Reflection paper

Internalized Homophobia and Intimate Partner Violence in Young Adult Women’s Same-Sex

Relationships

BONNIE I. PEPPER Department of Psychology, Albertus Magnus College, New Haven, Connecticut, USA

SHARA SAND Department of Psychology, LaGuardia Community College, Long Island City, New York, USA

This study examined the relationship between intimate partner violence (IPV), internalized homophobia, and psychological mal- adjustment in a convenience sample of young adult women. Rates of psychological and physical abuse in women’s same-sex relation- ships were shown to be commensurate to previously reported rates of violence in the IPV literature; rates of sexual coercion were also ascertained. A relationship was found between Moral and Reli- gious Attitudes Toward Lesbianism (MRATL), a dimension of inter- nalized homophobia, and the perpetration of sexual coercion. As expected, internalized homophobia was connected to psychological maladjustment. In addition, both the perpetration of psychological aggression and physical violence were associated with emotional instability. The study findings are discussed within the current body of literature on IPV.

KEYWORDS bisexual, emotion regulation, emotional instability, homonegativity, internalized homophobia, intimate partner violence, lesbian, same sex

Until relatively recently, violence in women’s same-sex romantic relationships has been largely ignored by the literature on intimate partner violence (IPV). Discrimination due to heterosexism, the belief that heterosexuality is

Received 11 February 2014; revised 30 January 2015; accepted 12 February 2015. Address correspondence to Bonnie I. Pepper, Department of Psychology, Albertus Magnus

College, 700 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511. E-mail: [email protected]

Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 24:656–673, 2015 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1092-6771 print/1545-083X online DOI: 10.1080/10926771.2015.1049764

656

normative, and homophobia, the irrational fear and hatred of homosexuals, as well as the conceptualization that violence occurs between a male perpetrator and a female victim, have been cited as contributing factors to the lack of recognition and study of IPV in women’s same-sex relationships (Baker, Buick, Kim, Moniz, & Nava, 2013; West, 2002). The term homonegativity has been suggested to be a more multidimensional and inclusive term than homophobia, better describing negative attitudes and affective responses toward homosexuality and homosexuals (Hudson & Ricketts, 1980), and thus will be used interchangeably with homophobia throughout this article.

Despite the limited amount of research conducted in the area of violence in women’s same-sex relationships, studies have shown that violence in intimate relationships is not unique to heterosexual relationships (Balsam & Szymanski, 2005; Goldberg & Meyer, 2012; McClennen, 2005; West, 2002; Worcester, 2002). The similarities of abuse rates in opposite-sex and same-sex couples have been called into question by Goldberg and Meyer (2012), who used a large subject probability sample. With respect to women’s heterosexual, lesbian, and bisexual intimate partner relationships, Goldberg and Mayer found a significant disparity in the experience of intimate dating violence among bisexual women, who were found to suffer the most abuse when in heterosexual relationships.

Although studies have examined prevalence rates of violence in same- sex romantic relationships, few studies have investigated factors correlated with such violence (Balsam & Szymanski, 2005; Edwards & Sylaska, 2013). Balsam and Szymanski (2005) investigated the relationship among interna- lized homophobia, heterosexist discrimination, relationship quality, and domestic violence in women’s same-sex intimate relationships. In their study, domestic violence was collapsed into one variable, inclusive of physical violence, sexual violence, or both. They found that internalized homophobia was negatively correlated with relationship quality and was associated with the perpetration and receipt of physical and/or sexual violence within the past year. Path analyses revealed that the relationship between internalized homo- phobia and recent physical or sexual violence was fully mediated by relation- ship quality. With respect to lifetime domestic violence occuring only in a same-sex relationship, internalized homophobia was correlated to physical and/or sexual vicitimization and approached significance with respect to the perpetration of violence (Balsam & Szymanski, 2005).

Adding to previous research, Edwards and Sylaska (2013) investigated sexual-orientation-related victimization, sexual minority stigma, internalized homonegativity, and sexual identity concealment, as related to the perpetra- tion and receipt of dating violence (verbal, physical, and sexual aggression) in a sample of college students in same-sex relationships. Their data were inclusive of dating violence with respect to same-sex relationships for both men and women. At the multivariate level, Edwards and Sylaska found physical and sexual perpetration to be related to internalized homonegativity.

Internalized Homophobia and IPV 657

Internalized homonegativity is defined as negative feelings and attitudes about homosexual features within oneself and others (Shidlo, 1994). It exists on a continuum ranging from a desire to change one’s sexuality to discomfort with other lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals (Balsam, 2001). Internalized homo- phobia has been empirically connected with low self-esteem, loneliness, feelings of depression, less overall social support, lack of connection with the gay and lesbian community, and more conflict concerning sexual orientation in lesbians (Szymanski & Chung, 2001; Szymanski, Chung, & Balsam, 2001). To form a positive identity, aspects of the hated self must be reconciled—specifically, the internalized and often hidden feelings of fear or shame, which might exist even for those who seemingly embrace a positive sexual identity (Sand, 2014).

THIS STUDY

This study investigated the prevalence rates of women’s same-sex relationship violence (psychological aggression, physical assault, and sexual coercion) within a young adult population; the associations between violence, interna- lized homonegativity, and personality variables related to psychological mal- adjustment were also examined. It was hypothesized that internalized homophobia would be associated with the perpetration and receipt of dating violence and that both would be related to psychological maladjustment. It was also hypothesized that prevalence rates of psychological and physical violence would be commensurate with previously reported rates of violence within the dating violence literature.

In addition, as there is a paucity of data on sexual aggression in women’s same-sex relationships, rates of sexual aggression were ascertained. Previous studies examining sexual coercion in lesbian relationships have collapsed the variable of physical and sexual abuse into one variable (Balsam & Szymanski, 2005; Goldberg & Meyer, 2012); research has also failed to distinguish between rates of men’s and women’s same-sex sexual aggression (Edwards & Sylaska, 2013). Further, there have been methodological errors, including not excluding sexually coercive experiences perpetrated by opposite-sex partners, an emphasis on intercourse, and a focus on the use of physical force (Girshick, 2002; Waldner-Haugrud, 1999).

METHOD

Participants

This study used a convenience sample of 40 women between 18 and 24 years of age. Heads of college and university lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) groups were contacted through email, inviting members to participate in the study. University and college LGBTQ groups

658 B. I. Pepper and S. Sand

were chosen due to the accessibility of an identified young adult lesbian or bisexual population. In addition, groups were contacted across each region of the United States to encourage an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse sample. Group leaders who agreed to participate were mailed sealed packets to distribute to members, with the direction that all members, regardless of intent to participate in the study, should be handed packets to preserve the anonymity of individuals who intended to do so. The participant packets included a brief letter explaining the study, four questionnaires, and one open-ended question. In an attempt to include women who did not self- identify by belonging to lesbian or bisexual organizations, and to reduce the bias of a nonprobability sample, participants were asked to invite others to contact the researchers if they might be interested in participating in the study. Because participation was anonymous, it was not possible to determine which groups actually completed the study. At the time, there was no other means of collecting data.

Forty-one women returned participant packets, however, one individual was excluded from the study due to missing data. To be eligible for inclusion in the study, the participant had to have had, or currently be involved in, a romantic relationship with a woman at some point in her life, for the duration of at least 1 month. All those participating in this study did so with informed consent. To maintain complete anonymity, the participants were not required to sign a formal consent form, but rather were informed that consent would be given by the act of completing and returning the questionnaires using a self- addressed, stamped envelope.

Despite efforts to recruit a diverse sample, the study participants proved to be quite homogeneous, with the majority of participants identifying as White. In addition, 72.5% of participants self-identified as lesbian (queer), 5 participants identified as bisexual (queer), 1 identified as heterosexual, 4 chose to not self-identify, and 1 endorsed other, commenting that she iden- tifies as queer. Half of the participants were between 18 and 21 years of age, and the remaining 50% were between 22 and 24 years old. Although data were collected through LGBTQ university and college groups, only 29 of the participants reported that they were current undergraduate students, and 3 noted they were graduate students. One respondant indicated that she was a high school graduate, and 7 of the participants reported being college graduates.

Measures

A revised version of the Lesbian Internalized Homophobia Scale (LIHS; Szy- manski & Chung, 2001), the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996), the Adult Version of the Personality Assessment Questionnaire (Adult PAQ; Rohner, 2003), and a demographic

Internalized Homophobia and IPV 659

questionnaire were used for this study. Additionally, an open-ended question was administered to acquire qualitative data about relationship violence. Some participants provided a lengthy detailed response to the open-ended question, others wrote minimally, and some chose not to answer.

THE LESBIAN INTERNALIZED HOMOPHOBIA SCALE

A rational and theoretical approach to test construction was used in the development of the LIHS (Szymanski & Chung, 2001). The LIHS is a self- administered questionnaire that contains 52 items representing five dimen- sions of internalized homophobia. Each item is rated on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Total and subscale scores are averaged, with higher scores indicating a greater amount of internalized homophobia. Five expert raters established content validity for the 52 items of the scale.

LIHS Dimensions. The Connection with the Lesbian Community (CLC) dimension describes the degree of connection that the respondent has to the lesbian community, which can range from isolation to embeddedness. Inter- nal reliability (alpha coefficient) for the CLC is .87. The Public Identification as a Lesbian (PIL) dimension refers to how the respondent manages her identity as a lesbian, ranging from passing and fear of discovery to disclosure to others. The internal reliability for the PIL is .92. The Personal Feelings About Being a Lesbian (PFL) dimension describes the respondent’s feelings regard- ing herself as a lesbian, with self-hatred on one end of the spectrum and self- acceptance on the other. The internal reliability for this scale is .79. The Moral and Religious Attitude Towards Lesbianism (MRATL) dimension reflects moral and religious attitudes regarding lesbians and lesbianism, ranging from con- demnation to tolerance and acceptance. The internal reliability for the MRATL dimension is .74. The Attitudes Toward Other Lesbians (ATOL) dimension refers to the respondent’s attitudes that she holds toward other lesbians, ranging from horizontal oppression and open hostility to group appreciation. The internal reliability for the ATOL dimension is .77.

The internal reliability for the LIHS total score is .94. Only moderate correlations were found between the LIHS subscales, ranging from .37 to .57, providing evidence that each of the subscales measures a separate dimension of internalized homonegativity. Construct validity was supported for the LIHS by the correlation between the LIHS and measures of self-esteem and loneliness, which have been empirically correlated with internalized homophobia in gay men (Szymanski & Chung, 2001). All correlations were statistically significant except for the relationship between self-esteem and the MRATL and the ATOL. The authors explained this failure by suggesting that the MRATL and ATOL measure attitudes about lesbianism and other lesbians, rather than oneself.

660 B. I. Pepper and S. Sand

LIHS Modification. For the purpose of this study, a modified version of the LIHS was used. The modified version was created by the authors of the LIHS to be inclusive toward women who identify as bisexual (D. Szymanski, personal communication, Spring 2003). The difference between the LIHS and the modified LIHS is modest: The term lesbian is often replaced by the term lesbian/bisexual. The five dimensions of internalized homophobia as mea- sured by the LIHS are modified to include bisexuality as well as lesbianism.

THE REVISED CONFLICT TACTICS SCALES

The CTS2 (Straus et al., 1996) is a revised version of Straus’s (1979) Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS). The CTS2 is a 39-item self-administered questionnaire that measures specific conflict tactics that have been utilized by the respondent and the respondent’s dating, marital, or cohabiting partner when dealing with conflicts during the past 12 months. The CTS2 consists of four scales measur- ing the tactics of negotiation, psychological aggression, physical assault, and sexual coercion. A fifth scale, the Injury scale, assesses physical injuries inflicted by oneself and one’s partner. Each of the scale items is separated into two subscales: minor and severe acts of violence. Preliminary psycho- metric analysis of the CTS2, based on a college student sample, was con- ducted by the authors of the CTS2. The test demonstrated good internal consistency for all of the scales. The alpha coefficients for the Negotiation, Psychological Aggression, Physical Assault, Sexual Coercion, and Injury scales were .86, .79, .86, .87, and .95, respectively.

The items on the CTS2 are asked in pairs, assessing what the participant has done and what her partner has done (totaling 78 questions) in the past year. Scores are derived by adding the midpoints of the response categories, which for Categories 0, 1, and 2 are the same as the category numbers. The response categories include Once, Twice, 3–5 times, 6–10 times, 11–20 times, More than 20 times, and Never (scored as 0). Some items were omitted as they were not salient for this sample (e.g., “I made my partner have sex without a condom”).

ADULT VERSION OF THE PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE

The Adult PAQ (Rohner, 2003) was administered to assess the psychological health of the participants. The Adult PAQ is a 63-item self-report measure containing seven scales designed to measure seven personality characteristics. Each of the seven scales contains nine items. Every item is measured on a 4- point Likert scale ranging from 4 (almost always true of me) to 1 (almost never true of me). The seven scales are Hostility/Aggression, Dependence, Negative Self-Esteem, Negative Self-Adequacy, Emotional Unresponsiveness, Emotional Instability, and Negative Worldview. Composite scores on the Adult PAQ

Internalized Homophobia and IPV 661

range from a low of 63 to a high of 252, with scores at or above 158 indicating that the respondent experiences herself or himself to be more psychologically maladjusted than adjusted. Subscale scores at or above the midpoint of 23 indicate psychological maladjustment in regard to that personality domain.

The Adult PAQ was constructed as a cross-cultural instrument, and scores in the United States have been found to fall between 90 and 110 (M = 100, SD = 10), whereas those for U.S. college students have typically been found to be higher (M = 124, SD = 27). The result of a meta-analysis of 252 ethnically diverse adult respondents in the United States revealed a mean unweighted alpha coefficient of .90 and a mean weighted alpha coefficient of .86, support- ing the reliability of the Adult PAQ among U.S. adults (Rohner, 2003). Con- vergent validity for Hostility/Aggression, Dependency, Negative Self-Esteem, Negative Self-Adequacy, Emotional Instability, and Negative Worldview was established through significant correlations between the individual scales and corresponding validation scales. All were found to be significant at the .001 level. The only scale not validated was the Emotional Unresponsiveness scale, which did not have a corresponding scale for validation purposes.

DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE

Participants were asked questions about themselves and their current or most recent same-sex partner. Participants reported on their own and their partners’ age ranges, highest educational levels, and how each identified their sexual orientation. Those participating were also questioned about their racial identities and the duration of their current, or most recent, same-sex relationships.

OPEN-ENDED QUESTION

Participants were asked to briefly describe the worst fight they had with their current same-sex dating partner in the past month, or if not currently dating a woman, then the worst fight they had in the last month of dating their most recent same-sex partner. This question was open ended, and 68% of partici- pants provided a response.

RESULTS

Prevalence of Relationship Violence, Internalized Homonegativity, and Psychological Maladjustment

Prevalence rates of violence were determined using the CTS2. Data analysis was based on a sample size of 40 for all scales of the CTS2 except for the Sexual Coercion scales and one Injury scale. Due to missing data, data analysis for the Sexual Coercion scales were based on a sample size of 39,

662 B. I. Pepper and S. Sand

as was one Injury scale. Table 1 presents prevalence rates of IPV perpetrated and experienced by respondents.

Internalized homonegativity was assessed via the LIHS total and subscale scores. Of the participants, 5% demonstrated a significant degree of total internalized homophobia. Above average scores were reported by 10% and 12.5% of participants on the CLC and PIL domains, respectively, indicating a significant degree of homonegativity along these domains.

On the Adult PAQ, 7.5% of study participants experienced themselves to be psychologically maladjusted, as measured by composite scores at or above 158. Within the subscales measuring the personality dispositions of the Adult PAQ, participants reported experiencing scores at or above the midpoint of 23 along the personality dispositions as follows: The majority experienced them- selves as high in dependency (75.0%), and a portion identified themselves as being emotionally unstable (30%), emotionally unresponsive (17.5%), having high levels of hostility or aggression (12.5%), having negative self-esteem (7.5%), or having feelings of inadequacy (7.5%).

Analysis of Predictor and Outcome Variables

Two-tailed Pearson correlations were used to assess the relationship between the variables on the CTS2. The perpetration of psychological aggression, physical assault, and injury were all significantly correlated to the receipt of psychological aggression, physical assault, and injury. These results are pre- sented in Table 2. In addition, as shown in Table 3, within the perpetration of violence variables, perpetration of psychological aggression, physical assault, and injury were all significantly correlated to one another. Similarly, within the variables that measure the receipt of violence, the receipt of psychological aggression, physical assault, and injury were all significantly correlated to one another. These results are presented in Table 4.

The variables of sexual coercion were unique to the other variables of violence. The perpetration and receipt of sexual coercion were not

TABLE 1 Prevalence Rates of Intimate Partner Violence

Conflict tactic n Violence Severe violence

Perpetration of Psychological aggression 40 72.5% 12.5% Physical assault 40 22.5 % 7.5% Injury 39 5.0% 2.5% Sexual coercion 39 18.0% 2.5% Receipt of Psychological aggression 40 67.5% 15.0% Physical assault 40 20.0% 10.0% Injury 40 5.0% 0.0% Sexual coercion 39 12.8% 2.5%

Internalized Homophobia and IPV 663

significantly correlated with one another. The only variable of violence sig- nificantly correlated to the experience of sexual coercion was the receipt of physical violence.

Two-tailed Pearson correlations were also conducted to assess the rela- tionship between internalized homonegativity, personality characteristics, and tactics of violence. The LIHS dimension of MRATL was significantly correlated to the perpetration of sexual coercion (CTS2). However, no other dimension

TABLE 2 Relationship Between Violence Variables

Perpetration

Receipt Psychological aggression

Physical assault

Partner experienced injury

Sexual coercion

Psychological aggression .920** .620** .570** .002 Physical assault .640** .930** .860** .060 Participant experienced injury

.580** .860** .999** .008

Sexual coercion .170 .240 .025 .150

**p ≤ .01.

TABLE 3 Relationship Between Perpetration of Violence Variables

Perpetration

Perpetration

Psychological aggression

Physical assault

Partner experienced injury

Sexual coercion

Psychological aggression Physical assault .720** Partner experienced injury

.590** .880** .

Sexual coercion .130 .140 .009

**p ≤ .01.

TABLE 4 Relationship Between Receipt of Violence Variables

Receipt

Receipt

Psychological aggression

Physical assault

Participant experienced injury

Sexual coercion

Psychological aggression Physical assault .66** Participant experienced injury

.57** .86** .

Sexual coercion .22 .39* .02

*p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01.

664 B. I. Pepper and S. Sand

of internalized homonegativity was significantly associated with the perpetra- tion or receipt of violence.

Correlations between personality characteristics (Adult PAQ) and dimen- sions of internalized homonegativity (LIHS) are presented in Table 5. The personality characteristics of negative self-esteem and negative self-adequacy were correlated with all dimensions of the LIHS as well as total internalized homophobia. The personality characteristic of unresponsiveness was corre- lated with two LIHS dimensions, PIL and PFL, as well as total internalized homophobia. The LIHS dimensions of PFL and MRATL were correlated with the personality characteristic of negative worldview. The personality charac- teristic of hostility/aggression was also correlated with PIL. In addition, the experience of oneself as psychologically maladjusted (total PAQ) was posi- tively correlated with total internalized homophobia as well as all of the dimensions of the LIHS except Connection with the Lesbian Community.

With respect to the correlation between violence tactics (CTS2) and person- ality characteristics (Adult PAQ), which are presented in Table 6, hostility/aggres- sion was correlated with the perpetration of psychological aggression, physical assault, sexual coercion, and the receipt of psychological aggression. Emotional instability was also correlated with the perpetration of psychological aggression and the perpetration and receipt of physical assault. Negative worldview was correlated with the perpetration of both psychological aggression and sexual coercion. The experience of oneself as psychologically maladjusted (total PAQ) was correlated to the perpetration and receipt of psychological aggression.

A linear regression analysis was used to further assess the relationship between variables to determine whether internalized homophobia was a factor associated with IPV. Sexual coercion was the outcome variable in the

TABLE 5 Correlations of Personality Characteristics with Dimensions of Internalized Homonegativity

Adult PAQ

LIHS

CLC PIL PFL MRATL ATOL Total

Hostility/Aggression 0.15 0.32* 0.29 0.30+ 0.24 0.28 Dependency −0.16 −0.07 −0.12 −0.06 −0.06 −0.11 Negative Self-Esteem 0.39** 0.45** 0.51** 0.35* 0.40** 0.48** Negative Self-Adequacy 0.35* 0.44** 0.46** 0.33* 0.33* .0.45** Emotional Unresponsiveness 0.23 0.34* 0.38** 0.19 0.18 0.31* Emotional Instability 0.10 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.24 0.18 Negative Worldview 0.14 0.25 0.34* 0.46** 0.28 0.28 Total PAQ 0.24 0.36* 0.39** 0.33* 0.31* 0.36*

Note. Adult PAQ = Adult Personality Assessment Questionnaire; LIHS = Lesbian Internalized Homophobia Scale; CLC = Connection with the Lesbian Community; PIL = Public Identification as a Lesbian; PFL = Personal Feelings About Being a Lesbian; MRATL = Moral and Religious Attitudes Toward Lesbianism; ATOL = Attitudes Toward Other Lesbians. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. +Indicates a trend.

Internalized Homophobia and IPV 665

T A B L E 6

C o rr e la ti o n s o f V io le n ce

T ac ti cs

w it h P e rs o n al it y C h ar ac te ri st ic s

C T S2

n

A d u lt P A Q

H o st il it y /

A g g re ss io n

D e p e n d e n cy

N e g at iv e

Se lf -E st e e m

N e g at iv e

Se lf -A d e q u ac y

E m o ti o n al

U n re sp o n si v e n e ss

E m o ti o n al

In st ab

il it y

N e g at iv e

W o rl d v ie w

T o ta l

P A Q

P e rp e tr at io n o f

P sy ch

o lo g ic al

ag g re ss io n

4 0

0 .5 6 **

0 .1 1

0 .2 5

0 .2 5

0 .2 0

0 .4 6 **

0 .3 3 *

0 .4 0 **

P h y si ca l as sa u lt

4 0

0 .4 0 **

0 .0 8

0 .1 1

0 .1 0

0 .1 5

0 .3 2 *

0 .1 6

0 .2 4

Se x u al

co e rc io n

3 9

0 .3 2 *

0 .0 6

0 .1 3

0 .1 4

− 0 .0 0 3

0 .1 4

0 .3 3 *

0 .2 1

R e ce ip t o f

P sy ch

o lo g ic al

ag g re ss io n

4 0

0 .4 1 **

0 .1 0

0 .2 7

0 .2 3

0 .1 9

0 .4 1

0 .2 9 +

0 .3 5 *

P h y si ca l as sa u lt

4 0

0 .2 9 +

0 .0 8

0 .1 1

0 .1 0

0 .1 5

0 .3 2 *

0 .1 6

0 .2 4

Se x u al

co e rc io n

3 9

0 .1 3

0 .0 6

0 .1 8

0 .1 6

0 .1 0

0 .2 5

0 .0 2

0 .1 5

N o te . A d u lt P A Q

= A d u lt P e rs o n al it y A ss e ss m e n t Q u e st io n n ai re ; C T S2

= R e v is e d C o n fl ic t T ac ti cs

Sc al e s.

*p ≤ .0 5 . ** p ≤ .0 1 . + In d ic at e s a tr e n d .

666

linear regression analysis as it was the only domain of the CTS2 significantly correlated with the LIHS, specifically the dimension of MRATL. The Adult PAQ variables of Negative Worldview and Hostility/Aggression were also corre- lated with the perpetration of sexual coercion, reflecting significance and a trend, respectively. Therefore, in addtion to MRATL as a predictor variable in the linear regression model, the Adult PAQ variables of Negative Worldview and Hostility/Aggression were also included as predictor variables. MRATL showed a unique effect in relation to the perpetration of sexual coercion, above and beyond the personality disposition of hostility/aggression and negative worldview.

Qualitative Data

With respect to the qualitative data, detailed accounts of acts of violence were obtained. When asked to describe the worst fight the participant had with her current same-sex dating partner in the past month, or most recent same-sex partner in the last month of dating, one participant wrote:

I asked if she was still messing w/ her ex. & it ended up true while she was also w/ a guy. We screamed at each other for hours, then calmed down. She worked for me at the time & the issue was brought up again, she picked up a pole to hit me, I backed off & she drop [sic] the pole, following quickly by calling me a C_NT! Then she quit and threw her keys on the counter.

Another participant stated:

I was breaking things off with her because she was not over her last relation- ship at all. I was doing work on my professor’s house and my manager from work was helping me. My (ex)girlfriend showed up at my professor’s house (no one knew I was there so she must have followed me) and began calling me a drunk lush and accusing me of things I had not done in an extremely derogatory manner in front of my professor and my manager. She was never physically confrontational but was always verbally cruel and sneaky and manipulative. It was not the first time she had followed me somewhere and she was very controlling. Not so much a fight than a verbal confrontation in front of people I worked for; not a good thing.

Another responded:

The last fight my girlfriend and I had was the worst. I don’t remember what it was about originally but it ended up with her not wanting me to leave. She got in my Jeep and wouldn’t let me leave. I eventually got her out of the car and we kept fighting. Yelling. I don’t remember exactly how physical it got aside from me getting her out of the car, at least intially. She

Internalized Homophobia and IPV 667

ended up, however slamming my head into the back rollbar (my Jeep’s top was off) 4 times. I ended up throwing up and am surprised I didn’t pass out. I finally got someone in the house to keep her out of my way so I could drive home. It took all my strength and concentration not to fall asleep and veer off the road. I ended up having to wake up my parents and call the Kaiser advise [sic] nurse. (I lied about what happened so my g/f didn’t get in trouble) [sic]. My mom ended up having to wake me up every couple of hours that night. I also went to the doctor where she told me I had a cuncusion [sic] (sp?) and I also had to miss a day of work because during the summer I was a delivery driver for Straw hat pizza [sic], and my head felt weird still and didn’t think I was going to be able to drive.

DISCUSSION

This study found a significant relationship between the dimension of inter- nalized homophobia of MRATL and the perpetration of sexual coercion, whereas a relationship between other domains of violence and homonegativ- ity was not found. The MRATL dimension is different from the other domains of internalized homophobia as it measures more global views of lesbians and lesbianism as opposed to feelings about oneself as a lesbian. Higher scores on the MRATL reflect feelings of condemnation versus feelings of acceptance and tolerance of lesbians and lesbianism. Condemnation involves internally accepted homonegative beliefs learned from one’s family, church, cultural group, or society (Szymanski & Chung, 2001). If a woman engaged in a same- sex intimate relationship maintains feelings of condemnation toward lesbians and lesbianism, she will not be able to successfully integrate a positive sexual identity. The dissonance between an individual’s desire to engage in a sexual encounter with her partner and the underlying condemnation that she feels for lesbians and lesbianism, along with a belief that same-sex intimacy is a “sin,” can translate to feelings of intense shame and self-loathing.

Within the study, it was observed that the majority of participants who reported perpetrating sexual coercion endorsed the item, “I insisted on sex when my partner did not want to (but did not use force).” These violent acts might be justified by one’s own internal condemnation and the internalized belief that one’s same-sex partner is an acceptable and appropriate object of violence and hatred (Tigert, 2001). Conversely, the act of perpetrating sexual coercion could engender negative feelings about one’s sexual desire, amplify- ing feelings of shame and self-loathing of one’s identity and sexuality; such feelings and behavior might not be mutually exclusive. Further, the person- ality variables of Hostility/Aggression and Negative Worldview were asso- ciated with dimensions of internalized homonegativity and the perpetration of sexual coercion. Notably, hostility is the principle motivator behind aggres- sion, and negative worldview is a judgment about the person’s quality of

668 B. I. Pepper and S. Sand

existence and the held belief that life is bad, insecure, threatening, hostile, uncertain, and full of danger (Rohner, Khaleque, & Cournoyer, 2003). Regard- less of the direction of the association between internalized homophobia and sexual aggression, an important underlying negative emotional experience persists.

Similarly, as expected, internalized homonegativty was found to be related to the overall experience of oneself as psychologically maladjusted. In addition, all dimensions of internalized homonegativity, including total internalized homophobia, were associated with personality characteristics that refelct negative feelings of self-worth, as assessed by the Adult PAQ, including devaluation and dislike for the self, as measured by Negative Self- Esteem, and feeling of incompetence, as measured by Negative Self-Adequacy (Rohner et al., 2003). Furthermore, Emotional Unresponsiveness, which cor- responds to difficulty freely expressing one’s emotions and forming nonde- fensive attachments, was correlated with overall homonegativty as well as with the LIHS domains of PIL and PFL. Dissonance related to the desire for same-sex intimacy and the held belief that such a desire is wrong could impair one’s ability to experience the self as psychologically well-adjusted, and capable of value; agency; and feeling secure in oneself, one’s relationships, and in one’s place in the world; this is antithetical to developing a positive identity.

The prevalence rate of severe psychological aggression and physical assault among the study sample was consistent with previously reported rates of a young adult same-sex sample (Edwards & Sylaska, 2013), and within the range of violence in same-sex and heterosexual dating relationships reported across studies (Murray & Mobley, 2009). With respect to sexual coercion, 12.8% of participants experienced sexually coercive tactics, and 18.0% perpetrated sexually coercive tactics. Edwards and Sylaska (2013), using the CTS2 with a sample of men and women in same-sex relationships, found that 14% of participants reported having experienced sexual coercion and 10% reported having perpetrated sexual coercion.

This study used the concept of sexual coercion, as defined in the CTS2, to establish prevalence rates of sexual violence with respect to each participant’s most recent same-sex relationship. Items on the Sexual Coercion scale queried the participant about nonconsensual sexual acts based on verbal and physical coercion, keeping in mind the assertion by Straus, Hamby, and Warren (2003) that, “even minor acts of sexual coercion carry the same focus on intimidation, control, and humiliation as more physically violent forms of rape” (p. 72). Thus, the findings regarding the prevalence of sexual coercion among young adult women in intimate same-sex relationships are important in researching aspects of violence, power, and control within lesbian dating relationships. The participants in this sample did not report engaging in physically coercive sexual behaviors toward their partners, but rather used verbally coercive tactics. Nonetheless, due to the significant relationship between the receipt

Internalized Homophobia and IPV 669

of physical assault and sexual coercion, this sample might be at risk for experiencing an escalation in sexual violence to include physically coercive tactics as the duration of the relationship continues.

Contrary to the expected findings that all domains of violence would be related to psychological maladjustment, only the perpetration and receipt of psychological aggression were associated with the overall feeling of oneself as being psychologically maladjusted. Not surprisingly, the perpetration of all violence tactics was correlated to hostility/aggression. Yet, a noteworthy finding emerged with respect to the perpetration of psychological and physi- cal violence and emotional instability.

Emotional instability, as assessed on the Adult PAQ, is defined as instability of mood and an inability to cope with minor difficulties or experiences of stress without becoming emotionally overwhelmed or angry (Rohner et al., 2003). Our findings are consistent with research by Shorey, Brasfield, Febres, and Stuart (2011), who found a relationship between emotion regulation difficulty and the perpetration of psychological and physical aggression among college women in an intimate partner relationship (not specifically a same-sex relation- ship). As in our research study, Shorey et al. (2011) did not find a relationship between impaired emotion regulation and sexual aggression. Further, Shorey et al. (2012) found that women’s psychological aggression in a dating relation- ship might, for some, serve to regulate negative emotions by removing an aversive state or producing good or pleasant feelings.

Limitations

This study did not overcome the methodological problem of acquiring a representative sample due to the difficulty of recruiting participants who are not open about their sexual orientation or who do not self-identify. Recruit- ment for this study was done through LGBTQ college and university organi- zations and through friendship networks. Therefore, the recruitment process was targeted toward individuals who were more open about their sexuality, participated in LGBTQ organizations, or identified with persons in the lesbian, gay, or bisexual community. In addition, the sample size was homogeneous and quite small, likely limiting the findings.

There were also limitations regarding the use of the CTS2 that likely affected the study findings as well. The CTS2 is a self-report measure in which the respondent identifies ways in which she and her partner have resolved conflicts within the relationship. One weakness of the scale, identified by Straus et al. (2003), is that the focus of the violence assessed is within the context of relationship conflict; therefore, acts of malevolence might be missed.

Of note, based on the qualitative data collected in this study, at least one participant underreported acts of violence; despite indicating in her vignette that her partner threatened to hit her with a pole, this participant failed to

670 B. I. Pepper and S. Sand

indicate on the CTS2 that her partner “threatened to hit or throw something at me.” Additionally, the CTS2 does not measure other forms of relationship violence, such as stalking behavior, as detailed by another respondent in her vignette. Finally, the CTS2 does not allow for the indication of whether acts by the participant or her partner are initiated as a means of self-defense, which could result in the overrepresentation of mutual acts of violence. Self-defense was not controlled for among the sample, which limits the ability to generalize the finding that acts of physical and psychological relationship violence appear to be mutual.

Implications for Future Research

The findings of this study are consistent with previous research indicating that IPV is a significant problem and health concern and that dating violence is prevalent in women’s same-sex intimate relationships (Balsam & Szymanski, 2005; Blosnich & Bossarte, 2009; Messinger, 2011). Furthermore, this study supports previous findings that internalized homonegativity is a factor in the perpetration of same-sex relationship violence (Balsam & Szymanski, 2005; Edwards & Sylaska, 2013). Future studies need to further explore factors that might engender or contribute to violence in women’s same-sex relationships, such as internalized homonegativity and difficulty with emotion regulation. By using a more heterogeneous and ethnically diverse sample, providing a clearer distinction between the perpetration and receipt of violence with respect to acts of self-defense, and employing more sensitive measures to better elicit acts of violence, a more accurate picture of IPV within women’s same-sex relationships could be developed.

Findings from this study can be useful in informing mental health profes- sionals in college counseling centers and LGBTQ youth centers of the salience of IPV, including sexual coercion, and risk factors of such violence in women’s young adult intimate relationships. Although a causal relationship cannot be assumed between emotion regulation difficulty and the perpetra- tion of psychological aggression and physical assault, the findings from this research support the potential benefit of IPV intervention and prevention initiatives targeting emotion regulation (Shorey et al., 2011).

Our findings support the deleterious relationship between internalized homonegativity and the personality characteristics related to self-esteem, self- adequacy, the ability to form nondefensive attachments, and the experience of oneself as psychologically adjusted. Therefore, it would be wise for mental health professionals to address internalized homonegativity in the mental health treatment of lesbian and bisexual women. In addition, intervention and prevention initiatives focusing on IPV in women’s same-sex relationships should address internalized homonegativity, particularly with respect to sex- ual coercion.

Internalized Homophobia and IPV 671

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank Michael J. Kallan for his assistance with statistical analysis.

REFERENCES

Baker, N. L., Buick, J. D., Kim, S. R., Moniz, S., & Nava, K. L. (2013). Lessons from examining same-sex intimate partner violence. Sex Roles, 69, 182–192. doi:10.1007/s11199-012-0218-3

Balsam, K. F. (2001). Nowhere to hide: Lesbian battering, homophobia, and minority stress. Women & Therapy, 23(3), 25–37. doi:10.1300/J015v23n03_03

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

Blosnich, J. R., & Bossarte, R. M. (2009). Comparisons of intimate partner violence among partners in same-sex and opposite-sex relationships in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 99, 2182–2184. doi:10.2105/ AJPH.2008.139535

Edwards, K. M., & Sylaska, K. M. (2013). The perpetration of intimate partner violence among LGBTQ college youth: The role of minority stress. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 1721–1731. doi:10.1007/s10964-012-9880-6

Girshick, L. B. (2002). No sugar, no spice: Reflections on research on woman-to- woman sexual violence. Violence Against Women, 8, 1500–1520. doi:10.1177/ 107780102237967

Goldberg, N. G., & Meyer, I. H. (2012). Sexual orientation disparities in history of intimate partner violence: Results from the California health interview survey. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, September, 1–10. doi:10.1177/ 0886260512459384

Hudson, W., & Ricketts, W. A. (1980). A strategy for the measurement of homopho- bia. Journal of Homosexuality, 5, 357–372. doi:10.1300/J082v05n04_02

McClennen, J. C. (2005). Domestic violence between same-gender partners: Recent findings and future research. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 149–154. doi:10.1177/0886260504268762

Messinger, A. M. (2011). Invisible victims: Same-sex IPV in the National Violence Against Women survey. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 2228–2243. doi:10.1177/0886260510383023

Murray, C., & Mobley, A. (2009). Empirical research about same-sex intimate partner violence: A methodological review. Journal of Homosexuality, 56, 361–386. doi:10.1080/00918360902728848

Rohner, R. P. (2003). Personality assessment questionnaire. In R. P. Rohner, A. Khaleque, & D. E. Cournoyer (Eds.), Handbook for the study of parental accep- tance and rejection (p. 173). Storrs, CT: Rohner Research Publications.

Rohner, R. P., Khaleque, A., & Cournoyer, D. E. (2003). Parental acceptance rejection theory, methods, evidence, and implications. In R. P. Rohner, A. Khaleque, & D. E. Cournoyer (Eds.), Handbook for the study of parental acceptance and rejec- tion (pp. 1–33). Storrs, CT: Rohner Research Publications.

672 B. I. Pepper and S. Sand

Sand, S. (2014). Coming out, being out: Reconciling loss and hatred in becoming whole. Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society. Advance online publication. http://dx. doi.org/10.1057/pcs.2014.18

Shidlo, A. (1994). Internalized homophobia: Conceptual and empirical issues in measurement. In B. Greene & G. Herek (Eds.), Lesbian and gay psychology: Theory, research, and clinical applications. Psychological perspectives on les- bian and gay issues (Vol. 1, pp. 176–205). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shorey, R. C., Brasfield, H., Febres, J., & Stuart, G. L. (2011). An examination of the association between difficulties with emotion regulation and dating violence perpetration. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 20, 870–885. doi:10.1080/10926771.2011.629342

Shorey, R. C., Temple, J. R., Febres, J., Brasfield, H., Sherman, A. E., & Stuart, G. L. (2012). The consequences of perpetrating psychological aggression in dating relationships: A descriptive investigation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 2980–2998. doi:10.1177/0886260512441079

Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics Scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 36, 75–88. doi:10.2307/351733

Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283–316. doi:10.1177/019251396017003001

Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., & Warren, W. L. (2003). The Conflict Tactics Scale handbook. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.

Szymanski, D. M., & Chung, Y. B. (2001). The Lesbian Internalized Homophobia Scale: A rational/theoretical approach. Journal of Homosexuality, 41(2), 37–52. doi:10.1300/J082v41n02_03

Szymanski, D. M., Chung, Y. B., & Balsam, K. F. (2001). Psychosocial correlates of internalized homophobia in lesbians. Measurement and Evaluation in Counsel- ing and Development, 34(1), 27–38.

Tigert, L. M. (2001). The power of shame: Lesbian battering as a manifestation of homophobia. Women & Therapy, 23(3), 73–85. doi:10.1300/J015v23n03_06

Waldner-Haugrud, L. K. (1999). Sexual coercion in lesbian and gay relationships: A review and critique. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 4, 139–149. doi:10.1016/ S1359-1789(97)00054-2

West, C. M. (2002). Lesbian intimate partner violence: Prevalence and dynamics. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 6(1), 121–127. doi:10.1300/J155v06n01_11

Worcester, N. (2002, November). Women’s use of force: Complexities and challenges of taking the issue seriously. Violence Against Women, 8, 1390–1415. doi:10.1177/107780102762478055

Internalized Homophobia and IPV 673

Copyright of Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.