Poster #100 - Differences in Support and Online Contacts Between Sexual Minority and Heterosexual Adolescents

• In Event: Poster Session 06

Abstract

Background. Sexual minority (SM) adolescents report poorer relationship quality with peers and parents than heterosexual adolescents (Diamond & Lucas, 2004; Hatzenbuehler et al., 2012; Kiekens et al., 2020). This might result in sexual orientation-based differences in profiles of peer and family support, online contacts, and preference for online communication. That is, SM adolescents might not be able to receive support that addresses sexuality-related issues in their immediate peer or family environment (Doty et al., 2010), for instance, when they have not (yet) disclosed their sexual orientation. A lack of offline peer support might be substituted by online peer support. Family support might be harder to substitute online. SM adolescents’ profiles might thus be characterized by similar levels of peer support but lower levels of family support than heterosexual adolescents. Because SM adolescents might more often resort to online communities, we expect sexual orientation-based differences in frequent online contacts and preferences for online communication. SM adolescents’ profiles might show more frequent contact with friends they met online and a stronger preference for online communication than their heterosexual peers. However, there is a lack of knowledge about how SM and heterosexual adolescents differ in peer and family support, online contacts, and preference for online communication. This would contribute to understanding how SM adolescents adapt to adverse social climates and where (online or offline) interventions can reach out to SM adolescents.
Methods. Data stem from the 2017 Dutch Health and Behavior in School-Aged Children survey (N = 7391 students, Mage = 14.66 (1.64); 9.9% sexual minority). We used a latent profile analysis (LPA) to estimate peer and family support, online contacts, and preference for online communication profiles. Then, using the best fitting LPA solution, we assessed the association between sexual attraction and profile membership.
Results. Based on one-through-five profile solutions, a 3-profile solution best fitted the data. The first profile named “high support, high (preference) online contact” showed high rates of peer and family support, high contact with friends met online, and high preference for online contact (n = 3,142). The second profile named, “average support, low (preference) online contact” was characterized by average levels of support, low contact with friends met online, and low preference for online contact (n = 3,584). The third profile named “low support, high (preference) online contact” was distinguished by low rates of peer and family support, high contact with friends met online, and high preference for online contact (n = 665; see Table 1). As expected, SM adolescents had higher odds of falling in the low support, high (preference) online contact and the average support, low (preference) online contact profiles than in the high support, high (preference) online contact profile than heterosexual adolescents (see Table 2).
Conclusion. Findings indicate that SM adolescents report lower levels of social support, report higher rates of contact with friends met online, and have a stronger preference for online contact than their heterosexual peers. This suggests that efforts to create offline safe spaces in which SM adolescents can receive support are needed.

Authors

• Wouter Kiekens, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (UG/RUG)
  Presenting Author

• Tessa ML Kaufman, Universiteit Utrecht

• Laura Baams, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (UG/RUG)

• Jenifer de Lange

• Margreet de Looze

• Gonneke Stevens, University of Amsterdam

• Henny Bos, Universiteit van Amsterdam (UvA)