1. “It Gets Better”:
Internalized
Homonegativity
and Age
Eddy Elmer
Department of Gerontology
Simon Fraser University
eddyelmer@gmail.com

2. Agenda
 definition of terms
 correlates
 IH over the life course
 current study
 results
 discussion
 implications
 limitations and future research

3. Definitions
 homophobia
 actual phobic fear of gay people
 very clinical, narrow term
 few people are like this
 homonegativity
 preferable term
 encompasses both homophobia and cultural
attitudes that devalue homosexuality and
homosexuals

4. Definitions
 internalized homonegativity (IH)
 negative societal attitudes against
homosexuality that a person with same-sex
attractions turns toward himself
 minority stress
 everyday stress on account of being a sexual
minority
 IH is one component

5. Correlates of IH
 depression
 anxiety
 poor self-esteem
 loneliness
 suicidal ideation
 substance abuse
 intimate partner violence
 risky sexual behaviour

6. IH and age
 IH rarely examined in men 40+
 ageism?
 most studies anecdotal and qualitative
 need quantitative studies to compare IH
between different cohorts of men
 to examine effects of differing degrees of
societal stigma on levels of IH

7.  compared IH in different age groups
 examined whether any cohort effects differ
by country
Current study

8.  3,600 gay and bisexual men participated
in attractiveness study in 2010
 all recruited online over 10 days using
Facebook, Craigslist, Reddit, 4Chan, email
 all completed surveys online using website
designed specifically for this study
 anonymous
Sample

9.  1,200 completed 4-6 month follow-up
 follow-up included IH measures
 current study: 900 self-identified gay men
from follow-up
Sample
640 165 100

10. 18-29
(n = 278)
30-49
(n = 311)
50-85
(n = 311)
Mean Age 24.5 40 57
Caucasian 82% 87.4% 94.2%
Geographic
Type
50.2% Urban
40.8% Suburb
9% Remote
58.3% Urban
33.6% Suburb
8.1% Remote
60.1% Urban
31.6% Suburb
8.2% Remote
Partnered 36% 45.3% 45.2%
Years of
Education
15.4 16.3 16.1
GayCommunit
y Involvement
331 376 408
Sample

11.  Internalized Homonegativity Inventory
(Mayfield, 2001)
 Personal Homonegativity
 Gay Affirmation
 Morality of Homosexuality
 I recently revised (shortened) the scale
based on CFAs with young and older men
 revised scale appropriate for all ages
Measure of IH

12.  reliable
 α>.84 for all age groups
 valid
 scale scores associated with community
involvement, relationship status
 no social desirability bias
 scale scores not associated with Impression
Management scale
Measures

13.  data transformed to reduce positive skew
 homogeneity of variance checked
 two-way ANOVA: age x country
 followed by post-hoc tests
 potential mediators of link between age and
IH examined using hierarchical linear
regression
 mediators were variables associated with age,
including education, geographic type, relationship
status, and community involvement
Analysis

14. Results

15.  statistically significant effect of age
 in opposite direction than expected, even in the
more conservative US
 non-significant effect of country
 non-significant interaction of age x country
 community involvement explained about 50%
of relationship between age and IH
 no other demographic variables explained
this relationship
Results

16. Discussion
 IH seems to decline with age
 stigma tempered by
developmental, maturational
effects:
 gay identity development
 less contingent self-esteem
 more interaction with gay men
 socioemotional selectivity
 reactivity to scale items?
 reaction formation?

17. Implications
 resilience in face of stigma
 successful aging
 but IH still problem for many
 even low levels affect health
 adds to minority stress
 for some, doesn’t get better
 young men at highest risk
 personal or societal issue?

18.  biased, non-random sample
 self-identified gay men (already out, so lower
levels of IH than men still questioning)
 but even among these men, IH still a problem
 drawn from attractiveness study
 Facebook sample might have lower IH, but is
more demographically diverse and includes men
with differing levels of gay community involvement
 reactivity to item wording
 all of above can lead to positively skewed data
Limitations

19.  large sample size
 diverse sample (SES, education, geographic
type, relationship status/duration)
 examined older gay men
 anonymity
 less social desirability bias
 valid and reliable instrument
 assessment of IH between countries
 shows consistency of age effects
Strengths

20.  “older old” men
 men from other countries
 men of other ethnicities
 other sexual minority men (e.g., bisexual)
 sexual minority women
 qualitative studies of mediators
 longitudinal studies
 improvements to IHI scale; other scales
Future research

21. Thanks for listening!
For more info:
eddyelmer@gmail.com