Symposia
LGBTQ+
Eduardo Hernandez Mozo, None (he/him/his)
Research Assistant
San Diego State University
San Diego, California
Jaclyn A. Siegel, Ph.D.
Postdoctoral Research Scholar/Project Director
San Diego State University
Pasadena, California
Isaiah J. Jones, B.A.
Doctoral Student
University of California, Santa Barbara
Isla Vista, California
David B. Rivera, B.A.
Doctoral student
University of California, Santa Barbara
Goleta, California
Aaron Blashill, PhD (he/him/his)
Associate professor
San Diego State University
San Diego, California
Sexual minorities are more likely to be diagnosed with borderline personality disorder (BPD) compared to their heterosexual counterparts. The minority stress model may explain the disparity in BPD diagnoses given that sexual minority men (SMM) experience proximal and distal stressors related to their sexual orientation, which increases their vulnerability to adverse psychological and behavioral conditions. In particular, SMM experience elevated rates of suicidality, substance use, psychopathology, impulsive behaviors, and interpersonal difficulties due to rejection, which often resemble the diagnostic criteria for BPD. Intra-minority stress (IMS) theory posits that SMM experience stress due to status-based pressures (e.g., wealth, attractiveness) within the community, which is positively associated with anxiety, depression, and HIV-transmission behaviors. The IMS model may further explain BPD symptoms among SMM. We hypothesized IMS will explain a significant amount of variance of BPD symptoms after controlling for minority stressors. Data was collected from 315 SMM (Mage = 23.97, SD = 4.05) via Qualtrics panels across the U.S. A hierarchical linear regression was conducted with BPD symptoms as the outcome variable. Minority stressors (e.g., internalized homophobia, sexual orientation concealment, major discrimination, day-to-day discrimination) were entered in block one and IMS was entered in block two. Results revealed that Step 1 was significant F(4,310)= 32.93, p < .001. Both major (β = .13, p = .03) and day-to-day discrimination (β = .44, p < .001) were significantly associated with BPD symptoms. The first model accounted for 28.9% of the variation in BPD symptoms. Step 2, which included IMS, was significant F(1,309)= 10.30, Δ R² = .023, p < .001. IMS was significantly associated with BPD symptoms (β = .16, p = .001) and day-to-day discrimination remained significant (β = .42, p < .001). The second model accounted for 31% of the variance in BPD symptoms. These findings warrant clinicians to evaluate not only for minority stressors, but also stressors within the SMM community, which may be an additional risk factor in the development of BPD symptoms.