Disparities in Subjective Well-being by Sexual Orientation: Comparing Cohorts from pairfam’s (2008-09) and FReDA’s (2021) Baseline Waves

IF 1.5 Q2 DEMOGRAPHY Comparative Population Studies Pub Date : 2023-06-05 DOI:10.12765/cpos-2023-09
K. Hank, Franz J. Neyer, C. Thönnissen
{"title":"Disparities in Subjective Well-being by Sexual Orientation: Comparing Cohorts from pairfam’s (2008-09) and FReDA’s (2021) Baseline Waves","authors":"K. Hank, Franz J. Neyer, C. Thönnissen","doi":"10.12765/cpos-2023-09","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Significant expansion of legal rights and recognition of sexual minority populations triggered expectations that structural stigma, sexual minority stress and, consequently, previously well-documented disadvantages in health and well-being may decline over time. The empirical evidence on this issue is, however, still sparse and inconclusive. We contribute to this research by comparing baseline data from the German Family Panel (pairfam; 2008-09) and the German Family Demography Panel Study (FReDA; 2021). These data allow us to assess disparities in subjective well-being by sexual orientation and potential changes therein after legalisation of same-sex marriage in Germany in two adult cohorts interviewed more than a decade apart. We focus on two specific outcomes, namely life satisfaction and self-rated health. Two main findings emerged from our analysis: First, minority sexual orientation is associated with significantly lower subjective well-being, specifically lower life satisfaction. Second, there are no statistically significant changes in the sexual orientation-health nexus between cohorts. Our study, thus, neither lends support to “optimistic” expectations regarding the contribution of (further) reductions in institutional discrimination and structural stigma to (further) reductions in remaining disadvantages, nor does it lend support to “pessimistic” expectations suggesting that younger cohorts of sexual minority adults may experience an even larger gap in health and well-being than previous cohorts. We propose that the stability of sexual minorities’ disadvantages in subjective well-being during the first two decades of the 21st century in Germany be interpreted as the result of two opposing forces working in parallel: Reduced institutional discrimination and increased exposure to continued stigma. The legal recognition of same-sex relationships appears to be a necessary but not sufficient condition for the acceptance of sexual minorities. Remaining disparities by sexual orientation will thus not simply disappear when institutional discrimination of sexual minorities is eliminated. Currently, we may therefore find ourselves in a “transitory period” whose further evolution is difficult to predict. FReDA – with its evolving longitudinal dimension and the inclusion of self-reported measures of respondents’ sexual orientation – will constitute a powerful resource for future investigations of inequalities in yet understudied but increasingly visible sexual minority populations.\n* This article belongs to a special issue on “Family Research and Demographic Analysis – New Insights from the German Family Demography Panel Study (FReDA)”.","PeriodicalId":44592,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Population Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comparative Population Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12765/cpos-2023-09","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Significant expansion of legal rights and recognition of sexual minority populations triggered expectations that structural stigma, sexual minority stress and, consequently, previously well-documented disadvantages in health and well-being may decline over time. The empirical evidence on this issue is, however, still sparse and inconclusive. We contribute to this research by comparing baseline data from the German Family Panel (pairfam; 2008-09) and the German Family Demography Panel Study (FReDA; 2021). These data allow us to assess disparities in subjective well-being by sexual orientation and potential changes therein after legalisation of same-sex marriage in Germany in two adult cohorts interviewed more than a decade apart. We focus on two specific outcomes, namely life satisfaction and self-rated health. Two main findings emerged from our analysis: First, minority sexual orientation is associated with significantly lower subjective well-being, specifically lower life satisfaction. Second, there are no statistically significant changes in the sexual orientation-health nexus between cohorts. Our study, thus, neither lends support to “optimistic” expectations regarding the contribution of (further) reductions in institutional discrimination and structural stigma to (further) reductions in remaining disadvantages, nor does it lend support to “pessimistic” expectations suggesting that younger cohorts of sexual minority adults may experience an even larger gap in health and well-being than previous cohorts. We propose that the stability of sexual minorities’ disadvantages in subjective well-being during the first two decades of the 21st century in Germany be interpreted as the result of two opposing forces working in parallel: Reduced institutional discrimination and increased exposure to continued stigma. The legal recognition of same-sex relationships appears to be a necessary but not sufficient condition for the acceptance of sexual minorities. Remaining disparities by sexual orientation will thus not simply disappear when institutional discrimination of sexual minorities is eliminated. Currently, we may therefore find ourselves in a “transitory period” whose further evolution is difficult to predict. FReDA – with its evolving longitudinal dimension and the inclusion of self-reported measures of respondents’ sexual orientation – will constitute a powerful resource for future investigations of inequalities in yet understudied but increasingly visible sexual minority populations. * This article belongs to a special issue on “Family Research and Demographic Analysis – New Insights from the German Family Demography Panel Study (FReDA)”.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
按性取向划分的主观幸福感差异:比较pairfam(2008-09)和FReDA(2021)基线波的队列
法律权利的大幅扩大和对性少数群体的承认引发了人们的期望,即结构性污名化、性少数群体压力,以及由此产生的先前有充分记录的健康和福祉方面的不利因素,可能会随着时间的推移而下降。然而,关于这一问题的经验证据仍然稀少,没有定论。我们通过比较德国家庭小组(pairfam;2008-09)和德国家庭人口学小组研究(FReDA;2021)的基线数据,为这项研究做出了贡献。这些数据使我们能够评估在德国同性婚姻合法化后,两个相隔十多年接受采访的成年人群体在性取向方面的主观幸福感差异及其潜在变化。我们关注两个具体的结果,即生活满意度和自我评价的健康。我们的分析得出了两个主要发现:首先,少数群体的性取向与显著较低的主观幸福感,特别是较低的生活满意度有关。其次,队列之间的性取向与健康之间的关系没有统计学上的显著变化。因此,我们的研究既不支持“乐观”的预期,即(进一步)减少制度歧视和结构性污名对(进一步)降低剩余劣势的贡献,它也没有支持“悲观”的预期,即年轻的性少数成年人群体可能比以前的群体在健康和幸福方面存在更大的差距。我们建议,在21世纪的头20年里,德国性少数群体在主观幸福感方面的劣势之所以稳定,可以解释为两种对立力量同时作用的结果:制度歧视的减少和持续污名化的增加。对同性关系的法律承认似乎是接受性少数群体的必要但不充分的条件。因此,当消除对性少数群体的制度歧视时,性取向方面的剩余差异不会简单地消失。因此,目前,我们可能会发现自己处于一个“过渡期”,其进一步演变很难预测。FReDA——其不断发展的纵向维度和对受访者性取向的自我报告测量——将成为未来调查尚未得到充分研究但越来越明显的性少数群体中不平等现象的有力资源。*本文属于“家庭研究和人口统计分析——德国家庭人口统计小组研究的新见解”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊最新文献
Did smallpox cause stillbirths? Maternal smallpox infection, vaccination, and stillbirths in Sweden, 1780-1839. Social Resources are Associated With Higher Fertility Intentions in Contemporary Finland Healthy Lifespan Statistics Derived From Cross-Sectional Prevalence Data Using the Sullivan Method are Informative Summary Measures of Population Health A Quarter Century of Change in Family and Gender-Role Attitudes in Hungary Scarred for Life? Early-Life Experience of the Post-Reunification Economic Crisis in East Germany and Physical and Mental Health Outcomes in Early Adulthood
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1