Abstract
Experience of authenticity (presentation as one’s true, internal self) is dependent on how well one perceives themselves to fit into the given environment. Most environments are built by majority-group members to suit and accept fellow majority-group members. Therefore, minority-identifying individuals are more likely to encounter environments that do not suit or accept their self. Theoretically, LGB (lesbian, gay, bisexual) individuals are then less often afforded opportunities to present authentically or experience the related increased well-being. It is here I identify a link between authenticity and LGB individuals’ unique experiences of prejudice (i.e. minority stress). Hatzenbuehler’s Psychological Mediation Framework (2009) present that minority stress’ reduction of well-being is not due only to the direct impacts of minority stress, but due to minority stress’ inhibition of psychological and affective processes. In this PhD thesis, I combine authenticity and minority stress theory to propose authenticity as one of these, yet under-recognised, psychological processes inhibited by minority stress experience to explain LGB individuals’ reduced well-being. To do so, I present three research questions:1. Do authenticity experiences differ between LGB and non-LGB individuals?
2. Which, if any, factors are associated with, or impacted by, authenticity experiences and may contribute to group differences between LGB and non-LGB individuals?
3. How do differing authenticity experiences relate to or impact the expected well-being disparity between LGB and non-LGB individuals?
In the first empirical chapter of this PhD (Chapter Three), I assessed the extent to which the current literature answers these three research questions. I conducted a scoping review of literature examining the relationships between minority stress, authenticity and well-being in an LGB sample. I found preliminary evidence that authenticity protects LGB individuals’ well-being against internal experiences of prejudice (proximal minority stressors). Current literature did not support conclusions as to authenticity protecting against external experiences of prejudice (distal minority stressors), nor whether authenticity is being experienced differently by LGB individuals due to their experience of minority stress. Exploring these gaps in the literature formed the basis of the first empirical chapter of this PhD.
In the second empirical chapter of this PhD (Chapter Four), I investigate all three questions posed by this PhD. I compared LGB and non-LGB individuals’ experience of minority stress, authenticity, and well-being both cross-sectionally and longitudinally, collecting two waves of data, three months apart. LGB individuals experienced significantly more minority stress, and significantly lowered authenticity and well-being than non-LGB individuals. Authenticity also had differing impacts on LGB and non-LGB well-being: level of authenticity did not predict well-being for non-LGB individuals, but LGB individuals high in authenticity experienced significantly higher well-being than those low in authenticity, even when facing high levels of minority stress. This preliminary cross-sectional evidence of authenticity impacting LGB well-being prompted a more granular approach, exploring the impacts of authenticity experience on a smaller, day-to-day scale.
In the third empirical chapter of this PhD (Chapter Five), I further investigate the second and third questions: which factors may contribute to LGB group disparity in authenticity and well-being? I utilised daily diary methodology to sample only LGB individuals once a day, for five days. Current-day authenticity significantly predicted current-day thriving for LGB individuals. Authenticity fully mediated the relationship between proximal minority stress experience and well-being. This full mediation corroborates previous empirical findings discussed in the scoping review (Chapter Three) and aligns well with my proposed addition to Hatzenbuehler’s Psychological Mediation Framework (2009). With this more sophisticated understanding of how minority stress, authenticity and well-being are uniquely experienced by LGB individuals, I revisit LGB/non-LGB group differences in the third and final empirical chapter of this PhD (Chapter Six).
In the fourth and final empirical chapter of this PhD (Chapter Six), I re-examined all three questions with an experimental methodology. Previous chapters have affirmed that LGB individuals’ face prejudice not experienced by non-LGB individuals. I aimed to test whether LGB experiences of minority stress result in a more negative self-perception. To do so, I compared LGB and non-LGB self-positivity bias. Self-positivity is differently experienced by LGB and non-LGB individuals. LGB individuals exhibited significantly less self-positivity bias toward their authentic-selves, while non-LGB participants demonstrated equal self-positivity bias toward both selves. LGB individuals’ decreased self-positivity bias toward their authentic-selves as compared to non-LGB individuals highlights how minority stress experience may directly impact self-perception. I speculate LGB individuals’ negative authentic-self self-perception contributes, at least in part, to their reduced experience of authenticity.
Taken together, the findings of all three empirical studies of this PhD thesis present compelling answers to the three questions posed by this PhD. My findings evidence a disparity between LGB and non-LGB individuals in experience of authenticity and well-being, contributed to by minority stress experience. However, my findings also demonstrate the utility of authenticity in protecting and increasing the well-being of LGB people experiencing minority stress. With the current evidence, I consider authenticity a valuable, under-utilised tool for clinicians working with LGB clients. I encourage the findings of this PhD thesis to be replicated in LGB samples and extended to other groups experiencing minority stress, to further understand the utility of authenticity in protecting the well-being of diverse peoples.
| Date of Award | 2025 |
|---|---|
| Original language | English |
| Supervisor | Katarina Fritzon (Supervisor), Douglas Angus (Supervisor) & M Lee (Supervisor) |