Age and Gender Identity in the Relationship Between Minority Stress and Loneliness: A Global Sample of Sexual and Gender Minority Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Loneliness is prevalent among sexual minority adults and is associated with minority stress. Yet there is limited understanding of how loneliness and minority stress vary across key demographic variables. This cross-sectional study explored age and gender differences in a minority stress model linking sexual orientation marginalization to social and emotional loneliness via proximal stress (internalized homonegativity, concealment, and stigma preoccupation) and via social anxiety and inhibition. The study also assessed age and gender differences in the protective influence of LGBTQ community involvement. 7,856 sexual minority adults from 85 countries completed an online survey. They were categorized as emerging adults (18−24, n = 3,056), young adults (25−34, n = 2,193), midlife adults (35−49, n = 1,243), and older adults (50−88, n = 1,364). Gender identity groups were cisgender men (n = 4,073), cisgender women (n = 3,017), and transgender individuals (n = 766). With each successive age group, there was a lower prevalence of sexual orientation marginalization, proximal stress, social anxiety, inhibition, and emotional loneliness, along with more community involvement. Sexual orientation marginalization was more pronounced among cisgender women and, especially, transgender individuals. The latter also exhibited the most social anxiety, inhibition, loneliness, and community involvement. Proximal stress was more prevalent among cisgender men than cisgender women and transgender individuals. Multiple group structural equation modeling supported the applicability of the loneliness model across age and gender groups, with only a few variations; these mainly related to how strongly community involvement was linked to marginalization, internalized homonegativity, and social loneliness.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".