO = Significant Other Subscale of MSPSS; MSPSS-FA = Family Subscale of MSPSS; JSS = Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire Job Satisfaction Subscale.

158

Item Parceling for Workplace Heterosexist Experiences Questionnaire

Item parceling entails the averaging of item scores from two or more items and

then using these parcel scores rather than the item scores in the SEM analysis (Bandalos,

2002). Research has suggested that parceling can result in more constant parameter estimates and optimal variable to size ratio (Bagozzi & Edwards, 1998), as well as better model fit than solutions than are at the item level (Thompson & Melancon, 1996).

Additionally, to increase the likelihood of an identified measurement model, three or more indicators must load onto each latent construct (O’Brien, 1994). As the WHEQ is a unidimensional scale, four indicators were developed to correspond with the number of indicators on the HMS latent construct, as both are predictor variables in the present study.

To create parcels that provided the most accurate representation of the workplace

heterosexist experiences construct, an exploratory factor analysis was performed, the item

correlation matrix was examined, and an item-level reliability analysis was conducted

(Little, Rhemtulla et al., 2013). Results of the EFA suggested a one-factor model.

Random disaggregation strategy was, therefore, employed to create four indicators of the

WHEQ latent construct. Random disaggregation strategy requires the researcher to

decide on the number of parcels to be created and then to randomly assign items to each

of the parcels (Hall et al. 1999). The researcher utilized a web-based list randomizer to

arbitrarily assign each of the 22 items to the four parcels. The internal consistency

estimates for each of the parcels were slightly below the standard cut-off of 0.70 that is

consistent with good reliability (Ponterotto & Ruckdeschel, 2007), Parcel 1 (6 items) =

0.65, Parcel 2 (6 items) = 0.66, Parcel 3 (5 items) = 0.64, and Parcel 4 (5 items) = 0.66).

159

The parcels produced satisfactory loadings onto the WHEQ construct (β = .89 for Parcel

1; β = .83 for Parcel 2; β = .85 for Parcel 3; and β = .83 for Parcel 4) and were considered to satisfactorily represent workplace heterosexist experiences in the present study.

Moderation Analysis

Moderators assess “when” and “for whom” predictor variables most strongly cause or predict an outcome variable (Frazier, Tix, & Barron, 2004, p. 116). Moderators, therefore, have the ability to alter the strength or direction of the relationship between predictor variables and outcome variables (Barron & Kenny, 1986). As moderators represent an interaction in which the effect one variable has is contingent upon the level

of another variable, they allow for the examination of the mitigating effect of one

variable on the relationship between predictor variables and outcome variables (Frazier et

al.; Norcross, 2001). In the present study, perceived social support (i.e., MSPSS) serves

as a moderator of the relationships between two predictor variables (i.e., WHEQ and

HMS) and the work-life outcome variable. Therefore, perceived social support was

hypothesized to alter the direction or the strength of the relationship between the

aforementioned predictor variables and the outcome variables.

160

Table 5

Summary of Exploratory Factor Analysis Results for Latent Constructs without JSS

Using Principal Axis Factoring (N = 385)

Factor Loadings Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 WHEQ1 .89 .25 -.12 .52 WHEQ2 .83 .23 -.16 .48 WHEQ3 .85 .22 -.19 .50 WHEQ4 .82 .29 -.21 .49 WILDS – FR .24 .87 -.15 .14 WILDS – FA .27 .85 .05 .22 WILDS – RO .22 .84 -.13 .16 WILDS – HM .22 .80 -.07 .14 WILDS – CI .24 .70 -.05 .16 SWLS -.20 -.23 .67 -.17 MSPSS – FR -.08 -.05 .52 -.29 MSPSS – FA -.18 -.08 .50 -.17 MSPSS – SO -.09 .05 .49 -.03 HMS – SCC .57 .19 -.24 .81 HMS – AD .53 .16 -.28 .80 HMS - AGG .52 .21 -.21 .80 HMS - SKB .40 .12 -.12 .77 Eigenvalues 5.76 3.05 1.78 1.33 % of variance 32.04 16.06 7.03 5.70 Note. WHEQ1 = Parcel 1 of Workplace Heterosexist Experiences Questionnaire; WHEQ2 = Parcel 2 of Workplace Heterosexist Experiences Questionnaire; WHEQ3 = Parcel 3 of Workplace Heterosexist Experiences Questionnaire; WHEQ4 = Parcel 4 of Workplace Heterosexist Experiences Questionnaire; WILDS-FR = Friend Subscale of Work Interference with Life Domains Scale (WILDS); WILDS-FA = Family Subscale of WILDS; WILDS-RO = Romantic Relationship(s) Subscale of WILDS; WILDS-HM = Household Management Subscale of WILDS; WILDS-CI = Community Involvement Subscale of WILDS; SWLS = Satisfaction with Life Scale; MSPSS-FR = Friend Subscale of Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS); MSPSS-FA = Family Subscale of MSPSS; MSPSS-SO = Significant Other Subscale of MSPSS; HMS-SCC = Second Class Citizen Subscale of Homonegative Microaggressions Scale (HMS); HMS-AD = Assumed Deviance Subscale of HMS; HMS-AGG = Assumptions of Gay Culture Subscale of HMS; HMS-SKB = Stereotypical Knowledge and Behavior Subscale of HMS.

161

Residual Centering Approach for Moderation in SEM

Two primary modes of testing interaction effects between explanatory constructs

in counseling psychology research have been multiple regression analyses and analysis of

variance (ANOVA) procedures (Frazier, Barron, & Tix, 2004). However, such methods

are determined to have low power due to their inability to control for measurement error

(Steinmetz, Davidov, & Schmidt, 2011). As such, latent interaction modeling using SEM

has been suggested as a more robust method of testing interaction effects between

explanatory constructs (Steinmetz et al.). A recently developed approach to interaction

modeling, the residual centering approach (Little, Bovaird, Widaman, 2006), was used in

the present study.

The residual centering approach to moderation uses residuals of regression

analyses as indicators, contains no constraints, and avoids statistical dependency between

indicators and the latent product variables (Little et al., 2006). The residual centering approach involves a two-step procedure. The first step was to multiply the uncentered indicators of two first-order effect variables (in the present study, uncentered indicators of the WHEQ and the MSPSS, as well as uncentered indicators of HMS and MSPSS).

Specifically, each subscale of both predictors (i.e., WHEQ and HMS) were multiplied by each subscale of the moderator (i.e., MSPSS) and the resulting product was saved as a new variable representing the interaction (i.e., HMS1MSPSS1, HMS1MSPSS2,

HMS1MSPSS3, HMS2MSPSS1, HMS2MSPSS2, HMS2MSPSS3 etc., and

WHEQ1MSPSS1, WHEQ1MSPSS2, WHEQ1MSPSS3, WHEQ2MSPSS1,

WHEQ2MSPSS2, WHEQ2MSPSS3, etc.). This analysis resulted in 12 product terms in each proposed model (i.e., 12 product terms in the WHEQWork-Life Outcome model

162

and 12 product terms in the HMSWork-Life Outcome model). Linear regressions of

the resulting product were then conducted on all first-order effect indicators. Specifically, the aforementioned product terms created represented the dependent variables in each regression and the remaining 11 product terms of each model represented the independent variables. This process was repeated for each of the indicators between the two latent constructs. This process produced 12 residuals for the interaction effect in both proposed models (i.e., 12 residuals in the WHEQWork-Life Outcome model and 12 residuals in the HMSWork-Life Outcome model).

The second step is to use the unstandardized residuals of each of the linear regression analyses as indicators of the latent interaction model (see Figures 8 and 9 for measurement model of the interaction). In each model, the errors of all indicators that

were based on products of particular variables were allowed to covary (e.g., all indicators

that were in some way based on Assumed Deviance of the HMS were allowed to covary).

In the present study, the two-step process of the residual centering approach was

employed twice to represent the interaction effects between explanatory constructs in the

two proposed models.

When testing the workplace heterosexist experiences and homonegative

microaggressions structural models using the interaction terms, all variables related to the

other predictor latent construct were not included in the analysis. Specifically, when testing the workplace heterosexist experiences structural model, the interaction latent construct consisted only of the interaction between workplace heterosexist experiences

and perceived social support. Likewise, when testing the homonegative microaggressions

structural model, all variables related to workplace heterosexism were excluded from the

163

interaction latent construct. To ensure that the residual centering approach to moderation

was run correctly, the homonegative microaggressions measurement model was re-run

without the interaction term and resulted in no direct relationship between homonegative

microaggressions and work-life outcomes.

Model Identification

Prior to testing model fit in CFA and SEM analyses, model identification was

established using the t rule, the two-indicator rule, and empirical testing. The t rule

dictates that in an identified and recursive model, the number of distinct parameters to be

estimated (i.e., unknown pieces of information) must be less than the number of

nonredundant (i.e., unique or known pieces of information) elements in the covariance

matrix (Crockett, 2012). In other words, the number of parameters must be less than the

total number of means plus variances and covariances of all observed variables in the

analysis. This is calculated using t = p(p + 1)/2, where p is equivalent to the number of

observed variables and t is equivalent to the number of variances and covariances. As

both structural equation models in the present study consisted of 26 observed variables,

the number of unique elements in the covariance matrix is 351 and the number of free

(i.e., estimated) parameters in the model is 96. As such, both models are considered

overidentified and are, therefore, identified. Additionally, Bollen’s two-indicator rule

(Bollen, 1989) was employed in the present study to determine model identification. The

two-indicator rule requires a model to have more than one latent construct with at least

two indicators of each latent construct to be considered identified. Both target models in

the present study met Bollen’s two-indicator rule and are, therefore, considered identified. Finally, to further confirm model identification, each latent construct was

164

scaled by fixing the path between the latent construct and one of its latent indicators to 1.

The above results of empirical identification and assumptions of model identification suggested that both models were identified.

Measurement Model Fit

Despite the ability of SEM to simultaneously test the fit of the measurement and structural model, research has suggested that it is beneficial to test the measurement

model first to confirm that the fit of the measurement model is adequate prior to testing

the fit of the structural model (Martens, 2005). As such, using the results of

aforementioned exploratory factor analyses and item parceling, a CFA using maximum

likelihood estimation was conducted on each measurement model (i.e., WHEQ, HMS,

Work-Life Outcome, MSPSS, WHEQ and MSPSS Interaction, and HMS and MSPSS

Interaction) in order to assess indicator loadings on their respective latent factors and

overall model fit (see Figures 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 for measurement models). Additionally, a

CFA on the entire measurement model was conducted to assess overall fit (see Figures

10, 11, and 12). Table 6 indicates the loading of each indictor variable on the predicted

latent construct, as well as the amount of error observed in the relationship. A

standardized loading of .70 and above is generally considered adequate and is considered

significant if the p value is less than the conventional .05 cutoff. All indicator variables

significantly loaded on their respective latent construct and most exceeded the adequate

standardized estimate of .70 and above, except for the following: the friends social

support indicator variable (loaded on MSPSS latent construct at .54), the family social

support indicator variable (loaded on MSPSS latent construct at .65), the significant other

social support indicator variable (loaded on MSPSS latent construct at .36), job

165

satisfaction indicator (loaded on Work-Life Outcome latent construct at -.58), and all five

of the work-life interference indicators (i.e., household management, family, friends,

romantic partners, and community involvement), which loaded on the Work-Life

Outcome latent construct at .30, .21, .35, .33, and .30, respectively. Further, Figures 13

and 14, and Table 7 display the main effects model with covaried exogeneous latent

variables.

166

Figure 9 Confirmatory Factor Analysis on Measurement Model

167

d Regressions Weights Model with Unstandardize Figure 10 Confirmatory Factor Analysis on Measurement

168

d Regressions Weights t Model with Standardize Figure 11 Confirmatory Factor Analysis on Measuremen

169

Table 6

Parameter Estimates Coefficients for Confirmatory Factor Analyses

Parameter Hypothesized Model U SE S p HMS  Stereotypical 1.00 — .70 — HMS  Second Class 1.11 .07 .88 <.001 HMS  Assumptions 1.20 .08 .81 <.001 HMS  Deviance 2.24 .14 .87 <.001 WHEQ  WHEQ4 1.00 — .84 — WHEQ  WHEQ1 3.19 .15 .88 <.001 WHEQ  WHEQ2 2.54 .15 .75 <.001 WHEQ  WHEQ3 1.13 .05 .88 <.001 MSPSS Friends 1.00 — .54 — MSPSS  Family 7.36 1.13 .65 <.001 MSPSS  SigOther 5.23 1.06 .34 <.001 Outcome  Household 1.00 — .30 — Outcome  Family .69 .14 .21 <.001 Outcome  Friends 1.14 .18 .35 <.001 Outcome  Romantic 1.15 .19 .33 <.001 Outcome  Community 1.04 .20 .29 <.001 Outcome  SWLS -17.67 3.73 -.78 <.001 Outcome  JSS -6.86 1.46 -.58 <.001 Note. U = Unstandardized Estimate; SE = Standard Error; S = Standardized Estimate; p = Significance Value.

170

standardized Regression Weights Figure 12 Main Effects Model with Un

171

andardized Regression Weights Figure 13 Main Effects Model with St

172

Table 7 Parameter Estimates Coefficients for Main Effects Model

Parameter Hypothesized Model U SE S p HMS  Stereotypical 1.00 — .70 — HMS  Second Class 1.11 .07 .88 <.001 HMS  Assumptions 1.20 .08 .81 <.001 HMS  Deviance 2.24 .14 .87 <.001 WHEQ  WHEQ4 1.00 — .84 — WHEQ  WHEQ1 3.19 .15 .88 <.001 WHEQ  WHEQ2 2.54 .15 .75 <.001 WHEQ  WHEQ3 1.13 .05 .88 <.001 MSPSS SigOther 1.00 — .54 — MSPSS  Family 1.41 1.13 .65 <.001 MSPSS  Friends .19 1.06 .34 <.001 Outcome  Household 1.00 — .30 — Outcome  Family .69 .14 .21 <.001 Outcome  Friends 1.14 .18 .35 <.001 Outcome  Romantic 1.15 .19 .33 <.001 Outcome  Community 1.04 .20 .29 <.001 Outcome  SWLS -17.67 3.73 -.78 <.001 Outcome  JSS -6.86 1.46 -.58 <.001 HMS  Outcome -.51 .39 -.14 .175 MSPSS  Outcome -.24 .07 -.61 <.001 WHEQ  Outcome .91 .29 .33 .002 Note. U = Unstandardized Estimate; SE = Standard Error; S = Standardized Estimate; p = Significance Value.

To assess the fit of the measurement models, the following goodness of fit indices were examined: χ2 test (CMIN/DF), the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), the Bentler-Bonett

Normed Fit Index (NFI), the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), the Comparative Fit Index (CFI),

the Parsimony Normed Fit Index (PNFI), and the Root Mean Square Error of

Approximation (RMSEA). These goodness of fit indices have been supported for use in

counseling psychology research and reflect both incremental and stand-alone measures

(Martens, 2005). Consistent with established criteria for examining the TLI and CFI fit

indices, a criterion of 0.95 was used to establish excellent model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999)

173

and a criterion of 0.90 to establish adequate fit (Weston & Gore, 2006). For the NFI, a

value between 0.90 and 0.95 was considered marginal, a value greater than 0.95 was

considered good, and a value less than 0.90 was considered to be a poor fitting model

(Bentler & Bonnet, 1980). For the RMSEA, a criterion of less than or equal to 0.05 was

used to indicate excellent fit, a value between 0.06 and 0.08 was used to indicate

adequate fit, and a value of 0.08 was used to indicate mediocre fit (Hu & Bentler;

Schumacker & Lomax, 2010). For the GFI, a value between 0.90 and 0.95 was

considered marginal, a value greater than 0.95 was considered good, and a value less than

0.90 was considered to be a poor fitting model (Bollen, 1990; Miles & Shevlin, 1998).

Although it is possible to achieve parsimony within the 0.50 region, a threshold of greater

than or equal to 0.90 for PNFI values was used in the present study (Mulaik et al., 1989).

Finally, models were considered to demonstrate good fit if the χ2 test was statistically

non-significant at the 0.05 level (Barrett, 2007). However, the χ2 test has been shown to

reject good fitting models when used on large sample sizes; therefore, the present study

examined this index with caution (Bentler & Bonnet, 1980; Hu & Bentler). Thus, for the model to demonstrate good fit to the data, all of the goodness of fit indices, with the exception of the χ2 test, must have met the aforementioned cut-off criteria. The fit of the

measurement models is presented below in Table 8.

The measurement models of three primary latent constructs (i.e., WHEQ, HMS,

and Work-Life Outcome) demonstrated good fit. Four indicators comprised of parceled

items measured the WHEQ latent construct. The WHEQ measurement model evidenced

good fit to the data (χ2(2) = 6.781, p = .034; GFI = .99; CFI = .99; TLI = .99; RMSEA =

.08) and all factor loadings were significant at p < .001 level. The four subscale-level

174

indicators measured the HMS latent construct. The HMS measurement model evidenced good fit to the data (χ2(2) = 12.238, p = .002; GFI = .98; NFI = .99; TLI = .97; CFI = .99;

RMSEA = .115). The MSPSS latent construct was not interpreted for model fit, as its three indicators rendered the measurement model just-identified and results of a CFA would not be meaningful.

Table 8

Measurement Model Fit

Model χ2 GFI NFI TLI CFI PNFI RMSEA

HMS 12.24, df = 2, p = .002 .98 .99 .97 .99 .33 .12 WHEQ 6.78, df = 2, p = .035 .99 .99 .99 1.00 .33 .08 Outcome 18.85, df = 4, p = .001 .99 .99 .94 .99 .19 .10 HMS_MSPSS 50.05, df = 24, p = .001 .98 .99 .98 .99 .36 .05 Interaction WHEQ_MSPSS 63.95, df = 24, p = .000 .97 .98 .97 .99 .36 .07 Interaction CFA 296.94, df = 119, p = .000 .92 .92 .94 .95 .72 .06 Full Model Note. χ2 = Chi Squared; GFI = Goodness of Fit Index; NFI = Bentler-Bonett Normed Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; PNFI = Parsimony Normed Fit Index, and RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.

However, the structure of the scale is supported by excellent coefficient alphas (α

.99, .93, and .94 for significant other, family, and friends subscales, respectively), which supports that items of each subscale are measuring the same latent construct. The Work-

Life Outcome latent construct was measured by the five subscale-level of the WILDS as indicators with covaried errors and the two unidimensional scale-level indicators of the

JSS and SWLS. The Work-Life Outcome measurement model evidenced good fit to the

175

data (χ2(4) = 18.852, p = .001; GFI = .99; NFI = .99; TLI = .94; CFI = .99; RMSEA =

.09). However, all four of the measurement models (i.e., WHEQ, HMS, MSPSS, and

Work-Life Outcome) showed non-parsimonious results (PNFI = .331, .329, .000, .188, respectively).

The measurement models of the two moderator variables (i.e., WHEQ_MSPSS

Interaction and HMS_MSPSS Interaction) demonstrated good fit. The WHEQ_MSPSS

Interaction latent construct was measured by the regression residuals of the WHEQ and

MSPSS as indicators. The WHEQ_MSPSS measurement model evidenced adequate fit to the data (χ2(24) = 63.951, p = .000; GFI = .97; NFI = .98; TLI = .97; CFI = .99; RMSEA =

.06). The HMS _MSPSS Interaction latent construct was measured by the regression residuals of the HMS and MSPSS as indicators. The HMS_MSPSS measurement model evidenced adequate fit to the data (χ2(24) = 50.052, p = .001; GFI = .98; NFI = .99; TLI =

.98; CFI = .99; RMSEA = .05). However, both measurement models (i.e.,

WHEQ_MSPSS Interaction and HMS_MSPSS Interaction) displayed non-parsimonious

results (PNFI = .357 and .358, respectively).

Finally, the measurement model for the entire measurement model demonstrated

good fit (see Table 8). The measurement model consisted of the WHEQ, HMS, MSPSS, and Work-Life Outcome latent constructs and their associated indicators. The five

WILDS subscale-level indicators of the Work-Life Outcome latent construct were allowed to covary. The two interaction latent constructs will be used for the SEM analysis. The measurement model evidenced good fit to the data (χ2(119) = 296.938, p =

.000; GFI = .92; NFI = .92; TLI = .94; CFI = .95; RMSEA = .06). However, like the aforementioned measurement models, the entire measurement model evidenced non-

176

parsimonious results (PNFI = .719). These non-parsimonious results for all of the measurement models could be a consequence of model complexity and potential overfitting (Preacher, 2006) and represent a limitation of this study.

Target Model Fit

The unstandardized and standardized parameter estimates of the workplace

heterosexism structural equation model (i.e., WHEQWork-Life Outcome) are displayed in Table 9 and in Figures 15 and 16. Results indicated that workplace heterosexism (i.e., WHEQ) significantly positively associated with work-life outcomes (B

= .60; β = .23; p < .05) and that perceived social support (i.e., MSPSS) was significantly negatively related to work-life outcomes (B = -.20; β = -0.61; p < .001). Results indicated

that WHEQ has a medium effect on the outcome (r = .23), which suggests that when

WHEQ goes up by one standard deviation, the Work-Life Outcome goes up by 0.23

standard deviations. This is in addition to any indirect effect that WHEQ may have on

Work-Life Outcome latent construct. Additionally, results indicated that MSPSS has a large effect on the outcome (r = -.61), which suggests that when MSPSS goes up by one standard deviation, the Work-Life Outcome goes down by 0.61 standard deviations. This is in addition to any indirect effect that MSPSS may have on Work-Life Outcome.

Specifically, these findings imply that more workplace heterosexism was positively related to work-life outcomes and that more perceived social support was negatively correlated with work-life outcomes. Alternatively, the interaction between workplace heterosexism and perceived social support (i.e., WHEQ MSPSS Interaction) was not significantly related to work-life outcomes (B = .02; β = .03; p = .606) and had a small direct effect on the outcome (r = .03). Overall, the target model for workplace

177

heterosexism evidenced excellent fit to the data according to the aforementioned fit

indices (χ2(255) = 401.751, p = .001; GFI = .93; NFI = .94; TLI = .97; CFI = .98; and

RMSEA = .04). Model fit indices are displayed in Table 11. Additionally, the model

indicated non-parsimonious results (PNFI = .736), which could be a consequence of

model complexity and potential overfitting (Preacher, 2006).

The unstandardized and standardized parameter estimates of the homonegative

microaggressions experiences structural equation model (i.e., HMSWork-Life

Outcome) are displayed in Table 10 and in Figures 17 and 18. Results indicated that

perceived social support (i.e., MSPSS) significantly negatively associated with work-life outcomes (B = -.16; β = -.65; p = .003) and had a large direct effect (r = -.65) on the outcome. This finding suggests that when MSPSS goes up by one standard deviation,

Work-Life Outcome goes down by 0.65 standard deviations. Alternatively, homonegative microaggressions (i.e., HMS) was not significantly related to work-life outcomes (B = -

.06; β = -.02; p = .748) and had a small direct effect on the outcome (r = -.02), and the interaction between homonegative microaggressions and perceived social support (i.e.,

Interaction) was not significantly correlated with work-life outcomes (B = .02; β = .06; p

= .308) and had a small direct effect on the outcome (r = .06). Overall, the target model for homonegative microaggressions evidenced excellent fit to the data according to the aforementioned fit indices (χ2(255) = 344.239, p = .000; GFI = .935; NFI = .945; TLI =

.981; CFI = .985; RMSEA = .03). Model fit indices are displayed in Table 11.

Additionally, the model indicated non-parsimonious results (PNFI = .742), which could be a consequence of model complexity and potential overfitting (Preacher, 2006).

178

ace Heterosexism Structural Equation Model Figure 14 Unstandardized Parameter Estimates of the Workpl

179

ace Heterosexism Structural Equation Model Figure 15 Standardized Parameter Estimates of the Workpl

180

ctural Equation Model gative Microaggressions Stru Figure 16 Unstandardized Parameter Estimates of the Homone

181

ctural Equation Model tive Microaggressions Stru Figure 17 Standardized Parameter Estimates of the Homonega

182

Table 9

Parameter Estimates Coefficients for Workplace Heterosexism Structural Equation

Model

Parameter U SE S p WHEQ  Outcome .60 .21 .23 .004 MSPSS  Outcome -.20 .06 -.61 <.001 Interaction  Outcome .02 .04 .03 .606 Note. U = Unstandardized Estimate; SE = Standard Error; S = Standardized Estimate; p = Significance Value.

Table 10

Parameter Estimates Coefficients for Homonegative Microaggressions Structural

Equation Model

Parameter U SE S p HMS  Outcome -.06 .18 -.02 .748 MSPSS  Outcome -.16 .05 -.65 .003 Interaction  Outcome .02 .02 .06 .308 Note. U = Unstandardized Estimate; SE = Standard Error; S = Standardized Estimate; p = Significance Value.

Table 11

Model Fit Indices

Model χ2 GFI NFI TLI CFI PNFI RMSEA WHEQ  401.75, df = 255, p = .000 .93 .94 .97 .98 .74 .04 Outcome HMS  344.24, df = 255, p = .000 .94 .95 .98 .99 .74 .03 Outcome Note. χ2 = Chi Squared; GFI = Goodness of Fit Index; NFI = Bentler-Bonett Normed Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; PNFI = Parsimony Normed Fit Index, and RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.

183

Model Conclusion

The hypothesized model from Figure 1 was tested with the sample in the present

study. Results from the measurement models, main effects model, and structural models

revealed good fit between the hypothesized model and the observed data. Overall, both

structural equation models evidenced good and comparable fit to the data. Results of the structural equation modeling revealed that workplace heterosexism and perceived social

support were significantly related to work-life outcomes (Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis

not tested, respectively). In addition, MSPSS was found to have a significant negative

relationship with work-life outcomes (Hypothesis not tested). The other structural paths

in the models did not reach statistical significance. Specifically, homonegative

microaggressions was not significantly correlated with work-life outcomes (Hypothesis

1) and perceived social support did not significantly moderate the relationship between

predictor variables (i.e., HMS and WHEQ) and work-life outcomes. (Hypotheses 3 and

4). Therefore, the moderating effect of perceived social support between the predictor and outcome variables was deemed insignificant. Further discussion of practical and theoretical considerations of the model tested, including possible explanations for non- significant moderation outcomes and relationships between predictor and outcomes variables, is presented in the following chapter.

184

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

Much research has been conducted with the aim of understanding the negative work and well-being correlates of workplace discrimination in the general population

(i.e., Hammond, Gillen, & Yen, 2010; Konrad, Moore, Ng, Doherty, & Breward, 2013;

Rospenda, Richman, & Shannon, 2008; Sanchez & Brock, 1996). Conversely, there is a

dearth of literature on the work and well-being outcomes of workplace discrimination

amongst sexual minorities with particularly limited research on the impact of

discrimination on other work-life domains (i.e., work-life/work-family conflict,

interference, and balance) (cf. Minnotte, 2012). This gap in the literature is not easily understood, as vocational psychology has long studied work-family and work-life conflict, spillover, and interference, (e.g., Demerouti, Bakker, & Butlers, 2004), and the importance of supports for individuals trying to balance the responsibilities of work and home/life (e.g., Schultheiss, 2006). And despite the growing interest of the work-family interface within vocational psychology (e.g., Richardson, 2012; Schultheiss, 2009;

Whiston & Keller, 2004), such scholarship has rarely been inclusive of sexual minorities

and has failed to adequately address the effects of workplace discrimination experienced

by sexual minorities (cf. Minnotte, 2012; Sawyer, Thoroughgood, & Cleveland, 2015).

185

Therefore, consistent with research that has focused on the interconnectedness of career development and relationship quality with others and society (e.g., Blustein, 2011;

Schultheiss, 2003, 2006, 2007), this investigation focused on the significance of

relationships in work and life contexts. Specifically, it was hypothesized that experiences

of workplace heterosexism and sexuality-based microaggressions can negatively impact

the work-life interface and job and life satisfaction, and that social support will moderate

this relationship.

The hypothesized model in this study predicted that (1) there will be a positive

relationship between homonegative microaggressions and negative work-life outcomes

(i.e., work interference with life and job and life satisfaction); (2) there will be a positive

relationship between workplace heterosexist experiences and negative work-life outcomes (i.e., work interference with life and job and life satisfaction; (3) that perceived social support will moderate the relationship between homonegative microaggressions and work-life outcomes; and (4) that perceived social support will moderate the relationship between workplace heterosexist experiences and work-life outcomes.

Findings and Interpretations

As hypothesized, workplace heterosexism (WHEQ) was found to have a significant positive relationship with the work-life outcomes latent construct. A direct path between WHEQ and each of the work-life outcome indicators was not tested in the present investigation; therefore, the SEM analyses could not determine whether workplace heterosexism resulted in increased levels of work-life interference and decreased job and life satisfaction. Perceived social support (MSPSS) was found to have a significant relationship with the work-life outcome latent construct. However, a direct

186

path between MSPSS and work-life outcome indicators was not tested in the current

study, so the SEM analyses could not determine whether perceived social support results in decreased levels of work-life interference and increased levels of job and life satisfaction. The relationship between homonegative microaggressions and work-life outcomes was not significant, indicating that individuals who reported higher levels of

experienced homonegative microaggressions did not report increased work-life

interference or decreased job and life satisfaction. Additionally, neither interaction term

was significant, indicating that perceived social support did not significantly moderate the

relationship between predictor variables (i.e., homonegative microaggressions and

workplace heterosexism) and work-life outcome variables (i.e., work-life interferences,

job satisfaction, and life satisfaction).

Workplace heterosexism and work-life outcome. Results of the current study

indicated that workplace heterosexism (WHEQ) has a significant relationship with work-

life outcomes. As hypothesized, these findings support the minority stress theory (Meyer,

1995, 2003), as the minority stressor of workplace heterosexism was identified as a contributing factor in the development of work-life interference and job and life satisfaction. Results of the present study are consistent with previously conducted

research investigating the relationship between workplace heterosexism and job and life

satisfaction (e.g., Button, 2001; Huffman et al., 2008; Liddle et al., 2004). Zero-order

correlations in the present study indicate that participants who reported increased levels

of workplace heterosexism also reported decreased job and life satisfaction; however,

conclusions based on zero order correlations could not support the proposed hypotheses,

as the direct paths between workplace heterosexism and each of the indicators of the

187

work-life outcome latent construct were not tested in the present study. Extant literature suggests that this outcome of decreased job and life satisfaction as a result of increased

experiences of workplace heterosexism is likely due to workplace climates that are not

supportive of sexual minorities; however, this needs to be assessed further in future

research (e.g., Huffman et al., Liddle et al., Ragins & Cornwell, 2011; Smith & Ingram,

2004; Waldo, 1999).

These findings indicated that workplace heterosexism, as measured by WHEQ,

explained a significant amount of variance in work-life outcomes. However, it can only

be concluded that workplace heterosexism is related to work-life outcomes theoretically,

as no direct paths between workplace heterosexism and specific work-life outcomes were

tested in the present study. Additionally, there is no rationale for assuming temporal

precedence or that the workplace heterosexism is an isolated predictor of work-life

outcomes in the current study. Specifically, it may be that individuals with lower levels of

work interference with life are less likely to notice workplace heterosexism and vice

versa. In addition, limited research has been conducted investigating the relationship

between workplace heterosexism and work interference with life, which makes it difficult

to draw meaningful conclusions about the relationship between these constructs. Further,

individuals who are less satisfied with job and life may be more inclined to notice

workplace heterosexism due to hypervigilance, and possibly confirmation bias, from

other discriminatory experiences that have negatively impacted their lives. Future

research related to these hypotheses is warranted.

Perceived social support and work-life outcome. Despite the absence of a

hypothesis in the current study, perceived social support was found to have a significant

188 relationship with work-life outcomes (i.e., work interference with life, job satisfaction, and life satisfaction). This finding is consistent with existing literature that has recognized the intersection of work and relationships (e.g., Motulsky, 2010; Richardson,

1993; Schultheiss, 2007). Zero-order correlations suggest that participants who reported that higher levels of perceived social support tended to experience decreased work interference with life and increased job and life satisfaction; however; however, conclusions based on zero order correlations could not support the proposed hypotheses, as the direct paths between the predictor variables (i.e., workplace heterosexism and homonegative microaggressions) and each of the indicators of the work-life outcome latent construct were not tested in the present study

The standardized path coefficient in both of the full structural models was adequate when describing the relationship between perceived social support and work- life outcomes. These findings indicated that perceived social support, as measured by

MSPSS explained a significant amount of variance in work-life outcome (i.e., work interference with life, job satisfaction, and life satisfaction). However, it can only be concluded that perceived social support is related to work-life outcomes theoretically, as no direct paths between MSPSS and specific work-life outcome indicators were tested in the present study. There is no rationale for assuming temporal precedence or that the perceived social support is an isolated predictor of work-life outcomes in the current study. Specifically, it may be that individuals who have less work-life interference and greater life and job satisfaction are more available and open to developing social supports.

189

Homonegative microaggressions and work-life outcomes. Contrary to

Hypothesis 1, the relationship between homonegative microaggressions and work-life

outcomes (i.e., work interference with life, life satisfaction, and job satisfaction) was not significant. This finding was surprising, as workplace heterosexism in the current study was found to be significant and existing literature provides a great deal of support for the

relationship between experiences of microaggressions and well-being (e.g., Nadal, 2011;

Ong, Burrow, Fuller-Rowell, Ja, & Sue, 2013; Seelman, Woodford & Nicolazzo, 2016),

as well as ample research supporting the relationship between workplace discrimination

and various work-life outcomes (e.g., Hammond, Gillen, & Yen, 2010; Moore, Ng,

Doherty, & Breward, 2013; Silverschanz, Cortina, Konik, & Magley, 2008).

There may be a few explanations for the lack of support for Hypothesis 1 in the

present study. Research has posited that microaggressions are conceptually different than

discrimination (e.g., Nadal, 2011; Sue, Capodilupo, et al., 2007; Sue et al., 2008);

however, all four indicators of the homonegative microaggressions latent construct

(measured by the four subscales of the HMS) loaded onto the same factor as the four

indicators of the workplace heterosexism latent construct (measured by the four item-

parceled factors of WHEQ) during an EFA of latent constructs. As such, homonegative

microaggressions did not seem to measure a form of heterosexist discrimination that was

unique to that of workplace heterosexism. Yet, the structural equation analyses

demonstrated that HMS and WHEQ were distinct constructs with different impacts on

work-life outcomes, as workplace heterosexism was significantly related to work-life

outcomes and homonegative microaggressions was not. Therefore, uniqueness between

190

the two constructs was evidenced in the two separate structural models, but homonegative microaggressions did not significantly predict work-life outcomes.

Another potential explanation for these null findings may be related to the measurement of homonegative microaggressions in the present study. Specifically, workplace heterosexism (as measured by the WHEQ) measured sexuality-based discrimination specifically in the workplace, whereas homonegative microaggressions (as measured by the HMS) measured microaggressions more broadly and not contextually specific to the workplace. Therefore, it is possible that participants reported experiencing homonegative microaggressions in other contexts of their lives that may not directly correlate with work-life outcomes. In addition, given the potentially brief, subtle, and unintentional nature of microaggressions, it is possible that participants are unaware of the frequency and strength of microaggressions experienced. As such, it is possible that the predictive strength of homonegative microaggressions on the relationship with work- life outcome is not as strong as that of workplace heterosexism. Additionally, the majority of existing empirical research on microaggressions is focused on women and racial and ethnic minorities. Consequently, it is possible that microaggressions experienced by sexual minorities is a completely different construct than that of other marginalized identities and findings may not be easily transferrable; however, future research is warranted to assess these hypotheses.

Perceived social support as a moderator. Results from the present study did not support Hypotheses 3 and 4, as perceived social support did not significantly moderate the relationship between predictor variables (i.e., workplace heterosexism and homonegative microaggressions) and the work-life outcome variable (i.e., work

191 interference with life, job satisfaction, and life satisfaction). This finding was particularly surprising, as existing research has demonstrated that gains in social support explain the linkage between work and family domains (e.g., Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012;

Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006;

Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 2002). There may be a few explanations for the lack of support for Hypotheses 3 and 4 in the current study.

It is important to first consider the difficulties with the measurement of perceived social support in the present study. The perceived social support (MSPSS) measurement model was evidenced to be just-identified and could not be interpreted through a standalone CFA. As such, the MSPSS may not be multifaceted enough of a measure to be used as a moderator in such complex structural equation modeling. Despite the problem of the just-identified measurement model of MSPSS, the structural model was unaffected, as new interaction terms were developed to represent the moderation of perceived social support on the relationship between predictor and outcome variables.

Another explanation for the lack of support for these null findings could be the heterosexual bias of items on the MSPSS and the internal consistency estimates being normed on primarily heterosexual samples. In addition, research has suggested the inherently nuanced notion of “family” within LGBQ populations, as sexual minorities often meld and distinguish ‘families of origin’ and ‘families of choice.’ Therefore, a measure of social support that attempts to separate family, significant others, and friendships may be problematic for use with a population that often demonstrates fluidity between categorical structures of social support. For instance, it may be difficult for participants to differentiate a significant other who is also considered a friend and a

192

family member. Furthermore, the MSPSS failed to include any social supports in the

workplace (i.e., colleagues and supervisors) that could have more directly moderated the relationship between the predictor variables (i.e., workplace heterosexism and homonegative microaggressions) and work-life outcomes than social supports that are

specific to contexts removed from the work environment. However, all of the

aforementioned hypotheses would need to be evaluated by future research.

Limitations

Although the present study provided meaningful information to enhance extant literature pertaining to the work-life interface of sexual minorities who experience sexuality-based discrimination, it is not without limitations. First, because the research was correlational in nature and used an ex post facto design, true causation cannot be inferred from the findings and the generalizability of the results may not hold across

various outcomes or more diverse participant samples. Despite existing literature that has

established the directionality of the relationships between latent constructs used in the

model, inferences drawn from this study cannot reflect causality. Additionally, because

the present investigation combined all outcome variables into one latent construct (i.e.,

work-life outcome), the first two hypotheses could not be adequately tested in either of

the structural equation models.

The present study also had a relatively small sample size and exhibited some

participant attrition, as only 385 participants completed the full survey and 17% of the

participants who accessed the survey and met the inclusionary criteria did not complete

the full questionnaire. The limited sample size could be due to the comparatively small

population of LGBTQ-identified individuals in the U.S. (cf. Gallup, 2017), difficulty

193

accessing marginalized populations, and potential mistrust of research (Miles &

Fassinger, 2014). The participant attrition could be due to both the forced responding

method employed in the survey platform and the length of the questionnaire. This could

have affected the findings of the present study, as the length of the questionnaire

potentially privileged participants who had more flexibility, less work-life interference,

and those who were well-adjusted. Further, as the measures were not offered in a

randomized manor, it possible that the order of the measures impacted the way in which partcipants responded.

Additionally, the present study suffered from selection bias, as it is probable that individuals who chose to participate in the study exhibited certain characteristics that could possibly compromise the internal validity of findings. Specifically, individuals who are members of LGBTQ-specific Facebook pages and groups are likely to be more out, socially connected, and employed in fields that are traditionally more accepting of sexual minorities than individuals who did not have access to the survey. This could have affected the findings of the present study, as participants who are out, socially connected, and in LGBTQ-affirming occupations could result in a lessened effect of heterosexism and microaggressions, may have the social support needed to reduce the effect of experienced discrimination, and could have higher overall levels of life and job satisfaction. Conversely, sexual minorities who experience greater work-life interference and decreased job and life satisfaction may be more susceptible to workplace heterosexism and decreased social support, as such individuals may be experiencing heightened work-life interference and decreased job and life satisfaction as a result of not

194 being out, internalized heterosexism, and “passing” in the workplace that could expose one to more overt discrimination.

Moreover, the majority of participants in the present study identified as White,

LBQ-identified, cisgender women. This sample in the present study varies greatly from traditional LGBTQ research that mostly consists of White, gay-identified, cisgender men.

Therefore, the results of the current study might have affected the applicability of the measures used and demonstrate results that are based on a subgroup of the LGBTQ community that could experience subjectively different discrimination and work-life outcomes than other subgroups within the LGBTQ community. Specifically, the measures used in the present study may not adequately capture the experience of LBQ- identified cisgender women, which could affected the strength of the relationship between latent constructs due to potential under endorsement of items due to lack of applicability. Although results suggested that there were no significant differences in study variable based on demographics, the generalizability of the results to other subpopulations of sexual minorities should be interpreted with caution. More research is needed to explore whether any significant between-group differences exist for sexual minorities with multiple oppressed identities.

In addition, despite the majority of research on sexual minorities consisting of populations that have higher educational levels and socioeconomic status than the general population in the U.S., the highly educated and economically privileged sample in the present study could have major implications to the generalizability of findings to both the general population and that of the LGBTQ community. Previous research and the theory of the psychology of working suggests that individuals with higher education and those

195

with more financial and social capital are likely to have higher levels of work volition than individuals with lower educational levels and of lower socioeconomic status.

Therefore, it is likely that the sample in the present study had an increased capacity to

make vocational choices despite any constraints or stressors, which could have impacted

the findings.

Although anonymity was assured in the informed consent of the present study, it

is possible that some sexual minorities chose not to participate due to apprehension that

their responses may be revealed to others. This is likely to be especially true for those

individuals who have experienced egregious workplace heterosexism, for those who

work at non-affirming workplace environments, and for those who are in the midst of an

HR complaint or lawsuit in response to experienced workplace discrimination. Extant

literature suggests that sexual minority populations might mistrust the motivations of

researchers (e.g., Moradi, Mohr, Worthington, & Fassinger, 2011), which is potentially

exacerbated in states that do not have protections for LGBTQ-identified employees.

Therefore, individuals who experienced particularly abhorrent workplace heterosexism and/or are in the process of filing an HR complaint or lawsuit may have been less inclined to participate in the present study out of fear that results would somehow be traced to their identity and put them at more risk for continued discrimination or retaliation. As such, results of the present study might underestimate the experience of workplace heterosexism and microaggressions amongst LGBQ individuals, which could have decreased the impact that discrimination would have on work-life outcomes.

For instance, Chung’s (2001) three-dimensional model of workplace discrimination recognizes the multifaceted nature of workplace discrimination, which is

196

embedded in fear and management strategies that attempt to control for any

discriminatory events. Individuals who perceive their work environment to be hostile toward sexual minorities are likely to choose sexual identity management strategies (i.e., acting, passing, covering, implicitly out, and explicitly out), coping strategies (i.e., vocational choice and work adjustment), and discrimination management strategies (i.e., quitting, silence, social support, and confrontation) that are more self-protective in nature

(Chung, 2001). With these factors in mind, it is conceivable that the individuals who chose to participate in the present study may be more representative of the more out, affirmed, and supported subpopulation within the LGBQ community. As such, results of the current study could be based on a subset of the LGBQ community who experience less frequent or egregious discrimination (potentially due to working in LGBQ affirming companies, being out, and having social support at work) and, therefore, experience less work-life interference and greater job and life satisfaction than more marginalized or silenced sexual minorities.

Preliminary analyses exposed univariate non-normality. Even though transformations were employed to attenuate the effects of the non-normal distributions, the skewness and kurtosis of the data may have influenced the statistical results found in the present study and could have distorted tests of significance. Further, the use of square root transformation in the present study was a limitation, as it compared transformed data to other data that were normally distributed. The results of the present study may have yielded non-normal distributions due to a relatively small sample size or because of sample demographics that differ from previous literature. Specifically, the present study consisted of sample that was highly educated, of higher socioeconomic status that the

197

55% of the general population in the U.S., and individual who identified as White,

lesbian and queer-identified, cisgender women. These demographics differ from both

LGBTQ scholarship (in regards to sexual and gender identity) and research on heterosexual populations (in regards to socioeconomic status and educational level).

In addition to sample limitations and non-normality, measurement issues also

contributed to the limitations of the current study. Specifically, the HMS is newly devised

measure that has not acquired sufficient internal consistency reliability across several

studies and participant samples. Further, the factor structure of the HMS was not

corroborated by the EFA results in the present study; therefore, the usage of the original

factor structure (Wegner, 2014) in the structural models of the current investigation could

have contributed to null findings for all hypotheses involving homonegative

microaggressions. Additionally, the JSS demonstrated less than acceptable reliability in

the present investigation. Furthermore, the MSPSS measurement model was found to be

just-identified and was, therefore, unable to be interpreted through a separate CFA. The

limited number of reference points of the MSPSS may have contributed to its ineffectual

impact as a moderator between the predictor variables and work-life outcomes.

Moreover, the MSPSS, WILDS, JSS, and SWLS have been normed on and used with

primarily heterosexual samples. Therefore, results of the present study should be

interpreted with caution.

Specifically, it is important to consider the methodological problems with the

measurement of homonegative microaggressions in the current study. The factorability of

the Homonegative Microaggressions Scale in the present investigation (HMS, Wright &

Wegner, 2012; Wegner, 2014) did not correspond with the factors proposed by the author

198

(Wegner, 2014). Additionally, several items on the HMS were not well-differentiated, as they demonstrated high cross-loadings across several factors. Despite limited consistency of factorability between the author’s proposed factors and the factors found in the current study, and the poorly differentiated items, the present investigation employed the original factor structure proposed by Wegner due to its adequate internal consistency and theoretical underpinning. In spite of these difficulties, the measurement model for the

HMS at the subscale-level did demonstrate good model fit; thus, the latent variable of

HMS was considered acceptable for inclusion in the structural model. Nevertheless, further research is needed to assess the factorability of the HMS and whether the HMS measures a form of discrimination that is uniquely different from existing heterosexist discrimination measures.

It is also important to consider the psychometric properties of the HMS and evaluation of the HMS factor structure. Specifically, the HMS has only been used in research pertaining to its scale development and factorability (i.e., Wright & Wegner,

Wegner, 2014) and has limited evidence of internal consistency and concurrent validity.

In addition, the factor structure of the HMS has limited support of its reliability across various studies and sample populations. Another potential explanation for these null findings is that the HMS has been normed and studied on samples that varied from that of the present study. Specifically, Wave One and Wave Two of Wegner’s (2014) population was comprised largely by White (85.8% and 71.2%, respectively), gay-identified (54.2% and 38.7%, respectively), cisgender men (55.8% and 54.6%, respectively) in comparison to the current sample, which was comprised by 78.2% White, 20.5% gay-identified,

17.1% cisgender men. Finally, the original factor solution proposed by Wegner was

199

based on a sample that was compensated for their time completing the survey through

Amazon Mechanical Turk. Therefore, the generalizability of the HMS may be limited.

Although the fit of the models retained were acceptable, initial EFAs that were

conducted found the presence of factors that contrasted starkly from the original factor

structure proposed by authors (i.e., HMS) or the presence of multiple underlying factors

for unidimensionally defined measures (i.e., WHEQ). Further research should be

conducted in an effort to determine whether the factor structure of the measures used in

the present study (e.g., HMS and WHEQ) should be revised. In addition, both structural

models demonstrated non-parsimonious results resulting from model complexity and

potential overfitting (Preacher, 2006), which represented a limitation of this study.

Despite good model fit, the structural models may be too complex to demonstrate reliable

results across studies and sample populations, and should, therefore, be applied with

caution.

In addition, throughout several exploratory factor analyses, job satisfaction and satisfaction with life continuously loaded onto the same factor as perceived social support. Job and life satisfaction loading onto the perceived social support factor makes theoretical sense, as all three constructs are related to well-being. However, given that both job and life satisfaction are unique component to well-being and did not yield a 1.00 correlation with perceived social support (r = .03 – .35), the present investigation kept job

and life satisfaction separate from perceived social support. Despite theoretical and

statistical support for the separation of the aforementioned constructs, the high correlations between the moderating and job and life satisfaction outcome variables could have contributed to some of the null findings. Future research exploring the distinction

200

between social support and job and life satisfaction, and possibly other areas of well-

being is warranted.

Finally, as the present study yielded insignificant findings related to the

relationship between homonegative microaggressions and work-life outcomes, as well as

the null finding of social supports as a moderator between predictor and outcome

variables, it is important to consider the possibility that the data do not support the

minority stress theoretical model (Meyer, 1995, 2003). Specifically, it is possible that the

minority stress theoretical model (Meyer, 1995, 2003), does not adequately explain the

relationships between variables. As such, future research is needed to test the

applicability of the theory to the constructs studied in the present investigation.

Implications

The major contribution of the current study to the literature involves the inclusion

of both heterosexism and microaggressions in the conceptual model of minority stress

with work-life variables as the outcome rather than mental health indicators typically

used in research on minority stress theory. Prior to the current investigation, no studies

had explored the influence of sexuality-based microaggressions as a form of

discrimination in the workplace, despite research indicating that LGBTQ individuals are

more likely than their heterosexual counterparts to identify discrimination as being a

primary barrier to living a fulfilling life (Mays & Cochran, 2001). Existing literature has

suggested that sexual minorities experience decreased job (e.g., Prati & Pietrantoni, 2014;

Ragins & Cornwell, 2001) and life satisfaction (e.g., Huffman, Watrous-Rodriguez, &

King, 2008; Liddle et al., 2004), and time- and strain-based work-life interference

(Sawyer, 2012) as a result of workplace heterosexism.

201

Therefore, the present investigation confirmed the relationship between workplace heterosexism and work-life outcomes (i.e., work interference with life, job satisfaction, and life satisfaction). However, the current study did not show evidence for a significant relationship between homonegative microaggressions and work-life outcomes, nor did the present investigation demonstrate results of a significant moderating effect of perceived social support on the relationship between predictor variables (i.e., workplace heterosexism and homonegative microaggressions) and work-life outcomes (i.e., work interference with life, job satisfaction, and life satisfaction). Implications for theory, research, and practice based on results of the current study are discussed in the paragraphs below.

Implications for theory. This study has a number of implications for theory.

These implications stem from the present study’s use of the work-life interface in the vocational domain, the relationship between discrimination and work-life outcomes, and the methods used to assess discrimination and work-life interference amongst sexual minorities. In addition, the present study used the minority stress theoretical model to investigate the fit of the model to the data, which provided an opportunity to determine the applicability of the minority stress theoretical model (Meyer, 1995, 2003) to work-life interface scholarship.

One of this study’s main theoretical contributions is by demonstrating how variables typically studied in the context of identity-based discrimination (such as workplace heterosexism) can contribute to vocational theory. As hypothesized, the results of the current study provided support for the significant relationship between

workplace heterosexism and work-life outcomes. The present study, however, is one of a

202

couple studies (e.g., Minnotte, 2012; Sawyer, 2012) to test the effect of workplace

discrimination on work-life outcomes and is one of the only studies to explore sexual

minorities within the work-life paradigm (e.g., Dispenza, 2015). Additionally, the present

study is the first to incorporate homonegative microaggressions into an investigation of

workplace heterosexism within the work-life interface theoretical foundation.

Another unique contribution of this study is the focus on sexual minorities in the work-life interface paradigm. Although the interface of work and family has been an area of growing interest within vocational psychology over the past two decades (e.g., Casper,

Eby, Bordeaux, Lockwood, & Lambert, 2007; Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992;

Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Richardson, 2012; Schultheiss, 2009; Whiston & Keller,

2004), such scholarship has rarely been inclusive of sexual minorities (Allen & Eby,

2016). The current study addressed this gap in the literature through the investigation of the work-life interface of sexual minorities who experience workplace heterosexism. The findings in the present investigation provide support for the importance of including workplace discrimination as a predictor variable in scholarship on work-life and work- family conflict, spillover, interference, and balance. Given the pervasiveness of discrimination toward sexual minorities in everyday society and the workplace, the dearth of vocational psychology research addressing the complexities and consequences associated with workplace discrimination and the work-life interface of sexual minorities must be studied further.

An additional contribution of the present study is that it draws on decades of research on the work-life interface to propose the need for such scholarship to be more inclusive of sexual minorities. Extant literature has highlighted that the scholarship on

203

work-family issues within LGBTQ family structures is lagging behind (e.g., Allen &

Eby, 2016), and that there is a dearth of literature on work-life interface for sexual minorities (e.g., Perrone, 2005; Prince, 2013). Further, existing research has suggested that current constructs included in the work-life interface (i.e., work-family conflict, work-family balance, work-life interference, etc.) have a heteronormative view of family

that erases the unique experiences of sexual minorities (e.g., Sawyer, Thoroughgood, &

Cleveland, 2015). Therefore, the present investigation was one of the primary studies to

address these gaps in the vocational psychology scholarship through its focus on non-

heterosexual populations and the work-life interface.

Another contribution of the present study was that it was the first to assess the

relationship between homonegative microaggressions and work-life outcomes. Previous

vocational psychology research, outside of the work-life paradigm, has extensively

studied workplace heterosexism (e.g., Carter, Mollen, & Smith, 2014; Smith & Ingram,

2004; Velez & Moradi, 2012; Velez, Moradi, & Brewster, 2013); however, extant

research has failed to include microaggressions in such investigations of workplace

heterosexism. Therefore, the present investigation used the minority stress theoretical

model (Meyer, 1995, 2003) to explore the relationships between homonegative

microaggressions and work-life outcomes, and between workplace heterosexist

experiences and work-life outcomes. Extant scholarship on minority stress has primarily

focused on either psychological, health, personal, or work outcomes of minority stress

(i.e., heterosexist discrimination, internalized heterosexism, and transphobia), but has

ignored the work-life interface. As such, the present investigation demonstrated good fit

204

of the minority stress model to the data and can, therefore, be expanded upon in future scholarship.

Finally, the current study also contributed to existing scholarship through the inclusion of social support, as a moderator between workplace discrimination (i.e., heterosexism and microaggressions) and work-life outcomes. Extant vocational psychology scholarship has focused extensively on the interconnectedness of career and

relationship quality with others and society (e.g., Blustein, 2001, Blustein, Schultheiss, &

Flum, 2004; Motulsky, 2010); however, research on the work-life interface has not

explored the importance of social supports for sexual minorities in their experience of

workplace heterosexism. The current study found that perceived social support was

significantly related to work-life outcomes. These findings highlight the importance of

relationships in the work and personal lives of sexual minorities. Although perceived

social support did not significantly moderate the relationship between predictor variables

(i.e., homonegative microaggressions and workplace heterosexism) and work-life

outcome variables (i.e., work interference with life, job satisfaction, and life satisfaction),

results provide further evidence for relational theories of work. As such, it is important

for future research to further our understanding of sexual minority-based discrimination

and work-life interference, as well as possible contextual factors (i.e. relational support,

workplace climate, other ‘out’ colleagues, etc.) that mitigate the effect of heterosexism on

various work-life outcomes.

Although beyond the scope of the current study, additional research is needed to

explore the applicability of established career theories and measures on sexual minority

populations. For instance, existing career theories have assumptions about identity that

205

may not apply to many sexual minority workers (e.g., Chung, 1995; McCarn &

Fassinger, 1996; Ragins, 2004). Specifically, most career theories view career

development as a linear process that is steeped in the broader realm of identity

development, which assumes that individuals choose occupations based on a relatively

stable set of characteristics and understanding of adult identity (e.g., Holland, 1985;

Super, 1957). Such theories, therefore, assume that sexuality is unwavering and stable

over the span of one’s life, which is often not the case for many sexual minority

individuals (Diamond, 2008; Ragins, 2004). Many sexual minority workers do not self-

identify as LGBQ until later in their careers and the disclosure decision of their sexual

identity is often a significant life event that is fraught with struggle and stress (Meyer,

2003; Ragins, 2004). Therefore, it is recommended that future research on sexual minority workers utilize the minority stress theory (Meyer, 1995, 2003) as a conceptual model to better understand the work-life outcomes of minority stress.

In addition, LGBQ identity transitions can result in disrupted, therefore non- linear, career paths for sexual minorities, which are not covered in prevailing theories of

career development (Ragins, 2004). However, existing career theories fail to mention

these issues and adopt the taken-for-granted assumption that heterosexuality and

heterosexual work experiences are the standard to which all individuals can be compared

(cf. Tomlinson & Fassinger, 2003). To address this gap, vocational psychology

scholarship can depart from binary and/or categorical understandings of sexuality (e.g.,

heterosexual, gay/lesbian, and bisexual) through the inclusion of queer identity and the

option for participants to self-identify as multiple identifiers under a given identity

construct.

206

Implications for research. This study has a number of implications for research.

These implications stem from the present study’s significant and null findings, as well as the overall good fit of the measurement models to the data. In addition, the unexpected relationship between workplace heterosexism and homonegative microaggressions, and the relationship between perceived social support and job and life satisfaction warrant further investigation.

Future research should continue to elucidate the relationship between workplace discrimination and work-life outcomes. Specifically, such research should focus on sexual minority populations, as workplace discrimination against sexual minorities remains legal in several states and at the federal level, and existing research has suggested a relationship between workplace heterosexism and various negative workplace outcomes (e.g., Clair et al., 2005; Horvath & Ryan, 2003; Ragins, 2008).

However, extant literature on workplace heterosexism has ignored the work-life interface, despite eminent vocational psychology scholars (e.g., (Blustein, 2013; Juntunen, 2006;

Richardson, 2012; Schultheiss, 2007) suggesting that working is a fundamental facet of life, affording a means of survival, structure, and connection to others. This work-life interface was further supported by the results of the current study, which suggest that workplace heterosexism has a deleterious effect on the personal and work lives of sexual minorities. To more fully understand the various work-life outcomes of workplace heterosexism and to better comprehend the mechanism by which workplace discrimination drives work-life interference and conflict, future research could assess parts of a broad model where the experiences of many differing forms of heterosexism leads to various outcomes in both work and personal life.

207

Furthermore, extant literature has demonstrated that work volition (including financial and structural constraints) is negatively correlated with sex discrimination but not that of racial discrimination (Duffy, Diemer, Perry, Laurenzi, & Torrey, 2012).

Therefore, future scholarship on the impact that workplace heterosexist experiences and homonegative microaggressions has on work volition could be advantageous. In addition, the exploration of work volition as a moderating variable in addition to or in place of perceived social support is warranted.

Existing scholarship has elucidated the absence of research on the work-life interface for sexual minorities (e.g., Perrone, 2005; Prince, 2013), and some literature has explicated that literature on work-family issues within LGBTQ family structures is lagging behind research on the stereotypical White, heterosexual, family with children that floods the work-family/work-life body of scholarship (e.g., Allen & Eby, 2016).

Additionally, extant research has illuminated the heteronormative bias of current work- life constructs (i.e., work-family conflict, work-family balance, work-life interference, etc.) that ignores the work-life interface that is specific to sexual minorities (e.g., Sawyer et al., 2015). To fully assess the work-life interface, however, it is necessary to go beyond existing vocational psychology scholarship and illuminate work-life/work-family similarities and differences amongst diverse populations and diverse constructions of family. Although the present investigation was unable to connect ‘family support’ and

‘family interference’ to either a ‘family of choice’ or a ‘family of origin,’ the demographic questionnaire of the present study indicated that sexual minorities consider many individuals (i.e., friends, mentors, supervisors, neighbors, blood relatives, partners, ex-partner, etc.) to be part of their family. As such, future research could also consider

208

ways of broadening the family construct for sexual minorities and expanding the work-

life/work-family interface body of literature to be more inclusive of sexual minorities would be a worthwhile addition of future scholarship.

Another contribution of the present study to existing research was its being the

first to investigate the relationship between homonegative microaggressions and work-

life outcomes. Extant vocational psychology scholarship, outside of the work-life/work-

family paradigm, has extensively studied workplace heterosexism (e.g., Carter, Mollen,

& Smith, 2014; Smith & Ingram, 2004; Velez & Moradi, 2012; Velez, Moradi, &

Brewster, 2013); however, such scholarship has largely ignored microaggressions in

investigations of workplace heterosexism. Despite the lack of evidence in the current study to suggest a relationship between homonegative microaggressions and work-life outcomes, prior theoretical accounts suggest that it remains important to broaden our understanding of workplace discrimination through the examination of microaggressions and their associated outcomes (Anderson & Croteau, 2013). Thus, it would behoove researchers to expand qualitative and quantitative empirical investigations on workplace heterosexism through the inclusion of methodologies that capture the short-lived and commonplace verbal, behavioral, and environmental forms of aggression that communicate hostility toward sexual minorities.

In addition, although the present study yielded a significant relationship between workplace heterosexist experiences and work-life outcomes, findings suggested a null relationship between homonegative microaggressions and work-life outcomes. A possible explanation for these null findings may be related to the measurement of homonegative microaggressions in the present study. Specifically, workplace heterosexism (as measured by the

WHEQ) measured sexuality-based discrimination specifically in the workplace, whereas

209

homonegative microaggressions (as measured by the HMS) measured microaggressions more

broadly and not contextually specific to the workplace. Therefore, it is possible that

participants reported experienced homonegative microaggressions in other contexts of

their lives that may not directly correlate with work-life outcomes. As such, it would be advantageous for future research to consider the development of a measure of workplace

homonegative microaggressions to assess the subtle and commonplace insults and slights

that communicate a hostile environment for sexual minorities.

Additionally, Fassinger and Arseneau (2007) have found that there are key

within-group and between-group differences among the LGBTQ community regarding

experiences that influence work trajectories and labeling of one’s sexuality. Although

vocational research using quantitative and qualitative methods has furthered our

understanding of work experiences of sexual minorities, research on the construction and

reconstruction of sexual identities, as they intersect with work identities, have remained

largely unexamined. What has been lacking is an explicit exploration of how

relationships within sociocultural and sociopolitical contexts are vital in understanding

experiences of workplace discrimination through a work-life interface perspective.

Implications for practice. The implications of the present investigation are

primarily theoretical, however, this study suggests some tentative practical implications.

One practical, but not entirely novel or surprising, finding of this investigation is the

strong relationship between workplace heterosexism and work-life outcomes. The

correlation between experiences of heterosexism and negative work-life outcomes is

important to emphasize in a time when workplace discrimination against sexual

minorities remains legal in most states and at the federal level, and during a time post-

2016 Presidential Election when hate crimes against marginalized populations have been 210

speculated to be on the rise. Extant literature has suggested that sexual minorities are more likely to identify discrimination as a primary barrier to living a fulfilling life than

their heterosexual counterparts (e.g., Mays & Cochran, 2001). Therefore, it is important

for mental health practitioners to remain aware of the current sociocultural and

sociopolitical landscapes to better understand the many potential contributing factors to

minority stress and work-life interference/conflict within sexual minority populations.

Another practical implication of this study derives from the demographic questionnaire supporting the assertion that sexual identity is discursive and nuanced, as many participants indicated more than one identifier for sexual and gender identity, and

gender expression. Mental health practitioners, therefore, need to be aware of the

multiple ways in which sexual minorities identify over the span of their lives and how

sexual and gender identities intersect with other marginalized identities. Intersectionality

(Crenshaw, 1989) provides a theoretical foundation for understanding how the multiple

aspects of identity relate and intersect with one another to form qualitatively diverse

meanings and social experiences (Warner, 2008). This is especially important when

trying to better understand workplace heterosexism and microaggressions, as the various

identities and identity expressions can intersect in ways that form different lived

experiences of the common phenomenon of discrimination, as well as elucidating

differing needs based on the intersection of multiple marginalized identities.

Extant literature recommends that practitioners recognize the in-group and

between-group differences among the LGBQ community to avoid oversimplification

(Fassinger & Arseneau, 2007). For example, it is reasonable to speculate that the

experience of discrimination of a White, gay-identified, cisgender man is qualitatively

211 different from that of a Black, lesbian-identified, gender nonconforming individual.

Therefore, mental health practitioners are encouraged not only understand extant scholarship with a critical eye toward its applicability across diverse subgroups within the

LGBTQ+ community, but also implement interventions that are attentive to intersecting marginalized identities to avoid oversimplification and misunderstanding the lived experience of the client.

Furthermore, it is suggested that mental health practitioners become familiar with the literature pertaining to LGBQ identity management in the workplace (Lidderdale et al., 2007), become competent in understanding the unique qualities and challenges of

LGBQ clients regarding their professional and personal lives (Pope, Barret, Szymanski,

Chung, Singarevlu, McLean, & Sanabria, 2004), and question the generalizability of current career development models, as they have been primarily normed on heterosexual individuals (Croteau et al., 2000). Even though all of these suggestions are helpful in building a supportive therapeutic relationship with LGBQ clients, such theories need to take their argument a step further by contending that the very basis of such models (i.e., sexual identity development and identification) needs to be challenged through a social constructionist and relational lens. Unpacking sexuality through social constructionism and relational theories will add the therapeutic literature by normalizing fluidity of sexuality. This is especially important in providing voice to women’s sexuality and experiences of shifting attractions, fantasies, and behaviors throughout life, based on relational and situational influences (Diamond, 2008; Jensen, 1999).

Despite the existence of a states of identity model that addresses impact level of disclosure of one’s LGBQ identity (Ragins, 2008), it has the limitation of an apparent end

212

goal of an actualized or integrated state. Such a model does not take into account fluidity

of sexuality, the varying systems in which individuals are embedded outside of work

(e.g., religious community, family, community service), and it fails to address the

intersection of multiple oppressed identities. Nevertheless, understanding how strongly

one identifies with her/his/their sexual identity is an important component of the decision

to disclose or conceal her/his/their sexual identity, even when the potential outcome of

such a disclosure is discrimination within the workplace. Therefore, it is recommended

that mental health practitioners depart from traditional sexual identity development

models and display a nonjudgmental curiosity toward the client’s account of their own

sexual identity development and consideration that there could be vast fluidity in one’s

identity over the span of their lifetime.

In addition, it is recommended that mental health practitioners become familiar

with emerging scholarship on microaggressions, as the experience of workplace

discrimination amongst sexual minorities is likely to be shifting during a time when both

overt hate crimes coexist with unattuned political correctness within a social landscape

that is becoming more socially aware. Therefore, it is possible for individuals to continue

to face overt discrimination – particularly in states were such discrimination based on

sexual identity remains legal and within communities that are more socially and

religiously conservative – as well as the subtle and hostile slights that are communicated via microaggressions. As such, mental health practitioners need to be aware of the various forms of discrimination against sexual minorities and the state and federal non- discrimination laws.

213

In addition, it is recommended that mental health practitioners understand the

nuance inherent in the construct of ‘family’ within the LGBTQ+ community, as many

have a ‘family of choice’ and a ‘family of origin,’ sometimes with one over the other being of more importance. Sexual minorities, unlike most other marginalized identities,

embody an identity that is not necessarily shared by the rest of their biological family. As

such, sexual minorities are often in a position where they create family systems that

consists of friends, partner(s), ex-partners, children, mentors, and neighbors. Through a

relational psychology perspective (cf. Richardson, 1993, 2012, 2013; Schultheiss, 2006,

2007, 2009; Schultheiss & Flum, 2004) on connections and disconnections, challenges

related to the work-life interface in marginalized populations could be seen as a result of

being out of connection with others, with themselves, or feeling a disconnect with

society’s expectations surrounding work and the socioculturally oppressive discourses

and practices (Motulsky, 2010). Therefore, clinical attunement to the nuances of ‘family’

within LGBQ populations – including both ‘families of origin’ and ‘families of choice’ –

is important to the understanding of the mitigating effect that social supports, including

family, can have on the relationship between workplace heterosexist discrimination and

adverse work-life outcomes.

Mental health practitioners are encouraged to be aware of models of sexual

identity management and workplace discrimination management in order to better

understand the work-life interface of sexual minorities. Mental health practitioners,

therefore, must go further than implementing existing career inventories, as it is

important to discuss identity management strategies and the potential benefits and

negative consequences associated with both disclosure and concealment (Chung, 2001).

214

Existing scholarship has challenged the preconceived notion that coming out in social and workplace contexts is integral in the attainment a positive and integrated identity and have attended to the complexity of being a sexual minority in communities/cultures where homosexuality is particularly condemned (Prince, 2013). As such, mental health practitioners must adopt a relational approach to understanding the social contexts in which clients are embedded to better understand the disclosure decisions that are unique to each client.

Finally, although beyond the scope of this study, heterosexism has been found to have detrimental effects on the well-being of individuals across the lifespan (Clarke,

Ellis, Peel, & Riggs, 2010). Scholarship on LGBT adolescents has indicated more depressive symptomatology than non-sexual minority counterparts (Almeida, Johnson,

Corliss, Molnar, & Azrael, 2009), increased mental and physical health problems (Meyer,

2003), heightened risk of developing internalized heterosexism (Szymanski, Chung, &

Balsam, 2001), and uncomfortably high suicide attempt rates in both urban and rural

LGBT youth populations. As adults, experiences of heterosexism, heteronormativity, and internalized heterosexism, have been suggested to contribute to various adverse mental health outcomes, such as mood and anxiety disorder symptomatology (e.g., Cochran &

Mays, 2000b; Sandfort, de Graaf, Bijl, & Schnabel, 2001; Mays & Cochran, 2001), higher lifetime prevalence of suicide ideology and attempts (e.g., Cochran & Mays,

2000a; Safren & Heimberg, 1999), and posttraumatic stress disorder symptomatology

(e.g., Herek Gillis, & Cogan, 1999; McDevitt, Balboni, Garcia, & Gu, 2001).

Heterosexism has also been related to adverse job outcomes, such as decreased job satisfaction (e.g., Velez & Moradi, 2012; Waldo, 1999), increased job turnover intentions

215

(e.g., Velez & Moradi, 2012) and general job stress (e.g., Waldo, 1999). Additionally,

research has suggested that sexual minority women and/or people of color are at even more risk for experiencing psychological distress as a result of the intersecting oppressed identities (Szymanski, 2005; Szymanski & Meyer, 2008). Therefore, expanding the empirical knowledgebase on sexuality-based discrimination is crucial to the attempts of mental health practitioners at preventing mental and physical health disparities in sexual minorities (Nadal et al., 2011).

Conclusion

The current study aimed to investigate the work-life outcomes of workplace heterosexism and homonegative microaggressions through the use of the minority stress theory (Meyer, 1995, 2003), as a conceptual model. The results of this study supported one out of the four hypotheses, indicating that sexual minorities who experience higher levels of workplace heterosexism also experience negative work-life outcomes. In addition, results of the current study indicated that perceived social support was significantly related to work-life outcomes. Hypotheses 3 and 4 were not supported in the present study; therefore, perceived social support was not found to be a significant moderator in the relationship between predictor variables (i.e., workplace heterosexism and homonegative microaggressions) and work-life outcome variables (i.e., work interference with life and job and life satisfaction). The hypothesized positive relationship between homonegative microaggressions and work interference with life and the hypothesized negative relationships between homonegative microaggressions and job and life satisfaction were not supported.

216

The lack of support for the relationship between homonegative microaggressions and work-life outcomes is not consistent with previous research exploring discrimination and similar work-life consequences. Potential explanations for these findings were discussed, and further research should be conducted to examine the presence of this relationship in the future. Additionally, both structural models demonstrated good model fit with non-parsimonious results. Therefore, the minority stress theory (Meyer, 1995,

2003) emerged as an acceptable conceptual model to understand the relationships amongst variables in the present study. However, given the complexity of the structural models in the current investigation, caution should be used when applying the model in future research and across diverse samples.

Given the limitations of the current study, future research should first be aimed at a replication of this study with a larger and more diverse sample, a more comprehensive measure of social support, and a more reliable measure of homonegative microaggressions. Because the current study could not establish temporal precedence between the variables examined, future investigations could implement a longitudinal design to determine the directionality of the relationships among variables. In addition, future research can build on the present study through the use of the minority stress theory and the testing of different moderators in the relationship between minority stressor and various work-life outcomes.

217

REFERENCES

Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E. L., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated

with work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for further research. Journal

of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 278-308. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.5.2.278

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Anderson, M. Z., & Croteau, J. M. (2013). Toward and inclusive lgbt psychology of

working. In D. L. Blustein (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the psychology of

working (pp. 103-126). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199758791.013.0007

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, 243-260. doi: 10.1177/106907270100900303

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A

review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-

423. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411

Arbuckle, J. L. (2014). Amos 23.0 User's Guide. Chicago, IL: IBM SPSS Corp.

Arthur, W., Edens, P. S., Bell, S. T., & Bennett, W. (2003). Effectiveness of training in

organizations: A meta-analysis of design and evaluation features. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 88, 234-245. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.234

Badgett, M. V. L., Lau, H., Sears, B., & Ho, D. (2007). Bias in the workplace: Consistent

evidence of sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination. Los Angeles,

CA: The Williams Institute.

218

Bagozzi, R. P., & Edwards, J. R. (1998). A general approach for representing constructs

in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 45-87.

doi: 10.1177/109442819800100104

Baillien, E., Neyens, I., DeWitte, H., DeCuyper, N. (2009). A qualitative study on the

development of workplace bullying: Towards a three-way model. Journal of

Community and Applied Social Psychology, 19, 1-16. doi: 10.1002/casp.977

Bailyn, L., & Harrington, M. (2004). Redesigning work for work-family integration.

Community, Work and Family, 7, 197-208. doi: 10.1080/1366880042000245470

Balsam, K. F., & Mohr, J. J. (2007). Adaptation to sexual orientation stigma: A

comparison of bisexual and lesbian/gay adults. Journal of Counseling

Psychology, 54, 306-319. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.54.3.306

Balsam, K. F., Molina, Y., Beadnell, B., Simoni, J., & Walters, K. (2011). Measuring

multiple minority stress: The LGBT people of color microaggressions scale.

Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17, 163-174. doi:

10.1037/a0023244

Balsam, K. F. & Szymanski, D. M. (2005). Relationship quality and domestic violence in

women’s same-sex relationships: The role of minority stress. Psychology of

Women Quarterly, 29, 258-269. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00220.x

Bandalos, D. L. (2002). The effects of item parceling on goodness-of-fit and parameter

estimate bias in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 9,

78-102. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0901_5

Barker, J. C., Herdt, G., & de Vries, B. (2006). Social support in the lives of lesbians and

gay men at midlife and later. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 3, 1–23.

219

doi: 10.1525/srsp.2006.3.2.1

Barnett R. C., & Hyde, J. S. (2001). Women, men, work, and family: An expansionist

theory. American Psychologist, 56, 781-796. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.56.10.781

Baron, R. M., Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. doi: 10.1037/0022-

3514.51.6.1173

Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and

Individual Differences, 42, 815-24. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.018

Beals, K . P., & Peplau, L. A. (2001). Social involvement, disclosure of sexual

orientation, and the quality of lesbian relationships. Psychology of Women

Quarterly, 25, 10-19. doi: 10.1111/1471-6402.00002

Beckner, V., Howard, I., Vella, L., & Mohr, D. C. (2010). Telephone-administered

psychotherapy for depression in MS patients: Moderating role of social support.

Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 33, 47-59. doi: 10.1007/s10865-009-9235-2

Behson, S. J. (2005). The relative contribution of formal and informal organizational

work-family support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 487-500.

doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2004.02.004

Bentler, P.M. and Bonnet, D.C. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the

analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.

doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588

Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological

Bulletin, 107, 238-46. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238

220

Berger, D. D. (2015, July 23). EEOC concludes sexual orientation discrimination violates

Title VII – will courts agree? The National Law Review. Retrieved from:

http://www.natlawreview.com/article/eeoc-concludes-sexual-orientation-

discrimination-violates-title-vii-will-courts-agre.

Black, D., Sanders, S., Taylor, L. J. (2007). The economics of lesbian and gay families.

The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21, 53-70. doi: 10.1257/jep.21.2.53

Blair, K. L., & Holmberg, D. (2008). Perceived social network support and well-being in

same-sex versus mixed-sex romantic relationships. Journal of Social and

Personal Relationships, 25, 769-791. doi: 10.1177/0265407508096695

Blustein, D. L. (2001). The interface of work and relationships: Critical knowledge for

the 21st century psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 29, 179-192.

doi: 10.1177/0011000001292001

Blustein, D. L. (2004). Moving from the inside out: Further explorations of the family of

origin/career development linkage. The Counseling Psychologist, 32, 603-611.

doi: 10.1177/0011000004265962

Blustein, D. L. (2006). The psychology of working: A new perspective for career

development, counseling, and public policy. Mahwah, MJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Blustein, D. L. (2008). The role of work in psychological health and well-being: A

conceptual, historical, and public policy perspective. American Psychologist, 63,

228-240. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.63.4.228

Blustein, D. L. (2011). A relational theory of working. Journal of Vocational Behavior,

29, 1-17. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2010.10.004

221

Blustein, D. L. (Ed.). (2013). The Oxford handbook of the psychology of working. New

York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:

10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199758791.001.0001

Blustein, D. L., Kenna, A. C., Gill, N., & DeVoy, A. C. (2008). The psychology of

working: A new framework for counseling practice and public policy. The Career

Development Quarterly, 56, 294-308. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-0045.2008.tb00095.x

Blustein, D. L., McWhirter, E. H., & Perry, J. C. (2005). An emancipatory

communitarian approach to vocational development theory, research, and

practice. The Counseling Psychologist, 33, 141-179.

doi: 10.1177/0011000004272268

Blustein, D. L., Prezioso, M. S., & Schultheiss, D. P. (1995). Attachment theory and

career development: Current status and future directions. The Counseling

Psychologist, 23, 416-432. doi: 10.1177/0011000095233002

Blustein, D. L, Schultheiss, D. E. P., & Flum, H. (2004). Toward a relational perspective

of the psychology of careers and working: A social constructionist analysis.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 423-440. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2003.12.008

Bolger, N., DeLongis, A., Kessler, R. C., & Wethnington, E. (1989). The contagion of

stress across multiple roles. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 175-183.

doi: 10.2307/352378

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.

doi: 10.1002/9781118619179

Bollen, K.A. (1990). Overall fit in covariance structure models: Two types of sample

size effects. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 256-59. doi: 10.1037/0033-

222

2909.107.2.256

Boşol, G. (2008). Validity and reliability of the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived

Social Support-Revised, with a Turkish sample. Social Behavior and Personality,

36, 1303-1314. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2008.36.10.1303

Bowling, N. A., & Hammond, G. D. (2008). A meta-analytic examination of the

construct validity of the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire job

satisfaction subscale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 63-77.

doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2008.01.004

Branscombe, N. R., Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1999). The context and

content of social identity threat. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.),

Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 35-58). Oxford, England:

Blackwell.

Branscombe,, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Harvey, R. (1999). Perceiving pervasive

discrimination among African Americans: Implications for group identification

and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 135-149.

doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.1.135

Braunstein-Bercovitz, H., Frish-Burstein, S., & Benjamin, B. A. (2012). The role of

personal resources in work-family conflict: Implications for young mothers’ well-

being. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 317-325.

doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2011.10.003

Brewster, M. E., & Moradi, B. (2010). Perceived anti-bisexual prejudice experiences:

Scale development and evaluation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57, 451-

468. doi: 10.1037/a0021116

223

Brewster, M. E., Velez, B., DeBlaere, C., & Moradi, B. (2012). Transgender individuals’

workplace experiences: The applicability of sexual minority measures and

models. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59, 60-70. doi: 10.1037/a0025206

Brief, A. P. (1998). Attitudes in and around organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Brofenbrenner U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in

developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review, 101,

568-586. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.568

Brooks, V. R. (1981). Minority stress and lesbian women. Lexington, MA: D. C. Health.

Brown, L. S. (1988). Feminist therapy with lesbians and gay men. In M. A. Dutton-

Douglas & L. E. A. Walker (Eds.), Feminist psychotherapies: Integration of

therapeutic and feminist systems (pp. 206-227). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Brown, L. S. (1994). Subversive dialogues. New York: Basic Books.

Brown, L.M. & Gilligan, C. (1992). Meeting at the crossroads: Women’s psychology and

girls’ development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

doi: 10.4159/harvard.9780674731837

Bruck, C. S., Allen, T. D., & Spector, P. E. (2002). The relation between work-family

conflict and job satisfaction: A finer-grained analysis. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 60, 336-353. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.2001.1836

Brummett, B. H., Mark, D. B., Siegler, I. C., Williams, R. B., Babyak, M. A., Clapp-

Channing, N. E., et al. (2005). Perceived social support as a predictor of mortality

in coronary patients: Effects of smoking sedentary behavior, and depressive

symptoms. Psychosomatic Medicine, 67, 40-45.

doi: 10.1097/01.psy.0000149257.74854.b7

224

Buchanan, N. T., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2008). Effects of racial and sexual harassment on

work and the psychological well-being of African American women. Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology, 13, 137–151. 10.1037/1076-8998.13.2.137

Burke, R. J. (1991). Work experiences of minority manager and professionals: Individual

and organizational costs of perceived bias. Psychological Reports, 69, 1011-1023.

doi: 10.2466/pr0.1991.69.3.1011

Burns, M. N., Kamen, C., Lehman, K. A., & Beach, S. R. (2012). Attributions for

discriminatory events and satisfaction with social support in gay men. Archives of

Sexual Behavior, 41, 659-671. doi: 10.1007/s10508-011-9822-5

Butler, J. (1997). Excitable speech: A politics of the performative. London: Routledge.

Button, S. B. (2001). Organizational efforts to affirm sexual diversity: A cross-level

examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 17-28. doi: 10.1037/0021-

9010.86.1.17

Button, S. B. (2004). Identity management strategies used by gay and lesbian employees:

A qualitative investigation. Group & Organization Management, 29, 470-497.

doi: 10.1177/1059601103257417

Cahill, S., & Cianciotto, J. (2004). U.S. policy interventions that can make schools safer.

Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education, 2(1), 3-17.

doi: 10.1300/J367v02n01_02

Campbell, D. T., Stanley, J. C., & Gage, N. L. (1963). Experimental and quasi-

experimental designs for research (No. 04; Q175, C3.). Boston: Houghton

Mifflin.

Canty-Mitchell, J. & Zimet, G. D. (2000). Psychometric properties of the

225

Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support in urban adolescents.

American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 391-400.

doi: 10.1023/A:1005109522457

Capodilupo, C. M., Nadal, K. L., Hamit, S., Corman, L., Lyons, O., & Weinberg, A.

(2010). The manifestation of gender microaggressions. In D. W. Sue (Ed.),

Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestation, dynamics, and impact (pp.

193-216). New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.

Carlson, D. S., & Kacmar, K. M. (2000). Work-family conflict in the organization: Do

life role values make a difference? Journal of Management, 26, 1031-1054.

Carlson, D. S. Kacmar, K. M. & Williams, L. J. (2000). Construction and initial

validation of a multidimensional measure of work-family conflict. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 56, 249-276. doi: 0.1006/jvbe.1999.1713

Carlson, D. S., Kacmer, K. M., Wayne, J. H., & Grzywacz, J. G. (2006). Measuring the

positive side of the work-family interface: Development and validation of a work-

family enrichment scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 131-164.

doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2005.02.002

Carlson, D. S., & Perrewé, P. L. (1999). The role of social support in the stressor-strain

relationship: An examination of work-family conflict. Journal of Management,

25, 513-540. doi: 10.1177/014920639902500403

Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan

Organizational Assessment Questionnaire, Unpublished manuscript, University of

Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Carter, L. W., Mollen, D., & Smith, N. G. (2014). Locus of control, minority stress, and

226

psychological distress among lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 61, 169-175. doi: 10.1037/a0034593

Casper, W. J., Eby, L. T., Bordeaux, C., Lockwood, A., & Lambert, D. (2007). A review

of research methods in IO/OB work-family research. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 92, 28-43. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.28

Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral

Research, 1, 245-276. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10

Chrobot-Mason, D., Button, S. B., & DiClementi, J. D. (2001). Sexual identity

management strategies: An exploration of antecedents and consequences. Sex

Roles, 45, 321-336. doi: 10.1023/A:1014357514405

Chung, Y. B. (1995). Career decision making of lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals.

Career Development Quarterly, 44, 178-190. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-

0045.1995.tb00684.x

Chung, Y. B. (2001). Work discrimination and coping strategies: Conceptual frameworks

for counseling lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients. The Career Development

Quarterly, 50, 33-44. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-0045.2001.tb00887.x

Chung, Y. B., & Harmon, L. W. (1994). The career interests and aspirations of gay men:

How sex-role orientation is related. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 223-239.

doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1994.1033

Chung, Y. B., Williams, W., & Dispenza, F. (2009). Validating work discrimination and

coping strategy models for sexual minorities. The Career Development Quarterly,

58, 162-170. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-0045.2009.tb00053.x

Cinamon, R. G. (2010). Anticipated work-family conflict: effects of role salience and

227

self-efficacy. British Journal Of Guidance & Counselling, 38, 83-99.

doi:10.1080/03069880903408620

Cinamon, R. G., Weisel, A. & Tzuk, K. (2007). Work-family conflict within the family:

Crossover effects, perceived parent-child interaction quality, parental self-

efficacy, and life role attributions. Journal of Career Development, 34, 79-100.

doi: 10.1177/0894845307304066

Clair, J. A., Beatty, J., & MacLean, T. (2005). Out of sight but not out of mind:

Managing invisible social identities in the workplace. Academy of Management

Review, 30, 78-95. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2005.15281431

Clara, I. P., Cox, B. J., Enns, M. W., Murray, L. T., & Torgrudc, L. J. (2003).

Confirmatory factor analysis of the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social

Support in clinically distressed and student samples. Journal of Personality

Assessment, 81, 265-270. doi: 10.1207/S15327752JPA8103_09

Cochran, S. D., & Mays, V. M. (1994). Depressive distress among homosexually active

African-American men and women. American Journal of Psychiatry, 151, 524-

529. doi: 10.1176/ajp.151.4.524

Cochran, S. D., & Mays, V. M. (2000a). Lifetime prevalence of suicide symptoms and

affective disorders among men reporting same-sex partners: Results from

NHANES III. American Journal of Public Health, 90, 573-578.

doi: 10.2105/AJPH.90.4.573

Cohen, A. (1997). Personal and organizational responses to work-nonwork interface as

related to organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27,

1085-1114. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb00288.x

228

Collin, A. (2000). Epic and novel: The rhetoric of career. In A. Collin & R. A. Young

(Eds.), The future of career (pp. 163-180). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press. doi: 10.1017/cbo9780511520853.011

Collin, A., & Young, R. A. (2000). The future of career. In A. Collin & R. A. Young

(Eds.). The future of career (pp. 276-300). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press. doi: 10.1017/cbo9780511520853.011

Collins, P. H. (1998). It’s all in the family: Intersections of gender, race, and nation.

Hypatia, 13, 62-82. doi: 10.1111/j.1527-2001.1998.tb01370.x

Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the

workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6,

64–80. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.6.1.64

Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black

feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist

politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 139-167.

Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In D. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G.

Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 504-553).

Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Croteau, J. M. (1996). Research on the work experience of lesbian, gay, and bisexual

people: An integrative review of methodology and findings. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 48, 195-209. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1996.0018

Croteau, J. M., Anderson, M. Z., Distefano, T. M., & Kampa-Kokesch, S. (2000).

Lesbian, gay, and Bisexual vocational psychology: Reviewing foundations and

planning construction. In R. M. Perez, K. A. DeBord, & K. J. Bieschke (Eds.),

229

Handbook of counseling and psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, and bisexual

clients (pp. 383-408). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

doi: 10.1037/10339-016

Croteau, J. M., Anderson, M. Z., & VanderWal, B. L. (2008). Models of workplace

sexual identity disclosure and management. Group & Organization Management,

33, 532-565. doi: 10.1177/1059601108321828

Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to

normality and specification error in confirmatory analysis. Psychological

Methods, 3, 16-29. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.16

Cutrona, C. E. (1996). Social support in couples: Marriage as a resource in times of

stress. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781483327563

D’Augelli, A. R. (2006). Developmental and contextual factors and mental health among

lesbian,gay, and bisexual youths. In A. M. Omoto, H. S. Kurtzman (Eds.), Sexual

orientation andmental health: Examining identity and development in lesbian,

gay, and bisexual people (pp. 37-53). Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association. doi: 10.1037/11261-002

D’Augelli, A. R., & Grossman, A. H. (2001). Disclosure of sexual orientation,

victimization, and mental health among lesbian, gay, and bisexual older adults.

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 1008-1027.

doi: 10.1177/088626001016010003

D'Augelli, A. R., Grossman, A. H., & Starks, M. T. (2005). Parent's awareness of lesbian,

gay, and bisexual youth's sexual orientation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67,

474–482. doi: 10.1111/j.0022-2445.2005.00129.x

230

D’Augelli, A. R., & Hershberger, S. L. (1993). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth in

community settings: Personal challenges and mental health problems. American

Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 1-28. doi: 10.1007/bf00942151

D’Augelli, A. R., Hershberger, S. L., & Pilkington, N. W. (1998). Lesbian, gay, and

bisexual youth and their families: Disclosure of sexual orientation and its

consequences. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68, 361-371.

doi: 10.1037/h0080345

Dawis, R. V., England, G., & Lofquist, L. H. (1964). A theory of work adjustment

(Minnesota studies in vocational rehabilitation: XV, under support of the U.S.

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare). Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota, Industrial Relations Center.

Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment: An

individual differences model and its applications. Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota Press.

DeGarmo, D. S., & Martinez, C. R. (2006). A culturally informed model of academic

well-being for Latino youth: The importance of discriminatory experiences and

social support. Family Relations, 55, 267-278. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-

3729.2006.00401.x

DeJesus-Torres, M. (2000). Microaggressions in the criminal justice system at

discretionary stages and its impact on Latino(a)/Hispanics. The Justice

Professional, 13, 69-89. doi: 10.1080/1478601X.2000.9959574

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., & Bulters, A. J. (2004). The loss spiral of work pressure,

231

work-home interference and exhaustion: Reciprocal relations in a three-wave

study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 131-149. doi: 10.1016/S0001-

8791(03)00030-7

Dennis, J. M., Phinney, J. S., & Chuateco, L. I. (2005). The role of motivation, parental

support, and peer support in the academic success of ethnic minority first-

generation college students. Journal of College Student Development, 46, 223-

236. doi: 10.1353/csd.2005.0023

Dermer, S. B., Smith, S. D., & Barto, K. K. (2010). Identifying and correctly labeling

sexual prejudice, discrimination, and oppression. Journal of Counseling &

Development, 88, 325–331. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6678.2010.tb00029.x

Dewaele, A., Cox, N., Van den Berghe, W., & Vincke, J. (2011). Families of choice?

Exploring the supportive networks of lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Journal of

Applied Social Psychology, 41, 312-331. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00715.x

Diamond, L. M. (2003). What does sexual orientation orient? A biobehavioral model

distinguishing romantic love and sexual desire. Psychological Review, 110, 173-

192. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.110.1.173

Diamond, L. M. (2008). Sexual fluidity: Understanding women’s love and desire.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Diamond, L. M., & Dube ́, E. M. (2002). Friendship and attachment among heterosexual

and sexual-minority youths: Does the gender of your friend matter? Journal of

Youth and Adolescence, 31, 155–166. doi: 10.1023/A:1014026111486

Diaz, R. M., Ayala, G., Bein,, E., Jenne, J., & Marin, B. V. (2001). The impact of

homophobia, poverty, and racism on the mental health of Latino gay men.

232

American Journal of Public Health, 91, 927-932. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.91.6.927

Dickson, C. E. (2008). Antecedents and consequences of perceived family

responsibilities discrimination in the workplace. The Psychologist-Manager

Journal, 11, 113-140. doi: 10.1080/10887150801967399

Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542-575.

doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542

Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2002). Will money increase subjective well-being?

Social Indicators Research, 57, 119-169. doi: 10.1023/A:1014411319119

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life

scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75.

doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

Dormann, C., & Zapf, D. (2001). Job satisfaction: A meta-analysis of stabilities. Journal

of Organizational Behavior, 22, 483-504. doi: 10.1002/job.98

Driscoll, J. M., Kelly, F. A., & Fassinger, R. E. (1996). Lesbian identity and disclosure in

the workplace: Relation to occupational stress and satisfaction. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 48, 229-242. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1996.0020

Dudley, M. G., Rostosky, S. S., Riggle, E. D. B., Duhigg, J. M., Brodnicki, C., & Couch,

R. (2005). Same-sex couples’ experiences with homonegativity. Journal of GLBT

Family Studies, 1(4), 68-93. doi: 10.1300/J461v01n04_04

Dunkle, J. H. (1996). Toward an integration of gay and lesbian identity development and

Super’s life-span approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48, 160-175.

doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1996.0015

Dunne, G. (2000). Opting into motherhood: Lesbians blurring the boundaries and

233

transforming the meaning or parenthood and kinship. Gender and Society, 14, 11-

35. doi: 10.1177/089124300014001003

Duffy, R. D., Diemer, M. A., Perry, J. C., Laurenzi, C., & Torrey, C. L. (2012). The

construction and initial validation of the Work Volition Scale. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 80, 400-411. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2011.04.002

Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley, A. (2005). Work and

family research in IO/BO: Content analysis and review of the literature (1980-

2002). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 124-197.

doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2003.11.003

Eby, L. T., Maher, C. P., & Butts, M. M. (2010). The intersection of work and family

life: The role of affect. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 599-622.

doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100422

Eisenberg, M. E., & Resnick, M. D. (2006). Suicidality among gay, lesbian and bisexual

adolescents: The role of protective factors. Journal of Adolescent Health, 39,

662–668. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.04.024

Eker, D. & Arkar, H. (1995). Perceived social support: Psychometric properties of the

MSPSS in normal and pathological groups in a developing country. Social

Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 30, 121-126. doi:10.1007/BF00802040

Elizur, Y., & Mintzer, A. (2003). Gay males intimate relationship quality: The roles of

attachment security, gay identity, social support, and income. Personal

Relationships, 10, 411-436. doi: 10.1111/1475-6811.00057

Ellis, A. L., & Riggle, E. D. B. (1996). The relation of job satisfaction and degree of

openness about one’s sexual orientation for lesbians and gay men. Journal of

234

Homosexuality, 30, 75-85. doi: 10.1300/J082v30n02_04

Enns, C. Z. (2004). Feminist theories and feminist psychotherapies: Origins, themes, and

diversity (2nd ed.). New York: Haworth.

Ensher, E. A., Grant-Vallone, E. J., & Donaldson, S. I. (2001). Effects of perceived

discrimination on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational

citizenship behavior, and grievances. Human Resource Development Quarterly,

12, 53-72. doi: 10.1002/1532-1096(200101/02)12:1%3C53::AID-

HRDQ5%3E3.0.CO;2-G

Espelage, D. L., Aragon, S. R., & Birkett, M. (2008). Homophobic teasing, psychological

outcomes, and sexual orientation among high school students: What influence do

parents and schools have? School Psychology Review, 37, 202-216.

Fassinger, R. E. (1996). Notes from the margins: Integrating lesbian experience into the

vocational psychology of women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48, 160-175.

doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1996.0016

Fassinger, R. E. (2000). Gender and sexuality in human development: Implications for

prevention and advocacy in counseling psychology. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent

(Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (3rd ed., pp. 346-378). New York,

NY: Wiley.

Fassinger, R. E. (2008). Workplace diversity and public policy: Challenges and

opportunities for psychology. American Psychologist, 63, 252-268. doi:

10.1037/0003-066X.63.4.252

Fassinger, R. E., Arseneau, J. R. (2007). “I’d rather get wet than be under that umbrella”:

235

Differentiating the experiences and identities of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and

transgender people. In K. J. Bieschke, R. M. Perez, & K. A. DeBord (Eds.),

Handbook of counseling and psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, and bisexual

clients (pp. 19-49). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:

10.1037/11482-001

Fassinger, R. E., Arseneau, J., Paquin, J., Walton, H., Giordan, J., Asay, P., et al., (2006).

It’s elemental: Enhancing career success for women in the chemical industry.

College Park: University of Maryland.

Fassinger, R. E., & Gallor, S. M. (2006). Tools for remodeling the master’s house:

Advocacy and social justice in education and work. In R. L. Toporek, L. H.

Gerstein, N. A. Fouad, G. Roysircar, & T. Israel (Eds.), Handbook for social

justice in counseling psychology: Leadership, vision, and action (pp. 256–275).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781412976220.n19

Federal Bureau of Investigation (2014). Hate Crime Statistics Report. Retrieved from:

https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/december/latest-hate-crime-statistics-

report-released.

Field, A. (2000). Discovering statistics using spss for windows. London-Thousand Oaks-

New Delhi: Sage publications.

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: SAGE.

Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., Hulin, C. L., Gelfand, M. J., & Magley, V. J., (1997).

Women’s career development: A postmodern update. In F. T. L. Leong & A.

Barak (Eds.), Contemporary models in vocational psychology: A volume in honor

of Samuel H. Osipow (pp. 207-230). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

236

Fitzgerald, L. G., Shullman, S., Bailey, N., Richards, M., Swecker, J., Gold, A., Ormerod,

A. J., & Weitzman, L. (1988). The incidence and dimensions of sexual

harassment in academia and the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32,

152-175. doi: 10.1016/0001-8791(88)90012-7

Fletcher, J. K., & Bailyn, L. (2005). The equity imperative: Redesigning work for work-

family integration. In E. E. Kossek, & S. J. Lambert (Eds.), Work and life

integration: Organizational, cultural, and individual perspectives. LEA’s

organization and management series (pp. 171-189). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Flum, H. (2001a). Relational dimensions in career development. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 59, 1-16. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.2000.1786

Flum, H. (2001b). Dialogues and challenges: The interface between work and

relationships in transition. The Counseling Psychologist, 29, 261-270.

doi: 10.1177/0011000001292005

Foley, S., Kidder, D. L., & Powell, G. N. (2002). The perceived glass ceiling and justice

perceptions: An investigation of Hispanic law associates. Journal of Management,

28, 471-496. doi: 10.1177/014920630202800401

Foley, P. F., & Lytle, M. C. (2015). Social cognitive career theory, the theory of work

adjustment, and work satisfaction of retirement-age adults. Journal of Career

Development, 42, 199-214. doi: 10.1177/0894845314553270

Ford, M. T., Heinen, B. A., & Langkamer, K. L. (2007). Work and family satisfaction

and conflict: A meta-analysis of cross-domain relations. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 92, 57-80. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.57

237

Foster, C. A., & Campbell, W. K. (2005). The adversity of secret relationships, Personal

Relationships, 12, 125–143. doi: 10.111/j.1350-4126.2005.00105.x

Fouad, N. A., & Kantammeni, N. (2008). Contextual influences in vocational choice: A

three-dimensional model. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of

counseling psychology (4th ed., pp. 408 – 425). New York: Wiley.

Frable, D. E., Platt, L, & Hoey, S. (1998). Concealable stigmas and positive self-

perceptions: Feelings better around similar others. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 74, 909-922. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.909

Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects

in counseling psychology research. Journal of counseling psychology, 51, 115-

134. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.51.1.115

Friskopp, A., & Silverstein, S. (1995). Straight jobs, gay lives. New York: Scribner.

Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-

family conflict: Testing a model of the work-family interface. The Journal of \

Applied Psychology, 77, 65-78. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.77.1.65

Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., & Markel, K. S. (1997). Developing and testing an

integrative model of the work-family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior,

50, 145-167. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1996.1577

Frost, D. M., & Meyer, I. H. (2009). Internalized homophobia and relationship quality

among lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56,

97-109. doi: 10.1037/a0012844

Fukuyama, M. A., & Ferguson, A. D. (2000). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people of color:

238

Understanding cultural complexity and managing multiple oppressions. In R. M.

Perez, K. A. DeBord, & K. J. Bieschke (Eds.), Handbook of counseling and

psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients (pp. 81-105). Washington,

DC: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/10339-004

Gains, S. O., Henderson, M. C., Kim, M., Gilstrap, S., Yi, J., Rusbult, C. E., et al. (2005).

Cultural value orientations, internalized homophobia, and accommodation in

romantic relationships. Journal of Homosexuality, 50, 97-117.

doi: 10.1300/J082v50n01_05

Gallup. (2017, January 11). In US, more adults identifying as lgbt. Retrieved from:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/201731/lgbt-identification-rises.aspx

Garnets, L. D., Herek, G. M., & Levy, B. (1990). Violence and victimization of lesbians

and gay men: Mental health consequences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5,

366-383. doi: 10.1177/088626090005003010

Gelfand, M. J., Fitzgerald, L. F., & Drasgow, F. (1995). The structure of sexual

harassment: A confirmatory analysis across cultures and settings. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 47, 164-177. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1995.1033

Georgellis, Y., & Lange, T. (2012). Traditional vs. secular values and the job-life

satisfaction relationship across Europe. British Journal of Management, 23, 437-

454. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00753.x

Georgellis, Y., Lange, T., & Tabvuma, V. (2012). The impact of life events on job

satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 464-473.

doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2011.12.005

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

239

Giuffre, P., Dellinger, K., & Williams, C. L. (2008). “No retribution for being gay?”:

Inequality in gay-friendly workplaces. Sociological Spectrum, 28, 254-277.

doi: 10.1080/02732170801898380

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York,

NY: Touchstone.

Goldberg, A., & Perry-Jenkins, M. (2007). The division of labor and perceptions of

parental roles: Lesbian couples across the transition to parenthood. Journal of

Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 297-318. doi: 10.1177/0265407507075415

Goh, Z., Ilies, R., & Wilson, K. S. (2015). Supportive supervisors improve employees’

daily lives: The role supervisors play in the impact of daily workload on life

satisfaction via work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 89, 65-73.

doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2015.04.009

Grant-Vallone, E. J., & Donaldson, S. I. (2001). Consequences of work-family conflict

on employee well-being over time. Work & Stress, 15, 214-226.

doi: 10.1080/02678370110066544

Gravetter, F., & Wallnau, L. (2014). Essentials of statistics for the behavioral sciences

(8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Green, R. J. (2000). “Lesbians, gay men, and their parents”. A critique of LaSala and the

prevailing clinical “wisdom.” Family Process, 39, 257-266. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-

5300.2000.39208.x

Green, R. J. and V. Mitchell. (2002). Gay and Lesbian Couples in Therapy: Homophobia,

Relational Ambiguity, and Social Support. In A. S. Gurman and N. S. Jacobson,

(Eds.), Clinical Handbook of Couple Therapy (3rd ed.) (pp. 548-588). New York:

240

The Guilford Press.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family

roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76-88.

Greenhaus, J. H., Callanan, G. A., & Godshalk, V. M. (2000). Career management (3rd

Ed.). Winfield, KS: Southwestern College Press.

Greenhaus, J. H., Collins, K. M., & Shaw, J. D. (2003). The relation between work-

family balance and quality of life. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 510-531.

doi: 10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00042-8

Greenhaus, J. H. & Parasuraman, S. (1999). Reesarch on work, family and gender:

Current status and future directions. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender

and work (pp. 391-412). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

doi: 10.4135/9781452231365.n20

Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of

work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31, 72-92.

doi: 10.5465/AMR.2006.19379625

Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. (1986). A work-nonwork interactive perspective of

stress and its consequences. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 8,

76-88.

Griffin, P. (1992). From hiding out to coming out: Empowering lesbian and gay

educators. In K.

M. Harbeck (Ed.), Coming out of the classroom closet (pp. 167-196). Binghamton, NY:

Harrington Park Press. doi: 10.1300/j082v22n03_07

Griffith, A. R. (1980). Justification for Black career development. Journal of Non-White

241

Concerns, 8, 77-83. doi: 10.1002/j.2164-4950.1980.tb00286.x

Griffith, K. H., & Hebl, M. R. (2002). The disclosure dilemma for gay men and lesbians:

“Coming out” at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1191-1199.

doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.6.1191

Grzywacz J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work-family interface: An

ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between

work and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 111-126. doi:

10.1037/1076-8998.5.1.111

Haar, J. M., Russo, M., Suñe, A., & Ollier-Malaterre, A. (2014). Outcomes of work-life

balance on job satisfaction, life satisfaction and mental health: A study across

seven cultures. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85, 361-373.

doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2014.08.010

Halberstam, J. J. (2012). Gaga feminism: Sex, gender, and the end of normal. Boston,

MA: Beacon Press.

Hall, D. T., et al. (1996). The career is dead – long live the career: A relational approach

to careers. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hall, R. J., Snell, A. F., & Foust, M. S. (1999). Item parceling strategies in SEM:

Investigating the subtle effects of unmodeled secondary constructs.

Organizational Research Methods, 2, 233–256. doi:10.1177/109442819923002

Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E., Yragui, N., Bodner, T., & Hansen, F. (2009). Development

and validation of a multi-dimensional scale of family supportive supervisor

behaviors (FSSB). Journal of Management, 35, 837-856.

doi: 10.1177/0149206308328510

242

Hammond, W. P., Gillen, M., & Yen, I. H. (2010). Workplace discrimination and

depressive symptoms: A study of multi-ethnic hospital employees. Race and

Social Problems, 2, 19-30. doi: 10.1007/s12552-010-9024-0

Harkless, L. E., & Flowers, B. J. (2005). Similarities and differences in relational

boundaries among heterosexuals, gay men, and lesbians. Psychology of Women

Quarterly, 29, 167-176. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00179.x

Hartung, P. J. (2013). The life-span, life-space theory of careers. In S. D. Brown & R. W.

Lent (Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to

work (2nd ed., pp. 83-113). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Hatzenbuehler, M. L. (2009). How does sexual minority stigma “get under the skin”? A

psychological mediation framework. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 707-730.

doi: 10.1037/a0016441

Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Dovidio, J. (2009). How does stigma “get

under the skin”?: The mediating role of emotion regulation. Psychological

Science, 20, 1282-1289. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02441.x

Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Erickson, S. J. (2008). Minority stress

predictors of HIV risk behavior, substance use, and depressive symptoms: Results

from a prospective study of bereaved gay men. Health Psychology, 27, 455-462.

doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.27.4.455

Haynes, S. N., Smith, G. T., & Hunsley, J. D. (2011). Scientific foundations of clinical

assessment. New York, NY: Routledge.

Heppner, P. P., Kivlighan, D. M., & Wampold, B. E. (1999). Research design in

counseling (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadswoth.

243

Herek, G. M. (1992). The social context of hate crimes: Notes on cultural heterosexism.

In G. M. Herek & K. T. Berrill (Eds.), Hate crimes: Confronting violence against

lesbians and gay men (pp. 89-104). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Herek, G. M. (1994). Assessing heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: A

review of empirical research with the ATLG scale. In B. Greene & G. M. Herek

(Eds.), Lesbian and gay psychology: Theory, research and clinical applications

(pp. 206-228). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781483326757.n11

Herek, G. M. (1995). Psychological heterosexism in the United States. In A. D’Augelli &

C. Patterson (Eds.), Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities over the lifespan:

Psychological perspectives (pp. 321-346). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195082319.003.0013

Herek, G. M. (2000). The psychology of sexual prejudice. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 9, 19-22. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.00051

Herek, G. M. (2004). Beyond “homophobia”” Thinking about sexual prejudice and

stigma in the twenty-first century. Sexuality Research and Social Policy: Journal

of NSRC, 1(2), 6-24).

Herek, G. M. (2007). Confronting sexual stigma and prejudice: Theory and practice.

Journal of Social Issues, 63, 905-925. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00544.x

Herek, G. M. (2009). Hate crimes and stigma-related experiences among sexual minority

adults in the United States: Prevalence estimates from notational probability

sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 54-74.

doi: 10.1177/0886260508316477

Herek, G. M., Cogan, S. C., & Gillis, J. R. (2002). Victim experiences of hate crimes

244

based on sexual orientation. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 319–399.

doi: 10.1111/1540-4560.00263

Herrschaft, D. & Mills, K. I. (2002). The state of the workplace for lesbian, gay, bisexual,

and transgender Americans 2002. Washington, DC: Human Rights Campaign.

Hill, D. B., & Willoughby, B. L. B. (2005). The development and validation of the

genderism and transphobia scale. Sex Roles, 53, 531–544. doi: 10.1007/s11199-

005-7140-x

Holahan, C. J., & Moos, R. H. (1983). The quality of social support: Measure of family

and work relationships. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 22, 157-162.

doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1983.tb00596.x

Horvath, M., & Ryan, A. M. (2003). Antecedents and potential moderators of the

relationship between attitudes and hiring discrimination on the basis of sexual

orientation. Sex Roles, 48, 115-130. doi: 10.1023/A:1022499121222

Howitt, D. & Cramer, D. (2011). Introduction to research methods in psychology (3rd

ed.). Essex, England: Pearson Education Limited.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure

analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation

Modeling, 6, 1-55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118

Huffman, A. H., Watrous-Rodriquez, K. M., & King, B. E. (2008). Supporting a diverse

workforce: What type of support is most meaningful for lesbian and gay

employees? Human Resource Management, 47, 237-253. doi: 10.1002/hrm.20210

Hulin, C. L., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Job attitudes: A theoretical and empirical review. In

W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.). Handbook of psychology

245

(Vol. 12, pp. 255-276). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. doi: 10.1002/0471264385.wei1211

Human Rights Campaign Foundation. (2009). The state of the workplace for Lesbian,

gay, bisexual and transgender Americans 2007-2008. Retrieved from

http://www.sbequality.org/SOTW_2007-2008.pdf.

Hunter, E. M., Perry, S. J., Carlson, D. S., & Smith, S. A. (2010). Linking team resources

to work-family enrichment and satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77,

304-312. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2010.05.009

Hutcheson, G. D., and Sofroniou, N. (1999). The Multivariate Social Scientist: An

introduction to generalized linear models. Sage Publications.

doi: 10.4135/9780857028075

IBM Corp. Released 2016. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 24.0. Armonk,

NY: IBM Corp.

Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., Leibkind, K., & Jaakkola, M., Reuter, A. (2006). Perceived

discrimination, social support networks, and psychological well-being among

three immigrant groups. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 293-311.

doi: 10.1177/0022022106286925

Jordan, J. V. (Ed.). (1997). Women’s growth in diversity: More writings from the Stone

Center. New York: The Guilford Press.

Jordan, J. V. (2009). Relational-cultural therapy. Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Jordan, J. V., Kaplan, A. G., Miller, J. B., Stiver, I. P., & Surrey, J. L. (Eds.). (1991).

Women’s growth in connection: Writings from the Stone Center. New York: The

Guilford Press.

246

Jordan, J. V., Walker, M., & Hartling, L. M. (Eds.). (2004). The complexity of

connection: Writings from the Stone Center’s Jean Baker Miller Training

Institute. New York: The Guilford Press.

Jordan, K. M., & Deluty, R. H. (2000). Social supports, coming out, and relationship

satisfaction in lesbian couples. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 4, 145-164.

doi: 10.1300/J155v04n01_09

Josselson, R. (1992). The space between us: Exploring the dimensions of human

relationships. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Josselson, R. (1996). Revising herself: The story of women’s identity from college to

midlife. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Juntunen, C. L. (2006). The psychology of working: the clinical context. Professional

Psychology: Research and Practices, 37, 342-350. doi: 10.1037/0735-

7028.37.4.342

Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964).

Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York, NY:

Wiley.

Kaiser Family Foundation (2001). Inside-OUT: A report on the experiences of lesbians,

gays, and bisexuals in America and the public’s views on issues and policies

related to sexual orientation. Menlo Park, CA: Author.

Kaiser, H. F. (1958). The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis.

Psychometrika, 23, 187-200. doi: 10.1007/BF02289233

Kaiser, H.F. (1970). A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401-415.

doi:10.1007/BF02291817

247

Kamen, C., Cosgrove, V., McKellar, J., Cronkite, R., & Moos, R. (2011). Family support

and depressive symptoms: A 23-year follow-up. Journal of Clinical Psychology,

67, 215-223. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20765

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New

York, NY: Wiley.

Keeney, J., Boyd, E. M., Sinha, R., Westring, A. F., & Ryan, A. M. (2013). From “work-

family” to “work-life”: Broadening our conceptualization and measurement.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 82, 221-237. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2013.01.005

Keller, R. M., & Galgay, C. E. (2010). Microaggressions experienced by people with

disabilities in US Society. In D. W. Sue (Ed.), Microaggressions and marginality:

Manifestation, dynamics, and impact (pp. 241-268). New York, NY: Wiley &

Sons.

Kenny, M. E. & Medvide, M. B. (2013). Relational influences on career development. In

S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting

theory and research to work (2nd ed., pp. 329-356). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &

Sons, Inc.

King, E. B, Huffman, A. H., & Peddie, C. I. (2013). LGBT parents and the workplace. In

A. E. Goldberg & K. R. Allen (Eds.). LGBT-parents families: Innovations in

research and implications for practice (pp. 225-237). New York, NY: Springer.

doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-4556-2_15

Konik, J. & Stewart, A. (2004). Sexual identity development in the context of

compulsory

heterosexuality. Journal of Personality, 72, 815-844. doi: 10.1111/j.0022-

248

3506.2004.00281.x

Konrad, A. M., Moore, M. E., Ng, E. S. W., Doherty, A. J., & Breward, K. (2013).

Temporary work, underemployment and workplace accommodations:

Relationship to well-being for workers with disabilities. British Journal of

Management, 24, 367-382. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00809.x

Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Palmer, N. A., & Boesen, M. J. (2014). The 2013 National

School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender

youth in our nation’s schools. New York: GLSEN.

Kossek, E. E., Pichler, S., Bodner, T., & Hammer, L. B. (2011). Workplace social

support and work-family conflict: A meta-analysis clarifying the influence of

general and work-family-specific supervisor and organizational support.

Personnel Psychology, 64, 289-313. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01211.x

Kurdek, L. A. (2000). Attractions and constraints as determinants of relationship

commitment: Longitudinal evidence from gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples.

Personal Relationships, 7, 245-262. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2000.tb00015.x

Kurdek, L. A. (2006). Differences between partners from heterosexual, gay, and lesbian

cohabitating couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 509-528.

doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00268.x

Laird, J., & Green, R. J. (Eds.). (1996). Lesbians and gays in couples and families: A

handbook for therapists. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Lance, T. S., Anderson, M. Z., & Croteau, J. M. (2010). Improving measurement of

workplace sexual identity management. The Career Development Quarterly, 59,

19-26. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-0045.2010.tb00127.x

249

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion.

American Psychologist, 46, 819-834. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.46.8.819

Lee R. T., & Brotheridge, C. M. (2006). When prey turns predatory: Workplace bullying

as a predictor of counteraggression/bullying, coping, and well-being. European

Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15, 352-377.

doi: 10.1080/13594320600636531

Lehavot, K., & Lambert, A. J. (2007). Toward a greater understanding of antigay

prejudice: On the role of sexual orientation and gender role violation. Basic and

Applied Social Psychology, 29, 279-292. doi: 10.1080/01973530701503390

Lei, P.-W., Wu, Q. (2007). Introduction to structural equation modeling: Issues and

practical considerations. Instructional Topics in Educational Measurement.

doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2007.00099.x

Lent, R. W. (2013). Social cognitive career theory. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.),

Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (2nd

ed., pp. 115-146). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive

theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 45, 79-122. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1994.1027

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,

36-49. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.47.1.36

Levine, M. P. & Leonard, R. (1984). Discrimination against lesbians in the work force.

Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 9, 700-710.

250

doi: 10.1086/494094

Lewis, R. J., Derlega, V. J., Berndt, A., Morris, L. M., & Rose, S. (2001). An empirical

analysis of stressors for gay men and lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality, 42, 63-

88. doi: 10.1300/J082v42n01_04

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, 716-729.

doi: 10.1521/jscp.22.6.716.22932

Lewis, R. J., Kholodkov, T., & Derlega, V. J. (2012). Still stressful after all these years:

A review of lesbians’ and bisexual women’s minority stress. Journal of Lesbian

Studies, 16, 30-44. doi: 10.1080/10894160.2011.557641

Lidderdale, M. A., Croteau, J. M., Anderson, M. Z., Tovar-Murray, D., & Davis, J. M.

(2007). Building lesbian, gay, and bisexual vocational psychology: A theoretical

model of workplace sexual identity management. In K. J. Bieschke, R. M. Perez,

& K. A. DeBord (Eds.), Handbook of counseling and psychotherapy with

lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender clients (2nd ed., pp. 245-270).

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/11482-010

Liddle, B. J., Luzzo, D. A., Hauenstein, A. L., & Schuck, K. (2004). Construction and

validation of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered Climate Inventory.

Journal of Career Assessment, 12, 33-50. doi: 10.1177/1069072703257722

Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology,

27, 363-385. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.363

Litovich, M. L., & Langhout, R. D. (2004). Framing heterosexism in lesbian families: A

251

preliminary examination of resilient coping. Journal of Community and Applied

Social Psychology, 14, 411-435. doi: 10.1002/casp.780

Little, T. D., Bovaird, J. A., and Widaman, K. F. (2006). On the merits of orthogonalizing

powered and product terms: Implications for modeling interactions among latent

variables. Structural Equation Modeling, 13 497-519.

doi: 10.1207/s15328007sem1304_1

Little, T. D., Rhemtulla, M., Gibson, K., & Schoemann, A. M. (2013). Why the items

versus parcels controversy needn’t be one. Psychological Methods, 18, 285-300.

doi:10.1037/a0033266

Liu, W. M., & Ali, S. R. (2005). Addressing social class and classism in vocational

theory and practice. The Counseling Psychologist, 33, 189-196.

doi: 10.1177/0011000004272269

Lomax, R. G. (2001). An introduction to statistical concepts for education and

behavioral sciences Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Lonborg, S. D., & Phillips, J. M. (1996). Investigating the career development of gay,

lesbian, and bisexual people: Methodological considerations and

recommendations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48, 176-194.

doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1996.0017

Lucas, K. (Ed.). (2004). Running on empty: Transport, social exclusion and

environmental justice. Bristol: The Policy Press.

Lyons, H. Z., Brenner, B. R., & Fassinger, R. E. (2005). A multicultural test of the theory

252

of work adjustment: Investigating the role of heterosexism and fit perceptions in

the job satisfaction of lesbian, gay, and bisexual employees. Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 52, 537-548. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.52.4.537

MacDermid, S. M., & Harvey, A. (2006). The work-family conflict construct:

Methodological implications. In M. Pitt-Catsouphes, E. E. Kossek, & S. Sweet

(Eds.), The work and family handbook: Multi-disciplinary perspectives and

approaches (pp. 567-586). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Madera, J. M., King, E. B., & Hebl, M. R. (2012). Brining social identity to work: The

influence of manifestation and suppression on perceived discrimination, job

satisfaction, and turnover intentions. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority

Psychology, 18, 165-170. doi: 10.1037/a0027724

Martens, M. P. (2005). The use of structural equation modeling in counseling psychology

research. The Counseling Psychologist, 33, 269-298.

doi: 10.1177/0011000004272260

Masuda, A. D., McNall, L. A., Allen, T., & Nicklin, J. M. (2012). Examining the

constructs of work-to-family enrichment and positive spillover. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 80, 197-210. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2011.06.002

Matsunaga, M. (2008). Item parceling in structural equation modeling: A primer.

Communication Methods and Measures, 2, 260-293.

doi: 10.1080/19312450802458935

Matthews, R. A., Bulger, C. A., & Barnes-Farrell, J. L. (2010). Work social supports, role

stressors, and work-family conflict: The moderating effect of age. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 76, 78-90. doi:.1016/j.jvb.2009.06.011

253

Matthews, R. A., Kath, L. M., & Barnes-Farrell, J. L. (2010). A Short, valid, predictive

measure of work-family conflict: Item selection and scale validation. Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology, 15, 75-90. doi: 10.1037/a0017443.

Mays, V. M. & Cochran, S. D. (2001). Mental health correlates of perceived

discrimination among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States.

American Journal of Public Health, 91, 1869-1876.

doi: 10.2105/AJPH.91.11.1869

Mays, V M., Coleman, L. M., & Jackson, J. S. (1996). Perceived race-based

discrimination, employment status, and Job stress in a national sample of black

women: Implications for health outcomes. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 1, 319-329. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.1.3.319

McCarn, S. R., & Fassinger, R. E. (1996). Revisioning sexual minority identification

formation: A new model of lesbian identity and its implications for counseling

and research. The Counseling Psychologist, 24, 508-535.

doi: 10.1177/0011000096243011

McDevitt, J. ,Balboni, J., Garcia, L., & Gu, J. (2001). Consequences for victims: A

comparison of bias- and non-bias-motivated assaults. American Behavioral

Scientist, 45, 697-713. doi: 10.1177/00027640121957321

Mercier, L. R. (2006). Lesbian parents and work: Stressors and supports for the work-

family interface. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services: Issues in Practice,

Policy, & Research, 19, 25-47. doi: 10.1080/10538720802131675

Meyer, I. H. (1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men. Journal of Health

Sciences and Social Behavior, 36, 38-56. doi: 10.2307/2137286

254

Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and

bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological

Bulletin, 129, 674-697. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674

Michaels, S. (2015, July 23). Democrats introduce sweeping, historic bill to protect lgbt

rights. Retrieved from: http://www.motherjones.com/node/280406.

Miles, J. R., & Fassinger, R. E. (2014). Sexual identity issues in education and training

for professional psychologists. In N. J. Kaslow & W. B. Johnson (Eds.) The

Oxford handbook of education and training in profressional psychology (pp. 452-

471). New York: Oxford University Press.

doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199874019.001.0001

Miles, J., & Shevlin, M. (1998). Effects of sample size, model specification and factor

loadings on the GFI in confirmatory factor analysis. Personality and Individual

Differences, 25, 85-90. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00055-5

Miller, C. T., & Major, B. (2000). Coping with stigma and prejudice. In T. F. Heatherton,

R. E. Cleck, M. R. Hebl, & J. G. Hull (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma (pp.

243-272). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Miller, J. B. (1976). Toward a new psychology of women. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Miller, J. B. (1988). Connections, disconnections and violations. Retrieved from

https://www.wcwonline.org/vmfiles/33sc.pdf

Miller, J. B., & Stiver, I. P. (1997). The healing connection: How women form

relationships in therapy and in life. Boston, MA: Beacon.

Miner-Rubino, K., & Cortina, L. M. (2004). Working in a context of hostility toward

255

women: Implications for employees’ well-being. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 9, 107-122. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.9.2.107

Minnotte, K. L. (2012). Perceived discrimination and work-to-life conflict among

workers in the United States. The Sociological Quarterly, 53, 188-210.

doi: 10.1111/j.1533-8525.2012.01231.x

Mitchell, V. (2008). Choosing family: Meaning and membership in the lesbian family of

choice. Journal of lesbian studies, 12, 301-313.

doi: 10.1080/10894160802161497

Mobley, M., & Slaney, R. B. (1996). Holland’s theory: Its relevance for lesbian women

and gay men. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48, 125-135.

doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1996.0013

Mohr, J. J., & Fassinger, R. E. (2003). Self-acceptance and self-disclosure of sexual

orientation in lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults: An attachment perspective.

Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 482-495. doi: 10.1037/0022-

0167.50.4.482

Mohr, J. J., & Fassinger, R. E. (2006). Sexual orientation identity and romantic

relationship quality in same-sex couples. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 32, 1085-1099. doi: 10.1177/0146167206288281

Mohr, J. J., Selterman, D. & Fassinger, R. E. (2013). Romantic attachment and

relationship functioning in same-sex couples. Journal of Counseling Psychology,

60, 72-82. doi: 10.1037/a0030994

Moore, M. E., Konrad, A. M., Yang, Y., Ng, E. S. W., & Doherty, A. J. (2011). The

vocational well-being of workers with childhood onset of disability: Life

256

satisfaction and perceived workplace discrimination. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 79, 681-698. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2011.03.019

Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (1981). Family Environment Scale Manual. Palo Alto, CA:

Consulting Psychologists Press.

Morris, J. F., Waldo, C. R., & Rothblum, E. D. (2001). A model of predictors and

outcomes of outness among lesbian and bisexual women. Journal of

Orthopsychiatry, 71, 61-71. doi: 10.1037/0002-9432.71.1.61

Morrow, S. L., Gore, P. A., & Campbell, B. W. (1996). The application of sociocognitive

framework to the career development of lesbian women and gay men. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 48, 136-148. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1996.0014

Motulsky, S. L. (2010). Relational processes in career transition: Extending theory,

research, and practice. The Counseling Psychologist, 38, 1078-1114.

doi: 10.1177/0011000010376415

Mulaik, S.A., James, L.R., Van Alstine, J., Bennet, N., Lind, S., and Stilwell, C.D.

(1989), Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models.

Psychological Bulletin, 105, 430-45. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.430

Muse, L. A., & Pichler, S. (2011). A comparison of types of support for lower-skill

workers: Evidence for the importance of family supportive supervisors. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 79, 653-666.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.04.005

Nadal, K. L. (2008). Preventing racial, ethnic, gender, sexual minority, disability, and

religious microaggressions: Recommendations for promoting positive mental

health. Prevention in Counseling Psychology: Theory, Research, Practice and

257

Training, 2, 22–27.

Nadal, K. L. (2010). Gender microaggresions and women: Implications for mental health.

In M. A. Paludi (Ed.), Feminism and women’s rights worldwide: Vol. 2. Mental

and physical health (pp. 155-175). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.

Nadal, K. L. (2013). That’s so gay! Microaggressions and the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and

transgender community. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

doi: 10.1037/14093-004

Nadal, K. L., Issa, M.-A., Leon, J., Meterko, V., Wideman, M., & Wong, Y. (2011).

Sexual orientation microaggressions: “Death by a thousand cuts” for lesbian, gay,

and bisexual youth. Journal of LGBT Youth, 8, 234-259.

doi: 10.1080/19361653.2011.584204

Nadal, K. L., Mazzula, S. L., Rivera, D. P., & Fujii-Doe, W. (2014). Microaggressions

and Latina/o Americans: An analysis of nativity, gender, and ethnicity. Journal of

Latina/o Psychology, 2, 67-78. doi: 10.1037/lat0000013

Nadal, K. L., Rivera, D. P., & Corpus, M. J. (2010). Sexual orientation and transgender

microaggressions in everyday life: Experiences of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and

transgender individuals. In D. W. Sue (Ed.), Microaggressions and marginality:

Manifestation, dynamics, and impact (pp. 217–240). New York, NY: Wiley &

Sons.

Nadal, K. L., Wong, Y., Issa, M.-A., Meterko, V., Leon, J., & Wideman, M. (2011).

Sexual orientation microaggressions: Processes and coping mechanisms for

lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 5,

21-46. doi: 10.1080/15538605.2011.554606

258

Nardi, P. M. (1999). Gay men’s friendships. Invincible communities. London: The

University of Chicago Press.

Nauta, M. M., Saucier, A. M., & Woodard, L. E. (2001). Interpersonal influences on

students’ academic and career decisions: The impact of sexual orientation. The

Career Development Quarterly, 49, 352-362. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-

0045.2001.tb00962.x

Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of

work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales. The Journal of Applied

Psychology, 81, 400-410. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.400

Newcomb, M. E., & Mustanski, B. (2010). Internalized homophobia and internalizing

mental health problems: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30,

1019-1029. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2010.07.003

Noor, N. M. (2004). Work-family conflict, work- and family-role salience, and women’s

well-being. The Journal of Social Psychology, 144, 389-406.

doi: 10.3200/SOCP.144.4.389-406.

Norcross, J. (2001). Purposes, processes, and products of the task force on empirically

supported therapy relationships. Psychotherapy, 38, 345–356. doi: 10.1037/0033-

3204.38.4.345

O’Brian, R. M. (1994). Identification of simple measurement models with multiple latent

variables and correlated errors. In P. V. Marsden (Ed.), Sociological methodology

(pp. 137-170). Oxford, England: Blackwell. doi: 10.2307/270981

O’Ryan, L. W., & McFarland, W. P. (2010). A phenomenological exploration of the

experiences of dual-career lesbian and gay couples. Journal of Counseling and

259

Development, 88, 71-79. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6678.2010.tb00153.x

Oetjen, H., & Rothblum, E. D. (2000). When lesbians aren’t gay: Factors affecting

depression among lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality, 39, 49-73.

doi: 10.1300/J082v39n01_04

Ong, A. D., Burrow, A. L., Fuller-Rowell, T. E., Ja, N. M., & Sue, D. W. (2013). Racial

microaggressions and daily well-being among Asian Americans. Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 60, 188-199. doi: 10.1037/a0031736

Orndorff, K. (1999). Bi lives: Bisexual women tell their stories. Tucson, AS: See Sharp

Press.

Otis, M. D., Riggle, E., & Rostosky, S. (2006). Impact of mental health on perceptions of

relationship satisfaction and quality among female same-sex couples. Journal of

Lesbian Studies, 10, 267-283. doi: 10.1300/J155v10n01_14

Otis, M. D., Rostosky, S. S., Riggle, E. D. B., & Hamrin, R. (2006). Stress and

relationship quality in same-sex couples. Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships, 23, 81-99. doi: 10.1177/0265407506060179

Pachankis, J. E. (2007). The psychological implications of concealing a stigma: A

cognitive-affective-behavioral model. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 328-345.

doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.133.2.328

Paul, J. P., Catania, J., Pollack, L., Moskowitz, J., Cachola, J., Mills, T., et al. (2002).

Suicide attempts among gay and bisexual men: Lifetime prevalence and

antecedents. American Journal of Public Health, 92, 1338-1345.

doi: 10.2105/AJPH.92.8.1338

Pavalko, E. K., Mossakowski, K. N., & Hamilton, V. J. (2003). Does perceived

260

discrimination affect health? Longitudinal relationships between work

discrimination and women’s physical and emotional health. Journal of Health and

Social Behavior, 44, 18-33. doi: 10.2307/1519813

Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Wegner, J. W. (2001). When workers flout

convention: A study of workplace incivility. Human Relations, 54, 1387–1419.

doi: 10.1177/00187267015411001

Peplau, L. A., & Fingerhut, A. W. (2007). The close relationships of lesbians and gay

men. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 405-424.

doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085701

Perrone, K. M. (2005). Work-family interface for same-sex, dual earner couples:

Implications for counselors. The Career Development Quarterly, 53, 317-324.

doi: 10.1002/j.2161-0045.2005.tb00662.x

Perrone, K. M., Wright, S. L., & Jackson, Z. V. (2009). Traditional and nontraditional

gender roles and work-family interface for men and women. Journal of Career

Development, 36, 8-24. doi: 10.1177/0894845308327736

Peterson, N., & González, R. C. (2005). The role of work in people’s lives: Applied

career counseling and vocational psychology (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA:

Brooks/Cole.

Pett, M. A., Lackey, N. R., & Sullivan, J. J. (2003). Making sense of factor analysis: The

use of factor analysis for instrument development in health care research.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781412984898

Phillips, J. C., Ingram, K. M., Smith, N. G., & Mindes, E. J. (2003). Methodological and

content review of lesbian-, gay-, and bisexual-related articles in counseling

261

journals: 1990-1999. The Counseling Psychologist, 31, 25-62.

doi: 10.1177/0011000002239398

Pierce, C., Carew, J., Pierce-Gonzalez, D., & Willis, D. (1978). An experiment in racism:

TV commercials. In C. Pierce (Ed.), Television and education (pp. 62–88).

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Pinel, E. (2002). Stigma consciousness in intergroup contexts: The power of conviction.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 178-185.

doi: 10.1006/jesp.2001.1498

Piotrkowski, C. S., Rapoport, R., and Rapoport, R. (1987). Families and work. In M. B.

Sussman & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (pp.

251-283). New York, NY: Plenum Press. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4615-7151-3_10

Plöderl, M., & Fartacek, R. (2005). Suicidality and associated risk factors among lesbian,

gay, and bisexual compared to heterosexual Austrian adults. Suicide and Life-

Threatening Behavior, 35, 661-670. doi: 10.1521/suli.2005.35.6.661

Ponterotto, J. G., & Ruckdeschel, D. E. (2007). An overview of coefficient alpha and a

reliability matrix for estimating adequacy of internal consistency coefficient with

psychological research measures. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 105, 997-1014.

doi:10.2466/PMS.105.7.997-1014

Postmes, T., & Branscombe, N. R. (2002). Influence of long-term racial environmental

composition on subjective well-being in African Americans. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 735-751. doi: 10.1037/0022-

3514.83.3.735

Prati, G., & Pietrantoni, L. (2014). Coming out and job satisfaction: A moderated

262

mediation model. The Career Devleopment Quarterly, 62, 358-371.

doi: 10.1002/j.2161-0045.2014.00088.x

Premeaux, S. F., Adkins, C. L., & Mossholder, K. W. (2007). Balancing work and

family: A field study of multi-dimensional, multi-role work-family conflict.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 705-727. doi: 10.1002/job.439

Prince, J. P. (2013). Career development of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender

individuals. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Career development and

counseling: Putting theory and research to work (2nd ed., pp. 275-297).

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Priola, V., Lasio, D., De Simone, S., & Serri, F. (2014). The sound of silence. Lesbian,

gay, bisexual and transgender discrimination in ‘inclusive organizations.’ British

Journal of Management, 25, 488-502. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.12043

Quick, J. C., & Tetrick, L. E. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of occupational health

psychology (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Quintana, S. M., & Maxwell, S. E. (1999). Implications of recent developments in

structural equation modeling for counseling psychology. The Counseling

Psychologists, 27, 485-527. doi: 10.1177/0011000099274002

Ragins, B. R. (2004). Sexual orientation in the workplace: The unique work and career

experiences of gay, lesbian, and bisexual workers. Research in Personnel and

Human Resource Management, 23, 35-120. doi: 10.1016/S0742-7301(04)23002-

Ragins, B. R. (2008). Disclosure disconnects: Antecedents and consequences of

263

disclosing invisible stigmas across life domains. Academy of Management

Review, 33, 194-215. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2008.27752724

Ragins, B. R. & Cornwell, J. M. (2001). Pint triangles: Antecedents and consequences of

perceived workplace discrimination against gay and lesbian employees. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 86, 1244-1261. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1244

Ragins, B. R., Cornwell, J. M., & Miller, J. S. (2003). Heterosexism in the workplace: Do

race and gender matter? Group and Organizational Management, 28, 45-74.

doi: 10.1177/1059601102250018

Ragins, B. R., Singh, R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2007). Making the invisible visible: Fear and

disclosure of sexual orientation at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1103-

1118. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1103

Reingardė, J. (2010). Heteronormativity and silenced sexualities at work. Kultūra ir

Visuomenė: Socioliniu Tyrimu Žurnalas, 1, 83-96.

Richardson, M. S. (1993). Work in people’s lives: A location for counseling

psychologists. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40, 425-433.

doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.40.4.425

Richardson, M. S. (2000). A new perspective for counselors: From career ideologies to

empowerment through work and relationships practices. In A. Collin, & R. A.

Young (Eds.), The future of career (pp. 197-211). New York, NY: Cambridge

University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511520853.013

Richardson, M.S. (2002). A metaperspective for counseling practice: A response to the

challenge of contextualism. Journal of Vocational Behavior 61, 407-423.

doi: 10.1006/jvbe.2002.1883

264

Richardson, M.S. (2009). Another way to think about the work we do: Counseling for

work and relationship. International Journal of Educational and Vocational

Guidance, 9, 75-84. doi: 10.1007/s10775-009-9154-3

Richardson, M. S. (2012). Counseling for work and relationships. Counseling

Psychologist, 40, 190-242. doi: 10.1177/0011000011406452

Riggle, E., Rostosky, S., & Horne, S. (2010). Psychological distress, well-being, and

legal recognition in same-sex couple relationships. Journal of Family Psychology,

24, 82-86. doi: 10.1037/a0017942

Riggle, E. D. B., Whitman, J. S., Olson, A., Rostosky, S. S., & Strong, S. (2008). The

positive aspects of being a lesbian or gay man. Professional Psychology:

Research and Practice, 39, 210-217. doi: 10.1037/0735-7028.39.2.210

Rosario, M., Rotheram-Borus, M. J., & Reid, H. (1996). Gay-related stress and its

correlates among gay and bisexual male adolescents of predominantly Black and

Hispanic background. Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 136-159. doi:

10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199604)24:2%3C136::AID-JCOP5%3E3.0.CO;2-X

Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., & Hunter, J. (2004). Ethnic/racial differences in the

coming-out process lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths: A comparison of sexual

identity development over time. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority

Psychology, 10, 215-228. doi: 10.1037/1099-9809.10.3.215

Rose, S., Zand, D., & Cini, M. 1993. Lesbian courtship scripts. In E. Rothblum and K. A.

Brehony (Eds.), The Boston marriage today: Romantic but asexual relationships

between lesbians (pp. 70-85). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.

Rospenda, K. M., Richman, J. A., & Shannon, C. A. (2009). Prevalence and mental

265

health correlates of harassment and discrimination in the workplace: Results from

a national study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 819-843.

doi: 10.1177/0886260508317182

Ross, M. W. (1985). Actual and anticipated societal reaction to homosexuality and

adjustment in two societies. Journal of Sex Research, 21, 40-55.

doi: 10.1080/00224498509551243

Rostosky, S. S., Korfhage, B. A., Duhigg, J. M., Stern, A. J., Bennett, L., & Riggle, E. D.

B. (2004). Same-sex couple perceptions of family support: A consensual

qualitative study. Family Process, 43, 43-57. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-

5300.2004.04301005.x

Rostosky, S. S., & Riggle, D. B. (2002). “Out” at work: The relation of actor and partner

workplace policy and internalized homophobia to disclosure status. Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 49, 411-419. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.49.4.411

Rostosky, S. S., Riggle, E. D. B., Gray, B. E., & Hatton, R. L. (2007). Minority stress

experiences in committed same-sex couple relationships. Professional

Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 392-400. doi: 10.1037/0735-

7028.38.4.392

Rostosky, S. S., Riggle, E. D. B., Horne, S., & Miller, A. D. (2009). Marriage

amendments and psychological distress in lesbian, bay, and bisexual (lgb) adults.

Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 56-66. doi: 10.1037/a0013609

Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work

and

family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 655-684.

266

doi: 10.2307/3094827

Roxburgh, S. (1999). Exploring the work and family relationship: Gender differences in

the influence of parenthood and social support on job satisfaction. Journal of

Family Issues, 20, 771-788. doi: 10.1177/019251399020006003

Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., Panzer, K., & King, S. N. (2002). Benefits of multiple

roles for managerial women. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 369-386.

doi: 10.2307/3069352

Russell, G. M., & Richards, J. A. (2003). Stressor and resilience factors for lesbians, gay

men, and bisexuals confronting antigay politics. American Journal of Community

Psychology, 31,313–327. doi:10.1023/A:1023919022811

Russell, S. T., Toomey, R. B., Ryan, C., & Diaz, R. M. (2014). Being out at school: The

implications for school victimization and young adult adjustment. American

Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 84, 635-643. doi: 10.1037/ort0000037

Rust, P. C. (1993). Neutralizing the political threat of the marginal woman: Lesbians’

beliefs about bisexual women. Journal of Sex Research, 30, 214-228.

doi: 10.1080/00224499309551705

Saari, C. (2001). Counteracting the effects of invisibility in work with lesbian patients. In

Session: Psychotherapy in Practice, 57, 645-654. doi: 10.1002/jclp.1034

Sanchez, J. I., & Brock, P. (1996). Outcomes of perceived discrimination among

Hispanic employees: Is diversity management a luxury or a necessity?. Academy

of Management Journal, 39, 704-419. doi: 10.2307/256660

Santilli, S., Nota, L. Ginevra, M.C., & Soresi, S. (2014). Career adaptability, hope and

267

life satisfaction in workers with intellectual disability. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 85, 1, 67-74. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2014.02.011

Sarason, I. G., Levine, H. M., Basham, R. B., & Sarason, B. R. (1983). Assessing social

support: The Social Support Questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 44, 127-139. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.127

Sarno, E., & Wright, A. J. (2013). Homonegative microaggresions and identity in

bisexual men and women. Journal of Bisexuality, 13, 63-81.

doi: 10.1080/15299716.2013.756677

Savickas, M. L. (2005). The theory and practice of career construction. In S. D. Brown &

R. W. Lent (Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and

research to work (pp. 42-700. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Sawyer, K. B. (2012). Heterosexual bias in the measurement of work-family conflict for

same-sex couples (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State

University, State College, PA.

Sawyer, K. B., Thoroughgood, C. N., & Cleveland, J. N. (2015). Challenging

heteronormative and gendered assumptions in work-family research: An

examination of LGB identity-based work-family conflict. In M. Mills (Ed.),

Gender and the work-family experience (pp. 77-98). Switzerland: Springer

International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-08891-4_1

Schenker, J. D., & Rumrill, J. D. (2004). Causal-comparative research designs. Journal of

Vocational Rehabilitation, 21, 117-121.

Schmidt, C. K., Miles, J. R., & Welsh, A. C. (2011). Perceived discrimination and social

support: The influences on career development and college adjustment of lgbt

268

college students. Journal of Career Development, 38, 293-309.

doi: 10.1177/0894845310372615

Schmidt C. K., & Nilsson, J. E. (2006). The effects of simultaneous development

processes: Factors relating to the career development of lesbian, gay, and bisexual

youth. The Career Development Quarterly, 55, 22-37. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-

0045.2006.tb00002.x

Schope, R. (2002). The decision to tell: Factors influencing the disclosure of sexual

orientation by gay men. Joumal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 14, 1-22.

doi: 10.1300/J041v14n01_01

Schultheiss, D. E. P. (2003). A relational approach to career counseling: Theoretical

integration and practical application. Journal of Counseling & Development, 81,

301-310. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6678.2003.tb00257.x

Schultheiss, D. E. P. (2006). The interface of work and family life. Professional

Psychology: Research and Practice, 37, 334-341. doi: 10.1037/0735-

7028.37.4.334

Schultheiss, D. E. P. (2007). The emergence of a relational cultural paradigm for

vocational psychology. International Journal of Education and Vocational

Guidance, 7, 191-201. doi: 10.1007/s10775-007-9123-7

Schultheiss, D. E. P. (2009). To mother or to matter: Can women do both? Journal of

Career Development, 36, 25-48. doi: 10.1177/0894845309340795

Schultheiss, D. E. P., Kress, H. M., Manzi, A. J., & Glassock, J. M. (2001). Relational

influences in career development: A qualitative inquiry. The Counseling

Psychologist, 29, 214-239. doi: 10.1177/0011000001292003

269

Schultheiss, D. E. P., Palma, T.V., Predagovich, K. S., & Glassock, J. M. (2002).

Relational influences on career paths: Siblings in context. The Counseling

Psychologist, 49, 302-310. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.49.3.302

Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2010). A beginner’s guide to structural equation

modeling (3rd edition). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Seelman, K. L., Woodford, M. R., & Nicolazzo, Z. (2017). Victimization and

microaggressions targeting LGBTQ college students: Gender identity as a

moderator of psychological distress. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in

Social Work, 26, 112-125. doi: 10.1080/15313204.2016.1263816

Shelton, K., & Delgado-Romero, A. (2013). Sexual orientation microaggresions: The

experience of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer clients in psychotherapy.

Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1, 59-70.

doi: 10.1037/2329-0382.1.S.59

Shidlo, A. (1994). Internalized homophobia: Conceptual and empirical issues in

measurement. In G. M. Herek (Ed.), Lesbian and gay psychology: Theory,

research, and clinical applications (pp. 176-205). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

doi: 10.4135/9781483326757.n10

Shin, D. C., & Johnson, D. M. (1978). Avowed happiness as an overall assessment of the

quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 5, 475-492. doi: 10.1007/BF00352944

Silverschanz, P., Cortina, L. M., Konik, J., & Magley, V. J. (2008). Slurs, snubs, and

queer jokes: Incidence and impact of heterosexist harassment in academia. Sex

Roles, 58, 179-191. doi: 10.1007/s11199-007-9329-7

Simmons, T., & O’Connell, M. (2003). Married-couple and unmarried-partner

270

households: 2000. Census 2000 Special Reports.

Simon, L. S., Judge, T. A., Halvorsen-Ganepola, M. D. K. (2010). In good company? A

multi-study, multi-level investigation of the effect of coworker relationship on

employee well-being. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 534-546.

doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2010.01.006

Smart, L., & Wegner, D. M. (2000). The hidden costs of hidden stigma. In T. Heatherton,

R. Kleck, M. Hebl, & J. Hull (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma (pp. 220-

242). New York: Guilford Press.

Smith, N. G. & Ingram, K. M. (2004). Workplace heterosexism and adjustment among

lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals: The role of unsupportive social

interactions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 57-67. doi: 10.1037/0022-

0167.51.1.57

Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M. & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in

work and retirement: A strategy for the study of attitudes. Chicago, IL: Ran

McNally.

Solomon, S. E., Rothblum, E. D., & Balsam, K. F. (2004). Pioneers in partnership:

Lesbian and gay male couples compared with those not in civil unions, and

married heterosexual siblings. Journal of Family Psy chology, 18, 275–286. doi:

10.1037/0893-3200.18.2.275

Solorzano, D., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. (2000). Critical race theory, racial

microaggressions, and campus racial climate: The experiences of African

American college students. Journal of Negro Education, 69, 60-73.

Speight, S. L. (2007). Internalized racism: One more piece of the puzzle. The Counseling

271

Psychologist, 35, 126-134. doi: 10.1177/0011000006295119

Stead, G. B., & Bakker, T. M. (2012). Self in work as a social/cultural construction. In P.

McIlveen and D. E. Schultheiss (Eds.), Social constructionism in vocational

psychology and career development. Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishers. doi:

10.1007/978-94-6209-080-4_3

Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and

performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613-629. doi: 10.1037/0003-

066X.52.6.613

Steinmetz, H., Davidov, E., & Schmidt, P. (2011). Three approaches to estimate latent

interaction effects: Intention and perceived behavioral control in the theory of

planned behavior. Methodological Innovations Online, 6, 95-110.

doi: 10.4256/mio.2010.0030

Sue, D. W. (Ed.). (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual

orientation. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.

Sue, D. W., & Capodilupo, C. M. (2008). Racial, gender, and sexual orientation

microaggressions: Implications for counseling and psychotherapy. In D. W. Sue

& D. Sue (Eds.), Counseling the culturally diverse (5th ed., pp. 105–130). New

York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J., Holder, A. M. B., Nadal, K.

L., & Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications

for clinical practice. American Psychologist, 62, 271–286. doi: 10.1037/0003-

066X.62.4.271

Sullivan, S. E. (1999). The changing nature of careers: A review and research agenda.

272

Journal of Management, 25, 457–484. doi: 10.1177/014920639902500308

Super, D. E. (1957). The psychology of careers. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Super, D. E. (1980). A life-span, life-space, approach to career development. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 13, 282-298. doi: 10.1016/0001-8791(80)90056-1

Super, D. E. (1990). The life-span, life-space approach to careers. In D. Brown & L.

Books (Eds.), Career choice and development: Applying contemporary theories

to practice (2nd ed., pp. 197-261). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Suter, E., Bergen, K., Daas, K., & Durham, W. (2006). Lesbian couples’ management of

public-private dialectical contradictions. Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships, 23, 349-365. doi: 10.1177/0265407506064201

Swann, W. B., Jr. (1987). Identity negotiation: Where two roads meet. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1038-1051. doi: 10.1037/0022-

3514.53.6.1038

Swindle, R. W. & Moos, R. H. (1992). Life domains in stressors, coping, and adjustment.

In W. B. Walsh, K. H. Craik, & R. H. Price (Eds.). Person-environment

psychology: Models and perspectives (pp. 1-33). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Szymanski, D. M. (2005). Heterosexism and sexism as correlates of psychological

distress in lesbians. Journal of Counseling & Development, 83, 355–360.

doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6678.2005.tb00355.x

Syzmanski, D. M. (2009). Examining potential moderators of the link between

heterosexist events and gay and bisexual men’s psychological distress. Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 56, 142-151. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.56.1.142

Szymanski, D. M. & Chung, Y. B. (2001). The lesbian internalized homophobia scale: A

273

rational/theoretical approach. Journal of Homosexuality, 41(2), 37-52.

doi: 10.1300/J082v41n02_03

Szymanki, D. M. & Chung, Y. B. (2003). Feminist attitudes and coping resources as

correlates of lesbian internalized heterosexism. Feminism & Psychology, 13, 369-

389. doi: 10.1177/0959353503013003008

Szymanski, D. M., Chung, Y. B., & Balsam, K. F. (2001). Psychosocial correlates of

internalized homophobia in lesbians. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling

and Development, 34, 27-38.

Szymanki, D. M., Kashubeck-West, S., & Meyer, J. (2008). Internalized heterosexism: A

historical and theoretical overview. The Counseling Psychologist, 36, 510-524.

doi: 10.1177/0011000007309488

Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics (5th ed.). New

York: Allyn and Bacon.

Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Osterlind, S. J. (2001). Using multivariate statistics

(5th ed.). New York: Pearson.

Tatarkiewicz, W. (1976). Analysis of happiness. The Hague, Netherlands: Martinus

Nijhoff. doi: 10.1007/978-94-010-1380-2

Taylor, P., McLoughlin, C., Meyer, D., & Brooke, E. (2013). Everyday discrimination in

the workplace, job satisfaction and psychological wellbeing: Age difference and

moderating variables. Aging & Society, 33, 1105-1138.

doi: 10.1017/S0144686X12000438

Tharinger, D., & Wells, G. (2000). An attachment perspective on the developmental

274

challenges of gay and lesbian adolescents: The need for continuity of caregiving

from family and schools. School Psychology Review, 29, 158–172.

Thompson, B., & Melancon, J. G. (1996). Using item “Testlest”/”Parcels” in

confirmatory factor analysis: An example using the PPSDQ-78. (ERIC Document

No. ED 404 349).

Triana, M., García, M. F., & Colella, A. (2010). Managing diversity: How organizational

efforts to support diversity moderate the effects of perceived racial discrimination

on affective commitment. Personnel Psychology, 63, 817-843. doi:

10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01189.x

Triana, M. D. C., Jayasinghe, M., & Pieper, J. R. (2015). Perceived workplace racial

discrimination and its correlates: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 36, 491-513. doi: 10.1002/job.1988

Trochim, W. M., & Donnelly, J. P. (2006). The research methods knowledge base (3rd

ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog.

Tuten, T. L., & August, R. A. (2006). Work-family conflict: A study of lesbian mothers.

Women in Management Review, 21, 578-597. doi: 10.1108/09649420610692525

Ueno, K. (2005). Sexual orientation and psychological distress in adolescence.

Examining interpersonal stressors and social support processes. Social

Psychology Quarterly, 68, 258-277. doi: 10.1177/019027250506800305

U.S. Department of Justice—Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2009). Hate crime

statistics, 2008. Retrieved from http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2008/data/table

01.html

Valentine, S., Silver, L., & Twigg, N. (1999). Locus of control, job satisfaction, and job

275

complexity: The role of perceived race discrimination. Psychological Reports, 84,

1267-1273. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1999.84.3c.1267

Van Daalen, G., Willlemsen, T. M., & Sanders, K. (2006). Reducing work-family

conflict through different sources of social support. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 69, 462-476. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2006.07.005

Van Steenbergen, E. F., Ellemers, N., & Mooijaart, A. (2007). How work and family

facilitate each other: Distinct types of work-family facilitation and outcomes for

women and men. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 279-300.

doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.279

Velez, B. L., & Moradi, B. (2012). Workplace support, discrimination, and person-

organizational fit: Tests of the theory of work adjustment with lgb individual.

Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59, 399-407. doi: 10.1037/a0028326

Velez, B. L., Moradi, B., & Brewseter, M. E. (2013). Testing the tenets of minority stress

theory in workplace contexts. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60, 532-542.

doi: 10.1037/a0033346

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, 218-

232. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.46.2.218

Waldo, C. R., Hesson-McInnis, M. S., & D’Augelli, A. R. (1998). Antecedents and

consequences of victimization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual young people: A

structural model comparing rural university and urban samples. American Journal

of Community Psychology, 26, 307–334. doi: 10.1023/A:1022184704174

Walker, M. & Rosen, W. B. (Ed.). (2004). How connections heal: Stories from

276

relational-cultural therapy. New York: The Guilford Press.

Walls, N. E. (2008). Toward a multidimensional understanding of heterosexism: The

changing nature of prejudice. Journal of Homosexuality, 55, 20–70.

doi: 10.1080/00918360802129287

Warner, L. R. (2008). A best practices guide to intersectional approaches in

psychological research. Sex Roles, 59, 454-463. doi: 10.1007/s11199-008-9504-5

Wegner, R. (2014). Microaggressions and their impact on specific dimensions of identity

development and self-esteem in lgb individuals (Unpublished doctoral

dissertation). Columbia University, New York.

Weinberg, M. S. & Williams, C. J. (1974). Male homosexuals: Their problems and

adaptations. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Weinstock, J. S. (2004). Lesbian FLEX-ibility: Friend and/or Family connections among

Lesbian Ex-lovers. In J. S. Weinstock & E. D. Rothblum (Eds.), Lesbian ex-

lovers: The really long-term relationships (pp. 193-238). Binghamton, NY:

Harrington Park Press. doi: 10.1300/j155v08n03_30

Weiss, R. S. (1990). Bringing work stress home. In J. Eckenrode & S. Gore (Eds.), Stress

between work and family (pp. 17-38). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

doi: 10.1007/978-1-4899-2097-3_2

Weston, K. (1997). Families we choose: Lesbians, gays, kinship. New York, NY:

Columbia University Press.

Whiston, S. C., & Cinamon, R. G. (2015). The work-family interface: Integrating

research and career counseling practice. The Career Development Quarterly, 63,

44-56. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-0045.2015.00094.x

277

Whiston, S., & Keller, B. (2004). The influences of the family of origin on career

development: A review and analysis. The Counseling Psychologist, 32, 493-568.

doi: 10.1177/0011000004265660

Witt, L. A., & Carlson, D. S. (2009). The work-family interface and job performance:

Moderating effects of conscientiousness and perceived organizational support.

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 343-357. doi:10.1037/1076-

8998.11.4.343

Woods, J. D. (1993). The corporate closet: The professional lives of gay men in America.

New York, NY: Free Press.

Worell, J., & Remer, P. (2003). Feminist perspectives in therapy: Empowering diverse

women (2nd ed). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content

analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist,

34, 806-838. doi: 10.1177/0011000006288127

Wright, A. J., & Wegner, R. T. (2012). Homonegative microaggressions and their impact

on lgb individual: A measure validity study. Journal of LGBT Issues in

Counseling, 6, 34-54. doi: 10.1080/15538605.2012.648578

Yang, A. (1999). From wrong to rights: Public opinion on gay and lesbian Americans

moves toward equality. Washington, DC: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

Zimet, G. D., Dahlen, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). The Multidimensional

Scale of Perceived Social Support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 30-41.

doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa5201_2

278

APPENDIX A

DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE

1. What is your age in years?

2. What is your race/ethnicity (Check all that apply)?

□ Hispanic/Latino/Latina/Latinx □ Native Hawaiian/Pacific □ African American/Black Islander □ Non-Hispanic White/European □ Asian American/Asian American/Caucasian □ American Indian/Alaska Native □ Race/ethnicity not listed (please specify):

3. In which region of the United States do you live?

□ New England (Main, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut) □ Middle Atlantic (New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania) □ East North Central (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin) □ West North Central (Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas) □ South Atlantic (Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida) □ East South Central (Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi) □ West South Central (Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas) □ Mountain (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada) □ Pacific (Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska, Hawaii) □ Geographic region not listed (please specify):

279

4. How is your city/town classified?

□ Rural □ Urban □ Small Town □ Major metropolitan area □ City □ Suburban □ Not listed (please specify):

5. What is your field of employment?

6. Have you worked at least 10 hours per week in the past six months?

□ Yes □ No

7. Which of the following categories best describes your employment status (check all that apply)?

□ Employed, working full-time □ Graduate student, part-time □ Employed, working part-time □ Not employed, looking for work □ Undergraduate student, full-time □ Not employed, NOT looking for □ Undergraduate student, part- work time □ Retired □ Graduate student, full-time □ Disabled, not able to work □ Employment status not listed (please specify):

8. What is your gross personal income?

9. What is your gross household income?

280

10. If you experienced workplace discrimination based on your sexual identity, what did you do (check all that apply)? □ Told coworkers □ Reported the discrimination or □ Told romantic partner(s) filed a complaint with HR (human resources) □ Told friends outside of work □ Filed a lawsuit □ Told family of origin □ Informed a supervisor/manager □ Felt this discrimination could have been based on other identities (please specify other identities):

11. What is the highest level of education you have completed?

□ Some high school □ Bachelor’s degree □ High school diploma or GED □ Some graduate school □ Some college □ Professional or graduate degree □ Associate’s degree □ Level of education not listed (please specify):

12. What is your sexual identity (check all that apply)?

□ Lesbian □ Pansexual □ Gay □ Same Gender Loving □ Bisexual □ Men who have Sex with Men □ Queer (MSM) □ Women who have Sex with □ Asexual/Aromantic Women (WSW) □ Demisexual □ Skoliosexual □ Fluid □ Sexual identity not listed (please specify):

281

13. What is your gender identity (check all that apply)?

□ Woman □ Two spirit □ Man □ Bigender □ Transgender/Trans* □ Agender/genderless/non- □ FTM/F2M gendered □ Androgynous □ MTF/M2F □ Third gender □ Cisgender □ Genderfuck □ Genderqueer □ Transsexual □ Intersex □ Boi □ Non-binary □ Gender identity not listed (please specify):

14. What is your gender expression (check all that apply)?

□ Masculine Presenting □ Submissive/Sub □ Feminine Presenting □ Dominant/Dom □ Gender Fluid □ Transfeminine □ Gender Nonconforming □ Butch □ Gender Normative/Gender □ Stud Straight □ Masc □ Gender expression not listed (please specify):

15. How long have you been out?

Years

Months

16. After coming out to yourself, how long have you had social contact with other LGBQ individuals?

Years

282

Months

17. To whom are you out (check all that apply)?

□ Family of origin □ Close Friend(s) □ Family of choice □ Professor(s) or Mentor(s) □ Romantic partner/Significant □ Student(s) or Mentee(s) other □ Employee(s)/Supervisee(s) □ Co-worker(s) □ Extended family (e.g., cousins) □ Fellow student(s)/Peer(s) □ Neighbor(s) □ Employer(s)/Supervisor(s)/ □ Community in which you live Manager(s) □ Person not listed (please specify):

18. To whom in your family of origin are you out (check all that apply)?

□ Not at all out to your family of □ Out to in-laws/parents of your origin partner □ Out to a sibling or siblings □ Out to grandparent(s) □ Out to more than one parental □ Out to aunt(s) and/or uncle(s) figure □ Out to niece(s) and/or □ Out to adoptive parent(s) nephew(s) □ Out to stepparent(s) □ Out to cousin(s) □ Family member not listed (please specify):

19. Who do you consider as part of your family (check all that apply)?

□ Blood relatives □ Romantic partner(s)/Spouse/ □ Adoptive relatives Significant other(s) □ Children □ In-laws/parents of your partner □ Close friend(s) □ Extended family □ Mentor(s) □ Family member not listed (please specify):

283

20. How would you classify your involvement in the LGBTQ+ community (check all that apply)?

□ Attending LGBTQ+ community events (e.g., Pride, LGBTQ+ bars) □ Membership to political action groups (e.g., HRC) □ Being an open advocate to LGBTQ+ concerns in the workplace □ Attending LGBTQ+ political events or rallies □ Subscribing to an LGBTQ+ magazine, Facebook group, or newspaper □ Talking with individual in your community or neighborhood about issues affecting the LGBTQ+ community □ Involvement not listed (please specify):

21. How would you best describe your current romantic relationship status (check all

that apply)?

□ Single and not dating □ Monogamous relationship with someone of the same gender □ Monogamous relationship with someone of another gender □ Polyamorous relationship with individuals primarily of the same gender □ Polyamorous relationship with individuals primarily of another gender or other genders □ Dating individuals primarily of the same gender □ Dating individuals primarily of another gender or others genders □ Married to someone of the same gender □ Married to someone of another gender □ Open relationship with someone of the same gender □ Open relationship with someone of another gender □ Relationship status not listed (please specify):

22. How many children do you have?

284

23. How many siblings do you have (indicate the number of each)?

Brothers

Sisters

Gender nonconforming siblings

24. What other dependents do you have (indicate none if none)?

285