Disclosure and Help-Seeking Experiences of Sexual and Gender Minority Victims of Intimate Partner Violence: A Mixed-Methods Study

Abstract

Sexual and gender minorities assigned female at birth (SGM-AFAB) experience high rates of intimate partner violence (IPV), with negative effects on health and well-being. Disclosure of and help-seeking for IPV can support the well-being of IPV survivors, yet are understudied among SGM-AFAB people. To better understand the IPV disclosure and help-seeking experiences in this population, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 41 SGM-AFAB young adults who experienced physical, sexual, or severe psychological IPV. Qualitative analyses explored to whom SGM-AFAB disclosed IPV, barriers to disclosure/help-seeking, the types of responses received, and perceived helpfulness of responses. Exploratory mixed methods analyses assessed frequency of code endorsement, demographic differences, and associations among codes. Three-quarters of participants disclosed IPV, though rates were lower for sexual and physical than psychological IPV and very few sought help from formal sources. The most common barriers to disclosure were not viewing the IPV as abuse and anticipation of negative responses, often due to stigma; other participants described inability to access formal help and concerns about SGM incompetence in those services. Most actual responses received were considered helpful, including emotional support, labeling the IPV as unhealthy, nonjudgmental listening, actions to stop the IPV, and practical support. Minimizing IPV or criticizing the victim was common unhelpful response; advice to end the relationship was considered helpful and unhelpful. Whereas 92% of friend responses were described as helpful, around half of family (56%) and therapist (62%) responses were helpful. Findings suggest that efforts to increase access to culturally affirmative services and educate SGM youth to recognize IPV in their relationships may help promote help-seeking and well-being among SGM-AFAB IPV survivors.

Keywords

intimate partner violence LGBT young adults disclosure help-seeking

Introduction

Although intimate partner violence (IPV) is prevalent among all adolescents and young adults (Breiding et al., 2014; Kann et al., 2016), rates are particularly high among sexual and gender minority (SGM) youth (i.e., those who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer or any other non-heterosexual identity, and/or as a gender that does not match their biological sex assigned at birth). Compared to heterosexual and cisgender individuals, SGM individuals report 2 to 5 times more psychological abuse, physical aggression, and sexual violence from romantic partners during adolescence (Dank et al., 2014; Kann et al., 2011; McLaughlin et al., 2012; Olsen et al., 2017) and young adulthood (Porter & Williams, 2011; Rhodes et al., 2009). Furthermore, among SGM young people, those assigned female at birth (AFAB) report higher rates of IPV than those assigned male at birth (Martin-Storey, 2015; Olsen et al., 2017; Reuter et al., 2017; Whitton, Newcomb et al., 2019). The high rates of IPV among sexual and gender minorities assigned female at birth (SGM-AFAB) youth are particularly concerning given the broad negative effects of IPV on academic and occupational functioning, psychological well-being, and physical health (Exner-Cortens et al., 2013; Smith et al., 2017). Indeed, there is some evidence that SGM-AFAB experience worse physical and psychological consequences of IPV than cisgender, heterosexual women (Walters et al., 2013).

Several factors likely contribute to SGM-AFAB’s poor outcomes following IPV. SGM youth often lack protective resources, such as social support from families and schools (Eisenberg & Resnick, 2006; Safren & Heimberg, 1999), that might buffer them from the negative effects of IPV (Beeble et al., 2009), and face unique stigma-based stressors that may exacerbate negative responses to IPV (Carvalho et al., 2011). Another important potential contributor is SGM-AFAB’s limited disclosure of and help-seeking for IPV. Though data are sparse, two studies of young adults found that only around one-third of SGM victims of IPV disclosed it to anyone (Sylaska & Edwards, 2015) or sought IPV-related services (Scheer & Baams, 2019), in contrast to roughly 75% of heterosexual young adults (Edwards et al., 2012). Among SGM adolescents, very few IPV victims disclose to an adult (15%; Freedner et al., 2002) or seek formal help (18%; Dank et al., 2014). Across age, SGM IPV victims are more likely to disclose to friends and other informal supports than to seek formal IPV services (Head & Milton, 2014; Irwin, 2008; Kurdyla et al., 2021; McClennen et al., 2002; Sylaska & Edwards, 2015).

Though reasons for the low rates of disclosure and formal help-seeking among SGM IPV victims are not well understood, an emerging literature suggests several factors may be at play. First, similar to heterosexual/cisgender individuals, SGMs have reported not disclosing IPV because they did not want to upset or be disloyal to the abusive partner (Turell & Herrmann, 2008), and because they did not view the abuse as serious enough to warrant reporting or help (Head & Milton, 2014; Sylaska & Edwards, 2015). Some SGM victims of IPV did not tell anyone about the IPV because they did not want to contribute to negative views of the SGM community (Harden et al., 2022) or due to privacy concerns (Sylaska & Edwards, 2015), which are exacerbated by small, close-knit SGM communities (Duke & Davidson, 2009; Ristock, 2003) and fears of “outing” to unaccepting others (Carvalho et al., 2011). Others describe reluctance to seek help due to concerns of homophobic or discriminatory responses from service providers (Bornstein et al., 2006; Head & Milton, 2014; St. Pierre & Senn, 2010). Such concerns are not unfounded; mainstream victim services are largely ill-informed about same-sex IPV (Ciarlante & Fountain, 2010), often denying access to SGM IPV survivors and failing to protect them from same-gender abusers (Aulivola, 2004; Bornstein et al., 2006). Though many SGM IPV survivors would prefer SGM-specific services, few exist or are accessible (St. Pierre & Senn, 2010).

There is scant research on the responses that SGM IPV survivors receive when they do disclose or seek help. We located only one study: 27 SGM young adults who had disclosed physical IPV were asked open-ended questions about the most and least helpful responses received (Sylaska & Edwards, 2015). Commonly reported helpful responses included empathic support, talking or listening, advice, and practical support. Taking control of things and not understanding the situation were common unhelpful responses. This echoes findings that the most frequent responses to SGM sexual assault disclosures are positive, including emotional support, distraction, and tangible aid (e.g., Koon-Magnin & Schulze, 2019; Pinciotti et al., 2023); however, taking control, victim blaming, and turning away are also fairly common, particularly from formal sources, with negative effects on post-assault recovery. It is important for the field to better understand the responses SGM receive to disclosure and help-seeking, given evidence that positive reactions to IPV disclosure from both informal and formal sources are associated with positive mental health outcomes and stronger intentions to seek services in the future (Calton & Cattaneo, 2014; Sylaska & Edwards, 2014).

The Current Study

In the current study, we aimed to build our understanding of the IPV disclosure and help-seeking experiences of SGM-AFAB young people (emerging and young adults) who had experienced IPV victimization. Toward this aim, we conducted semi-structured interviews to gather a rich, insider perspective from young SGM-AFAB IPV victims themselves. We then qualitatively analyzed these interviews to explore: (a) whether SGM-AFAB disclose or seek help for IPV they experience, and from whom; (b) barriers to disclosure and help-seeking; and (c) responses to SGM-AFAB’s IPV disclosure and help-seeking, including the type of response or support provided and its perceived helpfulness. In exploratory mixed methods analyses, we examined differences in IPV disclosure and help-seeking experiences by demographic characteristics, IPV type, and IPV directionality (unidirectional victimization vs. bidirectional).

We designed this study with the aim of extending the existing literature in several ways. First, we included participants who had experienced a wider range of IPV—including physical, sexual, psychological, and coercive control—than most previous studies, which often focus on physical violence only (e.g., Sylaska & Edwards, 2015). This is important, as psychological IPV is the most common form of IPV (Halpern et al., 2004; Whitton, Dyar et al., 2019) and has negative consequences on victim’s health and well-being (Hellemans et al., 2015; Pepper & Sand, 2015). Second, we examined these experiences among young adults (ages 18–32 years). Though it is during this age range that rates of IPV peak, little research has explored SGM young adults’ IPV disclosure and help-seeking experiences (for exceptions, see Scheer & Baams, 2019; Sylaska & Edwards, 2015). Third, in contrast to most samples that are heavily White, lesbian, and cisgender and do not reflect the current demographics of young SGM-AFAB in the United States, our participants were diverse in racial, sexual, and gender identity, enhancing representation of these understudied groups. We also included participants who experienced both unidirectional victimization and bidirectional IPV (as recommended by Sylaska & Edwards, 2015).

Methods

Participants and Procedures

Participants were drawn from FAB400, a longitudinal cohort study of 488 young SGM-AFAB (including sexual minority women, transgender men, and nonbinary AFAB individuals) focused on their health, development, and intimate relationships (Whitton, Dyar et al., 2019). FAB400 includes 88 SGM-AFAB participants from a prior cohort study (originally recruited in 2007) and a new cohort of 400 SGM-AFAB recruited in 2016 to 2017. Each cohort was recruited using social media, venue-based recruitment, and incentivized snowball sampling. At original cohort enrollment, all participants were 16 to 20 years old, AFAB, and either identified with a sexual or gender minority label or reported same-sex attractions or sexual behavior. All 488 participants completed the FAB400 baseline assessment in 2016 to 2017 (ages 16–32) and six follow-up interviews at 6-month intervals. At each assessment, participants reported on up to three sexual and/or romantic partnerships from the last 6 months. Participants completed a number of self-report measures about their relationship with each of these partners, including experiences of IPV, which were administered via computer-assisted self-interview to reduce embarrassment and enhance validity. Participants provided written informed consent, and a federal certificate of confidentiality was obtained to safeguard participant confidentiality. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Northwestern University.

In 2019, when participants had completed 4 to 5 waves of assessments, a subsample of 47 participants completed semi-structured interviews focused on their IPV experiences. Participants were eligible for the interviews if at any wave they reported sexual, physical, or severe psychological IPV victimization on the Sexual and Gender Minorities Conflict Tactics Scale (SGM-CTS2; Dyar et al., 2019). We used purposive sampling to assure a balanced mix of age, race/ethnicity, type of IPV (physical, sexual, psychological), and directionality of IPV (unidirectional victimization vs. bidirectional) and prioritized those who reported more recent and/or severe IPV. Eligible participants were invited to participate in “a one-on-one interview, during which we’ll talk about relationship conflict and other behaviors that may have happened with one or more of the romantic partners you answered questions about in earlier surveys.” Forty-seven interviews were completed; six were excluded from analysis because the participant reported no romantic relationships (n = 1) or no substantive IPV (n = 5; all endorsed severe psychological IPV on the SGM-CTS2 but only described minor verbal disagreements in the interview). See Table 1 for characteristics of the analytic sample, which was highly diverse in racial, sexual, and gender identity, as well as type of IPV experienced.

Table 1.

Characteristics of the Sample (N = 41).

Demographic Characteristics	n (%)
Race/ethnicity
Black	13 (31.71)
Latinx	14 (34.15)
White	12 (29.27)
Other	2 (4.89)
Sexual identity
Monosexual	12 (29.27)
Gay/Lesbian	12 (29.27)
Non-monosexual	19 (46.34)
Bisexual	17 (21.46)
Pansexual	2 (4.89)
Other	10 (24.39)
Queer	8 (19.51)
Unsure/Questioning	1 (2.44)
Asexual	1 (2.44)
Gender identity
Cisgender female	28 (68.29)
Gender minority	13 (31.71)
Transgender	1 (2.44)
Gender nonconforming	2 (4.89)
Gender queer	3 (7.32)
Nonbinary	7 (17.07)
	Mean (Range)
Age	21.63 (18–32 years)
IPV type in each relationship (N = 48)	n (%)
Sexual victimization	12 (25.00)
Physical victimization	2 (4.17)
Psychological victimization	15 (31.25)
Bidirectional sexual IPV	2 (4.17)
Bidirectional physical IPV	8 (16.67)
Bidirectional psychological IPV	9 (18.75)

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence.

Semi-Structured Interview

Interviews lasted 45 to 120 min and were conducted by one of four trained staff members using a semi-structured guide. Interviewers followed a script for primary questions, followed by unscripted probes to elicit more detail or clarify responses. Participants were asked to describe their experiences of IPV with a focal partner (selected ahead of time based on the presence of IPV in the partnership according to the SGM-CTS2), including specific IPV behaviors, contexts, motivations, and consequences (not described here because they are not relevant to the aims of this article). To gather information on disclosure of and help-seeking for the IPV, interviewers asked, “Did you talk to anyone about what was happening? Get help or support from someone about it?” and “Who did you talk to?” with follow-up probes specifically about parents, family, and formal supports (e.g., doctors, counselors, police, hotlines) if necessary. If participants indicated they did not disclose the IPV to anyone or to particular sources (e.g., parents), they were asked about barriers (e.g., “Why not?” “If you wanted to tell someone but didn’t, what got in the way?”). Follow-up questions focused on the response to disclosure/type of support provided (e.g., “What happened when you told/went to them?” “What was the nature of the conversation?”), and their evaluation of the response (e.g., “In what ways, if any, was it helpful/unhelpful?”). Participants were then asked if they experienced IPV within any other relationships: if so, all questions were repeated in relation to those partnerships.

Participants were paid $30 for completing the interviews, which were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim by a transcription service, and uploaded into Dedoose, a qualitative analysis program. To ensure interviewers asked key questions relevant to study aims, a trained graduate research assistant listened to audio recordings of each interview and provided feedback regarding any deviations to the interviewer within a week (almost always before their next interview).

Coding and Analytic Approach

Analysis of the interview transcripts was guided by coding reliability thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2021), using an inductive approach in which codes are generated from the data. Coders were two doctoral students in clinical psychology, a post-baccalaureate research assistant, and a clinical psychology faculty member, all with training in qualitative methods. Because the full interview covered multiple topics, the first round of coding identified excerpts that made reference to disclosure of IPV or help-seeking for IPV, including decisions to disclose or not, reasons for this decision, others’ responses to disclosure or help-seeking, the nature of support provided, and participant reactions to or evaluations of that support (602 excerpts).

For code development and application, we first coded the excerpts from three interviews, identifying three overarching theme categories (disclosure/help-seeking, help received/response to disclosure, and barriers to disclosure and help-seeking) and generated a list of codes, which consisted of any topic that the coders perceived to be a significant or recurring pattern in the data. We then coded another three interviews, applying these codes, identifying additional codes, and consolidating highly similar codes. This process resulted in a codebook with a final set of codes: nine related to disclosure/help-seeking (two reflecting if the participant disclosed or not and seven reflecting to whom [source]), 13 related to help received/response to disclosure (11 descriptions of response/help; two regarding helpfulness or unhelpfulness of the response), and 17 related to barriers. The codebook included code descriptions and illustrative examples to facilitate intercoder agreement (MacQueen et al., 1998). A lead coder then applied these codes to a subset of transcripts. Two other coders then applied the codes. The pooled Cohen’s kappa (.83) indicated excellent inter-coder agreement (De Vries et al., 2008). After this demonstration of reliability, coders applied codes to all remaining excerpts. A randomly selected 20% of interviews were coded by two coders; Cohen’s kappa was .82 for these interviews, suggesting excellent inter-rater reliability.

For the present analyses, five codes present in less than five excerpts were excluded. We retained four codes with low endorsement that were striking and distinct from other codes: two in responses received (“tangible resources” and “threats”) and two help barriers (“fear of losing relationship” and “fear of investigation”). Analyses thus included 31 codes. In Tables 2 to 4 we present descriptions of each code, as well as frequency within participants and within excerpts.

Table 2.

Overview of Number of Participants That Disclosed/Sought Help, to Whom, and Helpfulness of the Response.

Codes	Participants (N = 41)	Excerpts (N = 123)
Codes	n (%)	n (%)
Disclosed/sought help	30 (73.17%)	66 (53.66%)
Recipient of disclosure/source of help	30	57
Friends	24 (80%)	33 (57.89%)
Family	11 (36.67%)	16 (18.39%)
Counselor/therapist	10 (33.33%)	12 (21.05%)
Police	2 (6.67%)	2 (3.51%)
Partner’s family	2 (6.67%)	2 (3.51%)
Teacher	1 (3.33%)	1 (1.75%)
Other formal source	1 (3.33%)	1 (1.75%)
Helpfulness	30	45
Helpful	22 (53.66%)	36 (80%)
Unhelpful	8 (19.51%)	9 (20%)

Note. Percentages of participants were calculated by dividing the number who endorsed the given code by the total number of total participants (n = 41), other than “recipient of disclosure/source of help”, which were divided by the number of participants that disclosed/sought help (n = 30). Percentages of excerpts were calculated by dividing the number of excerpts with the given code by the total number of excerpts coded as reflecting any disclosure or help-seeking (n = 123), other than “recipient of disclosure/source of help,” which were divided by the total excerpts coded for “source” (n = 57).

Table 3.

Frequencies and Descriptions of Codes within the Thematic Category “Barriers to Disclosure and Help-Seeking.”

Codes	Participants (N = 41)	Excerpts (N = 163)	Description
Codes	n (%)	n (%)	Description
Not abuse	31 (75.61%)	57 (34.97%)	Belief that IPV experience was not abusive
Not severe enough	25 (60.98%)	30 (18.40%)*	Because not as severe as what the participant considers abuse
Self-blame	7 (17.07%)	8 (4.91%)*	Because participant is culpable (deserved it; allowed it)
Denial	7 (17.07%)	11 (6.75%)*	Because don’t recognize/accept that they experienced abuse
Expecting unhelpful response	17 (41.46%)	22 (13.50%)	Belief that help received would be unhelpful or inadequate
Accessibility	10 (24.39%)	14 (8.59%)	Financial and/or logistic barriers to accessing help
SGM incompetence	10 (24.39%)	13 (7.98%)	Belief that help source would lack competence in engaging with SGM communities, including discrimination
Privacy/Discomfort with sharing	9 (21.95%)	10 (6.13%)	Discomfort in sharing personal information
No close others	8 (19.51%)	11 (6.75%)	Lack of close friends or family to whom could disclose IPV
Not wanting to burden others	7 (17.07%)	10 (6.13%)	Belief that sharing IPV experience would burden the recipient
Protecting partner	6 (14.63%)	7 (4.29%)	Concern that disclosing would damage others’ opinions of partner
Fear of Outing	6 (14.63%)	8 (4.91%)	Fear that help seeking would reveal participant’s SGM identity
Lack of trust in formal institutions	6 (14.63%)	7 (4.29%)	Belief that formal institutions cannot be trusted to treat them fairly
Fear of investigation	2 (4.88%)	2 (1.23%)	Worry that disclosure would lead to damaging investigation (by police, campus authorities, etc.)
Fear of losing relationship	2 (4.88%)	2 (1.23%)	Concern that seeking help would lead to unwanted loss of relationship

Note. Percentages of participants were calculated by dividing the number who endorsed the given code by the total number of total participants (n = 41). Percentages of excerpts were calculated by dividing the number of excerpts with the given code by the total number of excerpts coded as reflecting any help barrier (n = 163). IPV = intimate partner violence; SGM = sexual and gender minority.

Within excerpts indicating IPV was “not abuse,” 52.63% indicate “not severe enough,” 12.04% indicate “self-blame,” and 19.30% indicate “denial.”

Table 4.

Frequencies and Descriptions of Codes Within the Thematic Category “Help Received/Response to Disclosure.”

Codes	Participants (N = 41)	Excerpts (N = 112)	Description
Codes	n (%)	n (%)	Description
Emotional support	14 (34.15%)	16 (14.29%)	Offer of empathy, concern, or physical comfort (e.g., hugs)
Labeling as unhealthy	13 (31.71%)	22 (19.64%)	Indication that the IPV or relationship is abusive/toxic/unhealthy
Advice to end relationship	12 (29.27%)	18 (16.07%)	Advising participant to break up with or distance self from partner
Dismissing IPV	8 (19.51%)	9 (8.04%)	Minimizing the IPV or denying that it was abusive
Criticize participant	7 (17.07%)	10 (8.93%)	Expression of anger or criticism toward participant for behavior post-IPV (e.g., staying with partner)
Active intervention	6 (14.63%)	12 (10.71%)	Physical or verbal intervention to stop an IPV incident
Nonjudgmental listening	6 (14.63%)	7 (6.25%)	Allowing participant to talk about IPV without judgment or advice
Encourage participant to work on relationship	5 (12.20%)	5 (4.46%)	Telling participant to talk to partner about abuse or to work on the relationship
Informational resources	5 (12.20%)	7 (6.25%)	Information about IPV or healthy relationships, or coping skills
Threats against perpetrator	4 (9.76%)	4 (3.57%)	Indication that helper will retaliate against partner
Tangible resources	2 (4.88%)	2 (1.79%)	Financial assistance, housing, transportation

Note. Percentages of participants were calculated by dividing the number who endorsed the given code by the total number of total participants (n = 41). Percentages of excerpts were calculated by dividing the number of excerpts with the given code by the total number of excerpts coded as reflecting any help received (n = 112). IPV = intimate partner violence.

Next, we used mixed methods approaches (Axinn & Pearce, 2006) to conduct exploratory tests of demographic differences in code endorsement and associations among codes. First, we conducted χ² tests to examine differences in endorsement of each code by race (coded as White vs. Black vs. Latinx), gender identity (cisgender vs. gender minority), and sexual orientation identity (monosexual vs. non-monosexual vs. other). Then, using code-by-code interactions, we ran χ² tests for differences in each code by IPV type (physical vs. sexual vs. psychological) and IPV directionality (unidirectional victimization vs. bidirectional), and for differences in perceived helpfulness by source/recipient of disclosure and type of response/help received. The Ns for each analysis differed based on the number of relevant excerpts (described in Tables 2 –4).

Results

During the semi-structured interviews, participants described IPV experiences in a total of 48 relationships. As shown in Table 2, these IPV experiences were diverse in type (sexual, physical, and psychological) and directionality (unidirectional victimization vs. bidirectional).

Qualitative Analyses

Disclosure/Help-Seeking

See Table 2 for the frequencies of each code related to whether or not the participants disclosed or sought help for the IPV, and to whom. Of the 123 excerpts relevant to whether disclosure had taken place, 54% were coded as yes and 46% were coded as no. At the participant level, 73% of interviewees described disclosing/help-seeking at least once. By far the most common type of people/services to whom participants disclosed was friends, described by 80% of participants and in 58% of relevant excerpts. Around one-third of participants disclosed to family (37%) and counselors or therapists (33%), whereas two or fewer (<7%) disclosed to their partner’s family, police, teachers, or other formal sources. Notably, no participants mentioned disclosing to or seeking help from a hotline, shelter, or other service dedicated to IPV.

Barriers to Disclosing and Help-Seeking

There were 12 codes within the barriers to disclosing and help-seeking category. Frequencies and descriptions of each code are presented in Table 3 and representative quotes in Table 5. The most common barrier was not viewing the IPV events as abuse, endorsed by 75% of participants and in 35% of relevant excerpts. Most often, participants believed the IPV was not severe enough to be abuse, citing that it was not physical, did not lead to injury, or did not happen frequently enough to be considered abuse. Others did not view the behaviors as abusive because they felt that they were to blame, either because they did something to deserve it (e.g., made their partner angry) or allowed it to happen (e.g., invited the perpetrator into their home or did not take decisive enough action to stop unwanted sexual advances). Others acknowledged that although now they see the behaviors as abusive, at the time of the events they were in denial.

Table 5.

Representative Quotes of Each Code Related to the Thematic Category “Barriers to Disclosure and Help-Seeking.”

Not Abuse
Not severe enough	If he had physically hurt me. . . I would’ve called it abuse, but it was never outright or explicit like that. It didn’t leave me marked or anything.
Self-blame	[I thought] that what was happening was partly my fault. I didn’t think of it as necessarily abuse. Although I knew that the way that they treated me sexually was not okay. . . I guess if I had stood up for myself and made it known. But I have a hard time not blaming myself for that.
Denial	I was blind to it. Well, not blind to it; I just chose not to see it. I didn’t want to acknowledge it. . . just don’t want to think that it’s true, that it’s happening to you.
Expecting unhelpful response	[My mom] would be like, “Well, what did I do wrong?” Would somehow make it about herself. [They would] just be like, “Damn, that’s crazy”. . . so I just wanted to avoid it. I didn’t think the school psychologist would help because I’ve had interactions with her before, and she was about as helpful as a potato.
Accessibility	Therapists are expensive. And I know that my insurance does cover certain therapists, but I’m just—some of them require co-pay, which I don’t know if I’ll be able to. And then if I want to make it an ongoing thing, do I have enough money to actually continue going?
SGM incompetence	My school has mental health services available, but I [thought] these people won’t want to talk to me because I’m queer.
Privacy concerns	I’m not necessarily comfortable with sharing the intimate details of my relationship.
No close others	I guess I didn’t feel like I had somebody who was close enough to me to talk about that with. I didn’t really have any close friends at all. . . I just felt completely alone.
Not wanting to burden others	At some point I just feel like a burden, like talking, because it’s like I know what he’s doing isn’t okay because I’m not okay with it, but I’m continuing to stay with him. Just like worries about other people having to put in the emotional labor to hear about my stuff.
Protecting partner	When I was with [Partner], I didn’t—I really cared about him when I was with him and wouldn’t want to say anything that would put him in a bad light.
Fear of outing	I couldn’t really tell my parents [about IPV with partner] because they didn’t know I was out at the time.
Lack of trust in formal institutions	I wouldn’t go to no police officer. Because I would end up getting something way different every time than I was expecting. I’m not really trusting no police officers Queer people don’t trust shelters.
Fear of investigation	Well, our school has a very, very strict Title IX, we have a Title IX office now. If I even said anything remotely close to the truth, there would have to be some kind of investigation and I didn’t want that
Fear of losing relationship	And I guess it felt like if I said it to somebody else, it would be obvious that there was something wrong. But I just felt like I needed his affection or validation so strongly that I didn’t want to just give it up

Note. SGM = sexual and gender minority.

Three codes related to negative expectancies about help-seeking. Forty-one percent of participants did not disclose the IPV because they felt confident the response would be unhelpful. These participants expected that the people they told about the IPV would blame them, make it about themselves instead of the participant, or dismiss the IPV as not abuse or not severe enough to warrant attention. Around one-fourth of participants did not disclose because they anticipated a biased, unknowledgeable, or discriminatory response; 15% specifically stated that they did not trust formal sources or institutions due to anticipation of racism or homophobia.

Three additional codes described concerns that disclosing would lead to undesired outcomes, including their sexual orientation being revealed (15%), an investigation into the relationship by law enforcement or school officials (5%), others viewing their partner negatively (15%), or their relationship ending (5%). Two codes described an inability to get help: 9% said they could not access formal support due to logistics or finances, and 7% did not have anyone in their lives to whom they might disclose the IPV. Other codes included discomfort with sharing private experiences and worry about burdening others (often friends or parents) with the IPV.

Response Received

Eleven codes described the response to the participant’s disclosure of IPV. Frequencies and descriptions of each code are presented in Table 4, and representative quotes in Table 6. The most frequent responses to disclosure were emotional support (e.g., verbal expressions of support or empathy; physical comfort), labeling the events or relationship as unhealthy, and giving advice to end the relationship. Other common responses included dismissing or minimizing the IPV, criticism (e.g., getting angry with the participant for staying with the partner), actively intervening to stop an IPV incident, and nonjudgmental listening. Uncommon but notable codes were threats against the IPV perpetrator and offering tangible support (e.g., financial, housing, or transportation assistance to escape the IPV).

Table 6.

Representative Quotes of Each Code Related to the Thematic Category “Help Received/Response to Disclosure.”

Emotional support	She just held me as I sobbed. One of my friends specifically like would very explicitly be like. . ., “I’m here for you.”
Labeling as unhealthy	She was like, “I’m always happy to hang out with you and spend time with you. But I don’t really want to hang out with the two of you together because I don’t like seeing the way that Partner 2 treats you or talks to you.”
Advice to end relationship	[My best friend] was like, “. . .You need to break up.” [My therapist would] be like, “You should probably consider leaving.”
Dismissing IPV	They were kind of like, “Well, relationships are difficult,” that kind of thing, and that kind of felt like I was making everything up or like I was being a bad person or something.
Criticize participant	First, she judged me on the person he is, like, “How could you let this go on for so long?” Or “Why would you be with someone when you know how they act, and you don’t like it?”
Active intervention	And so his dad heard the commotion. He came upstairs, and he walked me out the house.
Nonjudgmental listening	I wouldn’t talk to them to get their input, I would talk to them because I needed to talk. It was partly listening to myself talk to them about him that made me realize that I wasn’t that happy. . .
Encourage to work on relationship	[Our friend] tried to help the situation on both ends. . . they tried to make both of us realize [our actions were wrong] and talk it out.
Informational resources	My therapist. . . gave me resources and other therapists
Threats against perpetrator	So there was a lot of, “We should key his car”
Tangible resources	I had gotten a family member to buy me a ticket back to [home city]. And it was a one-way.

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence.

In 45 excerpts, the participant commented on the helpfulness of the response. As shown in Table 2, 80% of excerpts described the response as helpful and 30% described the response as unhelpful (some excerpts included both codes). At the participant level, 64% of participants described at least one response as helpful, and 20% of them described a response as unhelpful.

Exploratory Mixed Methods Analyses

Tests for demographic differences in endorsement of codes in the disclosing/help-seeking and barriers to disclosure categories revealed no differences by race or sexual identity. However, disclosure (vs. non-disclosure) was endorsed more often by gender minority (71%) than cisgender participants (48%), X²(1, N = 124) = 4.77, p = .03. Recipient of disclosure also differed by gender identity, X²(3, N = 67) = 7.65, p = .05): Gender minority participants were less likely to disclose to friends than were cisgender participants (36% vs. 55%) and more likely to disclose to counselors/therapists (36% vs. 9%).

There were several demographic differences in how often codes regarding responses to disclosure were endorsed. Compared to responses described by White and Latinx participants, those described by Black participants less often involved labeling the behaviors as unhealthy (7% vs. 33% for White and 19% for Latinx participants), X²(2, N = 105) = 6.73, p = .03, and more often involved encouragement to work on the relationship (16% vs. 3% for White and 0% for Latinx participants), X²(2, N = 105) = 7.47, p = .02, and active intervention (31% vs. 0% for White and 9% for Latinx participants), X²(2, N = 105) = 16.52, p < .001. Monosexual participants more often described a response encouraging them to work on the relationship than did non-monosexual participants (20% vs. 2%, respectively), X²(2, N = 102) = 9.40, p < .01.

Code-by-code interactions revealed no differences in any code endorsement by IPV directionality (i.e., unidirectional victimization vs. bidirectional IPV). However, two differences by IPV type emerged. Excerpts were more likely to indicate that the participant disclosed or sought help if they described psychological IPV (68%) than if they described sexual (48%) or physical IPV (42%), X²(2, N = 132) = 6.94, p = .03. Excerpts were more likely to be coded as indicating that the participant received active intervention if they described physical IPV (58%) than if they described sexual (0%) or psychological IPV (3%), X²(2, N = 105) = 23.70, p < .001.

Code-by-code interactions indicated differences in perceived helpfulness by recipient of disclosure, X²(3, N = 47) = 8.65, p = .03; whereas 92% of friend responses were described as helpful, around half of family (56%) and therapist (62%) responses were helpful. Unexpectedly, 100% of the responses of all other formal sources (e.g., teachers, police) were considered helpful (though there were few of these). There was also a significant association between perceived helpfulness and type of response, X²(9, N = 49) = 23.25, p = .006. For most response types, the majority of excerpts indicated that the response was helpful: emotional support, encouragement to work on relationship, and threats against perpetrator (each 100% helpful), labeling as unhealthy (90%), nonjudgmental listening (83.33%), and advice to end the relationship (75%). However, two responses were overwhelmingly deemed unhelpful: dismissing IPV (75% unhelpful) and criticizing participant (100% unhelpful), X²(1, N = 51) = 7.09.

Discussion

This mixed methods study yielded valuable information about the IPV disclosure and help-seeking experiences of SGM-AFAB youth. First, findings suggest that many IPV victims in this vulnerable group do not disclose their experiences and even fewer seek formal help. Though 73% of interviewees described disclosing IPV at least once, when asked about IPV events with a particular partner, they disclosed only 54% of the time. Disclosure did not differ by sexual identity, race, or IPV directionality but SGM-AFAB were more likely to disclose psychological than physical or sexual IPV. This may explain the higher disclosure rates in this study than in studies only assessing physical IPV (Sylaska & Edwards, 2015), and raises concerns that SGM-AFAB victims of physical and sexual IPV are attempting to cope in isolation.

Furthermore, consistent with previous research (e.g., Dank et al., 2014; Freedner et al., 2002; Sylaska & Edwards, 2015), very few participants sought help from formal sources: Only around one-third of participants disclosed to a therapist or counselor, and only 3%–6% told other formal sources, including police or teachers. None disclosed to any formal IPV-focused services, including hotlines or shelters, despite that this was directly queried by interviewers. These findings suggest that formal IPV services are greatly underutilized by SGM-AFAB youth, who instead seek support from informal sources. Most (80%) of participants who disclosed IPV did so to friends, perhaps reflecting the emotionally close friendships of many SGM that can serve as “families of choice” (Green & Mitchell, 2008). Young SGM-AFAB IPV survivors have described choosing disclosure recipients based on emotional closeness, preexisting awareness of the abusive relationship, and expected confidentiality (Scheer et al., 2022); friends may most often meet these criteria. It is notable, however, that over one-third of participants disclosed to family members, suggesting that many view their parents and siblings as potential sources of support for IPV despite the high prevalence of family rejection among SGM youth (Hall, 2018). Overall, the clear tendency for SGM-AFAB to disclose to informal rather than formal sources provides support for “network oriented” efforts to improve IPV outcomes, which train informal network members to respond positively to disclosures (Goodman & Smyth, 2011; Ogbe et al., 2020).

Study findings also shed light on reasons behind these low rates of IPV disclosure and formal help-seeking among young SGM-AFAB. Mirroring quantitative findings from sexual minority college students (Sylaska & Edwards, 2015), the most common reason participants gave for not disclosing IPV was that they did not consider it to constitute abuse. Participants’ common views that the events were not severe enough to be abusive likely reflect minimization of abuse, a common strategy for coping with IPV that unfortunately is often reinforced by others (Overstreet et al., 2019). Furthermore, heteronormative depictions of IPV (e.g., of women “battered” by men) can make it difficult for SGM to recognize their experiences as abuse (Bornstein et al 2006; Calton et al., 2016). Efforts to raise awareness of the range of experiences that constitute abuse within non-heteronormative relationships, perhaps through public campaigns or outreach, are needed to help SGM-AFAB recognize IPV when it happens to them. Such efforts should include clear messaging about how certain partner behaviors are not healthy or safe under any circumstances, to address common views that IPV was not abusive because they had made their partner angry first or did not sufficiently resist it. These types of “deservingness beliefs” and self-blame represent significant barriers to help-seeking for IPV (Overstreet & Quinn, 2013).

In addition to help-seeking barriers common to all IPV victims (lack of social support, limited access to affordable services, not wanting to lose the partner), the qualitative findings suggest that SGM-AFAB IPV victims also face unique barriers based in stigma (Overstreet & Quinn, 2013). One-fourth of participants said they did not seek help because they believed the person or service would be discriminatory, insensitive or incompetent regarding SGM issues. Some explicitly noted they did not seek help because they do not trust formal institutions (shelters, the police) to treat them fairly as a sexual or racial minority person. Others did not disclose IPV due to fear that it would reveal their minority sexual identity, leading to rejection or discrimination. These findings add to growing evidence that anticipated stigma represents a common barrier to IPV help-seeking among SGM (Edwards et al., 2015; Head & Milton, 2014; Overstreet & Quinn, 2013). Extending those findings, our data also suggest that many SGM-AFAB expect an unhelpful or hurtful response to disclosure for reasons other than stigma. Participants described anticipating that friends would not have valuable support or advice to give, that parents would focus on themselves rather than the victim, and that school officials are generally unhelpful. These findings speak to the need for broad education of the people who interact with young adults (e.g., parents, teachers, counselors, and peer groups) on appropriate responses to IPV disclosure (Goodman & Smyth, 2011; Ogbe et al., 2020).

Despite the participants’ expectations of unhelpful responses, most described the actual responses they received as helpful, replicating findings from sexual minority college students (Sylaska & Edwards, 2015). Friends’ responses were more helpful than those of family or therapists, but across all sources responses were more likely to be helpful than not. Most notably, in contrast to past evidence that IPV victims find formal supports to be less helpful than informal supports (McClennen et al., 2002), two-thirds of therapist responses and 100% of responses from other formal sources (e.g., teachers, police) were considered helpful. Of course, because many participants chose not to seek help from formal sources they viewed as unsafe, unhelpful, or discriminatory, this number may reflect how participants only disclosed to formal sources known beforehand to be supportive and affirming. Nevertheless, it does underscore the importance of addressing anticipated helpfulness of IPV services, perhaps through marketing and improved signaling of cultural competency by providers.

This study also yielded novel findings about the wide range of responses SGM-AFAB young adults receive when they disclose IPV. Emotional support and nonjudgmental listening were common responses that were always considered helpful, suggesting the utility of training social networks to simply listen with warmth and empathy rather than attempt to solve the problem for the person disclosing IPV. Despite common notions that individuals should always exit relationships in which IPV has occurred, participants described all responses encouraging them to work on the relationship as helpful. It may be that such encouragement was only given in situations with low safety risks; future research is needed to determine when this advice is appropriate versus inappropriate. The vast majority of SGM IPV victims found it helpful when disclosure recipients labeled the IPV behaviors as unhealthy and unhelpful when they minimized the IPV. Together with evidence linking minimizing responses to depressive symptoms among IPV survivors (Overstreet et al., 2019), these findings underscore the importance of responding to IPV disclosures in a validating manner that conveys its seriousness. In contrast, advice to end the relationship was perceived as both helpful (¾ of the time) and unhelpful (one-fourth of the time), echoing findings from a sample of SGM college students (Sylaska & Edwards, 2015). Especially since criticizing the IPV victim—often for staying in the relationship—was universally viewed as unhelpful, encouragement to exit the relationship may only be helpful to SGM IPV victims when offered in the context of nonjudgmental emotional and practical support (Turell & Herrmann, 2008). In fact, tangible support (e.g., money, transportation, or housing), informational resources about relationship abuse and how to handle it, and active intervention to stop an ongoing instance of (typically physical) IPV were also valued and viewed as helpful by participants.

Extending the literature primarily focused on cisgender sexual minorities, findings revealed interesting information about help-seeking among gender minority AFAB youth, who were more likely than cisgender participants to disclose/seek help overall. Though this finding requires replication, it is consistent with a recent study of sexual minority adults indicating that help-seeking rates were higher among transgender and gender nonbinary than cisgender IPV victims (Kurdyla et al., 2021). Future research is needed to explore potential factors explaining these differences. Gender minority participants were also more likely to seek help from therapists or counselors than from friends, and less likely than cisgender women to disclose IPV to friends. Given evidence that interpersonal closeness, confidentiality, and affirmation of their SGM identity are more important factors in IPV disclosure decisions for gender minority than cisgender SGM (Scheer et al., 2022), these findings could reflect the stigma-based difficulties many young gender minorities face in establishing close, affirming friendships (McGuire et al., 2010). It also speaks to the importance of training therapists and counselors, including those in schools and community centers, to provide trans-affirmative IPV support services.

Conclusions should be drawn keeping study limitations in mind. Though the sample was community-based and more representative than college samples or those drawn from courts, shelters, or clinics, it was nevertheless a non-probability sample. Participants were recruited from Chicago, largely via SGM-focused events and social media connections; it is unclear if findings will generalize to SGM from less accepting regions or who are less connected to the SGM community. Participants who agreed to participate in the qualitative interviews about their relationship experiences may have had less severe IPV experiences and more positive responses to disclosure of their IPV experiences than those that did not. The sample is also small for drawing conclusions based on the mixed methods analyses.

Despite these limitations, the present findings have several important implications. The low rates of disclosure, particularly formal help-seeking, highlight the importance of efforts to promote help-seeking among SGM-AFAB IPV survivors. The barriers to help-seeking described by participants can inform such efforts, underscoring the importance of access to support services that are known to be culturally competent and affirming as well as education to help SGM recognize IPV within their non-heteronormative relationships. Finally, results suggest the value of training informal network members (peers, family) to respond positively to disclosures of IPV by SGM young adults by providing nonjudgmental listening, emotional support, and assistance in labeling the IPV as unhealthy while avoiding minimization of the IPV and criticism of the victim. Future research should continue to explore the circumstances under which certain responses (e.g., advice to work on or exit the relationship) are helpful versus harmful.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the FAB400 participants for their invaluable contributions toward understanding the health of the sexual and gender minority community.

Authors’ note

Some of these findings were presented at the 2021 meeting of the American Psychological Association.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article: This research was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01 HD086170; PI: Whitton). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funding agencies.

ORCID iD

Sarah W. Whitton

Author Biographies

Sarah W. Whitton, PhD, is a professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Cincinnati and director of the Today’s Couples and Families Research Program. Her research is primarily focused on the mental health and close relationships of individuals in marginalized groups, particularly sexual and gender minority individuals.

Emily Devlin, MA, is a doctoral student in clinical psychology at the University of Cincinnati. Her research focuses on minority stress and the impact it has on sexual and gender minority individuals’ mental and physical health.

Margaret Lawlace, MA, is a doctoral student in clinical psychology at the University of Cincinnati. Her research focuses on intimate partner violence in minoritized populations, its mental health consequences, and cultural sources of resilience.

Michael E. Newcomb, PhD, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Medical Social Sciences and the Institute for Sexual and Gender Minority Health and Well-being at Northwestern University. He is the Director of the THRIVE Center for Translational Science in Sexual and Gender Minority Health. His research focuses on health disparities impacting SGM youth, including HIV, substance use, and mental health, with an emphasis on the role of romantic relationships in ameliorating or exacerbating health problems.

References

Aulivola

(2004). Outing domestic violence: Affording appropriate protection to gay and lesbian victims. Family Court Review, 42, 162–177.

Axinn

W. G.

Pearce

L. D.

(2006). Mixed method data collection strategies. Cambridge University Press

Beeble

M. L.

Bybee

Sullivan

C. M.

Adams

A. E.

(2009). Main, mediating, and moderating effects of social support on the well-being of survivors of intimate partner violence across 2 years. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 718–729.

Bornstein

D. R.

Fawcett

Sullivan

Senturia

K. D.

Shiu-Thornton

(2006). Understanding the experiences of lesbian, bisexual and trans survivors of domestic violence: A qualitative study. Journal of Homosexuality, 51(1), 159–181. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v51n01_08

Braun

Clarke

(2021). Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern-based qualitative analytic approaches. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 21(1), 37–47.

Breiding

M. J.

Chen

Black

M. C.

(2014). Intimate partner violence in the United States — 2010. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

Calton

Cattaneo

L. B.

(2014). The effects of procedural and distributive justice on intimate partner violence victims’ mental health and likelihood of future help-seeking. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 84(4), 329–340. https://doi-org.uc.idm.oclc.org/10.1037/h0099841

Calton

J. M.

Cattaneo

L. B.

Gebhard

K. T.

(2016) Barriers to help-seeking for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer survivors of intimate partner violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 17(5), 585–600.

Carvalho

A. F.

Lewis

R. J.

Derlega

V. J.

Winstead

B. A.

Viggiano

(2011). Internalized sexual minority stressors and same-sex intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 26, 501–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-011-9384-2

10.

Ciarlante

Fountain

(2010). Why it matters: Rethinking victim assistance for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer victims of hate violence & intimate partner violence. National Center for Victims of Crime and National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, Washington, DC.

11.

Dank

Lachman

Zweig

J. M.

Yahner

(2014). Dating violence experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(5), 846–857.

12.

De Vries

Elliott

M. N.

Kanouse

D. E.

Teleki

S. S

. (2008). Using pooled kappa to summarize interrater agreement across many items. Field Methods, 20(3), 272–282.

13.

Duke

Davidson

M. M.

(2009). Same-sex intimate partner violence: Lesbian, gay, and bisexual affirmative outreach and advocacy. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 18(8), 795–816. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926770903291787

14.

Dyar

Messinger

Newcomb

M. E.

B. G.

Dunlap

Whitton

S. W.

(2019). Development and initial validation of three culturally sensitive measures of intimate partner violence for sexual and gender minority populations. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(15–16) NP8824–NP8851.

15.

Edwards

K. M.

Dardis

C. M.

Gidycz

C. A.

(2012). Women’s disclosure of dating violence: A mixed methodological study. Feminism & Psychology, 22(4), 507–517.

16.

Edwards

K. M.

Sylaska

K. M.

Neal

A. M.

(2015). Intimate partner violence among sexual minority populations: A critical review of the literature and agenda for future research. Psychology of Violence, 5(2), 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038656

17.

Eisenberg

M. E.

Resnick

M. D.

(2006). Suicidality among gay, lesbian and bisexual youth: The role of protective factors. Journal of Adolescent Health, 39(5), 662–668.

18.

Exner-Cortens

Eckenrode

Rothman

(2013, Jan). Longitudinal associations between teen dating violence victimization and adverse health outcomes. Pediatrics, 131, 71–78.

19.

Freedner

Freed

L. H.

Yang

Y. W.

Austin

S. B.

(2002). Dating violence among gay, lesbian, and bisexual adolescents: Results from a community survey. Journal of Adolescent Health, 31, 469–474.

20.

Goodman

L. A.

Smyth

K. F.

(2011). A call for a social network-oriented approach to services for survivors of intimate partner violence. Psychology of Violence, 1(2), 79–92.

21.

Green

R. J.

Mitchell

(2008). Gay and lesbian couples in therapy: Minority stress, relational ambiguity, and families of choice. In Gurman

A. S.

Lebow

J. L.

(Eds.), Clinical handbook of couple therapy (4 ed., pp. 662–680). Guildford Press.

22.

Hall

W. J.

(2018). Psychosocial risk and protective factors for depression among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer youth: A systematic review. Journal of Homosexuality, 65(3), 263–316.

23.

Halpern

C. T.

Young

M. L.

Waller

M. W.

Martin

S. L.

Kupper

L. L.

(2004). Prevalence of partner violence in same-sex romantic and sexual relationships in a national sample of adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 35(2), 124–131.

24.

Harden

McAllister

Spencer

C. M.

Stith

S. M.

(2022). The dark side of the rainbow: Queer women’s experiences of intimate partner violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 23(1), 301–313.

25.

Head

Milton

(2014). Filling the silence: Exploring the bisexual experience of intimate partner abuse. Journal of Bisexuality, 14(2), 277–299.

26.

Hellemans

Loeys

Buysse

Dewaele

De Smet

(2015). Intimate partner violence victimization among non-heterosexuals: Prevalence and associations with mental and sexual well-being. Journal of Family Violence, 30(2), 171–188.

27.

Irwin

(2008). (Dis)counted stories: Domestic violence and lesbians. Qualitative social work: QSW: Research and Practice, 7(2), 199–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325008089630

28.

Kann

McManus

Harris

W. A.

Shanklin

S. L.

Flint

K. H.

Hawkins

. . .Zara

(2016). Youth risk behavior surveillance—U.S. 2015. MMWR Surveillance Summaries, 65, 1–174.

29.

Kann

Olsen

E. O.

McManus

Kinchen

Chyen

Harris

W. A.

Wechsler

(2011). Sexual identity, sex of sexual contacts, and health-risk behaviors among students in grades 9–12–youth risk behavior surveillance, selected sites, United States, 2001–2009. Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Surveillance summaries (Washington, D.C. : 2002), 60(7), 1–133.

30.

Koon-Magnin

Schulze

(2019). Providing and receiving sexual assault disclosures: Findings from a sexually diverse sample of young adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(2), 416–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516641280

31.

Kurdyla

Messinger

A. M.

Ramirez

(2021). Transgender intimate partner violence and help-seeking patterns. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36, NP11046–NP11069.

32.

MacQueen

K. M.

McLellan

Kay

Milstein

(1998). Codebook development for team-based qualitative analysis. CAM Journal, 10(2), 31–36.

33.

Martin-Storey

(2015). Prevalence of dating violence among sexual minority youth: Variation across gender, sexual minority identity and gender of sexual partners. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 44(1), 211–224.

34.

McClennen

J. C.

Summers

A. B.

Vaughan

(2002). Gay men’s domestic violence: Dynamics, help-seeking behaviors, and correlates. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services: Issues in Practice, Policy & Research, 14(1), 23–49. https://doi.org/10.1300/J041v14n01_02

35.

McGuire

J. K.

Anderson

C. R.

Toomey

R. B.

Russell

S. T.

(2010). School climate for transgender youth: A mixed method investigation of student experiences and school responses. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 39(10), 1175–1188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9540-7

36.

McLaughlin

K. A.

Hatzenbuehler

M. L.

Xuan

Conron

K. J.

(2012). Disproportionate exposure to early-life adversity and sexual orientation disparities in psychiatric morbidity. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36(9), 645–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2012.07.004

37.

Ogbe

Harmon

Van den Bergh

Degomme

(2020). A systematic review of intimate partner violence interventions focused on improving social support and/mental health outcomes of survivors. PLoS One, 15(6), e0235177. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235177

38.

Olsen

E. O.

Vivolo-Kantor

Kann

(2017). Physical and sexual teen dating violence victimization and sexual identity among U.S. high school students, 2015. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(17–18), 3581–3600. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517708757

39.

Overstreet

N. M.

Quinn

D. M.

(2013). The intimate partner violence stigmatization model and barriers to help-seeking. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 35(1), 109–122.

40.

Overstreet

N. M.

Willie

T. C.

Sullivan

T. P.

(2019). Stigmatizing reactions versus general negative reactions to partner violence disclosure as predictors of avoidance coping and depression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(8), 1734–1752.

41.

Pepper

B. I.

Sand

(2015). Internalized homophobia and intimate partner violence in young adult women’s same-sex relationships. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 24, 656–673.

42.

Pinciotti

C. M.

Horrocks

B. K.

Witthuhn

L. A.

Ullman

S. E.

(2023). Sexual assault disclosure and outcomes in the LGB+ community. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity. https://doi-org.uc.idm.oclc.org/10.1037/sgd0000640.

43.

Porter

Williams

L. M.

(2011). Intimate violence among underrepresented groups on a college campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 3210–3224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510393011

44.

Reuter

T. R.

Newcomb

M. E.

Whitton

S. W.

Mustanski

(2017). Intimate partner violence victimization in LGBT young adults: Demographic differences and associations with health behaviors. Psychology of Violence, 7(1), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000031

45.

Rhodes

S. D.

McCoy

T. P.

Wilkin

A. M.

Wolfson

(2009). Behavioral risk disparities in a random sample of self-identifying gay and non-gay male university students. Journal of Homosexuality, 56, 1083–1100. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918360903275500

46.

Ristock

J. L.

(2003). Exploring dynamics of abusive lesbian relationships: Preliminary analysis of a multisite, qualitative study. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31(3), 329–341.

47.

Safren

S. A.

Heimberg

R. G.

(1999). Depression, suicidality, and related factors in sexual minority and heterosexual adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 859–866.

48.

Scheer

J. R.

Baams

(2019). Help seeking patterns among LGBTQ young adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(17–18), 8050–8069.

49.

Scheer

J. R.

Lawlace

Cascalheira

C. J.

Newcomb

M. E.

Whitton

S. W.

(2022) Help-seeking for severe intimate partner violence among sexual and gender minority adolescents and young adults assigned female at birth: A latent class analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 38(9–10) 6695–6722.

50.

Smith

S. G.

Basile

K. C.

Gilbert

L. K.

Merrick

M. T.

Patel

Walling

Jain

(2017). National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010–2012 state report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

51.

St. Pierre

Senn

C. Y

. (2010). External barriers to help-seeking encountered by Canadian gay and lesbian victims of intimate partner abuse: An application of the barriers model. Violence and Victims, 25(4), 536–552. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.25.4.536

52.

Sylaska

K. M.

Edwards

K. M.

(2014). Disclosure of intimate partner violence to informal social support network members: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15(1), 3–21. https://doi-org.uc.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/1524838013496335

53.

Sylaska

K. M.

Edwards

K. M.

(2015). Disclosure experiences of sexual minority college student victims of intimate partner violence. American Journal of Community Psychology, 55(3), 326–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-015-9717-z

54.

Turell

S. C.

Herrmann

M. M.

(2008). “Family” support for family violence: Exploring community support systems for lesbian and bisexual women who have experienced abuse. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 12(2–3), 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/10894160802161372

55.

Walters

M. L.

Chen

Breiding

M. J.

(2013). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 findings on victimization by sexual orientation. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

56.

Whitton

S. W.

Dyar

Mustanski

Newcomb

M. E.

(2019). Intimate partner violence experiences of sexual and gender minority adolescents and young adults assigned female at birth. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 43(2), 232–249.

57.

Whitton

S. W.

Newcomb

M. E.

Messinger

A. M.

Byck

Mustanski

(2019). A longitudinal study of IPV victimization among sexual minority youth. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(5), 912–945. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516646093