(PS1-C55) Do Minority Stress Experiences Negatively Impact Social Support’s Positive Effect on Physical Health Among Sexual and Gender Minorities Assigned Female at Birth?

Sexual and gender minorities (SGM) are at higher risk for physical health difficulties than their heterosexual cisgender counterparts (Lick et al., 2013). According to minority stress theory, SGM face unique stressors based in the stigmatization of their marginalized identities, leading to several negative outcomes, including poor physical health (Chandola et al., 2006). In the general population, social support is associated with better physical health and buffers against negative health effect of stress (Fahmy & Wallace, 2019). Among sexual minority adults, those who experience more minority stress report lower social support, which, in theory, would deprivive them of its positive effects on health (Lehavot and Simoni 2011). However, most research is conducted with cisgender sexual minority adults and has not investigated how physical health is impacted. The present study investigated if a minority stress moderates the relationship between social support and physical health in young SGM.

Data were drawn from FAB400, a longitudinal cohort study of young SGM-AFAB (N= 488). Participants with missing data on the minority stress variables were removed from the analytic sample (N = 463). Participants completed the PROMIS Global Physical Health subscale (Hays et al., 2009), the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support, which measures support from three sources: friends, family, and “special person” (Zimet et al., 1988),  and validated self-report measures of minority stress: History of LGBT Specific Victimization, The Sexual Orientation Based Microaggressions Scale and Sexual Minority Internalized Stigma Scale (Puckett et al., 2017; Ramirez et al., 2010; D’Augelli et al., 1998; Swann et al., 2016).

            To test hypotheses, three moderator analyses were performed for each social support type using PROCESS for each minority stressor as the moderator. The interactions between internalized stigma and family social support, β = -.28, t(463) = -2.48, ΔR2 = .04, p < .05 and victimization and family social support, β = -.35, t(463) = -1.70, ΔR2 = .006, p < .05, were statistically significant. Consistent with hypotheses, when either internalized stigma or victimization were high (β = .11, p < .001 β = .27, p = .29, respectively), the positive association between family social support and physical health was weaker than when those minority stressors were lower (β = .46, p < .001 β = .37, p < .05, respectively). There was no significant interaction for family support and microaggression or any other type of support and the minority stressors.

            Our findings contribute to evidence that support is associated with physical health in SGM. Though our data is cross-sectional, our results provide tentative support to the theory that if SGM youth experience more proximal and distal minority stress, they may isolate themselves from their families and in turn, stop receiving vital social support. This is significant because poor general health in adolescence predicts development of acute diseases and chronic conditions in adulthood (Grool et al., 2012) and social support is an easily accessible prevention effort (Fahmy & Wallace, 2019).