(PS6-3) How strongly do you identify yourself as a member of the LGBTQIA+ community? A mixed methods investigation of community connectedness among attendees of LGBTQIA+ Pride events

One’s self-identity as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, or other related identities is distinct from one’s sense of connectedness to the broader LGBTQIA+ community. This sense of community connectedness is of both clinical and research interest, as it is associated with a range of health risk and protective factors.

Data were drawn from a mixed-methods study examining perceived drinking norms and drinking behavior in the LGBTQIA+ community in the context of LGBTQIA+ Pride festivals. Participants (N = 146) were recruited at Pride events. Eligibility criteria included that participants were in attendance of a Pride event, over the age of 18, and had consumed alcohol in the past month. Although there were no sexual or gender identity-related inclusion criteria, 97.2% of participants identified as non-heterosexual and/or non-cisgender.  A subset of participants (n = 18) who completed the survey-based portion of the study also completed a follow-up qualitative interview with the PI.

The baseline survey included an adapted Inclusion of Other in the Self scale (IOS; Aron et al., 1992), an 8-point Likert scale item that was accompanied by an image of 8 pairs of circles that overlapped nearly entirely (8) to not at all (1). The item read “Using the graphic above as a guide, please rate how strongly you identify yourself as a member of the LGBTQI+ community”. Responses ranged from 1 – 8 (M = 6.14, SD = 2.05), offering a quantitative measure of community connectedness.

Follow-up interviews explored participants’ reasons for their chosen rating, including factors that make them feel “closer to or more a part of the LGBTQIA+ community” and factors that makes them feel “further from or less a part of the LGBTQIA+ community”. Thematic analysis, conducted by the PI and two independent research assistants, revealed eight prominent themes related to “closeness” (e.g. relationships with others in the community, identity as LGBTQIA+, shared values and political alignment) and ten prominent themes related to “distance” (e.g. lack of relationships within the community, limited involvement in LGBTQIA+ activism, and experiences of rejection or othering within the community based on identities other than sexuality and gender).

This study highlights the complexity of LGBTQIA+ community connectedness and underscores the importance of understanding the many possible factors that influence individuals’ sense of belonging. While this study is limited by its size and recruitment methods (i.e. sampling only from group members who attended an LGBTQIA+ community event), it provides valuable insights into the ways that participants thought about rating their sense of community connectedness. Clinically, assessing community connectedness as a distinct facet of LGBTQIA+ social identity may enhance cultural responsiveness and inform interventions aimed at fostering belonging and resilience among LGBTQIA+ clients.