Eric Anthony Grollman

Multiple Forms of Perceived Discrimination and Health among Adolescents and Young Adults

Research on perceived discrimination has overwhelmingly focused on one form of discrimination, especially race discrimination, in isolation from other forms. The present article uses data from the Black Youth Culture Survey, a nationally representative, racially and ethnically diverse sample of 1,052 adolescents and young adults to investigate the prevalence, distribution, and mental and physical health consequences of multiple forms of perceived discrimination. The findings suggest that disadvantaged groups, especially multiply disadvantaged youth, face greater exposure to multiple forms of discrimination than their more privileged counterparts. The experience of multiple forms of discrimination is associated with worse mental and physical health above the effect of only one form and contributes to the relationship between multiple disadvantaged statuses and health. These findings suggest that past research may misspecify the discrimination-health relationship and fails to account for the disproportionate exposure to discrimination faced by multiply disadvantaged individuals.

Multiple disadvantaged statuses and health: the role of multiple forms of discrimination.

The double disadvantage hypothesis predicts that adults who hold more than one disadvantaged status may experience worse health than their singly disadvantaged and privileged counterparts. Research that has tested this thesis has yielded mixed findings due partly to a failure to examine the role of discrimination. This article uses data from the National Survey of Midlife Development in the United States (N = 2,647) to investigate the relationship between multiple disadvantaged statuses and health, and whether multiple forms of interpersonal discrimination contribute to this association. The results suggest that multiply disadvantaged adults are more likely to experience major depression, poor physical health, and functional limitations than their singly disadvantaged and privileged counterparts. Further, multiple forms of discrimination partially mediate the relationship between multiple stigmatized statuses and health. Taken together, these findings suggest that multiply disadvantaged adults do face a “double disadvantage” in health, in part, because of their disproportionate exposure to discrimination.

The Social Costs of Gender Nonconformity for Transgender Adults: Implications for Discrimination and Health

Research suggests that transgender people face high levels of discrimination in society, which may contribute to their disproportionate risk for poor health. However, little is known about whether gender nonconformity, as a visible marker of ones stigmatized status as a transgender individual, heightens trans peoples experiences with discrimination and, in turn, their health. Using data from the largest survey of transgender adults in the United States, the National Transgender Discrimination Survey (N = 4,115), we examine the associations among gender nonconformity, transphobic discrimination, and health‐harming behaviors (i.e., attempted suicide, drug/alcohol abuse, and smoking). The results suggest that gender nonconforming trans people face more discrimination and, in turn, are more likely to engage in health‐harming behaviors than trans people who are gender conforming. Our findings highlight the important role of gender nonconformity in the social experiences and well‐being of transgender people.

Conceptualization and Assessment of Homonegativity

ABSTRACT The goals of this research include highlighting problematic issues of conceptualization and measurement with respect to research examining homonegativity. Using a sample of nearly 650 university students, we test hypotheses of M. A. Morrison and Morrison (2002) who claim that old-fashioned and modern homonegativity are statistically distinct domains and that university students endorse a higher degree of modern than old-fashioned homonegativity. In addition, we examine relationships between reported negative and positive behaviors involving lesbians and gay men and degrees of modern and old-fashioned homonegativity. Factor analyses did not support the distinctiveness of the two homonegativity domains, and only 16% of the sample endorsed a higher degree of modern compared with old-fashioned homonegativity. Findings are discussed with respect to their implications for future research.

Sexual Orientation and Fear at Night: Gender Differences Among Sexual Minorities and Heterosexuals

Using data from the 2000–2010 General Social Survey, a nationally representative sample of 5,086 adults in the United States, the authors examine sexual orientation and gender differences in reports of being afraid to walk alone at night. Results indicate that sexual minorities are significantly more likely to report fear at night than heterosexuals, and women are significantly more likely to report such fear than men. Further, our findings suggest that these sexual orientation and gender differences are due to sexual minority men being more likely than heterosexual men to report fear at night. Thus, the results of this study reveal that three groups—heterosexual women, sexual minority women, and sexual minority men—do not differ from one another in reporting fear, yet these groups are all more likely than heterosexual men to report fear at night. These findings give weight to the importance of investigating the intersection of sexual orientation and gender in individuals’ reports of fear.

Obscuring Oppression: Racism, Cissexism, and the Persistence of Social Inequality:

This article outlines a generic process in the reproduction of inequality the authors name obscuring oppression. On the basis of 35 in-depth interviews with college students seeking to make sense of two contemporary social movements, Black Lives Matter and Transgender Bathroom Access, the authors demonstrate three ways people obscure (i.e., avoid, ignore, hide, or explain away claims of) oppression in response to minority protest: trusting the public (i.e., suggesting that an educated public would not allow inequalities to persist), appealing to order (i.e., arguing that if protesters followed the rules, society would be more welcoming to change), and dismissing oppression (i.e., framing movement claims as false or exaggerated). In conclusion, the authors argue that examining processes of obscuring oppression may provide insight into (1) the persistence of inequality in society, (2) linkages between color-blind racism and systemic patterns of sexism and cissexism in society, and (3) potential reactions to other social movements seeking justice for marginalized groups.

Americans’ Gender Attitudes at the Intersection of Sexual Orientation and Gender

ABSTRACT Extensive research on differences in women’s and men’s gender attitudes and more recent work on sexual orientation differences in these and other social attitudes have overlooked the potential intersection between gender and sexual orientation in predicting Americans’ gender attitudes. I use data from the 2012 American National Election Survey 2012 to investigate differences in views on gender roles, gender discrimination and inequality, and abortion among lesbian and bisexual women, gay and bisexual men, heterosexual women, and heterosexual men. The results suggest that heterosexual men hold the most conservative views on gender, while lesbian and bisexual women are most conscious of gender discrimination and inequality. These differences are partially explained by LGB Americans’ liberal political ideology and heightened awareness of homophobic discrimination—two mechanisms that are also gendered. I conclude by arguing that the intersection between sexual orientation and gender produces unique lived experiences that, in turn, produce gendered sexual orientation gaps in worldviews.

Measuring Self-Reported Discrimination: Trends in Question Wording Used in Publicly Accessible Datasets:

Research on Americans’ self-reported experiences of discrimination or unfair treatment (hereafter collectively referred to as differential treatment) has proliferated since the 1960s. Despite the growth of this research, some health scholars express concern about how to effectively measure self-reported experiences of differential treatment. Specifically, it has been suggested that the term discrimination is emotionally charged and that more neutral terms, such as unfair treatment, should be used instead. This study documents trends in question wording used to capture self-reported differential treatment in publicly accessible U.S. health and social science surveys. Our systematic review of 221 publicly available surveys reveals that there was a slight decline in social scientists’ use of the once dominant term discrimination. Yet, there has been no consensus in question wording in health surveys, as health scholars increasingly use discrimination, unfair treatment, or other (e.g., because you are) or multiple terms (discrimination or unfair treatment) at nearly equal frequencies. We conclude by discussing the potential implications of these shifts and disciplinary variations in question wording on discrimination research and highlighting several important directions for future research.