Religious Identity, Sexual Identity, and Internalized Homophobia in Adults Who Have Deidentified From Christianity

Religious Identity, Sexual Identity, and Internalized

Homophobia in Adults Who Have Deidentified From

Christianity

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study

Introduction

Over the past 2 decades, a larger portion of the population of the United States

and other western countries have endorsed a lack of religious identity. According to the

Public Religion Research Institute’s Census of American Religion update to the 2020

PRRI Census of American Religion, 26.4% of the population in the United States is

religiously unaffiliated (Public Religion Research Institute, 2023). This unaffiliated

population is not as homogenous as it might appear at first glance. Individuals, called

religious nones, may have had a lifetime of nonbelief along with a lack of participation in

religious activities or organizations, or they may have been raised in a religious

community with the accompanying beliefs and then left at some point, called religious

dones (McLaughlin et al., 2022; Van Tongeren et al., 2023b). Religious dones may have

been influenced by specific religious teachings in their youths, which impacted their

development in a variety of ways that differs from individuals whose development did

not include those teachings. Differentiating between the experiences of these groups has

been the subject of several recent studies (Schwadel et al., 2021; Van Tongeren et al.,

2021a).

Attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex sexual behavior has been a clear

component of religious belief within the tenets of Christianity (Moore, 2003). Since the

beginning of formalized Christian belief, homosexuality has been viewed as morally

wrong, advocating for heterosexual marriage as the ideal (Rodriguez, 2009). As

homosexual relationships became more accepted in the secular world over the past

several decades in the West, including the legalization of gay marriage, conflict has

existed for gay Christians, those who were raised Christian, or were raised in a society

with strong Judeo-Christian norms. This conflict between traditional Christian beliefs and

changing secular norms can be challenging considering the experience of those who are

separating from one’s faith and still maintaining contact with those who live by more

traditional Christian values. Individuals experiencing this conflict may experience

confusion, denial, depression, anxiety, and shame, as well as engaging in behaviors such

as bargaining with God to remove the related feelings and anger toward God for their

feelings and sexual development (Masson & Nkosi, 2017; Subhi & Geelan, 2012).

Research has shown that younger individuals are less likely to be religious and

more likely to leave a religion than are older adults (Hardy & Taylor, 2024).

Understanding the dynamics of religious identity change within the context of inner

religious conflict related to sexual identity development is complex and crucial. The

identify conflict inherent in developing a sexual identity that is contrary to the social

norm in the context of growing up with a religious identity that explicitly forbids

behaviors and relationships associated with that sexual identity may result in a variety of

mental health concerns such as depression and anxiety as well as problems with

solidifying social and individual identities (Barnes & Meyer, 2012; Ganzevoort et al.,

2011). Such identity conflicts and mental health experiences may result in internalized

homophobia, which is a collection of stable negative views of homosexuality learned

during a period before the development of a sexuality identity and may contribute to

those mental health challenges (Meyer & Dean, 1998).

In this chapter, I describe the background of this topic in more detail as well as

discuss the overall problem that necessitates this study. I describe the research questions,

provide information on theoretical frameworks that guided the conceptualization of the

underlying concepts, and define specific terms and concepts to be used in the study. This

chapter concludes with a discussion of the assumptions of the study and its significance

for future research and social change.

Background

In the past, Western countries were predominantly Christian, and those who were

not were largely invisible or were members of another Abrahamic faith such as Judaism

or Islam. That has been changing for the past several decades in many Western nations,

including the United States. In 1970, approximately 90% of the United States population

identified as a member of a Christian denomination, while in 2023 that same percentage

was 68% according to recent polling (Gallup, 2024). These changes have accompanied

shifts in social norms, which include a greater acceptance of homosexuality compared

with the past. Evidence of this comes in the form of public opinion regarding same-sex

marriage. According to Gallup polling, in 1996, 27% of those polled agreed with the

statement that same-sex marriages should be legally recognized and afforded the same

rights as heterosexual marriages, while in 2023, that number increased to 71% (Gallup,

n.d.). The changing social norms regarding LGBTQ+ acceptance conflict with traditional

Christian views can result in inner conflict, particularly for those LGBTQ+ individual

who were raised Christian, or a particularly traditional fundamentalist approach to that

religion.

It cannot be assumed that when an individual changes their religious identity that

the underlying foundational beliefs that have been taught will change along with the

identity. The concept of religious residue posits that individuals who were formerly

religious differ in cognitive, emotional, and behavioral processes compared with those

who were never religious (Van Tongeren et al., 2021a). Individuals who deidentify from

their faith also may not disengage from religious practices due to factors such as family

or community pressure. Those individuals who have left a religion may have maintained

certain patterns of belief related to their former religions, which may result in distress

when those beliefs are in conflict with current stated values (Van Tongeren & DeWall,

2021), particularly for those who continue to engage in religious practices (McLaughlin

et al., 2022). This dynamic may be particularly problematic when related to sexual

identity. While religiosity has been associated with positive mental health outcomes

overall (Vitorino et al., 2018), these benefits are not necessarily present in sexual

minority populations (Lefevor et al., 2021). A gay individual growing up learning

traditional Christian teachings on homosexuality from either the church or parents, who

then leaves that faith, may have conflicting views of the self, experience depression, and

cognitive dissonance (Gibbs & Goldbach, 2015; Gibbs et al., 2024).

Internalized homophobia has been identified as a significant issue negatively

affecting gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals in prior studies (Newcomb & Mustanski,

2010; Puckett et al., 2017; Walch et al., 2016). The conflict between the childhood

religious teachings and the lived experiences of gay, lesbian, and bisexual adults can

affect many domains of life. Several studies, which will be described in detail in Chapter

2, identified correlations between increased levels of religiosity and increased

internalized homophobia. This leads to a consideration of gay, lesbian, and bisexual

adults who no longer identify with a religion that they grew up with. Determining the

extent to which religious teachings remain internalized and remained influential after an

identity change may help explain the lasting mental health effects that impact

relationships and social identity. Identifying the correlates related to internalized

homophobia in those who have deidentified from Christianity may lead to a further

understanding of the identify conflicts in this population related to the intersection of

different social identities.

Problem Statement

A lower percentage of adults in Western nations, including the United States,

identify as Christian compared with any other time in history (Gallup, 2024). There are

many reasons for this shift which have been documented. In a 2016 Pew Research study,

four major domains of explanations for this trend toward leaving Christianity were

identified. They included no longer believing in Christian teachings, having problems

with organized religion, not being sure of what they believe, and being a non-practicing

believer. In the category of issues with organized religion is the subcategory of problems

with the church’s teachings on homosexuality (Lipka, 2016). While Christianity teaches

that homosexuality is wrong and/or a sin, it cannot be assumed that those raised in a

secular environment without religion have not been exposed to these teachings since

secular is not the opposite of religious, but both mutually interact (Chavura, 2021).

Deidentifying from a religion does not mean that the teachings of that religion will no

longer influence the individual for a variety of reasons.

Religious deconstruction of beliefs and/or deidentification with a religious identity

can be a difficult process. Saroglou (2011) identified four dimensions of religious belief

that include: the cognitive aspects of a religion including its tenets, the bonding aspect

fostered through ritual, the moral behavior component, and the sense of social belonging.

Van Tongeren and DeWall (2021) and McLaughlin et al. (2022) identified patterns in

religious deidentification that align with these dimensions to explain the process of

leaving a religious identity. An individual deidentifying with their faith may first begin to

question or doubt the validity of various religious beliefs, disengage from the emotional

and behavioral components of religious practice, and finally disaffiliate from the religious

group to which they once belonged. This process may lead to a variety of experiences that

may include a positive mental health benefit that comes from separating from the

religious teachings that condemn their sexual identity, to the individual feeling

disconnected from their primary source of emotional and social support, to feeling a

disconnection from the cognitive foundation for their understanding of life (Streib, 2021).

For individuals with a minority sexual identity, this process may be more complex

considering the added component of the conflict between the teachings of their religious

identity and their sexual identity. Understanding the relationship between religious

identity and sexual identity may help to explain the development and maintenance of

internalized homophobia and the resulting negative mental health impacts in those

individuals who are transitioning away from their religious identity yet still demonstrate

internalized homophobia. Several studies have been conducted into the experience of

internalized homophobia in individuals who identify as religious (McCann et al., 2020;

Stern & Wright, 2018; Wolff et al., 2016) and those who have deidentified with a religion

(Heiden-Rootes et al., 2020; Saunders et al., 2023), but few have explored the experience

of internalized homophobia and sexual identity development during the process of

religious transitioning. There have been different outcomes in those who have struggled

to integrate competing religious and sexual identities, with half of the participants in one

study unable to integrate these two identities (Meladze & Brown, 2015). In this study, I

sought to identify possible contributing factors to this difficulty in identity clarity and

addressing internalized homophobia in those in the process of transitioning from a

religious identity.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this quantitative study was to determine the level to which factors,

including religiosity, religious fundamentalism, religious identity transition, outness, and

perceived social support predict internalized homophobia in gay, lesbian and bisexual

adults. Findings from this study may help better understand this population regarding

identity conflict and the barriers to identity integration. Determining the extent to which

religious teachings that are perceived as negative toward homosexuality or bisexuality

remain after deidentification may suggest the strength of these teachings and how they

contribute to cognitive dissonance and internalized homophobia. Beyond contributing to

the emerging hypothesis of religious residue, this study may also contribute to the

understanding of the impacts of religious residue on sexual identity openness and

internalized homophobia.

Research Questions

Research question (RQ)1: To what extent does religious identity transition predict

internalized homophobia in gay, lesbian, and bisexual adults?

H01: Religious identity transition is not a significant predictor of internalized

homophobia.

H1: Religious identity transition is a significant predictor of internalized

homophobia.

RQ2: To what extent does religiosity predict internalized homophobia in gay,

lesbian, and bisexual adults?

H02: Religiosity is not a significant predictor of internalized homophobia.

H2: Religiosity is a significant predictor of internalized homophobia.

RQ3: To what extent does religious fundamentalism predict internalized

homophobia in gay, lesbian, and bisexual adults?

H03: Religious fundamentalism is not a significant predictor of internalized homophobia.

H3: Religious fundamentalism is a significant predictor of internalized

homophobia.

RQ4: To what extent does outness predict internalized homophobia in gay,

lesbian, and bisexual adults?

H04: Outness is not a significant predictor of internalized homophobia.

H4: Outness is a significant predictor of internalized homophobia.

RQ5: To what extent does perceived social support predict internalized

homophobia in gay, lesbian, and bisexual adults?

H05: Perceived social support is not a significant predictor of internalized homophobia.

H5: Perceived social support is a significant predictor of internalized

homophobia.

RQ6: To what extent does religious fundamentalism, as measured by the

Intratextual Fundamentalism Scale (IFS), moderate the relationship between religiosity,

as measured by the Centrality of Religiosity Scale (CRS), and internalized homophobia,

as measured by the Internalized Homophobia Scale – Revised (IHP-R), among gay,

lesbian, and bisexual adults who have endorsed a religious transition from Christianity to

a nonreligious identity?

H06: Religious fundamentalism does not significantly moderate the relationship

between religiosity and internalized homophobia.

H6: Religious fundamentalism significantly moderates the relationship between

religiosity and internalized homophobia.

Theoretical Framework for the Study

The theories of social identity and religious residue were used to frame the

phenomena studied. Social identity theory considers the social context in the ways that an

individual might self-identify (Tajfel, 1974). The ways that human adults think of

themselves often involve individual characteristics such as being a student, a female,

bisexual, and various immutable aspects of the self, such as race or height. Humans do

not exist solely in an individual context, and identity also involves how the individual

interacts with others both interpersonally and within groups. A religious identity may fall

into this category as may sexual identity. An individual may identify as Roman Catholic,

which involves membership in an organization that has specific norms and traditions.

Likewise, being a homosexual female may involve membership in a subculture with its

own norms. Social identity theory describes the dynamics of these social relationships

and how multiple social identities interact.

Within social identity theory, social categorization theory was also considered.

Social categorization theory explains how humans mentally understand groups, and may

group identities at the individual level, an interpersonal relational level, a small group

level, and a large group level (Turner et al., 1987). Within religious identity, an individual

may categorize themselves as Christian, and also Protestant, and a member of a specific

church that is distinct from another nearby church of the same denomination. The

dynamics related to social identity within these different layers of groups allow for

understanding of self through comparison with others. Membership in groups may lead to

schemas, or cognitive conceptualizations of what that membership means. Schemas allow

for quick processing of social interactions and how to understand other people in relation

to the self and one’s own group. However, these schema may lead to depersonalization

based on stereotypes (Hogg, 2001). The strength of the internalization of these

categorization schema impacts the degree to which social identities are incorporated into

individual identities (Wright et al., 2014), which is important to consider because the

intersection of religious and sexual identities can result in the identity conflict at the core

of this study.

Religious residue theory has developed over past several years to explain how

strongly held beliefs formed through religious socialization may remain influential on

cognition, affect, and behavior after an individual separates from the religious

organization or beliefs that were socialized (Van Tongeren et al., 2021b). The process of

religious deidentification or religious deconstruction is a deliberative process by which an

individual separates from a religious identity. Religious identity can be both social and

individual (Ysseldyk et al., 2010). Religious identity is not considered stable, according

to research conducted in the United States that indicated approximately one-third of

respondents have changed their religious identity within their lifetimes (Suh & Russell,

2015). For the purposes of this study, religious identification refers to any change in an

individual’s religious identity from religious to nonreligious (see Van Tongeren &

DeWall, 2021).

Religious residue theory advances the concept that the teachings of religious

beliefs result in cognitive, emotional, and behavioral patterns that do not automatically

change when an individual deidentifies from that religion (DeWall & Van Tongeren,

2022). These patterns may involve the consideration of a particular behavior as sinful or

the appropriateness of a particular relationship. These residual beliefs concerning

homosexuality and sin may conflict with the sexual identity of being homosexual or

bisexual resulting in cognitive dissonance and distress (Gibbs & Goldbach, 2015; Lefevor

et al., 2021; Parmenter et al., 2022). These beliefs can be difficult to change when

experiencing an identity change due to their association with values and social attachment

leaving an individual with a potentially dissonant experience having behavior and

thoughts not matching their identity (Streib, 2021).

Nature of the Study

This quantitative study used survey methodology to determine that extent to

which religious identity transition, religiosity, religious fundamentalism, outness, and

perceived social support predict internalized homophobia in gay, lesbian, and bisexual

adults. Because I sought to understand the relationship between variables, a quantitative

study was appropriate. The target population for the study included adult men and women

who acknowledged same-sex attraction (SSA) and/or identified as gay, lesbian, or

bisexual and endorsed a transition from a religious identity related to Christianity to a

nonreligious identity. The survey instrument was administered through the third-party

vendor Momentive, also known as Survey Monkey. Social media were also used to

identify potential participants who meet the criteria of inclusion. The Statical Package for

Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 29.0 was used to analyze the resulting data. A backwards

stepwise regression was conducted to explore which independent variables were the most

strongly associated with the dependent variable of internalized homophobia (see

Henderson & Denison, 1989). Moderation analysis was conducted to determine the extent

to which religious fundamentalism strengthens or weakens the relationship between

religiosity and internalized homophobia in the population of adults who deidentified from

Christianity. Moderation analyses are conducted when the researcher seeks to determine

how one variable of interest influences the relationship between two other variables

(Hayes, 2022). In this study, the influence of religious fundamentalism on the relationship

between religiosity and internalized homophobia was explored.

Definitions

The following is a list of terms used in this study:

Internalized homophobia: Meyer (1995) defined internalized homophobia as the

redirection of negative societal attitudes toward homosexuality inwardly. The negative

attitudes toward being gay, lesbian, or bisexual are considered culturally shared

knowledge, and when these attitudes are directed toward the self, rather than others, the

internalized of this stigma results (Herek, 2009).

Outness: Outness is the degree to which an individual is open to others regarding

their sexual orientation. Considering the societal stigma regarding being a member of

sexual minority, which may vary depending on the specific communities the individual is

a part of, the decision to be open about one’s sexual identity may be difficult and/or

conflictual (Suppes et al., 2021).

Perceived social support: Social support is defined in this study as the experience

of being cared for and supported by others within a mutually supportive and beneficial

community. Perceived social support makes the distinction between enacted social

support, which refers to actual words and behaviors of support, and the perception that

this support would be available from the supportive community if sought (Haber et al.,

2007). This distinction is an important one in the context of this study because a member

of a sexual minority may perceive that an individual or community member is supportive

in general, yet may not be as supportive regarding the perceiver’s sexual identity.

Religiosity: Religiosity can be defined as endorsing a belief in a deity, as well as

participating in individual and social activities related to that belief such as worship

services, reading holy book(s), and faith-based community engagement (Adeyemo &

Adeleye, 2008; Sedikides, 2010). Huber (2003) conceptualized religiosity as consisting of

five dimensions: intellectual, ideological, public practice, private practice, and

emotional/experiential regarding connection with this deity. Religiosity can be measured

in terms of its salience and importance in a person’s life (Huber & Huber, 2012) which

may impact social attitude expression (Stavrova & Siegers, 2014).

Religious fundamentalism: Religious belief may be expressed in a number of

ways. Religious fundamentalism posits that there is a single approach to understanding

religious teachings that see them as containing the timeless, unchanging truth about

humanity, and humanity’s relationship with a deity (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992).

Five characteristics have been identified that are common to religious fundamentalist

approaches: reactivity to the secular world, a dualistic outlook, a reliance on authority,

selectivity in seeing a particular holy book or approach as being the correct one, and the

endorsement of the belief that their deity will prevail and establish a kingdom on earth at

some point in the future in which believers will be rewarded (Almond et al., 2011).

Assumptions

The primary assumption in this study was that the theoretical orientations for this

study were appropriate and justified as an approach to these RQs. While there are

multiple paradigms through which to view internalize homophobia and religion, it was

assumed that social identity theory and religious residue theory adequately described the

foundations of the relationship between these, and related, variables. It was also assumed

that participants would respond authentically and honestly.

Scope and Delimitations

This study was designed to determine the extent to which religious identity

transition, religiosity, religious fundamentalism, outness, and perceived social support

predict internalized homophobia in gay, lesbian, and bisexual adults. Many adults whose

sexual identity is considered a minority experienced internalized homophobia, which is a

distress-inducing experience (Newcomb & Mustanski, 2010). The experience of

internalized homophobia has been linked to previously learned religious-based teachings

regarding homosexuality (Heiden-Rootes et al., 2020). Adults who were/are members of

a Christianity-aligned community reported difficulties trying to reconcile their religious

and sexual identities, leading to significant distress (Bridges et al., 2020; Wedow et al.,

2017). This study included those individuals in the population of adults who were raised

within a Christian-based faith and have since deidentified from that faith. Those who

grew up without a faith based in Christianity were excluded, as will potential participants

who were raised in other faith traditions.

Social identity theory and religious residue theory were selected as theoretical

frames for this study because they provide a foundational understanding of how sexuality

and religion are internalized as parts of one’s identity. These aspects of social identity can

be conflictual because many Christian denominations or communities hold to the belief

that engaging in homosexual behavior is sinful (Lipka, 2016; MacArthur, 2008). This

conflict has been shown to lead to distress as some individuals perceive being placed in a

situation where they need to choose one identity over the other. Integrating these

identities has been shown to be protective regarding internalized homophobia or

internalized sexual prejudice (Anderson et al., 2021). However, this integration can be

difficult for many LGB adults (Kappler et al., 2013; Ream & Savin-Williams, 2005).

Religious residue theory may provide context to this conflict as it considers the cognitive,

emotional, and behavioral patterns learned and internalized as a part of religious

education, which may not be consistent with currently endorsed identity of those who

have deidentified with that religion (DeWall & Van Tongeren, 2022). The intersection of

identities, along with their potential remnants when changing a religious identity, may

contribute to the experiences of internalized homophobia and other related variables to be

explored in this study.

Limitations

One limitation of the study is the heterogeneity of the experiences of Christianity

in the United States. At present, there are approximately 45,000 Christian denominations

worldwide (Center for the Study, n.d.). There is a variance in beliefs among Christians by

denomination, region of the country, and individual congregation (Cadge et al., 2008;

Greeley & Hout, 2008; Kapinus et al., 2010), which may make generalization

problematic. Another limitation involves the self-selection of participants in internet

surveys, which may also affect the generalizability of the results. Individuals who

complete surveys through Momentive or other services may not represent the larger

population of individuals within the study sample criteria constituting a convenience

sample rather than a probability sample, which limits generalizability (Jager et al., 2017).

Social desirability is a potential limitation to this study. Despite the anonymous

nature of the study, many within the population of interest may still live embedded in the

culture of their former religious identity. This dynamic may make sufficient openness an

issue to both participation and accurate responses. Social desirability bias is the tendency

of survey participants to respond in accordance with perceived social norms or

expectations rather than from a place of authentic representation of their experiences or

beliefs. Surveys that have sensitive subjects, which religion and sexual identity may be

for some respondents, have been shown to have lower honest response rates (Tourangeau

& Yan, 2007). Social research with religious content has also been shown to be subject to

response and social desirability biases (de Oliveira Maraldi, 2020). To address this, the

anonymity of the respondent was explicitly stated within the consent document, including

how potentially identifiable information will be obscured or not recorded at all.

Additionally, the survey was completed online, and I had no direct contact with any

potential participants.

Significance

Over the past 30 years, the percentage of Americans who identify as Christian has

dropped from 90% to 68% (Gallup, 2024). Some adults have changed their religious

identities from one that aligns with Christian beliefs to one that endorses a nonbelief in a

deity. This population has been shown to differ from those who either maintain a

religious identity or have never endorsed a religious belief. Changing a religious identity

does not mean that the underlying foundational beliefs that had previously been

internalized as schema will change along with the identity. Those who have engaged in

an identity change may still maintain those cognitive, emotional, and behavioral patterns

consistent with their former beliefs, which may impact their mental health (Sowe et al.,

2014). The population of gay, lesbian, and bisexual adults who once identified as

Christian may have been exposed to religious beliefs that frame homosexuality negatively

and sinful. In this study, I investigated the extent to which various demographic, social,

and religious variables predict internalized homophobia. Better understanding the

variables associated with deidentifying from a religion for LGB adults may help future

researchers develop programs to address the specific mental health needs of this

population as they go through the process of deidentification and/or identity integration.

Summary

The population of adults in the United States who have transitioned from a

religious identity to a nonreligious identity has been growing over the past 3 decades. As

religious identity becomes more heterogenous and Christianity can no longer be

considered an assumed status, it is an important to explore the social constructs involved

in deidentifying from a religion. Considering the teachings of Christianity that may be

perceived as negative toward homosexuality, understanding the relationship between

internalized homophobia and religious transition, religiosity, religious fundamentalism,

outness, and perceived social support may help better understand the identity conflict that

results between religious identity and sexual identity in gay, lesbian, and bisexual adults

who have deidentified from Christianity. Living with an identity conflict such as that

between a religious identity and sexual identity can lead to the experience of cognitive

dissonance, depression, and anxiety (Anderton et al., 2011; Gibbs & Goldbach, 2015).

Better understanding the pathways of these conflicts may help future researchers develop

programs and interventions to address these needs. In the next chapter, I will go into

greater details of the theoretical frameworks, which include an overview of the literature

search strategy and an exhaustive review of the current literature about religious residue,

internalized homophobia, religiosity, religious fundamentalism, perceived social support,

and outness.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Introduction

Internalized homophobia, or sexual stigma, is a significant issue for many gay,

lesbian, and bisexual adults that may affect their mental health (Newcomb & Mustanski,

2010). There are a number of contributing factors to the experience of internalized

homophobia. One of these is related to the internalization of religious teachings and the

interaction between sexual and religious identities (Heiden-Rootes et al., 2020). LGB

identified adults who were raised as members of a religious community, such as

Christianity or Mormonism, reported significant struggles trying to balance or reconcile

their religious and sexual identities, experiencing distress in the process (Bridges et al.,

2020; Wedow et al., 2017). The purpose of this quantitative study was to determine the

extent to which religious identity transition, religiosity, religious fundamentalism,

outness, and perceived social support predict internalized homophobia in gay, lesbian and

bisexual adults.

Prior research has investigated the relationship between internalized homophobia

and identifying with a religion such as Christianity, finding that this population

experienced shame related to sexual identity disclosure, the internalization of

discriminatory attitudes, and reported increased difficulties in acknowledging and

accepting their sexual identity (McCann et al., 2020; Wolff et al., 2016). Research has

also demonstrated a negative relationship between internalized homophobia, mental

health, religious identity, and religious affiliation in LGB-identified adults (HeidenRootes

et al., 2020; Saunders et al., 2023). Religious identity in this context refers to how an

individual identifies regarding religion, while affiliation refers to a public religious group

in which the individual might hold membership. For example, a person might identify as

Christian and affiliate with the Roman Catholic Church or may not be a member of any

denomination thus being unaffiliated yet still identify as Christian. This becomes a

research issue when collecting demographic data leading to the importance of capturing

this distinction (Dougherty et al., 2007).

What is less clear in the existing research is the experience of internalized

homophobia in adults with gay, lesbian, and bisexual (LGB) adults who have deidentified

from a religion. Research has shown that cognitive and emotional patterns consistent with

a religious identity may remain after an individual has left that religion (Van Tongeren &

DeWall, 2021). The process of religious identity transition can take place over a number

of weeks, months, and years. During this process of religious transition many life factors

may change such as mental health (Saunders et al., 2023), values and beliefs (Schwadel et

al., 2021), and social affiliation (Van Tongeren et al., 2021b).

Social groups may allow for self-categorization in terms of inclusion as well as

exclusion (Abrams & Hogg, 1990). These different identities may be categorized or seen

as a hierarchical structure based on which identity is more salient in a given social

situation (Stryker & Serpe, 1994). The salience of the particular social identity influences

perceptions of the social situation, including stereotypes (Haslam et al., 1999). Sexual

identity involves sexual orientation as well as social affiliations, emotional attachment

preferences, and gender roles, and social affiliations (Dillon et al., 2011). A religious

identity is typically one that is born into rather than chosen, tying it into family and

community socialization (Beit-Hallahmi, 1991). Religious identity may involve both

personal meaning providing a guide how life should be lived (Pargament, 1997), and the

social and affiliative component of association with others who share this belief and

identity (Ysseldyk et al., 2010). The social support received through religious affiliation

may regularly reinforce the personal and collective sense of meaning and strengthen the

common values of the group (Krause & Wulff, 2005; Park, 2007). The strength of this

identity and the depth of religious affiliation may be a source of those values (Herriot,

2007) and impact attitudes through religious and cultural socialization (Cohen-Malayev et

al., 2014).

Chapter 2 reviews the literature search strategy followed by a detailed review of

religious residue theory and social identity theory, and how they relate to my study. The

literature review includes a discussion of internalized homophobia, outness, perceived

social support, religiosity, religious transition, and fundamentalism. A summary and

conclusions are provided at the end of the chapter.

Literature Search Strategy

An exhaustive literature search was conducted using peer-reviewed journal

articles, books, and academic conference reports. Seminal works were accessed to

establish the theoretical foundations being utilized. These include social identity theory

and religious residue theory. The following databases were searched: Google Scholar,

APA PsycInfo, APA PsycArticles, LGBTQ+ Source, SocIndex with Full Text, Academic

Search Complete, ProQuest One Academic. The following keywords were used in

various combinations to search these databases: religious identity, sexual identity,

religious cognitive dissonance, religiosity, internalized homophobia, internalized

homonegativity, religious homonegativity, religiosity, Christianity homonegativity,

religious residue, LGBT identity, religious dissonance, sexual identity conflict, religious

transition, perceived social support, outness, internalized homonegativity, social

dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, fundamentalism, system

justification, and identity compartmentalization. Articles in the literature review process

focused primary on those written and published in peer-reviewed journals between the

years 2015 and 2023.

Theoretical Foundation

Religious Residue Theory

Religious residue theory describes the phenomenon by which strongly held beliefs

formed through religious socialization may influence cognitions, affective responses, and

behavior of individuals who have since separated from that religion both in terms of

belief and behavior (Van Tongeren et al., 2021b). For the year 2020, it was estimated that

30% of the United States population was religiously unaffiliated (Pew Research Center,

2022). This represents a significant change as individuals have become less religiously

identified and more secular (Lipka, 2015). Understanding this population of people who

have changed their religious identity from having a religion to having no religion has

become important in attempting to understand this phenomenon, as this is not a

homogenous experience (Streib, 2021).

Religious deidentification has not been as simple as a declaration of no longer

being religious. The associated beliefs, habits, thoughts, and behaviors that were

associated with the former religion may not change as easily as declaring an identity

change (Van Tongeren et al., 2021b). This theory assumes that social identities contain

features that are particularly resistant to change and may remain despite no longer

endorsing that particular identity (Van Tongeren et al., 2023b). Religious residue theory

has identified three primary pathways to this phenomenon. The first is the cognitive

dimension which includes the mental conceptualization of religious information. The

second mechanism is behavioral habits, which include implicit behaviors. The third

mechanism is socialization which includes childhood introduction to a religion.

Van Tongeren and DeWall (2021) explored the phenomenon of religious

deconversion, or deidentification, to understand this trend more thoroughly and develop

an integrative framework. The authors proposed a theoretical framework of

understanding religious deidentification that mirrors Saroglou’s (2011) four dimensions

of religion. These dimensions include belief, which represents the cognitive aspect of

religion; bonding, which involved ritual and represents the emotional quality of religion;

behavior, which includes the actions or behavioral decisions influenced by moral

teachings; and belonging, which encompasses the social component (Saroglou, 2011; Van

Tongeren & DeWall, 2021). The model presented by Van Tongeren and DeWall (2021)

for religious deidentification maps onto these four concepts.

McLaughlin et al. (2022) explored factors leading to individuals deidentifying

with their religious identities and Van Tongeren and DeWall (2021) used those results to

identify themes that map onto Saroglou’s dimensions of religious belief. One

deidentification factor is related to the experience of having significant religious doubts

or “outgrowing” religious beliefs, which aligns with the cognitive aspect of religion

(McLaughlin et al., 2022; Van Tongeren & DeWall, 2021). Some individuals identified

experiencing religious trauma or having issues with religious morality leading to

deidentification, which relates to the factor of bonding as they discontinue their religious

identity (Van Tongeren & DeWall, 2021). Disengagement was also identified as a reason

some deidentified, which maps to the emotional component of religion. Finally, some

experienced negative experiences such as not feeling welcome in their religious

community, which led to the behavior change of no longer affiliating with the religious

group (Van Tongeren & DeWall, 2021). Understanding the factors leading people to

change their religious identities directly relates to the concept of religious residue and

how time may impact those factors.

Religious residue theory considers the power of religious beliefs and cognitive

patterns, while predicting that those who change their religious identity will maintain the

behavioral, cognitive, and affective patterns related to their previous belief as new

schemas are formed and incorporated over time (DeWall & Van Tongeren, 2022). Early

religious socialization makes an impact on the social and religious beliefs, cognitions, and

affect of the receiver. Comparing this group to those never having a religious identity

may be helpful in increasing understanding of this phenomenon (Bebiroglu et al., 2015;

Petts & Desmond, 2016; Pusztai & Demeter-Karászi, 2019). Religious belief can be seen

as a cognitive schema that organizes beliefs resulting from socialization and personal

experience. This schema then provides the framework through which subsequent events

are viewed and interpreted (McIntosh, 1995). Prior research has indicated that individuals

who have deindentified from a religious identity have maintained certain beliefs and

schema that may misalign with current conscious values, leading to distress or cognitive

dissonance (Sowe et al., 2014). Religious residue theory proposes that religious belief and

identity are strong and difficult to change due to its relationship with attachment and

values (Streib, 2021), and the difficulty in changing a cognitive schema (Leahy, 1996).

As more individuals deidentify with their religious identities, it may be helpful to

understand this process and how it affects the individual. According to religious residue

theory, there are three general categories of adults with regard to religious identity:

religious dones (i.e., those who identified as one religion and have since deidentified from

that religion), religious nones (i.e., those who never had a religious identity and maintain

that lack of belief), and the currently religious (Van Tongeren et al., 2021a, 2021b).

Significant differences were found between formerly religious and never religious

regarding their early socialization, attitudes toward other religious people, certainty of

religious beliefs, and the frequency of interaction with religious individuals (Van

Tongeren et al., 2021a).

These differences involve the early socialization differences between those raised

in a religious tradition compared with those who are not. Those raised with a religious

tradition receive immediate context pathway socialization from parents and religious

educators, such as in a church Sunday school. As development continues and the

adolescent navigates the identity development process, these teachings are likely to

influence this process. A child seeing parents and other adults engaging in higher cost

behaviors, credibility enhancing displays such as sacrificing time to engage in religious

practices, these values may be ingrained into the child’s schema, which would be far less

likely to occur in the population of religious nones who did not have these early

socialization experiences (Lanman & Buhrmester, 2017; Van Tongeren et al., 2021a).

Van Tongeren et al. (2021a) theorized that the experiences, cognitive processes,

and emotional responses of religious dones would more closely resemble the currently

religious than they would religious nones. They also proposed that this prediction would

be cross-cultural. To test this theory, they designed a series of three studies that used

representative samples from the United States, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Hong

Kong. The first study had 3,071 participants across the United States, Hong King, and the

Netherlands; 20.94% of whom identified being formerly religious. These individuals

displayed significant religious residue including their attitudes toward God,

religiousrelated behaviors and practices, interacting with religious individuals, and

positive beliefs about religion. This population, along with the participants who were

currently religious, reported higher explicit negative attitudes toward compared with

those who were never religious establishing a predicted similarity. Implicit attitudes

toward God were also measured with positive attitudes identified for religious

individuals, religious dones, and religious nones in descending order. The second study

replicated the first while the third study in the series assessed possible residual prosocial

behavior in religious dones. The cumulative results found that religious dones

significantly differed from religious nones in the attitudes toward religion, God, religious-

based practices, and prosocial behaviors including charitable donations.

Van Tongeren et al. (2021a) assessed currently religious, religious dones, and

religious nones samples on the five moral foundations of harm/care, fairness/cheating,

ingroup loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and purity/degradation. A total of 1,269

participants were included over two studies that tested the hypothesis that there would be

a stepwise endorsement of the moral foundations with religious participants rating the

highest, followed by religious dones, and followed by religious nones. A third

confirmatory study used the longitudinal data of 3,290 adolescents from the National

Study of Youth and Religion. The results overall confirmed this stairstep hypothesis as

predicted. This study also identified two significant aspects to this phenomenon of note.

The first is the suggestion that social influence was a possible explanation for this effect,

which was supported by the longitudinal study. This study also demonstrated that the

religious residue effect may be time limited due to the findings that those who recently

changed religious identities had results that more closely resembled the currently

religious compared with those who had changed identities longer ago who had more

similar results with the never religious. This study contributed to the overall theory and

confirmed that the religious residue effect is applicable to morality and may be time

bound.

Another recent study explored attitudes held by religious dones and the

perceptions others held of religious dones. Van Tongeren et al. (2023b) explored this

aspect of identity within the religious residue theory by exploring intergroup bias among

religious nones as well as towards this population by the currently religious and religious

nones. The purpose was to determine if religious nones affiliate more with religious

nones or with currently religious persons, and if their behaviors and judgments also align

with that pattern. This paper reported a series of different studies to address these

questions of affiliation.

The first study involved archival data from a previous study using a ball throwing

game between a total of 353 participants with different religious identities: atheist,

Christian, and unknown. Studying the exclusionary behaviors in the game allowed the

researchers to determine that religious dones tended to include religious nones while

excluding currently religious participants. Studies two and three in the series used a moral

judgment activity, the conjunction fallacy, to examine ingroup bias or preference between

the three groups. These studies found that religious dones demonstrated a preference

towards the never religious and assessed either group of religious or never religious based

on their current religious identity. Regarding the perception of religious dones, the

currently religious groups preferred religious dones over the never religious on moral

tasks, suggesting that a consideration of the individual’s religious past was given

consideration. There were slight variations in the third study however, as there was more

variance in this study in how they perceived the religious participants, showing more

implicit prejudice towards that group.

The fourth study extended the general hypothesis by testing 900 participants on

the extent to which group preferences would impact decisions to engage in high-cost

behaviors that benefitted others. The results showed that those who identified as formerly

religious were more willing to sacrifice for the never religious group demonstrating an

affiliation for those that shared a current level of belief identity, and distancing

themselves from the identity they left. This affiliative preference was not reciprocated by

the never religious. This study differentiated belief and identity to test the transitional

identity population to determine if the population of religious dones was negatively

viewed by other groups due to a lack of identity. Considering that the first four studies

demonstrated that religious residue appeared not to extend to affiliation, the researchers

adjusted their predictions for the final two studies. They explored the potential mediating

role of belief superiority or contamination on prejudicial behaviors related to inclusion or

exclusion, and the perception by the religious and never religious that the religious done

participants were seen as having a transitory identity making them less stable in behavior

or judgment. These studies found similar affiliative patterns that were identified in the

first four studies as well as evidence of decreased trust and less ingroup identification

among the never religious towards both groups related to religion with the suggestion that

either currently believing, or having previously believed, has a negative effect on trust

and inclusion for this population. The question of transitory identities revealed an attitude

among the currently religious that the religious dones group have a temporary identity

and would eventually return to belief in the tenets of religion, possibly explaining their

inclusionary results in the prior studies.

This study demonstrates the religious residue effect because it showed that the

effect may not be as strong in the area of social affiliation. Those who have left a religion

prefer to affiliate with other religious dones and those who never had a religion (Van

Tongeren et al., 2023a). Van Tongeren et al. (2021a) established that religious

psychology, referring to beliefs, motives, and attitudes (McLaughlin et al., 2022), can be

prone to religious residue, while social affiliation may not be (Van Tongeren et al.,

2023a).

Researchers also found differences in how religious dones and religious nones

spend money with religious dones more willing to spend money on religious-themed

items than religious nones, but less than the currently religious placing them between the

nones and the religious (DeWall & Van Tongeren, 2022). Religious dones also reported

participating in religious-based rituals more than religious nones and less than the

currently religious, indicating that it cannot be assumed that this change in identity results

in immediate behavioral changes (DeWall & Van Tongeren, 2022; McLaughlin et al.,

2022), or that it occurs quickly. This is a significant finding and reinforces the finding in

Van Tongeren et al. (2021b) that religious residue is affected by time and may decay.

Some individuals may maintain their religious identity yet behaviorally disengage

from religious practice (Fuller, 2001; Itzhaki et al., 2020), while others abandon their

religious identity and either continue to engage in religious practice or abandon that as

well (Van Tongeren et al., 2021a). In prior research on religious disengagement of

deidentification, divine struggles or abandonment, demonic struggles, interpersonal

difficulties with other religious people or within communities, moral struggles involving

issues with transgressions leading to guilt and/or shame, ultimate meaning issues, and

doubt related struggles were identified as impactful in deidentification (Exline et al.,

2014, 2022). Some of these struggles were associated with different reactions related to

religious or spiritual identity. For example, study participants who pulled away from

organized religion reported the highest levels of religious/spiritual struggle and endorsed

doubt, moral, and ultimate meaning issues, while those maintaining some affiliation, but

did not overtly consider themselves religious, struggled with moral issues (Exline et al.,

2022).

Understanding the diversity and heterogeneous nature of this population of

individuals who have changed their religious identity in some way is important in

understanding the residue that remains after this identity abandonment. Morality and

social attitudes are specifically addressed in religious teaching and belief. One of the

insights gained from religious residue theory is in the social influence that religion has on

behavior and attitude. This social influence may help to explain why some maintain

religious practices and moral attitudes even after no longer identifying as religious (Van

Tongeren et al., 2021a). Saroglou and Cohen (2013) suggested that there are universal

features of religion, believing, bonding, behaving, and belonging; and these features are

aligned with the findings of Van Tongeren et al. (2021a, 2021b, 2023b). The conclusions

reached by Van Tongeren and others are consistent with prior research that demonstrated

the gradual nature of identity change (Burke, 2006), and, in particular, religious identity

change (Ysseldyk et al., 2010).

Religious residue can be understood through three main mechanisms as discussed

above: through cognitive schemas, habits, and socialization. Van Tongeren et al. (2023a)

explored religious residue across all three of these mechanisms. To accomplish this, the

researchers utilized four domains that represent these mechanisms. The first is negative

religious beliefs, which may include thoughts and beliefs about hell or the devil.

Superstitious thoughts were included to capture factors related to desire for control, or the

illusion of control, through the mechanism of using irrational or unsubstantiated beliefs to

achieve these ends. Attitudes toward religious taboos were included to assess individual

attitudes toward behaviors that religions typically consider wrong or outright prohibit.

The final domain included in this study is illusory pattern detection, which has been

associated with religious belief and is also related to achieving a sense of control. This

domain is related to the mechanism of religious habits and is related to a tendency to

attribute random occurrences to a supernatural being such as God rather than to a random

occurrence (Van Tongeren et al., 2023a).

The study involved a total of 833 adults from the United Kingdom and United

States between the ages of 17 and 77, with the majority being female (69.4%). The

participants were assessed on the four domains of negative religious beliefs, attitudes

toward religious taboos, superstitious thinking, and illusory pattern detection through

measures developed by the authors for this study. The results found that religious dones

endorsed significantly more negative religious beliefs compared with the currently

religious, indicating an endorsement of concepts such as the existence of hell and/or “the

devil.” This further indicates the retention of some beliefs related to negative

consequences of going against the tenets of a religion or deity (Van Tongeren et al.,

2023a).

There was no direct religious residue effect identified for the other three domains

studied. The researchers theorized based on these results that the endorsement of negative

beliefs mediated the role of the other variables. The example presented by Van Tongeren

et al. (2023a) was that a fear of retribution or other negative impact from violating a

religious taboo could be the motivating factor behind this behavioral avoidance. To test

this, the researchers conducted an analysis that examined the residual associations of

negative beliefs on the other three variables. The results showed significant indirect

effects of negative religious beliefs on the endorsement of each of the variables religious

taboo beliefs, illusory pattern detection, and superstition. Religious dones were less likely

in this analysis than religious nones to endorse these taboo beliefs, while also being more

likely to perceive a pattern where none was, suggesting a religious residue effect (Van

Tongeren et al., 2023a).

Social Identity Theory

Social identity theory was first developed by Tajfel (Tajfel, 1974; Tajfel et al.,

1971) and expanded upon by Turner (1975, 1991), and Abrams and Hogg (1990, 1998).

Tajfel was interested in investigating concepts such as intergroup conflict and prejudice

since he did not see these phenomena as fully explainable by personality or individual

differences (Hogg, 2018). Tajfel and Turner (1979) established this significant underlying

theoretical assumption that understanding intergroup conflict and identity requires the

consideration of the social situation and how individuals viewed themselves as members

of a group. A social identity results from being a part of a social group, which may be

defined as two or more people who consider, evaluate, and define themselves in the same

way, share similar attributes, and how they relate to others who also share this identity as

well as to those who do not (Hogg, 2018). Part of the individual’s self-concept comes

from the perception of being a member of those social groups (Hogg & Reid, 2006). An

emotional connection to the group is also typically present around which a social

consensus may be reached (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). There may be multiple social

identities and the most salient one in the social situation is likely to take precedence

(Grant & Hogg, 2012). This group identity often results in a dualistic view.

Social categorization theory was developed out of social identity theory by Turner

and others (Turner et al., 1987) and involves the cognitive processes of social identity.

This theory explains how humans mentally conceive of groups and may group identities

at the individual level, an interpersonal relational level, a small group level, and a large

group level (Turner et al., 1987). It involves the cognitive associations and schema that

the human brain uses to quickly categorize and understand who a person is in relation to

themselves. These cognitive representations are referred to as prototypes and involve

perceptions, overt behaviors, affective responses, and attitudes that allow humans to see

how they are similar and how they are different from that other person (Hogg & Terry,

2000; Turner et al., 1987). A result of this categorization process is that it may

depersonalize others. Depersonalization refers to the process of seeing another, or

oneself, as a prototype and having a collection of characteristics representative of their

social category (Hogg, 2001). This phenomenon may lead to stereotyping and applies to

others, members of the ingroup, and oneself. Wright et al. (2014) proposed the concept

that the strength of this internalization of categories impacts the degree to which the

group identity is integrated into the individual identity. Swann et al. (2012) expanded

upon this concept and discussed how extreme behaviors may result when the collective

identity of the group is highly integrated with the individual identity of the person. How

individuals categorize themselves and others is directly related to how they perceive

themselves and these others, which may strengthen those ingroup similarities and

outgroup differences, leading to stereotyping and prejudicial behavior (Brewer, 2007).

Structural Components of the Social Identity Approach

There are four types of social identity that need to be considered. The first is

person-based, which describes the ways in which aspects of the group are internalized by

the individual (Brewer, 2001). The second type of social identity is the relational social

identity exemplified by the ways a person might interact with others in a group context

that might suggest a level of group assimilation (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). The next type

of social identity is group-based, which allows for an individual to conceive of the self as

a member of one or more groups of three or more individuals (Brewer, 2001; Haslam et

al., 2022). Collective identities involve behaviors that promote a specific image of what

the salient group represents and is not just an internal representation of what it means to

be a member of group (Brewer, 2001).

Group membership and perception of both one’s own group as well as members

of others’ groups may influence how those groups and their members are evaluated as

both groups and as individuals. Preferences and biases may form towards an individual’s

own group as well as other groups, called the ingroup and the outgroup (Tajfel, 1982).

The way that these social identity processes work on a cognitive level may be described

through social categorization theory. When a person comes into contact with another

person they do not know, it is natural to categorize them based on what is relevant in that

social situation. The concepts of accessibility and fit of the category play a significant

role in the social situation (Oakes et al., 1994). Accessibility refers to the activation or

priming of a category (Hornsey, 2008). For example, if I was in a church and another

person entered, I might categorize them as “Christian,” whereas I might not necessarily

group them so if we met in a grocery store. Fit refers to the consistency of the observed

behavior or presentation of the individual with general stereotype of that category (Oakes

et al., 1994). To continue the example, if the person coming into church on a Sunday was

dressed appropriately for the setting and behaved in a stereotypical “Christian” way, I

might categorize them as Christian as opposed to a person walking in dressed in clothes

suggestive of nightlife and appearing slightly intoxicated, I might not categorize them as

“Christian.”

The way that this categorization takes place is through an association of the

individual(s) based on their perceptions, attitudes, thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors about

that person that allows them to determine how similar or different they are compared to

their own group (Hogg, 2018). This group of perceptions, attitudes, and observations

allow for the categorization of others while comparing them to group prototypes, which is

a key element of social categorization theory. The purpose of this categorization is for the

individual to quickly make sense of a specific social situation in a way that maximizes the

similarities between people within a group and the differences between one’s own group

and other groups (Hogg & Terry, 2000; Roccas & Brewer, 2002).

A social group around which identity forms may have a status within the larger

culture in which the individual lives. Certain racial groups, sexual identity groups, sport

team affiliations, or others may have a specific status either perceived or real. Members

of a group that perceive a lower status may internalize that negativity and desire to be part

of the preferred group rather than their own (Hogg & Terry, 2000). Children as young as

3 from non-White cultures have been shown to prefer White dolls over dolls that

represent their own identities (Gibson et al., 2015), and many homosexuals have actively

rejected that social identity in exchange for the status-preferred heteronormative one

(Adams, 2010; Boucai, 2022). Understanding how various social identities compete, and

are expressed or suppressed, is a core feature of this model and important to understand

how different social identities interact.

Recent Studies in Social Identity in Context of Sexual Identities

Hajek (2016) conducted a qualitative study that examined the experience of

selfidentified gay men in midlife, regarding the navigation of their social identities related

to sexuality and age. Tajfel and Turner’s (1986) social creativity concept was used to

conceptualize how gay men converted negative identity-related values into positive ones.

According to this aspect of social identity theory, individuals may use social creativity

strategies to create more positive social identities (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). This strategy

shifts from social identity enhancement through criticizing the outgroup to reinterpreting

or redefining the characteristics of the ingroup that may have been problematic (van

Bezouw et al., 2021). Hajek’s study included 40 participants between the ages of 40 and

53 with a mean age of 46.5 years. Semistructured, in-person interviews were conducted

concerning their experiences with aging as gay men in midlife, how their collective

identities have shifted, and how their self-categorizations have shifted. The researcher

identified three themes that are relevant to social identity theory.

The first theme related to identity conflict as the participants reported

misalignment between their sexual identity and their identity as men in midlife. This

theme relates to attempts to resolve the identity conflict between age and sexual identity.

This entailed releasing aspects of their social identity as gay men they found no longer

had utility or from which they perceived disenfranchisement. Many shifted their identity

in midlife from being gay and participating in what they saw as gay culture to being to

what Hajek refers to as being incidentally gay. These participants saw themselves as

being gay as a sexual orientation rather than reflecting a deeper engagement in gay

culture that impacted their perceived social identity. In doing so, they let go of the

selfcategorizations and self-stereotypes they engaged in as younger men, similar to what

Turner et al. (1987) referred to as depersonalizing from a self-stereotype, evidenced by

their disconnection from being interchangeable representatives of the social category to

self-defining in new ways (Hajek, 2016).

The second theme related to power and control, specifically to the participants’

locus of control. Many of the participants identified a shift from being externally to

internally focused and did so in an intentional manner. This was specifically related to the

realization in some that they did not need external validation from the larger gay culture

for validation. This shift occurred as participants reframed a formerly perceived negative

trait, such as getting grey hair, to a positive one. This change occurred for several

participants as the intersection of their sexuality identity converged with their identity as

men in midlife. This reflects the malleability of social identity as well as the importance

of salience.

The final theme identified the shift of perceiving negative outcomes from social

comparison to accepting, reframing, and transcending feelings of irrelevance and

stagnation for personal growth. Participants accomplished this through acceptance of

their age and not trying to maintain the definition of their social identity as they did when

they were younger. Accepting their age and becoming a mentor to younger gay men was

a meaningful method for some. Redefining their social identity was also key to others as

they moved from a nightlife-based concept to one they saw as being more age

appropriate. This study demonstrated the relevance of social identity and social

categorization related to sexual identity.

Coker and Kahlow (2021) conducted a quantitative study to explore the concept

of group commitment and its relationship with social identity. The social identity being

studied was sexual identity and was evaluated using usage of a smartphone application

for men to meet other men for the purposes of sex. The study included 102 adult male

participants who confirmed that they used GPS-based applications to meet other men for

sexual purposes. Participants completed a survey to assess their motivations to use these

apps, frequency of app usage, commitment to the group, and sexual identity commitment.

The results found a positive correlation between group commitment and sexual identity

commitment. This suggests that sexual identity is a category of social identity and

supports the theoretical argument that individual identity is strengthened through the

experience of connectedness (Tajfel, 1978). This study provided support for the

theoretical concepts related to sexual identity as well as the importance of salience also

shown in Hajek’s study (2016).

Van Droogenbroeck and Spruyt (2020) conducted a quantitative study to explore

the effects of social pressure on Muslim and Christian youth regarding religious

conformity and antigay prejudice. The study was conducted with 2,765 public school

students, 1,840 Christian and 925 Muslim, between the ages of 14 and 23 living in

Belgium. The questionnaire included measures for antigay sentiment, perceived social

pressure for religious conformity, religious identity and behavior, and school-level

variables to identity differences within school. In both Christian and Muslim groups,

higher levels of religiosity predicted higher levels of perceived social pressure to

religiously conform. Likewise, in both groups perceived social pressure for religious

conformity also predicted antigay sentiment and was fully mediated by the strength of

self-reported religiosity for Muslim, and partially mediated for Christians (Van

Droogenbroeck & Spruyt, 2020). This mediation and the effect that the strength of

religiosity, and the associated social identity, plays in antigay sentiment suggested that

the perceived social pressure to conform strengthened individual religious identification

which resulted in increased anti-gay sentiment.

The results from Van Droogenbroeck and Spruyt lends support to the concept that

the salience of the social identity, in this case the religious identity, can lead individuals

to attend to that identity, which leads them to behave in accordance with that prototype

(Hogg, 2016). This is particularly apt if that religious identity is in a superior social

position and perceives receiving preferential treatment as that increases group identity

salience (Rowatt et al., 2014). They also may be more prone to view others, in this case

members of the gay and lesbian community, as prototypes of their own group rather than

individuals (Turner, 1991; Van Droogenbroeck & Spruyt, 2020). It becomes clear from

all three studies discussed in this section that the salience of social identities is important

as it relates to which social norms become prevalent. The malleability of social identities

within changing salience as demonstrated across studies is also an important

consideration that I review in the next section.

Recent Studies in Social Identity in Context of Religious Identities

In a systematic review, Ysseldyk et al. (2010) examined empirical studies related

to religion as identity. Religious identity involves the social aspect of being in community

of fellow believers and includes specific behaviors such as attending services, fellowship

with other members, and prayer. It also involves adopting specific beliefs such as the

existence of a deity or the accuracy of an ancient text. The belief that the religion one

follows is the truth is a key component to religious identity and impacts outgroup

perception because if one group has the truth, the other cannot (Kinnvall, 2004; Ysseldyk

et al., 2010). Religious identity also involves the alleviation of uncertainty through the

processes of specific beliefs, which can be seen as motivating and reinforcing of those

beliefs (Hogg et al., 2010). Exploring the patterns of this motivation in relation to social

identity is the purpose of this article.

Ysseldyk et al. (2010) reviewed several studies related to intergroup conflict

particularly related to the comparison between ethnic identity and religious identity. The

authors discussed the distinction between these two identity types related to conflict

regarding motivations. Ethnic identities, not being changeable, do not typically involve

interpersonal conflicts aimed toward convincing others to join them, rather to defend

against an outgroup or get rid of them altogether. Religious identity is seen by the authors

as more comprehensive than others as it contains elements of meaning, belonging,

controllability, and well-being in the physical and spiritual sense. Religious identity

conflict is seen as being a battle for the mind rather than over the body considering that

the power of the group is determined in part with the number of adherents and members

of the social group (Ysseldyk et al., 2010).

The authors made the point that multiple identities are often involved with

religious and nationalistic identities (Ysseldyk et al., 2010). Salience of multiple identities

was found in a variety of situations. For example, religious identities among Christian

and Jewish students as well as Muslims were more salient in the days following the 9/11

attack. The perception of threat to the social group also increases the salience to that

social identity. The authors concluded that religious identity may be a source of both

comfort and threat (Ysseldyk et al., 2010).

Ysseldyk et al. (2010) also examined religious social identity involving extreme

beliefs. Regarding fundamentalism and its relationship with social identity, several

factors were identified. These include dualism, authoritarian structures, selectivity in

belief, and confidence in God’s will, known as millennialism. Perhaps the most impactful

on identity and behavior is the factor of reactivity, particularly toward the secular world

(Herriot, 2007; Ysseldyk et al., 2010). Reactivity in this context may refer to views of the

outgroup, which would include those outside of their particular religion or denomination,

or perhaps even individual organization or place of worship. There are also elements of

dimension that were identified such as seeing others within their larger ingroup as

insufficiently devout or religious enough (Herriot, 2007; Ysseldyk et al., 2010). The

authors suggested that this may lead to increased fundamentalism as more and more

people become part of the outgroup and increasing perceptions of threat to their own

social identity (Ysseldyk et al., 2010).

Relationship Between Theoretical Orientations and the Current Study

The present research was designed to determine the extent to which religious

transition, religiosity, outness, and perceived social support predict internalized

homophobia. The social identity approach, which includes social identity and social

categorization theories, explains the ways humans conceptualize various social identities

as well as how they are expressed in group contexts. The religious residue theoretical

perspective helps to explain the retention of beliefs, thoughts, and emotions from a social

identity that is no longer endorsed or maintained. Internalized homophobia may reflect a

similar maintenance of belief that is inconsistent with current belief endorsement.

Considering both of these theories, greater understanding of identity change may impact

understanding of internalized homophobia.

Literature Review Related to Key Variables and/or Concepts

Internalized Homophobia

Internalized Homophobia and Terminology

Homophobia has been defined in various ways over the past 5 decades. Weinberg

(1972) may have coined the term homophobia by defining it was a fear experienced by

heterosexuals being in close proximity to homosexuals, as well as encompassing

selfhatred on the part of homosexuals towards themselves or their own identified group.

Two decades later, Haaga (1991) considered homophobia as encompassing any negative

attitude, belief, or behavior toward homosexuals. The shift from a fear-based term

suggested by the use of the word phobia, toward an inclusion of negative belief and

behavior has been considered problematic by some researchers.

Meyer (1995) defined internalized homophobia as the redirection of negative

attitudes of a society inwardly. Understanding the mechanisms of this redirection, and the

social motivators have been the goals of researchers for the past several decades. Several

researchers concluded that anger and disgust were the primary factors in the negative

responses toward homosexuals rather than fear (Bernat et al., 2001; McGonigal et al.,

2023). Others maintained that fear was the central factor (Green, 2005). Homophobia is

not a true phobia, and those who experience it may not necessarily want it to change

(Herek, 2015). In this section, I will discuss internalized homophobia and stigma.

Sociologist Erving Gottman described stigma as noticing and reacting to an

undesirable difference (Goffman, 1963, as cited in Stafford & Scott, 1986). Sexual stigma

was defined by Herek et al. (2009) as the societal-level negative attitudes and opinions

that result in the lower status and diminished power and influence of those who endorse

non-heterosexist identities and communities. The negative regard towards sexual

minorities is a cultural factor as it is shared knowledge (Herek, 2009). A homosexual, or

non-heterosexual, orientation begins to develop prior to puberty in most children and

involves a sense of being different (Isay, 1991). The vast majority of homosexual

individuals were raised by heterosexuals and socialized to also be heterosexuals,

potentially adding to that sense of difference. Important factors in internalized sexual

stigma are the desire or pressure to be heterosexual (Herek, 2004), a desire to not have

their sexual orientation disclosed, and a discomfort with same-sex sexual behaviors

(Newcomb & Mustanski, 2010). Identification as a sexual minority during an individual’s

development works against the socialization received since early childhood, creating an

inner conflict. This conflict goes largely without support because unlike racial or other

minority groups, there is more likely to be an absence of the self-protecting and affirming

collective experience shared by one’s family (Meyer & Dean, 1998). For example, a

Latinx child growing up in a predominantly White neighborhood may feel culturally

isolated, yet has her family who is also Latinx to provide support and a sense of collective

identity that is distinct from the larger culture that surrounds them.

Internalized Homophobia and Social Norms

Heterosexuality is the assumed norm in most cultures and is generally taken as a

given until an individual demonstrates or states otherwise, a norm that is socialized from

the start (Wilkinson & Kitzinger, 1994). In many ways, this heteronormativity promotes

traditionalism and conformity, with heterosexuality being the preferred norm (Oswald et

al., 2005). Herek et al. (2009) described homonegative attitudes and beliefs as being

manifested in three major ways. Sexual stigma may be experienced behaviorally in the

form of ostracization, shunning, overt discrimination, violence, and other means, which

demonstrated enacted stigma. Felt stigma may also be experienced due to the societal

norm of heterosexuality resulting in the change of behavior or self-presentation to better

conform to this norm despite the lack of alignment with the individuals’ authentic

persona. The third manifestation of sexual stigma is its internalization. This

internalization may occur in homosexuals as the negative concept of homosexuality held

by society is incorporated into the self as part of the individual’s self-concept. That

negative concept results in an inwardly directed attitude resulting in self-prejudice.

Heterosexuals may also experience internalization of sexual stigma as the societal beliefs

become outwardly directed attitudes (Herek et al., 2009).

Primary Studies in Internalized Homophobia

An early study on internalized homophobia was conducted by Meyer (1995). In

this study, Meyer identified three stressors that contribute to psychological distress in gay

men which included internalized homophobia, perceived stigma, and prejudicial events

which include discrimination and violence. It was hypothesized that each of these

stressors would show an independent effect on the five identified models of distress:

demoralization, guilt, suicidal ideation, AIDS-related stress responses, and sexual

problems. It was further hypothesized that the combined effects of these stressors would

be greater than the individual effects. This study was conducted using data from a

population of gay men living in New York in 1985 participating in a longitudinal study.

The sample was 741 gay men who were interviewed in 1987. The independent variables

of internalized homophobia and stigma were measures via validated instruments, the IHP

and the Stigma Scale respectively. Prejudicial events were recorded by self-report of

antigay violence or antigay discrimination. The dependent variables of psychological

distress dimensions were measured through the Psychiatric Epidemiology Research

Instrument (PERI). The demographic variable of identity was also measured through a

Likert scale assessment of outness and gay community participation (Meyer, 1995).

The results showed that there was a significant association between all five

dimensions of psychological distress and internalized homophobia. Stigma and

prejudicial events were significantly associated with four of the dimensions, sex problems

not being predicted by these stressors. This study demonstrated the association between

internalized homophobia and five measured domains of psychological distress leading to

the conclusion that internalized homophobia impacts the mental health of gay men. This

study is limited due to the cross-sectional nature, which prevents causal conclusions, the

limitation to gay men, the time in which it was conducted, as well as the place (Meyer,

1995).

Herek et al. (1998) further investigated internalized homophobia in both gay men

and lesbians, while attempting to identify its correlates in their sample. The purpose of

the study was to further understand the correlates to better operationalize the construct.

To do so, Herek et al. utilized a measure, the IHP scale, which focuses on the

dissatisfaction with being homosexual and desiring a heterosexual orientation. By

eliminating other phenomena such as outness from the measure, they hoped to be able to

operationalize the construct more accurately by eliminating a potential confounding

variable. They sought to explain the relationship between internalized homophobia and

psychological well-being, identity integration, and community perception.

The participants included 75 women and men who identified as gay, lesbian, and

bisexual. They were recruited for participation at an LGBTQ+ street fair in Sacramento,

California. There were four variables of interest. The first was internalized homophobia

which was measured via the IHP scale. Psychological well-being, which included

depression symptoms, demoralization, and self-esteem, all of which were measured via

validated instruments. The next variable was disclosure of sexual orientation, which was

measured through the means of three items assessing the level of outness to current

heterosexual friends, heterosexual friends they had prior to disclosure, and heterosexual

acquaintances. The perceptions of community variable were measured through a 10-item

measure of collective self-esteem measuring a participant’s perception of the LGBTQ+

community, and a 7-item measure of perceived stigma in the local community. The final

variable was developmental milestones, which recorded the ages at which the reached

certain milestones such as being attracted to members of the same sex, first sexual

experience with a same-sex partner, when they first acknowledged their sexual

orientation to themselves, and when they disclosed their homosexuality to another person

(Herek et al., 1998).

The results of the study showed a gender difference with men scoring

significantly higher than women on the internalized homophobia measure, and bisexuals

scored higher than gay men. Internalized homophobia was not shown to have any

significant associations with the development milestones, and further analyses were not

conducted for this variable. It was shown that higher levels of internalized homophobia

were significant associated with more depression and more demoralization for both men

and women. There were gender differences in the associations between internalized

homophobia and self-esteem with men showing a significant association and less so for

females. This indicates a possible gender difference in the relationship between

internalized homophobia in women compared with men (Herek et al., 1998).

Herek et al. (2009) investigated further the correlates and social psychological

factors in internalized homophobia, which they described as internalized sexual stigma.

This study utilized Herek’s (2009) sexual stigma conceptualization that includes enacted

stigma, which are behaviors such as ostracism or use of antigay language, felt stigma

referring to the expectations of stigma in social situations that may lead to behavioral

changes in self-presentation or constriction, and internalization, which refers to aligning

one’s self-concept with the stigmatizing attitudes of society. Viewing self-stigma, or

homophobia, as an attitude, Herek et al. explored the relationship between internalized

homophobia and self-esteem and its subsequent relationship with psychological distress.

This was explored through an analysis of previously unpublished data collected by the

researchers. This data was a sample of 2,259 adult gay men, lesbian women, and

bisexuals of both gender identities, with 1,321 of them included for additional data

collection 1 year after the initial contact and study completion (Herek et al., 2009).

The first exploration from the data involved the empirical support for the

conceptual model described briefly above. A series of ANOVA analyses using the

baseline internalized homophobia scores showed that there were higher levels of

selfstigma among males, religious participants, and those who identified as politically

conservative. The next area of investigation concerned the relationship between beliefs

and self-stigma. Two scales were used to assess beliefs, one for beliefs about the costs

and benefits of being nonheterosexual, and one for essentialist beliefs related to sexual

stigma. Herek et al. (2009) used the example for an essentialist belief that being gay,

lesbian, or bisexual is unchangeable. The results showed that essentialist beliefs were

positively associated with less stigma compared with the belief that sexual orientation is a

choice. Further analyses also showed the perceptions of the cost and benefits of the

participants’ sexual orientation predicted internalized homophobia scores, and that the

variance in self-stigma was accounted for these belief variables (Herek et al., 2009).

The results also showed effects related to affect and behavior. The relationship

between affect and self-stigma were examined by using two items from the Collective

Self-Esteem Scale, which showed that a less positive affect related to belonging to the

LGB community was significantly associated with participant negative self-attitudes,

which signifies that those participants who had more negative attitudes about themselves

also tended to have less positive feelings toward the LGB community. Behaviorally, the

researchers used levels of outness to five categories of non-family members to measure

associations with internalized homophobia. These results showed that homosexual

participants whose sexual orientation was not known to either parent had significantly

higher scores on the IHP-R compared with participants who had disclosed their sexual

orientation to one or both parents. When belief, affect, and behavioral variables were

regressed together, 22.5% of the variance in internalized homophobia scores was

explained (Herek et al., 2009). Overall, the findings also demonstrated increased

internalized homophobia or sexual stigma among bisexual men compared with either gay

men or lesbian women, which is consistent with the gender differences identified in

Herek et al. (1998).

Internalized Homophobia and Christianity

Traditional Christianity has taught that homosexuality is immoral and sinful

(DeYoung, 2015; Moore, 2003). These moral and religious lessons are taught to some

Christian children often at times prior to the development of their sexuality. Considering

the focus of this study is the intersection of religious and sexual identities, internalized

homophobia is a strong variable through which to attempt to measure this potential

relationship. Wilkerson et al. (2012) explored the relationship between religiosity,

internalized homophobia, and outness. This study sampled a total of 2,716 men who have

sex with men (MSM) with an intentional oversampling of those with an ethnic/minority

background to achieve a balanced representation of different groups. A final subsample

of 1,165 men were included based on their identification as Christian. Measures in this

quantitative study included current religious affiliation within Christianity, religiosity,

internalized homonegativity, outness, and demographic variables such as age, education

level, and race/ethnicity. Wilkerson et al. hypothesized that MSM who were affiliated

with Evangelical Protestant faith would have higher internalized homonegativity scores

and lower levels of outness compared with other groups based on the fundamentalist

nature of these groups as seen in previous research (Herek, 1994).

The results showed demographic differences related to race/ethnicity and

Christian denomination with Latinos being more associated with Roman Catholicism,

White respondents affiliated with mainstream Protestantism, and Black participants more

likely to identify with Evangelical Protestant groups. Evangelical Protestant participants

also were younger, less educated, and had a higher correlation with religiosity as well as

internalized homonegativity compared with Catholic or mainline Protestant participants.

The results showed significant differences between Christian affiliations regarding the

relationship between religiosity and internalized homophobia. There was a positive

correlation identified between increased religiosity and increased internalized

homonegativity in the Evangelical Protestant group that was moderately significant. For

the Catholic and Mainline Protestant groups, there was not a significant correlation

between religiosity and internalized homonegativity. The main conclusion Wilkerson et

al. (2012) reported was related to the differences in correlations between religiosity and

internalized homophobia between Christian group affiliations with the more

fundamentalist groups having higher correlations than Catholic or Mainstream Protestant

groups.

Szymanski and Carretta (2020) continued this line of inquiry by exploring the

potential mediators and moderators of the relationship between religious-based sexual

stigma and mental health outcomes. The researchers proposed a moderation mediation

model to explain this relationship. It was hypothesized that internalized heterosexist

beliefs and religious belief struggle would mediate the relationship between

religiousbased sexual stigma and psychological distress. They also predicted that

religiosity would moderate the direct relationship between religious-based sexual stigma

and psychological distress with higher levels of religiosity leading to greater effect on the

relationship. There was also a predicted stronger indirect effect of religious-based sexual

stigma on psychological distress through internalized heterosexist beliefs religious

struggle when religiosity was rated highly compared with when it was low (Szymanski &

Carretta,

2020).

The study included a sample of 193 adults who identified as being gay or lesbian

and confirmed a religious identity. The variables of interest included internalized

heterosexism, religious-based sexual stigma, religious struggle, religiosity, psychological

distress, and wellbeing. All variables were measured through validated instruments with

the except of religious-based sexual stigma for which a 6-item scale was created for the

purposes of this study. Internalized heterosexism was measured using the IRP – Revised,

leading to the conclusion that the variables of internalized heterosexism and internalized

homophobia are equivalent in the context of this study. The results demonstrated a

significant and positive relationship between religiosity and internalized homophobia.

Similar to the findings of Herek et al. (2009), the results of this study (Szymanski

& Carretta, 2020) showed significant correlations between being bisexual and less

psychological wellbeing. This further indicates that sexual and gender identities are

significant variables evidenced by the researchers controlling for these variables along

with age in subsequent analyses. The results confirmed the first hypothesis that both

internalized heterosexism and religious struggle would mediate the relationship between

religious-based social stigma and psychological distress. However, while religiosity did

not moderate the relationships between religious-based sexual stigma and psychological

distress, it did moderate the relationship between religious-based sexual stigma and

internalized heterosexism. The indirect effect of religious-based sexual stigma on

psychological distress moderated by religiosity was also confirmed. This study confirmed

the findings of Herek et al.’s (2009) framework of the relationship between sexual stigma

and psychological wellbeing in LGB populations. This study also demonstrated the

pathways between stigma and distress through the moderating variable of religiosity. This

study is limited in its generalizability due to the recruitment of LGB participants through

religiously associated organizations which may have produced a population more attuned

to religion than might a more secular sample (Szymanski & Carretta, 2020).

Leach and Gore (2022) sought to explore the experience of internalized

homonegativity within the individual and a societal context. Working off studies such as

Herek et al. (2009) and Szymanski and Carretta (2020), which explored the associations

between religion and internalized homophobia, Leach and Gore sought to investigate

variables such as societal threat and individual-level contributors such as cultural

tightness that might contribute to religiosity on the individual level. The researchers

predicted in this study that higher levels of societal threats and individual values of

tightness would predict a more orthodox, or fundamentalist, religious orientation, and

both an intrinsic and extrinsic orientation. Tightness refers to the strength of societal

norms and how punitive a society might respond to norm violations (Gelfand et al.,

2006). The tightness of a society may impact the behavior and/or beliefs of an individual

within that society due to the internalization of social norms and the consequences of

violating them (Leach & Gore, 2022). The researchers also predicted that higher levels of

orthodox, intrinsic, and extrinsic religious orientation would be positively correlated with

homonegative beliefs while a quest orientation toward religion and having a secular

orientation would negatively predict homonegativity.

The results validated the prediction that societal threats predicted that participants

would endorse orthodoxy/fundamentalist approaches to religion and would negatively

predict secularism. The hypothesis that tightness would predict an orthodox religious

orientation was not confirmed. In the presence of societal threat, orthodox, extrinsic,

quest and secularism all predicted homonegativity. This study demonstrated the

relationship between societal factors and religious beliefs which then influence

homonegativity. When an individual experiences or perceives a threat to society or social

norms, tightness may result as demonstrated in this study. Significant evidence was

demonstrated connection religious orthodoxy or fundamentalism with homonegativity

(Leach & Gore, 2022).

Internalized Sexual Stigma in Recent Research

Salvati et al. (2023) investigated the extent to which internalized homonegativity,

a positive LGB positive identity, gender, and traditional masculinity/femininity would

predict self-perceptions of leadership effectiveness. It was predicted that participants with

high levels on internalized homonegativity would decrease self-perceptions of leadership

effectiveness while high levels of positive LGB identity and adherence to traditional

gender values would increase self-perceptions of leadership effectiveness. A total of 449

gay men, lesbian women, and bisexual participants of both genders completed the online

questionnaire. To measure internalized sexual stigma the researchers employed the

27item measure Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identity Scale (LGBIS). The variable of

LGB positive identity was measured within the LGBIS using the Identity Affirmation

threeitem subscale. Traditional gender role attitudes were measured using the 6-item

Traditional Masculinity and Femininity Scale (TMF). The dependent variable of

leadership self-effectiveness was measured using an adapted form of the 10-item

leadership effectiveness scale (EFF), that was previously validated for gay and lesbian

leaders.

The results confirmed the hypothesis that internalized sexual stigma is negatively

correlated with leadership self-effectiveness (Salvati et al., 2023). This is consistent with

prior research (Salvati et al., 2021) and links the internalization of sexual stigma with

perceptions of participants’ leadership skills. This is consistent with Herek et al.’s (2009)

concept that sexual stigma is perceived then internalized. The results also showed that

traditional male/female roles were positively associated with leadership self-perception

only in male participants within this regression model. This is consistent with the concept

that gay men who internalize sexual stigma may compensate by embracing more

traditional gender roles to enhance their positive leadership perception (Salvati et al.,

2023).

Lefevor et al. (2021) explored internalized sexual stigma within the context of

religiosity and religious experience. In this quantitative study, the relationships between

internalized homonegativity, religiosity, and depression were explored. Lefevor et al.

proposed that religiousness would be negatively correlated with depression and that

internalized homonegativity would moderate this relationship. The third RQ related to the

operationalization of internalized homonegativity resulting from religious organization

messaging. The study was conducted with 260 participants all of whom endorsed having

a sexual identity other than heterosexual and 73% were raised with some form of

religious engagement (Lefevor et al., 2021). The study measured personal religiousness

using three scales to assess service attendance, religious commitment, and positive

religious coping. Contextual religiousness with assessed on the domains of current family

religiousness and how religious their families were while growing up. The Internalized

Homonegativity Inventory (IHI) was used to measure this variable, which includes three

subscales: gay affirmation, morality of homosexuality, and personal homonegativity.

The sample in this study reported moderate to low religiousness. Hierarchical

regressions were run for all three RQs with internalized homophobia being regressed for

each separate subscale discussed above. The subscale of gay affirmation was not found to

be significantly correlated with depression. The morality of homosexuality subscales

showed positive correlations on religiousness measures. The results also showed that

religiosity was correlated with greater depression when same-sex behavior was

considered immoral, and less correlated when it was not. Self-stigma moderated the

experience of depression (Lefevor et al., 2021).

The personal homonegativity subscale demonstrated significant correlations with

depression in each of the five models related to religiousness. In the model regressing

personal homonegativity and current family religiousness, a stronger relationship was

identified. The results showed that when the participant’s family was more religious there

was a stronger relationship with personal homonegativity compared with when the

participant’s family was less religious. This study demonstrated the moderating effect of

internalized homonegativity on the relationship between religiousness and depression.

This study confirmed Salvati et al.’s (2023) findings that internalized homonegativity

impacts the inner experience of the individual as well as being impacted by other

variables, particularly those related to religious identity. The correlations between

negative self-assessment such as leadership (Salvati et al., 2023) or negative experiences

such as depression (Lefevor et al., 2021) demonstrate the importance of exploring this

variable further, and particularly how it relates to sexual and religious identities.

Perceived Social Support

Being a part of a social network or circle, large or small, is a part of the human

experience. Social support may be defined as the experience or perception of being cared

for, supported, and valued by others within mutually supportive and affirming

relationships (Cohen & Wills, 1985). Social support may be expressed in three distinct

ways. Support may be provided in the form of information, such as informing a

nonheterosexual friend of a support group and community resources that might be

helpful. Support might also be instrumental in the form of action, such as accompanying

that person to a support group or financial assistance to help pay rent if they had issues

with housing. That individual might also receive emotional support in the form of being

affirmed by another person who demonstrates in word and deed that they are inherently

valued and loved (Taylor, 2011).

There are significant differences between enacted and perceived social support.

Enacted social support describes specific quality words and behaviors that an individual

experienced by their social support network (Sarason et al., 1990). Perceived social

support describes the individual’s perception that such or similar support would be

available if sought (Haber et al., 2007). The correlation between enacted support and

perceived support is high, approximately r = .30 (Lakey et al., 1994). In a more recent

study, Haber et al. (2007) found a Pearson correlation between received support and

perceived support of r = .32. A subsequent study found correlations of r = .34 for

emotional support and r = .36 for instrumental support and perceived support (Melrose et

al., 2015).

Lorenzi et al. (2015) explored the potential relationship of perceived social

support, internalized homophobia and mental health within a larger study. In this

particular study, the researchers used a sample of participants in Italy and Belgium for the

specific reason that Italy was perceived to be more of a heterosexually normative country,

and these differing sociocultural environments would impact experiences of internalized

homophobia (Lorenzi et al., 2015). It was hypothesized that levels of internalized

homophobia would be negatively correlated with perceived social support, which would

suggest a moderating influence between internalized homophobia and good mental

health. The sample of 86 Italian adults and 108 Belgian adults comprised the participant

sample. To measure perceived social support, participants completed the

Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) in addition to other

instruments to measure mental health and internalized homophobia (Lorenzi et al., 2015).

As hypothesized, the results demonstrated a negative correlation between perceived

social support and internalized homophobia with little difference between the two

nations. This indicates the importance of perceived social support and impacts on mental

health when individuals experiencing internalized homophobia do not perceive they have

access to this support (Lorenzi et al., 2015). This finding also aligns with Pan et al.

(2022), who found a significant negative correlation between perceived social support

and depression and anxiety in a sample of gay men and lesbians in China, which I will

discuss below.

Pan et al. (2022) explored the relationship between perceived social support in

homosexuals and mental health. Including this study demonstrates the cross-cultural

nature of this variable as Lorenzi et al. (2015) found support for this relationship in

western populations and Pan et al. utilized a population in a collectivist culture, which

values filial piety. The researchers hypothesized that self-efficacy and perceived social

support would negatively predict depression and anxiety. They also predicted that

selfefficacy would mediate the relationship between perceived social support and mental

health. The study included 197 individuals who identified as being homosexual. The

results confirmed the hypothesis that perceived social support would negatively predict

both anxiety and depression. The researchers also found that self-efficacy mediated the

relationship between perceived social support and depression, yet not with anxiety (Pan et

al., 2022). The results of this study and Lorenzi et al. (2015) support the suggestion that

perceived social support is a protective factor in positive mental health for LGB

individuals regardless of culture.

VanderWaal et al. (2017) explored perceived social support within a religious

context. This study explored the relationship of rejection/acceptance of LGBT

community members within the Seventh Day Adventist church and social support with

various mental health outcomes. To measure social support, the MSPSS was utilized

within three categories: support from friends, support from family, and support from

professional caregivers, clergy, or the religious congregation. Results showed that family

and clergy were less available and supportive compared with friends (VanderWaal et al.,

2017). Families in the study were perceived to be available for emotional support in this

population at a rate of 25%. The relationship between social support and religious belief

was also a factor as 82.4% of respondents endorsed the difficulty parents had been

supportive of their LGBT children due to those beliefs. Almost two-third of the parents

actively prayed for God to change their child’s sexual orientation or identity

(VanderWaal et al., 2017). The difficulty these individuals had in offering social support

to their children due to a sexual identity that ran counter to their religious identity has

been shown to contribute to negative mental health outcomes in this population

(D’augelli et al., 2008; Parra et al., 2018; VanderWaal et al., 2017).

Outness

Outness refers to the degree to which individuals are open about their sexual

orientation and/or identity. In many ways, this concept is peculiar to sexual identity due

to its hidden nature. Being a stigmatized identity in many societies, LGBTQ+ individuals

face a decision and conflict over whether to reveal their true selves regarding sexuality

(Suppes et al., 2021). Carrion and Lock (1997) proposed a model of sexual identity

development and consolidation that involved eight distinct stages. These stages begin

with inner discovery and exploration of sexual attraction and identity, early acceptance,

creating congruence between sexual identity and self-concept, further acceptance, further

integration with self-esteem and concept, identity integration, and social identity

integration (Carrion & Lock, 1997). Self-acceptance was identified as a crucial

component of sexual identity development (D’aguelli et al., 2008). “Coming out,” or

acknowledging one’s sexual identity or orientation to others, is a continuous rather than a

singular occurrence (Legate et al., 2017; Mohr & Fassinger, 2000) and may occur in any

of these stages not only at the point of social identity integration. Vincke and Bolton

(1996) described this as the socially visible portion of the development of

nonheteronormative feelings, thoughts, or behaviors.

Frost and Meyer (2009) sought to distinguish internalized homophobia and

outness as separate constructs. The researchers hypothesized that internalized

homophobia would positively predict relationship problems independent of other

variables including outness. They also hypothesized that higher levels of internalized

homophobia would correlate with lower levels of outness and LGBTQ+ community

involvement. This study analyzed data collected as part of Project Stride, which was a

large study conducted between 2004 and 2005 in New York City. The data analyzed for

this study included 396 LGB adults who completed instruments related to internalized

homophobia, utilizing the IHP, and outness, which used a 4-point scale to assess levels of

disclosure to family, heterosexual friends, LGB friends, and co-workers. A variety of

mental health factors were also assessed, including depression, relationship problems, and

sex problems. The results confirmed the positive relationship between internalized

homophobia and relationship problems. Outness was shown to be negatively associated

with internalized homophobia yet was not a significant predictor of relationship issues,

demonstrating the distinctness between the constructs of internalized homophobia and

outness (Frost & Meyer, 2009).

Suppes et al. (2021) investigated the relationship between openness, subjective

well-being, and mental health outcomes. The first part of the study used the 2010 Social

Justice and Sexuality survey, and specifically 362 participants of that sample who

identified as LGBTQ+. Measuring outness was accomplished by the single self-report

question “How many of your {Family/Friends/Co-workers/people online} are you out

to?” This single item measure reported a Cronbach’s alpha of .85 (Suppes et al., 2021).

The results found a significant and direct effect of openness on subjective well-being.

Similar to Sowe et al. (2014), Suppes et al. found that the effect of openness on subjective

wellbeing was facilitated through the community integration that openness may lead to.

Openness, leading to greater community integration, may increase wellbeing while at the

same making the participants more aware of discrimination based on their sexual identity

(Suppes et al., 2021).

The second study reported in Suppes et al. (2021) utilized data from Project

Stride, which was conducted between February 2004 and January 2005 in New York

City, which was also utilized by Frost and Meyer (2009). The sample from Project Stride

that was utilized in this study was 396 nonheterosexual adults. This study sought to

replicate the mediation process of the first study and deepen the understanding of the

perception of discrimination within the context of openness and mental health outcomes.

In this study, openness was measured with the mean score of the response to each of the

categories of the question “How much are you out of the closet to the following groups of

people [family/GLB friends/straight friends/co-workers/healthcare providers].” The

results of this study showed a positive direct effect of openness on both group and

personal-level discrimination (Suppes et al., 2021). This suggests that openness led to a

greater awareness which was also impacted by the participant’s identity importance,

while also experiencing more discrimination (Suppes et al., 2021). However, the study

also found that those who experienced greater integration with their community

experienced better mental health, while those who perceived more discrimination had

worse mental health reports.

Sowe et al. (2014) explored the factors involved in internalized sexual stigma and

distress with outness and religious identity as potential predictor variables. This study

surveyed 579 participants in Australia who identified as either Christian or nonreligious.

Variables of interest in the study included outness, a sense of self, Christian religious

identification, and internalized homonegativity. Outness was measured using the Outness

Inventory, and it was hypothesized that being less open about sexuality and having less

contact with other LGB individuals would predict higher levels of homonegativity and

distress in the participants who identified as LGB themselves. The results did show that

higher levels of outness predicted less distress and internalized homonegativity while the

connectedness factor only predicted less personal internalized homonegativity (Sowe et

al., 2014). The relationship between outness and connectedness with members of the

community was demonstrated because it would require openness to engage with members

of a community experiencing stigma. This study confirms the relationship between

outness, and internalized sexual stigma shown in Frost and Meyer (2009), endorsing its

usefulness as a potentially important variable contributing to the experience of

internalized sexual stigma.

Riggle et al. (2017) sought to include the psychological factor of authenticity to

the associations between outness and depression related to perceived stress. The

researchers proposed a model that considered outness, concealment of sexual identity,

and authenticity as independent contributors to psychological well-being and distress.

This model was proposed to capture the social component of disclosure of outness as well

as the internal context of identity. In this study, the researchers hypothesized that higher

levels of psychological well-being and lower levels of stress and depression would be

predicted by higher levels of outness and LGB-related authenticity scores, while LGB

identify concealment scores would predict the opposite. The participants for this study

included 373 adults who identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Outness was measured

through the use of the Outness Inventory (OI). The variable of disclosure was measured

through five categories of individuals identified in the OI with participants being asked to

identify a percentage between 0 and 100% to which they have disclosed their sexual

identity to that category of people. Concealment, LGB authenticity, psychological

wellbeing, and depressive symptoms were all measured through the use of previously

validated instruments (Riggle et al., 2017).

The results showed a high correlation between outness and disclosure leading the

researchers to use only the outness variable in their regression models. The results of the

regression analyses showed that outness was significantly associated with the dependent

mental health variables in a model with race/ethnicity and education level. Outness was

not a significant predictor of perceived stress or psychological well-being when regressed

in models with concealment or authenticity. Outness did significantly predict depression

with increased levels of outness being associated with increased levels of depression

(Riggle et al., 2017). The researchers noted the distinction that outness and concealment

are associated and may be passive or active. Passive concealment may involve an LGB

individual allowing a person to assume they are heterosexual, or active whereby an

individual may correct a false assumption about identity. This study suggested

distinctions in the dynamics of outness beyond the binary conceptualization of this

variable.

Religiosity

Religiosity can be defined as having and/or demonstrating a belief in a deity, as

well as participating in both social and solitary activities related to that belief such as

worship services, reading holy book(s), and faith-based community engagement

(Adeyemo & Adeleye, 2008; Sedikides, 2010). Definitions have also included the degree

to which an individual adheres to religious beliefs and uses them in life in making daily

decisions (Worthington et al., 2003). Religiosity has been shown to have positive mental

health benefits, which include greater life satisfaction (Bergan & McConatha, 2001;

Sholihin et al., 2022), lower levels of depression (Paine & Sandage, 2017) and other

factors (AbdAleati et al., 2016). These results are not homogenous, however. Various

socio-cultural contexts may be impactful in this experience, including the religious

predominance of the community or nation, with the mental health benefits decreasing or

becoming negative where religious beliefs are not as highly valued (Stavrova, 2015).

Members of the LGBT communities may have heterogeneous experiences with religiosity

that may impact their mental health experiences and with internalized sexual stigma

(Boppana & Gross, 2019; Gibbs & Goldbach, 2015).

Religiosity is a multifactoral concept rather than a single entity. Several models of

religiosity began to be developed in the 1960s attempting to conceptualize this construct

that included dimensions such as cognitive, cultural, creedal, and devotional (Fukuyama,

1961); as well experiential, ritualistic, ideological, intellectual, and consequential (Glock,

1962). Issues have been identified with these models however, including a lack of

validity based on the small, nonrepresentative study sample sizes, and not fully

addressing potential changes in religiosity across the lifespan (Hayward, 2021).

Subsequent models have been developed that seek to address these concerns and test a

comprehensive model.

Glock’s (1962) original model described the dimensions of experiential,

ritualistic, ideological, intellectual, and consequential religiosity. Subsequent researchers

(Huber, 2003; Wimberley, 1989) did not find this model sufficiently explanatory of how

important religion was to respondents of an instrument utilizing single-item scales (Huber

& Huber, 2012). Huber (2003) reformulated Glock’s model into five similar, but new

dimensions. The intellectual dimension is the first Huber identified, which refers to the

ability of a religious person to describe their beliefs regarding religion, faith, and spiritual

beliefs. Ideology is the social expectation that a religious individual will hold specific

beliefs regarding a transcendent reality and how they relate to this reality. The dimension

of public practice refers to membership in religious communities and participation in

various social/interpersonal rituals and activities. The private practice dimension refers to

the individual rituals and practices that an individual would engage in at home or in

private. The fifth dimension is that of religious experience, which involves the emotional

effect and experience of perceived contact with a divine reality (Huber, 2003; Huber &

Huber, 2012).

Boppana and Gross (2019) explored the relationship between religiosity and

psychological well-being in Christians identifying as LGBT because, as stated above, a

positive association has been identified between religiosity and psychological well-being

in general (Bergan & McConatha, 2001; Koenig, 2012; Sholihin et al., 2022).

Considering that members of the LGBT community have been shown to be at higher risk

for multiple mental health outcomes (Gnan et al., 2019), this study explored possible

relationships between religiosity and psychological well-being that might explain

different outcomes between LGBT and heteronormative populations. The researchers

predicted that the church or denomination’s teachings regarding LGBT activity or

relationships would impact the psychological well-being of LGBT members of that

church or denomination. Specifically, it was predicted that LGBT participants who

attended a church that rejected homosexuality would report lower scores of psychological

well-being, while those who attended a church that accepted homosexuality reported

higher scores on psychological well-being measures. It was also predicted that

internalized homophobia would moderate the relationship between religiosity and

measures of psychological well-being (Boppana & Gross, 2019).

To test these predictions, 277 adults who identified as Christian as well as gay,

lesbian, bisexual, or transgender completed an online survey. Religiosity was measured in

two ways. The first was through a self-report of attitudes toward homosexuality held by

the participants’ religious organization. Participants were given four choices:

rejectivepunitive, rejecting nonpunitive, qualified acceptance, and full acceptance. The

General Religiousness and Religious Practices instrument was also utilized which

assesses general religiousness, religious practices both personal and corporate. Other

variables included psychological well-being and homonegativity. The results showed that

participants who reported high levels of religiosity also had higher levels of psychological

well-being and less depression, anxiety, and stress. The participants who attended an

accepting church reported greater levels of psychological well-being with less depression

and lower scores on internalized homonegativity scales while attending a rejecting church

was associated with lower levels of psychological well-being and higher levels of

depression and internalized homonegativity. Stress and anxiety scores did not correlate

with the attitude of a church toward homosexuality. The results did not demonstrate that

internalized homonegativity mediated the relationship between religiosity and well-being.

However, the results did demonstrate that frequency of attendance moderated this

relationship with greater attendance leading to higher scores of psychological well-being

(Boppana & Gross, 2019).

Van der Toorn et al. (2017) explored the relationships among religiosity,

conservatism, sexual prejudice, and attitudes toward same-sex marriage. To accomplish

this, a series of studies was designed to explore these relationships and potential

correlations to determine what specific factors were associated with these attitudes

toward same-sex marriage. The first two studies explored the possible mediation of the

relationship between religiosity and negative attitudes toward same-sex marriage by

sexual prejudice using a total of 362 participants where were undergraduate student.

Religiosity in both studies was measured with a single-item question asking participants

to rate how religious they are on a Likert scale from not at all religious to extremely

religious. The results of these two studies demonstrated that there was a correlation

between higher levels of religiosity and higher levels of sexual prejudice with a

demonstration of increased opposition with increased prejudice. The opposition that

participants had to same-sex marriage was indirectly influenced by religiosity as well.

Ingroup bias was eliminated as a potential mediator in the relationship between religiosity

and opposition to same-sex marriage, indicating a different pathway to this prejudicial

attitude (van der Toorn et al., 2017).

In the third study in the research project, it was hypothesized that religiosity,

sexual prejudice, and opposition to same-sex marriage would be positively associated

with political conservatism and the support for the status quo that is associated with

conservatism of this type (van der Toorn et al., 2017). In addition to religiosity, sexual

prejudice, and opposition to same-sex marriage as variables, political ideology was

assessed with a single item self-report question with response choices ranging from

extremely liberal to extremely conservative. The results showed the conservatism was

positively correlated with sexual prejudice, which was positively correlated with

opposition to same-sex marriage. Taken alone, political conservatism did not mediate the

relationship between religiosity and opposition to same-sex marriage. The findings of this

study do show that sexual prejudice did mediate this relationship (van der Toorn et al.,

2017).

The final two studies in this project sought to further explore the relationship

between political conservatism, religiosity, and opposition to same-sex marriage by

examining the components of conservatism in this context. Political conservatism

consists of the two correlated factors of resistance to change and opposition to equality

(van der Toorn et al., 2017). In these studies, it was theorized that the factor of resistance

to change would be more highly correlated with opposition to gay marriage. The results

showed a positive correlation between religiosity and resistance to change, sexual

prejudice, and opposition to gay marriage. There was no significant relationship between

opposition to equality and religiosity. The relationship between religiosity and opposition

to gay marriage was mediated by both a resistance to change and sexual prejudice. While

these studies do not demonstrate all the factors involved in attitude development toward

same-sex marriage or homosexuality, they do demonstrate a correlation between

religiosity and resistance to change and sexual prejudice.

Another component of religiosity that relates to prejudice and stigma is its

relationship with uncertainty. Sekerdej et al. (2018) conducted a pair of studies to

investigate the relationship between the need for certainty and prejudice against

outgroups. In these studies, the researchers investigated the relationship between the

belief in God, which involves the fulfillment of religious duties and avoidance of

religious taboos, and prejudicial attitudes toward value-violating groups such as

homosexuals and atheists. Specifically, the researchers predicted that religiosity would

mediate the relationship between uncertainty and prejudice of this type, as well as

mediating the relationship between uncertainty avoidance and positive attitudes toward

value-affirming groups. The results first showed the expected significant and positive

association between belief in God and uncertainty avoidance. It was also demonstrated

that belief in God predicted prejudice toward atheists and homosexuals. Overall, the

results showed that there is an indirect relationship between uncertainty avoidance and

prejudice against atheists and homosexuals, potentially due to their challenging or

violating religious-based social norms of belief and behavior (Sekerdej et al., 2018).

Religious Fundamentalism

Within the context of this study, religiosity does not capture the full range of

religious dimensions related to attitude and values necessitating the consideration of

another religion-based construct to more fully capture the impact of religious thought and

experience on the dependent variable (Carlucci et al., 2021). Prior studies have explored

the correlates of antigay attitudes, which indicate religiosity, religious fundamentalism,

and right-wing authoritarianism to be three common, and often interrelated, variables

(Anderson & Koc, 2015; Finlay & Walther, 2003; Laythe et al., 2001). Religious

fundamentalism can be conceived of in several ways, in part due to the common usage to

describe religious approaches across faiths. Altemeyer and Hunsberger (1992) described

religious fundamentalism as the belief in a single correct set of religious teachings that

contain the unalterable and unchangeable truth about humanity, and humanity’s

relationship with a deity.

Almond et al. (2011) developed a similar definition for religious fundamentalism

and created a research-based model that delineated five features that differentiated

fundamentalism from other religious approaches or movements. The researchers

concluded that the most important feature was that of reactivity, which refers to a dislike

and negative reaction to the secular world. Dualism is the next feature, which described

the tendency to use rigid binary terms to evaluate the social and spiritual worlds such as

good/bad or heaven/hell. The next feature is that of authority, which refers to the desire

and need to obey spiritual leaders and/or a holy book. Selectivity indicates the choice that

is made regarding one aspect of a group of teachings of a holy book over others. The final

feature is millennialism, which is the strong belief that God will win out in the end and

establish a “kingdom” on Earth for the benefit of those who followed the teachings

(Almond et al., 2011).

Fundamentalism can be understood within the context of social identity theory.

Nottingham (1997) asserted that values and attitudes derive from religious teachings, and

the more fundamentalist those teachings, including the understanding of religious texts in

literal ways and the rejection of relativism can impact those beliefs and values. Herriot

(2007) argued that prejudice against specific outgroups would be correlated with those

groups that religious leadership and biblical authority have condemned. Early results

investigating the relationship between religious fundamentalism and prejudice,

specifically antigay prejudice found positive correlations between fundamentalism and

prejudicial attitudes but also found correlations with authoritarianism and antigay

prejudice (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992; Laythe et al., 2001, as cited in Herriot, 2007).

However, even when authoritarianism was controlled for, there still remains a positive

correlation between prejudice and antigay prejudice (Hogg & Abrams, 2003). Several

studies have concluded that the prejudicial attitudes correlated with fundamentalism are

selective to particular outgroups, which include atheists/nonbelievers and the LGBT

population (Herriot, 2007).

Religious fundamentalism has been associated with higher levels of prejudice

against gays/lesbians compared with other religious styles (Hunsberger & Jackson, 2005).

Warriner et al. (2013) sought to examine this by identifying the correlates of

homophobia, transphobia, and internalized homophobia. The study involved a small

sample of 60 undergraduate students from Australia using historical data originally

collected by Nagoshi et al. (2008), which included 153 females and 157 males from the

same university. The differences in the samples between the two studies are that the

students in the Nagoshi study primarily identified as being heterosexual, while the current

study described in the paper involved students that self-identified as being gay, bisexual,

or lesbian. The aim of the study was to explore the relationships between gender and

sexual identities and social conservatism, represented by religious fundamentalism and

right-wing authoritarianism. They also hypothesized that the correlates of homophobia

would be consistent with the correlates of internalized homophobia (Warriner et al.,

2013).

The main variables of interest for this study are religious fundamentalism and

internalized homophobia. Religious fundamentalism was measured using the Religious

Fundamentalism Scale and internalized homophobia was measured by the Sexual Identity

Distress Scale (Warriner et al., 2013). The results showed positive correlations between

religious fundamentalism and homophobia in heterosexual men, heterosexual women,

lesbian women, and gay men. The correlations between internalized homophobia and

religious fundamentalism were also positive for lesbian women and for gay men. These

results suggest gender differences and etiological differences between the homophobia

construct and the internalized homophobia construct according to the researchers, with

the gender differences suggesting social gender norm influences in addition to, or greater

than sexual influences (Warriner et al., 2013).

Brandt and Van Tongeren (2017) conducted a study exploring the relationships

between fundamentalism and prejudice, which included homophobia and/or internalized

homophobia. The researchers conducted a series of three studies to explore their

hypothesis that religious fundamentalism would predict prejudice, including engaging in

discriminatory behaviors, toward those professing differing real religious or perceived

values. Three consecutive studies explored this hypothesis and expanded upon the results

indicating the effects of religious differences, the styles of belief maintenance, and testing

possible mediators (Brandt & Van Tongeren, 2017).

The first study analyzed data from the 2012 American National Election Studies

(ANES) and a community sample to determine the levels of similarity or dissimilarity

between the respondents and various social groups. The researchers (Brandt & Van

Tongeren, 2017) also assessed participant fundamentalism and levels of prejudice toward

those social groups. The results showed that respondents high in religious

fundamentalism were most dissimilar to atheists, gay men and lesbians, liberals, and

feminists; while being most similar to Catholics, Tea Party members, conservatives, and

Christians. Overall, participants rating higher on the fundamentalism measure viewed

dissimilar groups more negatively and had more positive views of similar groups (Brandt

& Van Tongeren, 2017). The measures of fundamentalism and prejudicial attitudes

toward dissimilar groups were regressed with results showing moderate negative

correlations for the ANES group and the community sample. Conversely, the regressions

on fundamentalism with the similar groups showed a strongly positive association for the

ANES group and the community sample.

The second study sought to look more deeply at the style and content of religious

belief and the ways those factors may impact the religious fundamentalism measure as

well as the relationship between fundamentalism and prejudice. The issue that Brandt and

Van Tongeren (2017) identified was related to the measurement of fundamentalism that

might have impacted a valid measure since in the first study participants who rated both

high and low and the fundamentalism scale showed prejudice toward dissimilar groups.

To explore this, the rigidity of the beliefs as well as the content were considered by

replacing the religious fundamentalism scale of the first study with the postcritical beliefs

scale in this second study. This instrument, consisting of 18 items, assesses belief across

four dimensions. Two dimensions involve the content of the beliefs and two measure the

style, such as literal compared with symbolic interpretations compared with literal ones,

and flexible compared with rigid styles (Brandt & Van Tongeren, 2017).

The results were measured by regressing the attitude outcomes toward similar and

dissimilar groups with religious content belief and religious style separately. The

researchers found a moderate negative association between religious content and

dissimilar groups and a small association between religious belief style and attitudes

toward dissimilar groups. The researchers also found that participants with both high and

low religious belief scores, and thereby with low religious fundamentalism, exhibited

intergroup bias. The stronger effects of content over style of belief were contrary to

prediction, warranting additional study, which was approached in the third study of this

series (Brandt & Van Tongeren, 2017).

In the second study, the style of belief demonstrated a small effect on bias toward

dissimilar groups which Brandt and Van Tongeren (2017) indicated a literal approach to

belief was slightly more positively associated with dissimilar group bias when regressed

against each other. To further test this, the researchers replicated the first study with the

addition of a measure to assess the strength and certainty of the religious beliefs held.

They hypothesized that those with high fundamentalism would have more certainty of

belief and when paired with stronger belief, these participants would exhibit more bias

toward dissimilar groups. Based on the data from the first two studies, the researchers

concluded that there was a gap regarding the type of threat perception that was

contributing to dissimilar group bias. To address this, they hypothesized that symbolic

threat perception was a mediating variable in this phenomenon. To further clarify the

relationship between religious fundamentalism and intergroup bias, the researchers

recruited 282 participants through Amazon MTurk. The participants completed the

religious fundamentalism instrument from Study 1, the subjective feelings toward eight

specific groups, a single-item measure of social closeness with those groups, and a single-

item measure to assess humanness to capture any dehumanization that might be a factor.

The participants were also assessed on the degree to which the eight groups represented

specific threats including symbolic, rights, resources and safety as well as the strength,

certainty, and conflict of their beliefs as was done in Study 2 (Brandt & Van

Tongeren, 2017). This finding is consistent with the later finding of van der Toorn et al.

(2017) discussed in the previous section regarding the correlation between religiosity and

political conservatism.

Subjective feelings toward the eight groups, social closeness, and humanness

were regressed with measures of fundamentalism. The results showed a significant

moderate negative effect for those groups identified as similar to fundamentalists shown

in subjective feelings toward groups, social closeness, and humanness. Brandt and Van

Tongeren (2017) suggested that this demonstrated that those high on fundamentalism

displayed more intergroup prejudice and bias compared with those low on

fundamentalism. The researchers also regressed fundamentalism with the four measures

of threat to determine a potential mediating variable. All four threat types were

significantly and positively with perceived threat of dissimilar groups to fundamentalist

participants (Brandt & Van Tongeren, 2017). Overall, fundamentalism predicted

increased perceived threats to rights which then predicted decreased positive feelings,

social closeness, and humanness. The researchers found that the content of belief was the

primary predictor of prejudice and that the literal approach to belief was predictive of

prejudice (Brandt & Van Tongeren, 2017).

The relationship between religious fundamentalism and mental health, linked to

internalized homophobia, was investigated using the level of conservatism of the religion

or denomination to gauge fundamentalism. Heiden-Rootes et al. (2020) conducted a study

that sought to predict that increased religious conservatism would predict lower levels of

LGBT acceptance at that college, which would in turn predict increased internalized

homonegativity leading to higher rates of depression. While the study does not

incorporate a direct measurement of religious fundamentalism, the approach is consistent

with past research linking religious conservatism with fundamentalism and sexual

minority prejudice (Donaldson et al., 2017; Whitley, 2009). Kellstedt and Smidt

(1991) described fundamentalism in a similar way to that of Altemeyer and Hunsberger

(1992) as discussed earlier, in that they accept biblical or scriptural authority and have a

commitment to evangelism. Additionally, they described fundamentalism as encouraging

the separation between a Christian or religious lifestyle and interpersonal relationships

and a secular approach (Kellstedt & Smidt, 1991). Fundamentalism was also viewed by

the authors as an authentic conservative tradition lending credence to the

conceptualization of religious conservatism as analogous with religious fundamentalism

(Kellstedt & Smidt, 1991). In addition to the previously discussed studies of Brandt and

Van Tongeren (2017) and van der Toorn et al. (2017), this concept was also demonstrated

by Antonenko Young et al. (2013) in a quantitative study that both political conservatism

and religious fundamentalism were both positively associated with rule-based morality

supporting the usage of this study as support for the inclusion of this study under the

religious fundamentalism section.

Heiden-Rootes et al. (2020) sought to explore the impact of religious experiences

on the mental health of sexual minority college students. They utilized a mixed methods

approach with 384 sexual minority college students across nine states representing

different parts of the country. The religious conservatism of a college was rated by

selfreport of conservatism and religiosity assessed on a 7-point Likert scale, with a total

score being obtained by summing the two item scores. The two items used were

significantly correlated and high scores represented higher levels of conservatism.

Acceptance of sexual minorities at those colleges was rated on the presence of an

LGBT/straight alliance on campus, whether it was formally affiliated with the campus,

and the presence of a campus organization to stop or resist same-sex attraction.

Internalized homophobia was measured using the IHP-R, and depression was measured

via the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9).

Heiden-Rootes et al. (2020) found that those participants who were from families

of origin with increased religiosity, attended colleges with higher levels of religious

conservatism and decreased acceptance of sexual minorities at those colleges. Higher

levels of college conservatism were associated with less college acceptance and higher

levels of internalized homophobia among students, while lower levels of internalized

homophobia were associated with greater college acceptance. Higher levels of

internalized homophobia were associated with increased depression scores

(HeidenRootes et al., 2020). This study demonstrated that increased religious

conservatism predicted increased depression through the pathways of increased

internalized homophobia and less college acceptance. Additionally, when the existence of

an organization with the aim of denying or stopping SSA was isolated, it was

demonstrated that college religious conservatism was significantly correlated as was

decreased college acceptance. This finding is consistent with the findings of Brandt and

Van Tongeren (2017), discussed previously, that found intergroup bias was positively

correlated with religious fundamentalism. The finding that the presence of an SSA-

oriented campus organization demonstrates a bias, which aligns with the bias factor of

that study. Henry et al. (2021) explored the relationship between religiosity, religious

fundamentalism, and heterosexism with support for LGBTQ+ rights. This study sought to

examine the mechanisms that contribute to religiosity’s contribution to a lack of support

for LGBTQ+ issues and rights. Specifically, it was hypothesized that religious

fundamentalism would moderate the relationship between religious and negative attitudes

toward the LGBTQ+ community. To study this, 407 adults were recruited through

Amazon MTurk and included heterosexual, bisexual, gay, lesbian, and queer participants.

Religious fundamentalism was measured using the Multi-Dimensional Fundamentalism

Inventory (MDFI), which includes three subscales: external authority, fixed religion, and

worldly rejection. Religiosity was measured through the instrument the Religious Values

Inventory (RCI-10), and heterosexist attitudes were measured through the instrument

Support for Gay and Lesbian Civil Rights scale.

Models were constructed to determine if the mediation of the relationship

between heterosexism and support from gay and lesbian civil rights through religiosity

was affected by religious fundamentalism. Models were constructed to analyze this

mediation for each of the three religious fundamentalism subscales. The results found that

the relationship between religiosity and support for gay and lesbian civil rights was fully

mediated by heterosexism. Heterosexism was found to mediate the effect that religiosity

had on participants’ demonstrating less support for gay and lesbian civil rights when they

rated highly on the subscales of external authority and fixed religion. External authority

refers to the extent to which an individual bases personal morality on what they perceive

is God’s word and the influence religion has on daily life. Fixed religion refers to the

concept that religious teachings and traditions are independent of cultural contexts and

should be accepted as givens (Liht et al., 2011). These results suggested that it may not be

the beliefs or the construct of religiosity themselves that result in heterosexism or attitude

development toward the LGBTQ+ community, but how those beliefs are operationalized

regarding that community (Henry et al., 2021).

Religious Transition

Religious identity is not necessarily an immutable construct and is subject to

change, and often drastic change. As discussed in the section on religious residue,

Saroglou (2011) proposed a four-dimension-model of religion, which also is useful in

understanding the potential process of changing a religious identity. The first dimension

involves belief includes the content of the religious concepts endorsed and internalized by

the individual, as well as how they derive meaning from those beliefs in their lives. The

second dimension involves bonding, which involves the personal and/or social

engagement with ritual or activities that result in an emotional connection with a religious

group or spiritual being. The third dimension involves behavior, which consists of actions

that are consistent with religious teachings. These behaviors may involve moral

judgments for how an individual should act toward others and engage in relationships,

including romantic ones. The final dimension is that of belonging, which includes the

social connections resulting from being involved in a religious community. Van

Tongeren and DeWall (2021) developed a model to explain religious deidentification that

aligns with Saroglou’s four dimensions of religion. The first dimension described is the

movement from belief to disbelief, which involves the cognitive component belief as the

person no longer actively endorses acceptance of the religious tenets they once did and/or

the existence of a deity. When an individual who has engaged in religious ritual as a

means to bond to the sacred, divine, or community and ceases to do so has disengaged

from bonding. This domain involves an emotional detachment rather than a cognitive one

as seen in disbelief. Discontinuance refers to the act of distancing from moral teachings

of a religion. This may present as the conscious non-endorsement of particular behaviors

or actions as sinful, such as divorce or homosexual behavior. The final dimension of

religious deidentification is disaffiliation from belonging which involves the separation

from a religious community and distancing oneself from the individuals in that group. It

is noteworthy that not all of these dimensions need to occur for deidentification. For

example, an individual may disbelieve and experience discontinuance, yet not separate

from the religious community due to fear of isolation, wanting to please family members,

or being a minor and being unable to do so. While not every dimension is necessary for

deidentification, they typically are interrelated and interact with each other on the

individual level.

Hardy et al. (2023) examined the processes of this model developed by Van

Tongeren and DeWall (2021) using longitudinal data. The aim of their study was to

identify patterns and links between religiousness and behavior in adolescence and

religious deidentification in adulthood. Data were sourced through all four waves of the

National Study of Youth and Religion, which included 3,290 English and Spanish

speaking adolescents between the ages of 13 and 167 at the start of the study. Key

variables include to identify changes associated with the model included church

attendance, prayer frequency, bible/scripture study, the importance of religion, spirituality

as measured by perception of the participants’ closeness to God, religious doubt, and

continued religious affiliation. These variables were intended to capture the dimensions

identified by Van Tongeren and DeWall (2021) of disbelief, disengagement,

discontinuance, and disaffiliation. The results showed that church attendance, prayer,

scripture study, religiosity, and spiritual connection all decreased cross the time periods.

Doubt, however, did not change significantly throughout adolescence and young

adulthood. Those participants who displayed a decrease in church attendance, prayer,

scripture study, religious importance, and spirituality were significantly more likely to

deidentify from religion. Having doubts in religion did not predict deidentification unless

the higher level of doubt existed from the earliest wave. These results supported the

model that suggests multiple dimensions of religious belief appear connected and they

move together during the deidentification process rather than changing independently of

the others. The behavioral and emotional aspects to religious belief, represented by

church attendance, prayer, study, the importance of religion, and spirituality appear to

have been more predictive of deidentification than did the cognitive aspect exemplified

by doubt.

Lefevor et al. (2023) explored the correlates of Christian religious identification

and deidentification in a sample of sexual and gender minority adults. To accomplish this,

the researchers sought to identify sociodemographic variables, childhood variables, and

adult variables related to religious deidentification in this population. They hypothesized

that sexual and gender minority adults who were older, persons of color, and female

would religiously identify. Additionally, they hypothesized that those gender and sexual

minority individuals who did not grow up within Christianity would be aware of and

accept their identity sooner than would similar individuals who grew up Christian, and

those who grew up Christian would experience more bullying, experience more minority

stress and distress in adulthood, and be more distanced from other sexual and gender

minority individuals. The sample for the study included 1,529 gender and sexual minority

adults, 1/3 of whom resided in the American South. Variables of interest included current

religious identification, sexual identity, gender, race/ethnicity, coming out milestones,

experiences of bullying, adverse childhood experiences, minority stressors, resilience

(which included outness, LGBT community connectedness, and social support), and

mental health indicators. The results showed that being older, Black, a cisgender male,

and living in the South were more likely to identify as Christian as adults. Sexual and

gender minorities who were raised Christian experienced more adverse childhood

experiences and bullying compared with other sexual and gender minorities and were less

likely to be open about their sexuality. Sexual minorities who were raised Christian

endorsed experiencing more stigma and increased internalized homophobia compared to

sexual minority participants who were not raised Christian. Based on these findings, the

researchers concluded that those sexual and gender minorities who were raised Christian

would maintain this religious identity until the benefits of remaining Christians were not

as great as the costs of deidentifying. This is consistent with previous research that

indicated having a locally privileged identity, such as being Christian and a cisgender

male in the South, would be more likely to maintain this identity than nonprivileged

identities, such as being female or noncisgender (Lefevor et al., 2020;

Miller, 2013).

Age

The age of the participant was used as an independent variable to determine if it

impacts the effects of the other variables on the experience of internalized homophobia.

The relationship between age and religiosity was explored in a longitudinal study by

Argue et al. (1999). This study found that level of religiosity changes with age, with the

greatest change occurring between the ages of 18 and 30. To determine the possibility of

a period effect impacting these results, meaning that an external event could have

impacted this decrease in religiosity over all cohorts that is unrelated to the age of the

individuals, a model was created to account for this. In this model, a period effect was

found in one of the cohorts where religiosity dropped between 1980 and 1988, but not

between 1988 and 1992. When the period effect was controlled for, the results showed

that religiosity increases with age. The most significant increases occurring between the

ages of 30 and 50, with little increase after this age indicating that age could be a

significant variable when exploring the relationships between religiosity and other

variables (Argue et al., 1999).

Studies that sought to assess attitudes borne from a religious perspective on

attitudes toward the LGBTQ community have also noted that the variable of age has been

significant. Donaldson et al. (2017) explored contributory individual and cross-cultural

factors in attitudes towards homosexual people in 28 European countries. The results

showed that a younger age was one of the variables that contributed to holding a more

positive attitude toward homosexuals along with lower levels of religiosity, and other

variables. Barringer and Savage (2022) examined the religious outputs across three

different generations, Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Millennials, related to societal

matters such as acceptance of LGBT rights. The results showed that religious identity

influences views on same-sex relationships. However, this relationship with a decreasing

impact of religious identities in each successive generation on attitudes toward same-sex

relationships (Barringer & Savage, 2022).

Religious Identification

Religious identification involves a consideration of how the participant currently

identifies regarding religion. Considering that religion is an important aspect of individual

and social identity, as well as the purpose of this study, it is important to consider both

current religious identity and former religious identity. Studies exploring the dynamics

around religious identity and religious transition have primarily taken one of two

approaches. The first approach is to assess religious identification from a categorical

range of a specific religious identity to a lack of identity. For example, Van Tongeren et

al. (2021a) and Mackey et al. (2023) assessed religious identification as categorical

choices including currently religious, formerly religious, or never religious. Lefevor et al.

(2020) and Hardy et al. (2023) assessed religious identification through dummy variables

encoded with a particular identity such as Roman Catholic, Mainline Protestant, Mormon,

religiously unaffiliated, or atheist.

Religious change has also been assessed to differentiate current religious identity

from a former religious identity. In their study of religious change in older adults,

Silverstein and Bengtson (2018) used religious change as a variable to assess how the

participants viewed their religious identity at the time of the study compared to what it

was a decade prior. Categorical choices included: became more religious, maintained

religious identity, and became less religious were offered, along with an option for a

consistent lack of religious belief. Those participants who endorsed an increase in

religiosity over the preceding decade were then asked to provide a reason for this through

a checklist allowing participants to choose multiple answers. This approach sought to

determine changes in religious identity retrospectively.

Geographical Location

The geographical location, and in particular the density of the area the participant

resides in, has also been shown to impact the relationship between internalized

homophobia and other relevant variables of this study. Whitley (2009) showed that most

forms of religiosity were associated with negative attitudes toward LGB individuals.

Rural identity also may impact attitudes toward LGB individual because that identity is

associated with an urban identity making it a perceived outgroup (Thompson, 2023).

Perceived social support is a key variable as described in the previous section. The social

support available is dependent upon the sociocultural norms and contexts of the

individual within that community, making this variable important to consider. McLaren

(2015) investigated the moderating factors of age, gender, and geographical location on

the relationship between internalized homophobia and depression in a sample of

Australian adults. The results showed that geographical location was a significant

moderator of this relationship for gay men, but not lesbians, with gay men living in urban

areas showing higher levels of depression than those in other areas.

The heteronormativity of the community, whether it is rural, suburban, or rural,

impacts the perceived support availability and impacts the experiences of outness. Rural

environments tend to be more socially conservative and endorse traditional values that do

not typically include acceptance of LGB individuals (Agueli et al., 2022; Hubach et al.,

2019; Yarbrough, 2004). The difficulty that a non-heteronormative individual has had in

seeking support or assistance has been documented and the geography of the participant

in studies is an important consideration in rural (Towns, 2020) and suburban

environments (Podmore & Bain, 2020). The impact of the social environment inherent in

geographical location on outness also may be considered as potentially impactful on

participant experiences. Whitehead et al. (2016) noted the negative impact of stigma on

the perceived ability to come out among rural LGB individuals and Grant et al. (2023)

noted less community connectedness and negative mental health outcomes in LGB

populations living in suburban environments.

Gender

The gender of the participant was also included as one of the demographic

variables. Because genders are viewed differently in social contexts, it cannot be assumed

that men and women will have similar experiences of internalized homophobia and

religious identity based on a shared or similar sexual identity. Gender has been shown to

impact attitudes toward homosexuals, religiosity, and experiences of internalized

homophobia. Herek et al. (1998) demonstrated that men had higher levels of homophobia

than lesbian women, yet both had similarly heightened depressive scores in those who

had the highest levels of internalized homophobia. In a study exploring the correlates of

internalized homophobia, Warriner et al. (2013) found that gay men had higher levels of

homophobia, transphobia, and aggressiveness compared with the lesbian sample. These

studies demonstrate the need to differentiate the experience of men and women within

this context.

Religiosity also has demonstrated gender differences. Several studies have found

greater religiosity in Christian worldviews or denominations in women than in men,

typically demonstrated in greater frequency of prayer (Schnabel, 2015). This behavior

may be due to the differences in socialization within the Christian community as boys had

traditionally been encouraged to be more active, while young girls were encouraged to be

more reflective (Eagly, 2013). However, this gender difference does not apply across

religions as demonstrated by Loewenthal et al. (2002) where religiosity by gender was

explored among Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and Jews in the United Kingdom where

only in Christianity were women found to be more religious. Considering gender in a

Christian-focused sample could take into account these differences that might impact the

relationships between the key variables described in the previous section.

Summary and Conclusions

Internalized sexual stigma affects the mental health of many adults who identify

as LGB as well as those who identify as heterosexual and have same-sex attraction.

Those who were raised in a religion that has scriptural and social proscriptions against

homosexual, or nonheteronormative sexuality, have been shown to have negative mental

health outcomes. Prior research has shown several commonalities in LGB adults who rate

highly on measures of internalized sexual stigma, including lower levels of religiosity

(Barnes & Meyer, 2012) and more negative mental health outcomes (Barnes & Meyer,

2012; Pan et al., 2022). Internalized homophobia can lead to shame and the dynamic of

hiding one aspect of an individual’s identity when that identity will not be accepted by

their community. This phenomenon has been demonstrated to also contribute to the

negative mental health outcome of depression, anxiety, substance abuse, relationship

issues, and trauma (Frost & Meyer, 2009; Herek et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2023; Meyer &

Dean, 1998; Newcomb & Mustanski, 2010). Identifying the correlates including

perceived social support, religiosity, outness, and fundamentalism has been the aim of

many of the studies discussed in this section. What has been less investigated is the

relationship of these variables on internalized homophobia in those who have changed

their religious identities.

The purpose of my study was to explore the relationship between religious

transition, outness, perceived social support, religiosity, and religious fundamentalism on

the experience of internalized sexual stigma in the population of those who grew up with

a religious and have acknowledged same-sex sexual attraction. My study took a

quantitative approach to determine the extent to which each of these variables, or in

combination, contributed to the variable of internalized homophobia. It is hoped that the

results of the study will contribute to the emerging literature on religious residue and

internalized homophobia. Chapter 3 will describe the specific research design and

population of interest used to answer the RQ, including sampling procedures, how

participants were recruited, and how the resulting data were collected and analyzed.

Chapter 3: Research Method

Introduction

The purpose of this quantitative study was to determine the extent to which

religious identity transition, religiosity, religious fundamentalism, outness, and perceived

social support predict internalized homophobia in gay, lesbian, and bisexual adults. This

descriptive correlational quantitative study was intended to explore the relationship

between religious transition, outness, perceived social support, religiosity, and religious

fundamentalism on the experience of internalized sexual stigma in the population of those

who grew up with a religious and have acknowledged same-sex sexual attraction. This

section will outline the general research design with rationale, the data analysis strategy,

and details on all measures used. The reliability and validity of these measures will be

addressed within this section. Sample populations, recruitment, data storage and security,

and data analysis will also be addressed in this section.

Research Design and Rationale

This study used a quantitative, nonexperimental, correlational design to predict

levels of internalized homophobia in an adult population using outness, religiosity,

perceived social support, religious transition, and religious fundamentalism as predictor

variables. Using a quantitative research approach in this study was appropriate because I

examined potential statistical relationships among these variables. Surveys were

appropriate considering the nonexperimental design that will not manipulate any of the

variables and allowed for a larger population to be assessed relatively quickly, which

contributes to greater statistical power.

Methodology

This section will include a discussion of the population studied, sampling and

recruitment procedures, data collection methods, and storage. Additionally, I will discuss

all instrumentation and how the underlying constructs relate to the concepts described in

Chapter 2.

Population

The target population for this study was adult men and women who acknowledged

SSA and/or identity as gay, lesbian, or bisexual (LGB). The population was defined in

this way to not exclude those who acknowledge same-sex attraction while not necessarily

identifying as LGB. To more fully capture the phenomena of interest, it is important to

not eliminate potential participants based on a defined identity. Hillier and Harrison

(2004) noted the presence of shame in a population of SSA adolescents, which could

prevent an adult population with similar experiences from participating despite being in

the population of interest. Considering the relationship between religiosity and

nonheteronormative identity acceptance (Collier et al., 2013) and the possibility that

potential participants may have an “unsure” sexual identity (Zhao et al., 2010), it was

more appropriate to include SSA rather than limiting to LGB identified adults. Potential

participants also endorsed a transition of religious identity from a Christian-associated

religion to a non-Christian or unaffiliated belief.

Sampling and Sampling Procedures

This study utilized a nonprobability convenience sample to recruit participants.

This procedure was chosen for its time- and cost-effectiveness. Nonprobability sampling

techniques are not necessarily generalizable regarding the findings because the

participants are not representative of the population as a whole.

A power analysis was performed using G*Power 3.1.7 software (see Faul et al.,

2009). To determine the appropriate sample size for a linear multiple regression (fixed

model, R2 deviation from zero), an effect size of 0.150 (medium effect size), alpha level

of .05, power level of .95, and the 11 independent variables (outness, perceived social

support, religiosity, religious transition, fundamentalism, gender, geographical location,

geographic density, religious identity, religious transition, and age) were entered into the

G*POWER software. The results indicated a recommended a sample size of 178

participants.

Procedures for Recruitment, Participation, and Data Collection

Potential participants were recruited to complete the survey using the third-party

vendor Momentive, also known as Survey Monkey. Social media was also used to

identify potential participants who met the criteria of inclusion. Potential participants

were adults who identified as LGB and/or endorsed same-sex attraction as well as

endorsed a Christian-aligned identity at some point in their lives. The complete survey

included the informed consent document; all the demographic information and formal

instruments are detailed in the next section. Prospective participants were informed that

their participation was completely voluntary and included a description of the purpose of

the study. Demographic variables did not include a name identifier, and I did not collect

any email addresses were collected. In place of a name, checking an “Agree” checkbox

resulted in the assignment of an identified code to be used to record the subsequent data

entered by that participant. After the survey was completed, my name and email address

were provided should the participant have any questions or concerns.

Instrumentation and Operationalization of Constructs

Demographic Variables

The portion of the survey collecting demographic data included the participant’s

age, gender identity, sexual identity, religious identity, geographical density of their

home, and geographical location. Religious identity was assessed through a forced choice

statement that best applies to the participant. The choices included a variety of Christian

denominations, atheist, agnostic, unaffiliated believer, or spiritual but not religious.

Age was recorded as a single ratio variable. Gender identity was coded with the

options of male, female, transgender, nonbinary/nonconforming, or prefer not to answer.

Sexual identity was coded with the options gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, heterosexual, or

asexual. Geographical location data were acquired through a single item requesting their

state of residence. Geographical density data were acquired through a single item

question regarding their place of residence being in a large urban, small urban, outer

suburb, inner suburb, or rural area.

The IHP-R

Internalized homophobia is conceptualized by Herek (2004) as the internalization

of the conflict between what others or society express that they should be,

heteronormativity, and what they are, homosexual. The IHP-R is a 5-item instrument

intended to measure self-stigma on a 5-point Likert scale (Herek et al., 2009). This scale

is a revised version of the IHP developed by Meyer (1995) based on an unpublished

series of interview questions developed by Martin and Dean (1988). The original was

normed on a sample of 741 gay men in 1987 who were not diagnosed with HIV or AIDS

(Meyer, 1995). The range of results is between 5 – 25, with a mean score being used as a

final result. The instrument’s Cronbach’s alpha was 0.79, indicating moderately high

reliability on the original testing (Meyer, 1995).

The revised version of the IHP-R was created because the original was based on

an all-male sample. Factor and item analyses were conducted, and the revised 5-item

instrument was created and validated. The wording of items was changed to reflect a

more inclusive stance for multiple genders. An example of this change was from the

original wording of the first item “I wish I wasn’t gay/bisexual,” to “I wish I weren’t

lesbian/bisexual [gay/bisexual]” (Herek et al., 2009). The correlations on internal

reliability between the original and the revised instrument were very high, α = .82 on the

revised form compared with α = .79 on the original (Herek et al., 2009). Based on

acceptable construct validity of the original (Herek & Glunt, 1995; Herek et al., 1998),

the revised measure continues to maintain acceptable construct validity.

Huynh et al. (2020) conducted a study on both versions of the instrument for

gender invariance to determine if the underlying construct and measurement approach is

similar for gay men and lesbian women. This is particularly important because my study

sample included both males and females. Prior research has indicated that women

expressed higher levels of internalized homonegativity or sexual stigma than men (Herek

et al., 1998). The study included testing for scalar, configural, metric, and uniqueness

invariance. Configural invariance tested whether the same number of factors, and the

pattern of those factors, was the same across both groups. Scalar invariance refers to the

thresholds of individual items of the scale and determines if both groups are interpreting

and/or using the scale in the same way (Lavoie & Douglas, 2012). Metric invariance

examines the factor loadings across groups to ensure that the instrument measures the

same constructs for both groups of interest (Parent & Smiler, 2013). Uniqueness variance

looks at each item to compare how different the Cronbach’s alphas for each of those

items differ which would indicate differing reliabilities across items (Huynh et al., 2020).

The results of this study found that the revised version has greater fit than the

original, potentially due to the additional items containing more indicators introducing

additional variance in the longer instrument (Huynh et al., 2020). The IHP-R did fail the

uniqueness invariance test on the fifth item of “I would like to get professional help in

order to change my sexual orientation from lesbian/gay/bisexual to heterosexual” (Huynh

et al., 2020). When the error variance was allowed to vary, the scale passed the

uniqueness invariance test, suggesting that this was not related to internalized

homophobia factors. Overall, this study confirmed that each item was equally important

to both genders, which led support to the usage of the revised instrument over the longer

original (Huynh et al., 2020).

MSPSS

The MSPSS was developed by Zimet et al. (1988) to measure the respondent’s

perception of social support as differentiated from enacted social support. One of the

main motivations for the scale was to consider the subjective perception of the

availability and quality of social support. The sources of support are categorized as from

family, friends, and significant others. The instrument is a 12-item survey using a 7-point

Likert scale with a resulting total mean and means for each of the three subscales

described above. It has demonstrated sound psychometrics in the original norming study

which has been confirmed by subsequent studies, several of which will be discussed in

this section (see Zimet et al., 1988).

The MSPSS was originally normed on 275 undergraduate students at Duke University

with a range of ages (17-22) and a relatively even split of genders (M = 139, F

= 136) with 69 of that sample being retested for reliability purposes (Zimet at al., 1988).

Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the adequacy of the subscale groupings.

Cronbach’s alpha for the full instrument was .88, and was .91 for the Significant Other

subscale, .87 for the Family subscale, and .85 for the Friends subscale (Zimet et al.,

1988). The test-retest reliability for the entire scale was r = .85, and .72 for the

Significant Other Subscale, .85 for the Family subscale, and .75 for Friends subscale.

These findings indicate good internal reliability as well as adequate stability over time

(Zimet et al., 1988). The construct validity evaluation was accomplished by comparing

the norm results with measures of depression and anxiety since perceived social support

has been negatively correlated with mental health outcomes such as depression and

anxiety (Lakey & Orehek, 2011; Wang et al., 2018).

Considering the narrow demographics of the population that the MSPSS was

normed on (Zimet et al., 1988), additional validation studies of the psychometric data

were conducted to address this limitation. The first study (Zimet et al., 1990) used groups

of pregnant women, high school students, and medical residents in three separate studies

to further validate this instrument. In these groups, the Cronbach’s alpha for the scale as a

whole ranged from .84 to .90, with the adolescent sample having the lowest internal

reliability, yet still above the adequate level. The strong factorial validity across the three

subscales was also confirmed and construct validity was strong for the Family and

Significant Other subscales, but not as strong for the Friends subscale (Zimet et al.,

1988). Dahlem et al. (1991) also confirmed high internal validity with a Cronbach’s alpha

of .91, as did Kazarian & McCabe (1991) with a Cronbach’s alpha of .87 and .88 for two

separate samples. Stanley et al. (1998) also found similar and consistent findings in

populations of older adults adding to the evidence of the instrument’s psychometric

qualities.

The subscales are particularly important for my study considering the intersection

of religious and sexual identities along with the scriptural prohibition against

homosexuality amongst some Christians, as discussed in Chapter 2 (VanderWaal et al.,

2017). McConnell et al. (2015) utilized the MSPSS to measure how different avenues of

social support contribute to mental health outcomes in LGBT populations. The study

utilized the three subscales of this scale with 248 LGBT youth from Chicago in a

community sample. The participants were clustered into three categories based on the

results that represented high support, low support, and low family support and high

nonfamily support. Clustering on demographic and mental health variables demonstrated

that those with high levels of family social support had better mental health outcomes,

despite receiving support from other sources (McConnell et al., 2015). The study also

showed that 75% of economically advantaged youth were clustered in high support, while

75% of economically disadvantaged youth were clustered in the low support group

(McConnell et al., 2015). This study demonstrates the utility and effectiveness of using

this instrument with this particular population.

Henry et al. (2021) also utilized this instrument in their study exploring the

relationships among mental health, discrimination and suicidality in a LGBT population

in Latin America using religiosity and social support as independent variables. The study

included 99 adults who identified as LGBT, were able to complete the survey in Spanish,

and lived in Latin America. The results showed that social support had a moderating

effect on the relationships among both forms of discrimination utilized in the study,

depressive symptoms, and suicidal ideation. Religiosity overall was significantly lower in

this sample compared with nonreligious adults in the United States (Henry et al., 2021).

The internal consistency of the MSPSS in this study was α = 0.92 for the total scale, α =

0.95 for the Friends subscale, α = 0.91 for the Family subscale, and α = 0.96 for the

Significant Other subscale (Henry et al., 2021). Using this instrument to measure

perceived social support with both sexual identity and religious variables has been

sufficiently demonstrated to be appropriate.

Outness Inventory

A common instrument to measure outness in the LGB population has been the

Outness Inventory developed by Mohr and Fassinger (2000). This is an 11-item

instrument that assesses the level of outness, defined as the degree to which a respondent

speaks openly about their sexual orientation with different categories of people, such as

family members or co-workers (Mohr & Fassinger, 2003). This instrument uses a 7-point

Likert scale with responses ranging from 1 = the person definitely does not know about

your sexual orientation status to 7 = the person definitely knows about your sexual

orientation status, and it is openly talked about (Mohr & Fassinger, 2000). There were

three identified subscales within this instrument, which included the degree to which the

respondent was open about their sexuality or sexual identity with (a) family, with a

Cronbach’s alpha of 0.75; (b) the world, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.79; and (c) to their

religious community with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.97 (Mohr & Fassinger, 2000). Results

are scored by calculating means for each of the subscales as well as total mean for all

responses. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were untaken and demonstrated

acceptable validity.

Convergent validity of the instrument was demonstrated through the confirmation

that the need for privacy and acceptance was reported as predicted in the Mohr and

Fassinger (2000) initial study. Meidlinger and Hope (2014) also found that the Outness

Inventory was positively correlated with the subscales of Nebraska Outness Scale’s

Disclosure Subscale, another validated measure. Discriminant validity was demonstrated

by the results that parents who endorsed religions with antigay beliefs were not

significantly different than individuals with parents who did not regarding levels of public

outness, but the levels of outness with family members did significantly differ (Mohr &

Fassinger, 2003).

Reyes et al. (2023) used the Outness Inventory in their study of the relationship

between perceived social support and outness in Filipino young adults identifying as

LGB. This research reported a Cronbach’s alpha of r = 0.75 for the study which

supported the level of reliability reported by Mohr and Fassinger (2000). Meidlinger and

Hope (2014) found an internal consistency of α = 0.84 - 0.95 across genders and sexual

orientations, including transgender, in their study of 188 female and male participants, 1

female-to-male transgendered participant, and 3 male-to-female participants. Szymanski

and Sung (2013) utilized this instrument in their study of 143 Asian-American

LGBTidentified men, women, and transgendered adults and reported a Cronbach’s alpha

0.84 supporting its cross-cultural usage.

The CRS

The CRS is a self-report questionnaire-based instrument containing a range of

items. It was designed to assess the importance and salience of religion and religious

meaning in respondents (Huber & Huber, 2012). Huber and Huber (2012) conceptualized

religiosity as involving the intersections of intellectual and ideological beliefs, public and

private practice of common social and religious social experience including rituals. There

are multiple versions containing 15, 10, or 5 items. There are also additional versions

validated for interreligious populations. However, because Christianity was the focus of

my study, I focused on the 10-item version. The CRS-15 was normed first and

demonstrated a reliability alpha of 0.93 (Huber, 2003). Construct validity was obtained

by comparing the results to the single-item measure: “Overall, how religious would you

describe yourself?” This yielded a correlation of r = 0.87 (Huber, 2007). The scale was

also validated against the consequences of religiosity by surveying the 806 initial

respondents on the level of personal relevance religion has to various dimensions of life

including family and politics which yielded a correlation of r = 0.84 (Huber, 2007).

A shorter version of the CRS contains 10 items (CRS-10), with two items

representing each of the dimensions of religiosity in the model detailed in Chapter 2. The

form of the measure for Abrahamic religions was used because participants were within

these parameters. Items in the instrument include such questions as “How often do you

think about religious issues?” and “To what extent do you believe that God or something

divine exists?” The responses are on a 5-point Likert scale with the overall score being

the mean of all scored items (Huber & Huber, 2012). Initial reliability was compiled

through eight studies finding a collective Cronbach’s alpha ranging from 0.89 to 0.94.

This is compared with Cronbach’s alpha of 0.92 to 0.96 across three early studies,

indicating strong support for using the shortened measure (Huber & Huber, 2012). All

three versions of the CRS were compared for validation purposes in a population of

English-speaking, Christian university students living in the Philippines (del Castillo et

al., 2021). The results showed a Cronbach’s alpha for the CRS-15 of 0.93 while the

Cronbach’s alpha for the CRS-10 was 0.89 demonstrating strong reliability and

supporting the usage of the 10-item measure for this study (del Castillo et al., 2021).

IFS

The IFS is a 5-item, 6-point Likert scale instrument resulting in a mean score,

which was designed to measure levels of fundamentalism as an attitude toward sacred

text. It is based on a longer 12-item scale originally developed by Williamson and Hood

(2005), which was designed to measure fundamentalist attitudes without relying on

specific belief content. It was constructed based on six factors that describe how

fundamentalists view their sacred texts: they are of divine origin, they are inerrant, they

are self-interpretive meaning no outside source is required to understand them, they have

a privileged status about other texts, and they are authoritative in that their claims

supersede the claims of other texts and are unchanging. The initial 12-item version has a

reliability Cronbach’s alpha of 0.94. The researchers demonstrated convergent validity

through the positive correlation with other instruments used to measure religious

fundamentalism such as Altemeyer and Hunsberger’s (1992) Religious Fundamentalism

Scale (Williamson & Hood, 2005).

Williamson and Hood (2010) revised their instrument and reduced the number of

items to five. An analysis was conducted using the instrument, including a confirmatory

factor analysis of the original instrument to determine if the model fits the data. A

comparison was conducted between two models within the 12-item original instrument,

one with five items and the other with four items. The model with five items

demonstrated a better goodness-of-fit with five of the six construct attitudes representing

the intratextual construct. The reliability of the full measure in this study was 0.83

demonstrating strong reliability (Williamson & Hood, 2010). The 5-item version of the

instrument correlated strongly with the Religious Fundamentalism Scale (r = 0.75) as

well as a satisfactory correlation with the Right-Wing Authoritarian Scale (r = 0.50;

Williamson & Hood, 2010). Convergent validity was measured by comparing with the

Religious Fundamentalism Scale with findings indicating good validity (r = 0.75, p

<0.01; Williamson & Hood, 2010).

The second study validated the first study by using a larger sample, 220

participants compared with 137 in the first study, which was considered a weakness. This

study also utilized Muslim participants in Pakistan to test the cross-cultural utility of the

instrument. A confirmatory factor analysis was again conducted, finding an absolute fit

index of 3.03, which was in the acceptable range (Williamson & Hood, 2010). The

instrument showed less reliability for this sample with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.65.

Overall, this study confirmed the 5-item model was a good, but less reliable, fit for the

Muslim sample compared with the sample of the first study, which was of undergraduate

students in the American south (Williamson & Hood, 2010).

The third study sought to confirm the factor analysis of the first two studies and

provide evidence for the divergent validity of the instrument. In this study, Williamson

and Hood (2010) hypothesized that there would be a positive correlation between

religious fundamentalism with attendance at church services or meetings and negatively

correlate with the tendency to question and doubt religious beliefs, and with a preference

for complex thinking. There was an increased sample size in this final validation study

with 236 undergraduate students from the same university in the American south used in

Study 1. The 5-item IFS instrument was used in this study along with other measures with

which to compare it, including the Quest Scale, Religious Doubt Scale, Need for

Cognition Scale, and the International Personality Item Pool Questionnaire. The measure

of internal consistency was Cronbach’s alpha of 0.88 for this instrument. Pearson’s

correlations with other measures demonstrated that the IFS was strongly and positively

correlated with attendance at church (r = 0.44, p <0.01). Overall, these studies

demonstrated sufficient reliability and validity to be a valid measure of religious

fundamentalism (Williamson & Hood, 2010).

Data Analysis Plan

When data collection is complete, the results were entered into the Statistical

Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 29.0 for analysis. The data were first

screened for completeness and to ensure that a sufficient number of valid and complete

participants were recorded according to the G*Power analysis. Responses that did not

acknowledge LGB identity or same-sex attraction were removed. Descriptive statistics

were first computed for the independent variable and all dependent variables, including

the demographic variables. This was computed to determine the shape of the distribution,

central tendencies, and the dispersion (the standard deviation, range, and variance). A

backwards stepwise multiple linear regression was used to evaluate the relationship

between the independent variables, including the demographic variables, and one

dependent variable of internalized homophobia. Significance was set at p < .05. This

regression model was utilized to determine the strength of the relationship between each

variable and the dependent variable of internalized homophobia with The assumption of

multiple linear regression is that the homogeneity of variance (homoscedasticity) or the

size of the error in the prediction does not change significantly.

A moderation analysis was conducted to determine if, and the extent that,

religious fundamentalism influences the relationship between religiosity and internalized

homophobia. This analysis was conducted because prior correlations have been identified

between religious fundamentalism and prejudice (see Johnson et al., 2011; Wilkerson et

al., 2012). Understanding the strength or weakness of the influence of religious

fundamentalism on these variables may provide valuable insight into the variety of

religious experiences beyond a static religious identity. Considering that religious

fundamentalism is a nonobservable, latent variable structured equation modeling was

utilized in the moderation analysis (Wall & Amemiya, 2001). For clarity of interpretation,

visual resources are provided to present the results of these analyses.

RQs and Hypotheses

RQ1: To what extent does religious identity transition predict internalized

homophobia in gay, lesbian, and bisexual adults?

H01: Religious identity transition is not a significant predictor of internalized

homophobia.

H1: Religious identity transition is a significant predictor of internalized homophobia.

RQ2: To what extent does religiosity predict internalized homophobia in gay,

lesbian, and bisexual adults?

H02: Religiosity is not a significant predictor of internalized homophobia.

H2: Religiosity is a significant predictor of internalized homophobia.

RQ3: To what extent does religious fundamentalism predict internalized

homophobia in gay, lesbian, and bisexual adults?

H03: Religious fundamentalism is not a significant predictor of internalized homophobia.

H3: Religious fundamentalism is a significant predictor of internalized homophobia.

RQ4: To what extent does outness predict internalized homophobia in gay,

lesbian, and bisexual adults?

H04: Outness is not a significant predictor of internalized homophobia.

H4: Outness is a significant predictor of internalized homophobia.

RQ5: To what extent does perceived social support predict internalized

homophobia in gay, lesbian, and bisexual adults?

H05: Perceived social support is not a significant predictor of internalized homophobia.

H5: Perceived social support is a significant predictor of internalized

homophobia.

RQ6: To what extent does religious fundamentalism, as measured by the IFS,

moderate the relationship between religiosity, as measured by the CRS, and internalized

homophobia, as measured by the IHP-R, among gay, lesbian, and bisexual adults who

have endorsed a religious transition from Christianity to a nonreligious identity?

H06: Religious fundamentalism does not significantly moderate the relationship

between religiosity and internalized homophobia.

H6: Religious fundamentalism significantly moderates the relationship between

religiosity and internalized homophobia.

Threats to Validity

The first threat to validity was social desirability bias. Crowne and Marlowe

(1960) described social desirability in the context of social research as the tendency of

respondents to frame their survey responses to promote what they perceive would result

in a positive evaluation. Atheists, or nonbelievers in a deity, often are viewed negatively

by more predominant social groups associated with a particular religion (Grove et al.,

2019). Moon et al. (2021) found that there are both positive and negative stereotypes

about nonbelievers or atheists. However, the perception of these stereotypes may differ

by cultural norms of the local community the participant is living in, which may affect the

anticipation of social desirability for these individuals.

Self-selection bias was also a potential threat to validity due to the nature of the

study. Being a targeted study regarding religion and sexual identity with a population of

those who have changed their religious identity, there was the potential for self-selection

that would have resulted in a nonrepresentative sample. The self-selecting nature of

online survey recruitment platforms does introduce a level of bias related to more

motivated participants choosing to complete the survey leading to a possibly

nonrepresentative sample. Cheung et al. (2017) noted that online survey platform workers

may opt in to responding to surveys that they find interesting or personally meaningful,

which may impact the validity of the outcomes due to self-selection bias that would affect

the generalizability of the results. While nonrepresentative samples can be valuable in

identifying trends, particularly in nonprobability subpopulations such as LGB adults who

have transitioned their religious identities, any conclusions might be tentative

(Lehdonvirta et al., 2021).

Ethical Procedures

The study was submitted to the Walden University Institutional Review Board for

approval. After this was granted, with approval number 09-19-24-1125815 issued on

September 9, 2024, participant recruitment and data collection commenced. All data

collected are stored in a password protected file on a password protected laptop computer

accessible only by me. Backup files are stored on a cloud-based Google Drive that are

also password-protected. No data stored include personal identifiers and will be destroyed

5 years after completion of the study. The informed consent document includes the

purpose of the study, the potential participants’ right to withdraw at any time, identifies

potential risks of participating including emotional discomfort and other potential mental

health consequences, limits of confidentiality, any incentives for participation, and

contact information for any questions and concerns (APA, 2017). Because the topic of

this study includes beliefs about religious and sexual identity, there was the possibility

that potential participants could have experienced past traumas or other related mental

health challenges. For this reason, resources were provided including National

Association on Mental Illness (https://www.nami.org/) and the Secular Therapy Project

(https://www.seculartherapy.org/).

Summary

This study was quantitative in nature and sought to determine the level to which

contributing factors, including religiosity, religious fundamentalism, religious identity

transition, outness, and perceived social support effect internalized homophobia in LGB

adults. This chapter described the specific methodologies that were utilized, research

methods, and potential participants. Participants included adults who identified as gay,

lesbian, or bisexual, or endorsed a same-sex attraction. The research instruments used in

the survey were discussed and analyzed, including threats to validity and ethical

considerations. In Chapter 4, I will present the results of the study along with a detailed

analysis.

Chapter 4: Results

Introduction

The purpose of this quantitative study was to determine the extent to which

religious identity transition, religiosity, religious fundamentalism, outness, and perceived

social support predict internalized homophobia in the population of LGB adults or those

who have endorsed a same-sex attraction. This descriptive correlational study tested five

RQs based upon the variables listed using backwards stepwise linear regression. This

chapter will begin with details of the data collection process and continue with a

discussion of the descriptive statistics of the sample. The statistical assumptions will also

be discussed followed by a detailed description of the results.

RQs and Hypotheses

RQ1: To what extent does religious identity transition predict internalized

homophobia in gay, lesbian, and bisexual adults?

H01: Religious identity transition is not a significant predictor of internalized

homophobia.

H1: Religious identity transition is a significant predictor of internalized

homophobia.

RQ2: To what extent does religiosity predict internalized homophobia in gay,

lesbian, and bisexual adults?

H02: Religiosity is not a significant predictor of internalized homophobia.

H2: Religiosity is a significant predictor of internalized homophobia.

RQ3: To what extent does religious fundamentalism predict internalized

homophobia in gay, lesbian, and bisexual adults?

H03: Religious fundamentalism is not a significant predictor of internalized

homophobia.

H3: Religious fundamentalism is a significant predictor of internalized

homophobia.

RQ4: To what extent does outness predict internalized homophobia in gay,

lesbian, and bisexual adults?

H04: Outness is not a significant predictor of internalized homophobia. H4:

Outness is a significant predictor of internalized homophobia.

RQ5: To what extent does perceived social support predict internalized

homophobia in gay, lesbian, and bisexual adults?

H05: Perceived social support is not a significant predictor of internalized

homophobia.

H5: Perceived social support is a significant predictor of internalized homophobia.

RQ6: To what extent does religious fundamentalism, as measured by the IFS,

moderate the relationship between religiosity, as measured by the CRS, and internalized

homophobia, as measured by the IHP-R, among gay, lesbian, and bisexual adults who

have endorsed a religious transition from Christianity to a nonreligious identity?

H06: Religious fundamentalism does not significantly moderate the relationship

between religiosity and internalized homophobia.

H6: Religious fundamentalism significantly moderates the relationship between

religiosity and internalized homophobia.

Data Collection

Survey Monkey was used to collect data over 2 days in September 2024. The

inclusion criteria were adults over the age of 18 who identified as gay, lesbian, or

bisexual and/or endorsed experiencing same-sex attraction who experienced a religious

identity transition from one based in Christianity to a non-Christian or nonaffiliated

identity. The survey was introduced using the informed consent form, which included a

description and purpose of the study and the voluntary nature of participation. No

personally identifiable data were collected including email or IP addresses. Each

participant was automatically assigned an identification number. Respondents who did

not consent, endorsed a current Christianity-affiliated religious identity, or endorsed both

a heterosexual identity and a denial of same-sex attraction were disqualified from the

study and removed.

All data collection took place online using three separate Survey Monkey

Collectors. The first collector involved 41 respondents who responded to invitations to

participate posted on two different subreddits on the Reddit social media site. The

invitation using wording approved by the Walden University Institutional Review Board,

was posted on the subreddits “/r/exvangelical” and “/r/sample_size” with 41 responses

recorded. The second collector was sent to 207 respondents with an actual incidence rate

of 57%, a disqualification rate of 43%, and a 13% abandonment rate resulting in 117

respondents. The third collector was sent to 183 respondents with an actual incidence rate

of 64%, a disqualification rate of 36%, and an abandonment rate of 18% yielding a total

of 113 completed surveys. The third collector was sent to ensure a sufficient sample size

based on the difficulty of filtering for participants who endorsed a change in religious

identity using Survey Monkey filter and logic settings. After data cleansing to remove

these samples that did not meet the inclusion criteria, a total sample of 254 respondents

was achieved. This exceeds the sample size required to achieve an effect size of 0.150

(medium effect size), alpha level of .05, power level of .95 as described in Chapter 3.

Demographics

The demographics of the study participants are presented in Table 1. There were

slightly more women (46.9%) in the sample than men (44.9%). Participants who

identified as nonbinary (3.9%), transgender (3.1%) and other (1.2%) also were part of this

sample. Participants ages ranges were relatively evenly spread with 20.1% between 18

and 29, 29.5 between 30 and 44, 24.8% between 45 and 60, and 12.2% above 60 years

old. In this sample, 13.4% did not respond to the demographic data question on age

requested by Survey Monkey. The majority of respondents indicated a current religious

identity of atheist (33.9%) or agnostic (23.6%). The remainder of participants indicated a

religious identity of nonaffiliated believer (3.9%), as a member of a non-Christian

religion (15.7%), and spiritual but not religious (22.8%). Bisexual participants (41.3%)

were the largest grouping by sexual orientation followed by homosexual participants

(40.9%). Heterosexual (8.7%), asexual (3.1%), and those who selected “other” (5.9%)

comprised the remainder of the participants’ sexual orientations. Participants were also

asked about the geographic density of where they live with the majority living in urban

areas, 41.7 in large city urban areas and 20.5% living in small city urban areas. The

remainder of the sample indicated living in inner suburbs (17.3%), outer suburbs (12.2%),

and in rural areas (8.3%). This sample may not be representative of all LGB adults who

left a religion due to the nature of the data collection through SurveyMonkey. These

respondents may not be representative of this population due to the potential

nonrandomness of the sample.

Table 1

Frequencies and Percentages for Gender Identity, Age Range, Current Religious Identity,

Sexual Orientation, and Geographical Density

Variable N Percentage

Gender identity

Male

114 44.9%

Female 119 46.9

Nonbinary 10 3.9%

Transgender 8 3.1%

Other 3 1.2%

Age range

18 – 29

13.4%

30 – 44 75 29.5%

45 – 60 63 24.8%

60 and above 31 12.2%

Did not specify 34 13.4%

Current religious identity Atheist

33.9%

Agnostic 60 23.6%

Nonaffiliated believer 10 3.9%

Non-Christian religion 40 15.7%

Spiritual but not religious 58 22.8%

Sexual orientation Homosexual

104

40.9%

Bisexual 105 41.3%

Heterosexual 22 8.7%

Asexual 8 3.1%

Other 15 5.9%

Geographic density Large

city urban area

106

41.7%

Small city urban area 52 20.5%

Inner suburb 44 17.3%

Outer suburb 31 12.2%

Rural 21 8.3%

Results

Basic Univariate Analyses of Key Variables

The variables of interest for this study included the dependent variable of

internalized homophobia and the independent variables of religious identity transition,

outness, perceived social support, religiosity, and fundamentalism. Descriptive statistics

are provided here for these continuous variables and displayed in Table 2. Internalized

homophobia (M = 2.28, SD = 1.22), religious identity transition (measured in years since

identity change; M = 15.25, SD = 14.58), outness (M = 3.59, SD = 1.75), perceived social

support (M = 4.65, SD = 1.46), religiosity (M = 2.71, SD = 1.15), and religious

fundamentalism (M = 2.89, SD = 1.44). As can be seen in Table 2, the sample size for

religious identity transition is lower, with 25 of the 254 total sample missing data. This is

explained by the open-ended nature of the response, which was either left blank or a

nonnumber response was provided. Nonnumeric responses were deleted leading to this

lower N compared with the other variables.

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics for Predictor and Outcome Variables

Variable N Mean Standard Dev

IHP (internalized homophobia 254 2.28 1.22

Identitytransitionyears 229 15.25 14.58

Outness 254 3.59 1.75

MSPSS (perceived social support) 254 4.65 1.46

Religiosity 246 2.71 1.15

Fundamentalism 249 2.89 1.44

Evaluation of Statistical Assumptions

Prior to performing any regression analyses, assumptions for multiple linear

regressions were evaluated. Normality was tested first using the Shapiro-Wilk test and by

examining Q-Q plots. Table 3 displays the data results indicating that five of the six

variables were not normally distributed. The variable of perceived social support

(MSPSS) was normally distributed. An examination of the Q-Q plots for each variable

did indicate that five of the six variables did display normality. The Q-Q plots for each

variable are displayed in Appendix A. The Q-Q plot and the Shapiro-Wilk test for the

dependent variable of internalized homophobia indicated that this variable did not

demonstrate a normal distribution. The lack of normal distribution for the dependent

variable is not a concern for multiple linear regression considering the size of the sample

according to the central limit theorem (Pek et al., 2018).

Table 3

Shapiro-Wilk Normality Testing for Study Variables

Variable Statistic df p Skewness Kurtosis

IHP (internalized .868 254 <.001 .935 -.198

homophobia

Identitytransitionyears .845 229 <.001 1.443 1.692

Outness 3.59 1.75 <.001 .274 -.984

MSPSS (perceived

social support)

4.65 1.46 0.76 -.407 -.150

Religiosity 2.71 1.15 <.001 427 -.740

Fundamentalism 2.89 1.44 <.001 1.007 -.175

The assumption of linearity was tested through the use of scatterplots. Appendix

B displays the scatterplots that demonstrate the linear relationships between the predictor

variables and the outcome variable. The scatterplots did not demonstrate linearity;

therefore, the assumption of linearity was not met for this data.

The assumption of collinearity was tested by calculating the variance inflation

factor for the predictor variables in the model. The test for this assumption seeks to

determine if the predictor variables are correlated with each other to a degree significant

enough that they would not produce unique results within the regression model. Table 4

displays the results that demonstrate that none of the variables are correlated with each

other to an extent that would be problematic in this study.

Table 4

Collinearity for Predictor Variables

Variable VIF Tolerance

Identitytransitionyears 1.145 .874

Outness 1.209 .827

MSPSS (perceived social

support)

1.221 .819

Religiosity 1.730 .578

Fundamentalism 1.710 .585

The next assumption tested was that of the independence of the residuals. For this

test, I sought to determine if the differences between the predicted value and the actual

value in the regression model are independent and not correlated. To determine this, a

Durbin-Watson test was performed. The result of this test was a Durbin-Watson statistic

of 2.035, which falls into the normal range, indicating that there is no correlation among

the residuals.

Homoscedacity, the assumption that the residuals described in the previous

paragraph, are normally distributed. This assumption was tested by examining the

scatterplot of the residuals for this linear regression model. The scatterplot is displayed in

Appendix C, which shows a normal distribution of the residuals. The normal distribution

of the residuals meets the requirements to determine that the assumption of

homoscedacity was met.

The final consideration in this section on testing assumptions for multiple linear

regression involved the reliability testing of the instruments used in this study. Although

the Cronbach’s alpha for each scale used was reported in Chapter 3, the reliability of the

scale can differ across differ samples. To address this, the reliability for each of the scales

used in this study was determined. Table 5 shows the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for

each scale. All of the instruments demonstrate good to excellent reliability. However, the

inter-item correlation between the first and third questions on the Intratextual

fundamental scale was slightly negative (-0.006). Despite this, the overall instrument had

a Cronbach’s alpha for this study of .863, which is good reliability.

Table 5

Internal Reliability for Study Instruments

Instrument Cronbach’s α

Internalized Homophobia Scale - Revised .916

Outness .905

Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support .950

Centrality of Religiosity Scale .932

Intratextual Fundamentalism Scale .863

Multiple Regression Analysis

A backwards removal multiple regression analysis was conducted with the outcome

variable of internalized homophobia and the predictor variables of outness, perceived

social support, religiosity, religious fundamentalism, religious transition (measured in

years), sexual identity, same sex attraction, current religious identity, former religious

identity, gender identity, and geographic density. These 11 predictor variables were

chosen based on prior research described in Chapters 2 and 3 that would potentially

predict internalized homophobia. The regression model began with full saturation of

these variables with successive models having a criterion of F-to-remove greater than or

equal to .10.

Based on the removal criteria, six models were evaluated. The final model

involved these six independent variables: outness, religiosity, religious fundamentalism,

current religious identity, former religious identity, and geographic density. All variables

in this model were significant predictors of internalized homophobia (F (6, 215) =

43.526, p = <.001, adj. R2 = .536). These results suggest that 53.6% of the variance in

internalized homophobia can be explained by this model. There were no issues with

tolerances (all > .596) indicating an absence of issues related to multicollinearity. Table 6

shows the ANOVA results for Model 6, and Table 7 illustrates the regression coefficients

for the prediction of internalized homophobia.

Table 6

ANOVA Results for Model 6

Sum of

Squares

df Mean Square F R R² p

Regression 148.913 6 24.819 43.526 .741 .548 <.001

Residual 122.595 215 .570

Total 271.509 221

Note. Dependent variable: internalized homophobia; independent variables: geographic

density, current religious identity, former religious identity, outness, religiosity, and

religious fundamentalism.

Table 7

Regression Coefficients – Prediction of Internalized Homophobia

Predictor B SE of B 95% CI for B β t p

LL UL

Constant .755 .245 .371 .577 3.78 .002

Outness -.071 .031 -.133 -.010 -.112 -2.298 .023

Religiosity .183 .066 .052 .314 .182 2.762 .006

Religious

fundamentalism

.502 .050 .403 .601 .595 10.019 <.001

Current religious

-.024 .010 -.043 -.006 -.133 -2.545 .012

Former religious

-.039 .015 -.069 -.008 -.121 -2.496 .013

Geographic density .084 .041 .002 .165 .098 2.024 .044

Based on these results displayed above, null hypotheses may now be accepted or

rejected. Based on the hypotheses described earlier in this chapter, the following

conclusions may be reached:

•RQ1: To what extent does religious identity transition predict internalized

homophobia in gay, lesbian, and bisexual adults? This variable was not found

to be significant in this model predicting internalized homophobia. The null

hypothesis religious identity transition is not a significant predictor of

internalized homophobia is not rejected.

•RQ2: To what extent does religiosity predict internalized homophobia in gay,

lesbian, and bisexual adults? This variable was found to be a significant

predictor of internalized homophobia in this model suggesting that as

religiosity increased, internalized homophobia increased (b = .182, p = .006).

The null hypothesis that religiosity is not a significant predictor of internalized

homophobia is rejected.

•RQ3: To what extent does religious fundamentalism predict internalized

homophobia in gay, lesbian, and bisexual adults? This variable was found to

be a significant predictor of internalized homophobia in this model suggesting

that as religious fundamentalism increased, internalized homophobia

increased (b = .595, p = <.001). The null hypothesis that religious

fundamentalism is not a significant predictor of internalized homophobia is

rejected.

•RQ4: To what extent does outness predict internalized homophobia in gay,

lesbian, and bisexual adults? This variable was found to be a significant

predictor of internalized homophobia in this model suggesting that as outness

increased, internalized homophobia decreased (b = -.112, p = .023). The null

hypothesis that outness is not a significant predictor of internalized

homophobia is rejected.

•RQ5: To what extent does perceived social support predict internalized

homophobia in gay, lesbian, and bisexual adults? This variable was not found

to be significant in this model predicting internalized homophobia. The null

hypothesis perceived social support is not a significant predictor of

internalized homophobia is not rejected.

Moderation Analysis

The sixth RQ sought to determine to what extent religious fundamentalism

moderates the relationship between religiosity and internalized homophobia among LGB

adults who have endorsed a religious transition from Christianity to a nonreligious

identity. A moderation model was developed to determine this potential relationship

between these variables. Centered means were calculated for religiosity and religious

fundamentalism and an interaction term was created called InterRegXFund. A

moderation analysis was conducted using IBM AMOS for SPSS producing a model

displayed in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Moderation Model

Note. IHP = Internalized homophobia (DV), Religiosity is the IV, Fundmentalism =

Religious Fundamentalism variable (moderator), InterRegXFund = interaction variable

The results of the moderation analysis indicated a significant and positive

moderating impact of religious fundamentalism on the relationship between religiosity

and internalized homophobia (b = .135, t = 3.688, p < .001). Figure 2 displays the figure

shown in Figure 1 with the moderating effects indicated. Figure 3 displays the simple

slopes demonstrating the indirect effort of an increase in internalized homophobia as

religious fundamentalism increases (Gaskin, 2016). This figure demonstrates that as

religious fundamentalism increased, the strength of the relationship between religiosity

and religious fundamentalism also increased. Table 8 provides the moderation model

summary, which demonstrates the strength of the moderation effect.

Figure 2

Moderation Model With Moderating Effects

Note. IHP = Internalized homophobia (DV), Religiosity is the IV, Fundamentalism =

Religious Fundamentalism variable (moderator), InterRegXFund = interaction variable

Figure 3

Simple Slope of Moderation

Table 8

Moderation Analysis Summary

Relationship Beta Critical

Ratio

IHP --- Fundamentalism .384 6.85 <.001

IHP --- Religiosity .208 3.397 <.001

IHP --- InterRegXFund .135 3.688 <.001

Note. IHP = Internalized homophobia (DV), Religiosity is the IV, Fundamentalism =

Religious Fundamentalism variable (moderator), InterRegXFund = interaction variable

y = 0.146x + 2.397

y = 0.686x + 2.355

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

Low ReligiosityHigh Religiosity

Internalized Homophobia

Moderator

Low Fundamentalism

High Fundamentalism

Summary

In this study, I sought to examine the predictive nature of religious identity

transition, religiosity, religious fundamentalism, outness, and perceived social support on

internalized homophobia. To explore this, a backward stepwise regression was run

beginning with a full model of the variables described above with the additions of the

variables of gender, sexual identity, former religious identity, current religious identity,

and geographic density. A final model of religiosity, religious fundamentalism, outness,

geographic density, former religious identity, and current religious identity significantly

predicted internalized homophobia, with religious fundamentalism and religiosity having

the strongest beta weights. To further investigate this relationship, a moderation study

was conducted using structural equation modeling to determine the moderating effect of

religious fundamentalism on the relationship between religiosity and internalized

homophobia. The result showed a positive and significant moderating effect of religious

fundamentalism on the relationship between religiosity and internalized homophobia.

Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations

Introduction

The purpose of this quantitative study was to determine the extent to which

religious identity transition, religiosity, religious fundamentalism, outness, and perceived

social support predict internalized homophobia in LGB adults. This descriptive

correlational quantitative study was intended to explore the relationship between religious

transition, outness, perceived social support, religiosity, and religious fundamentalism on

the experience of internalized sexual stigma in the population of those who grew up with

a religious and have acknowledged same-sex sexual attraction. Previous research has

shown that the navigation of sexual and religious identities has been difficult for

individuals raised Christian who experience same sex attraction (McCann et al., 2020;

Wedow et al., 2017; Wolff et al., 2016). The identity conflict present for LGB individuals

is exacerbated by the teachings common in Christianity that this identity is sinful.

Essentially, the experience is that one social identity maintains that the other social

identity within the same person is wrong. In this study, I sought to predict how the

variables described above would predict internalized homophobia in those adults

endorsing a same-sex attraction who also have changed their religious identity.

This nonexperimental, correlational study was conducted to determine the extent

to which outness, perceived social support, religiosity, religious fundamentalism,

geographic location, gender identity, current religious identity, and past religious identity

predicted internalized homophobia. The data collection website SurveyMonkey was

utilized to survey adults who endorsed a change in religious identity from a Christian to

non-Christian aligned identity and also endorsed same-sex attraction. Data collection took

place over 3 days in September 2024 via Survey Monkey using three separate data

collectors. A total of 254 total respondents met the response qualifications and were

included in the final study.

To analyze the results, a backwards stepwise regression was conducted using a

saturated model of all nine independent variables to determine the model with the best

predictive fit. The final model involved six independent variables: outness, religiosity,

religious fundamentalism, current religious identity, former religious identity, and

geographic density. All variables in this model were significant predictors of internalized

homophobia. In this chapter, I will discuss the interpretations, implications for positive

social change, limitations, and recommendations for future research.

Interpretation of the Findings

Predictive Model of Internalized Homophobia

The first five RQs sought to determine to what extent individual variables would

predict internalized homophobia. The results showed that religiosity, religious

fundamentalism, and outness were significant and predicted internalized homophobia,

while perceived social support and religious transition were not significant necessitating

the failure to reject the null hypothesis for those two variables. The final model, which

included the demographic variables, of the backwards stepwise regression found that

religiosity, religious fundamentalism, outness, current religious identity, former religious

identity, and geographic density were significant accounted for 53.6% of the variance in

predicting internalized homophobia. This finding is consistent with prior research, in

particular Herek et al. (2009), who found that belief, affect, and behavioral variables were

associated with greater levels of internalized homophobia.

These results are also consistent with previous findings related to religious residue

theory. Van Tongeren et al. (2021a) found that religious beliefs and concepts were

maintained by adults who deidentified from the religion of their youths. This built, in

part, on the findings of Sowe et al. (2014) who found that individuals who deidentified

from a religion maintained certain cognitive schemas formed from religious beliefs and

socialization which led to identity conflict. The findings of this study align with these

findings and suggest that LGB adults, or those who endorse a same-sex attraction yet not

identify as those classifications, have maintained some beliefs based in religion regarding

their sexual identity despite no longer identifying with that religion.

This is consistent with the findings of Streib (2001), which found that the

religious residue effect is related to the strength of early childhood learning that imparts

values and attachment. Understanding these results within the context of religious-based

values, may be helpful in contextualizing this data. Religious fundamentalism (.595) and

religiosity (.182) had the highest beta weights in the final model, suggesting the strongest

predictive impact on internalized homophobia. This is consistent the findings of Streib

considering the religious teachings, and fundamentalist teachings in particular, are values

and behavior based.

The stronger relationship between religious fundamentalism and internalized

homophobia is also important to examine. This result is also consistent with prior

research such as Warriner et al. (2013), who also found positive correlations between

religious fundamentalism and internalized homophobia. This relationship becomes

particularly salient when considering the religion-as-schema perspective. Pollack et al.

(2023) defined religious fundamentalism as a four-part attitudinal concept. These core

components are an exclusive truth claim, that their conceptualization of the truth is

superior to every other position, the universality of their truth, and the present needs to

change to align with the past as presented in their holy book or concept. With these

concepts in mind, it becomes clearer to see how difficult it might be for one raised to

accept such beliefs in this way to change their attitudes after leaving that faith. The

significantly higher beta weight of religious fundamentalism in the relationship with

internalized homophobia suggests the influence within this overall model between the

fundamentalist nature of the individual’s beliefs and their levels of internalized

homophobia.

The demographic variables that were significant within this regression model

were geographic density, current religious identification, and former religious

identification. The current and former religious identities both showed negatively

correlated relationships between these identities and internalized homophobia. The

relationship between geographic density and internalized homophobia showed a

significant and positive relationship. This finding is consistent with previous research

such as Cain et al. (2017), which found lower levels of internalized homophobia

correlated with higher population densities. Prior research has demonstrated that less

geographically dense areas tend to be more homogenous in belief systems and more

heteronormative, which led to higher levels of internalized homophobia in LGB

individuals (Agueli et al., 2022; Hubach et al., 2019). The findings of this study related to

geographical density would seem to confirm these findings as well

Moderating Relationship

The sixth RQ asked to what extent religious fundamentalism moderates the

relationship between religiosity and internalized homophobia among LGB adults who

have endorsed a religious transition from Christianity to a nonreligious identity. The

relationship between religiosity and internalized homophobia had been established in

previous research and demonstrated in this study as well. This portion of the study sought

to determine if this relationship was moderated by religious fundamentalism. This

question and subsequent analysis looked to determine if the constructs of religious

fundamentalism influenced religiosity in such a way as to affect the relationship with

internalized homophobia. Considering the definition of religious fundamentalism offered

by Pollack et al. (2023) as described in the previous section, it would seem that religious

fundamentalism is distinct from other forms of religious thought. Capturing that dynamic

in this study, and the impact of that on the variable of internalized homophobia is

important in understanding the effects of this phenomena on aspects of the individual’s

life.

Religiosity can be experienced and expressed in heterogeneous ways. Religiosity

may be considered as having two distinct dimensions: extrinsic/intrinsic and

social/individual (Van Camp et al., 2016). The intrinsically motivated individual may

have internalized religion as a part of their identity whereas the extrinsically motivated

one may not. Carlucci et al. (2023) found in a study of the relationship between religious

fundamentalism and values that individuals rating highly on religious fundamentalism

tend to endorse threat avoidance through conformity to social and religious norms and

preserve the status quo through the endorsement of traditional values and emotional and

behavioral control. The findings of this study appear to confirm these findings as

religious fundamentalism was shown to have a moderating effect on the relationship

between religiosity and internalized homophobia.

The relationship between religiosity and internalized homophobia was shown to

be statistically significant in this study leading to the conclusion that higher levels of

religiosity predict higher levels of internalized homophobia. This relationship was also

shown to be moderated by religious fundamentalism. This suggests that there are

constructs within religious fundamentalism that strengthen the rejection of homosexuality

and difficulty in incorporating positive views of homosexuality in those who no longer

endorse a Christian identity. This finding is consistent with the findings of Heiden-Rootes

et al. (2018), which found an indirect association between the religious conservatism of a

college campus and the levels of depression in the LGBT students through the pathways

of increased internalized homophobia and a lack of acceptance. This interpretation also is

consistent with the results of a study conducted by Brandt and Van Tongeren (2017), who

found that individuals high on fundamentalism displayed more intergroup prejudice and

bias compared with those low on fundamentalism. The conceptualization of religious

beliefs as absolutely true may make it more difficult for those who once endorsed such a

view to shift from once deidentifying from the underlying social or individual identity, as

supported in this study.

Limitations of the Study

This study was conducted via online survey and was done by self-report. The

large majority of respondents were gathered from SurveyMonkey’s paid pool, which may

potentially affect the generalizability of this study. The self-selection process has

potential to affect the generalizability of the study as well. Additionally, the responses

cannot be verified as accurately representing the experiences, thoughts, and beliefs of the

respondents. While the participant eligibility filtering process was designed to

specifically eliminate potential participants who did not meet the study criteria, this

cannot be assumed to have been completely effective. The larger sample size that

required by a power analysis was intended to mitigate some of these concerns.

The nature of a survey based on same-sex attraction and religion may lead to

social desirability issues for the respondents. Religion and morality are linked, and

research into religious residue discussed elsewhere in this paper has demonstrated that

religious identity change does not necessarily mean that the underlying beliefs, thoughts,

and emotions related to those religious beliefs will change along with the identity. This

may lead to a desire to answer questions related to religion and/or same-sex attraction in

socially desirable ways. The anonymity and online nature of the study was designed to

address this.

Recommendations

This study was designed to investigate the extent to which outness, perceived

social support, religiosity, and religious fundamentalism predicted internalized

homophobia. As the percentage of Americans who identify as Christian changes,

understanding that phenomenon more deeply is an important consideration. Because

Christianity explicitly and implicitly influences thoughts and beliefs regarding

homosexuality and same-sex attraction, understanding the religious residue effect present

in the population of religious dones is particularly important considering the potential

mental health outcomes. This study resulted in significant findings regarding these

variables and their predictive relationship with internalized homophobia. Considering the

strength of the relationship between the religion-based variables, it is important to

investigate these relationships more closely.

As the number of individuals deidentify from the religion of their upbringing

increases, it is important to make clearer distinctions of that process and with what they

might be replacing these beliefs. Not all religious dones become nonbelievers as indicated

in the demographics of this study. In this study, 56.5% of the respondents endorsed a

current religious identity of atheist or agnostic, with the remainder identified as spiritual

but not religious, having joined a non-Christian religion, or being a nonaffiliated believer.

Understanding the distinction between the variety of belief systems held by formerly

Christian adults who endorse a same-sex attraction may be important in understanding

the differing social processes individuals go through as they deidentify from a faith-based

belief.

Another important finding that could benefit from further study is the relationship

between religiosity and religious fundamentalism with internalized homophobia.

Considering the strength of the relationship between religious fundamentalism and

internalized homophobia, natural questions remain concerning this relationship. In this

study, I included two relevant religion-based variables, those being religiosity and

religious fundamentalism. The insights gained, particularly about religious conservatism,

are valuable, but conclusions cannot be drawn regarding the actual relationship. There

may be other variables such as right-wing authoritarianism and social identity

considerations within a family unit. Other potential influential variables might include

political conservatism due to the correlated factors of resistance to change and opposition

to equality (van der Toorn et al., 2017), which have crossover with religious

fundamentalism as defined above by Pollack et al. (2023) A future study seeking to create

a model to predict internalized homophobia using primarily religious or ideological

variables rather than the social ones might further clarify what pathways and barriers

exist for the experience of religious identity change in LGB adults.

Implications

Religious identity change continues to be a factor in the United States and in other

Western nations. The goal of this study was to explore the relationship between the

conflicting social identities of religion and sexuality in this population. This is a

population that is insufficiently understood due to the impermanence of religious identity

and the conflict between religious teaching and sexual orientation. This population also

struggles with acceptance and cognitive dissonance as established in Chapter 2. The

literature review conducted for this study detailed evidence of the conflict in these two

social identities as well as how religious residue may explain some of the mechanisms

related to the maintenance of internalized homophobia after an individual separates from

the religion that taught homosexuality was wrong or sinful. The results of this study

confirmed these conclusions and added to them, particularly related to the relationship

between religious variables and internalized homophobia.

Several studies in the literature review of this study explored the relationship

between religiosity and internalized homophobia/sexual stigma. Wilkerson et al. (2012)

demonstrated that more fundamentalist Christian groups had higher correlations between

religiosity and internalized homophobia compared with Catholic or Mainstream

Protestant. Szymanski and Carretta (2020) continued this line of research and found that

religiosity moderated the relationship between religious-based sexual stigma and

internalized heterosexism. The findings of this study are consistent with these findings

that higher levels of religiosity are predictive of higher levels of internalized homophobia.

This study also demonstrated that religious fundamentalism significantly

contributed to the model predicting internalized homophobia in the population of LGB

adults who have changed their religious identity. Fundamentalism was also found to

moderate the relationship between religiosity and internalized homophobia. This supports

the findings of Warriner et al. (2013), who found a significant correlation between

religious fundamentalism and sexual prejudice. These findings also support those of

Brandt and Van Tongeren (2021), who found that a literal approach to belief was

predictive of prejudice.

The implications of this study involve the experience of LGB adults who grew up

in religious and/or fundamentalist religions and are struggling with the identity conflict

discussed above. Religious residue seems to suggest that the beliefs internalized in youth

related to religion and homosexuality are not easily separated from, which likely

contributes to the continued experience of internalized homophobia in this population. In

the creation of programs and interventions to address this, it would be important to

consider the religious residue effect, which might present as a barrier to change.

Considering the influence of religious fundamentalism on internalized homophobia,

designing a distinct approach to internalized homophobia for those who were raised in a

fundamentalist faith would follow from this study as well as others with similar findings.

Further research is needed to better understand the processes by which a person

deidentifies from the religion of their upbringing. There are likely many pathways of

deidentification that involve variables such as the ones included in the study such as

perceived social support and the fundamentalist nature of their former religion, among

others. Generating a better and more nuanced picture of how different people go about

changing their religious identity may help psychologists and others better understand

underlying issues such as internalized homophobia.

Conclusion

Research into the population of adults who have changed their religious identity to

one of nonbelief in a deity is still ongoing. I sought to identify contributing variables to

the experience of internalized homophobia in LGB adults who have deidentified from a

Christianity-aligned faith. The results demonstrated a significant relationship between

religiosity, religious fundamentalism, outness, geographical location, current religious

identity, former religious identity and the dependent variable of internalized homophobia.

These results contribute to the ongoing research into the phenomenon of religious residue

and the experience of changing a religious identity, particularly how it impacts sexual

minorities and stigma. Further research is needed into the contributing factors leading to

cognitive dissonance in the process of religious identity change in sexual minorities.

These composite data may help in the development of interventions to help adults

reconceptualize their beliefs and social identities after such a change.

Religious Identity, Sexual Identity, and Internalized Homophobia in Adults Who Have Deidentified From Christianity

Students also viewed