The "myth of gay affluence" has predominated popular and scientific thought, resulting in a lack of attention to the intersection of sexual orientation and socioeconomic status (SES).
But is it true that lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) people are wealthier and more educated than the general population? What is the experience like for people who are subjected to stigma for both their sexual orientation and SES (i.e., being "gay and poor") and what are the unique health implications? Does consideration of SES fundamentally change our common assumptions about what it means to be LGB?
McGarrity (2014) (PDF, 210KB)opens in new window examined this intersection and these queries in a recent literature review entitled "Socioeconomic Status as Context for Minority Stress and Health Disparities Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Individuals," published in Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity.
First, in a review of population-based studies, McGarrity concludes that the "myth of gay affluence" is, at best, an oversimplification and, at worst, a gross inaccuracy. Although education levels appear to be higher for LGB people, this advantage is not reflected in the individual income of gay men or the family income of lesbian couples.
Additionally, occupational choices differ in important ways by sexual orientation. LGB individuals are at least as socioeconomically diverse as heterosexual individuals, warranting additional attention to this intersection.
Second, the qualitative and quantitative research reviewed suggests that the intersection of being LGB and lower-SES (i.e., "gay and poor") represents a unique experience in several ways. Lower-SES LGB individuals may reside in a more hostile environment to LGB identity and expression, face stricter standards for gender role conformity, experience isolation from the mainstream LGB community, and engage in higher-risk health behaviors than higher-SES LGB individuals.
Third, preliminary evidence suggests that the minority stressors commonly studied as contributing factors to health disparities across LGB groups may differ by SES and that SES may provide a fundamental context for understanding the impact of these stressors on health.
Specifically, lower-SES LGB individuals may be more psychologically and physiologically vulnerable to the negative effects of discrimination on health and uniquely vulnerable to negative effects of sexual orientation disclosure on health. For example, the common assumption that disclosing one's sexual orientation is uniformly healthy may be inaccurate for lower status groups.
Prior research by McGarrity and Huebner (2014) suggests that being out and open about one's sexual minority status is beneficial to one's physical health for individuals with high income and education but detrimental for individuals with low income and education.
Overall, the research reviewed in this recent publication suggests that the intersection of SES and sexual orientation is health-relevant and worthy of future investigation. Researchers might consider re-examining the existing literature with increased awareness of how these social categories influence each other (i.e., understanding the existing literature on sexual orientation as predominantly a reflection of white, middle class, gay male experiences), hypothesizing about predictors that have traditionally gone unexamined (e.g., financial stress and poverty), and developing interventions that are inclusive of diversity within the LGB population.
Although the review focuses on the need to integrate research on SES into the LGB health literature, it also suggests that SES is a fundamental variable that should be examined more extensively in the field of psychology as a whole. Without specific attention to SES in psychology research, the field may continue to assume that prominent theories and findings apply universally instead of recognizing that some apply only to specific economic groups.
Citation:
McGarrity, L. A. (2014). Socioeconomic status as context for minority stress and health disparities among lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1(4), 383–397. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000067
Note: This article is in the Social Psychology & Social Processes topic area. View more articles in the Social Psychology & Social Processes topic area.