Rachel Linn Shields
Recent research on minority stress theory[1] applied to lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB)[2] individuals shows that this group may actually perform better on cognitive tasks when subjected to subtle bias. Larissa A. McGarrity and her coauthors expected the opposite result; in response to these surprising findings, they explain that it is possible “that negative mood (especially anger) contributes to heightened threat perception and increased motivation for the task at hand” (373). Moreover, they write, “If individuals…have grown accustomed to responding to minority stress with increased motivation for performance, it is possible that motivation to excel accounted for our findings on cognitive performance” (373). Though this research was undertaken for the purposes of evaluating and addressing stressors on LGB people, the results are open to potential misuse. If an LGB person performs better when exposed to subtle biases, what is to stop a manager from subjecting the employee to anti-gay bias on purpose in order to encourage that result? Will an employer consider negative consequences[3] for the individual when there is a positive implication for productivity? As a fiction writer and Ph.D. student in English Literature, I am usually in favor of anything that increases my ability to think—but not to the detriment of my physical and mental health, which would likely undermine my writing projects in the long term.[4]
Subtle biases exist in many forms in all settings, but the methodology of this particular study is most aligned with the structure of work at my university’s Writing Center and, for this reason, provides the most insight into how minority stress might arise there. For example, study participants had to complete a cognitive evaluation with an interviewer whose viewpoints on sexual orientation were revealed to them beforehand. This is very similar to the structure of a consultation at our Writing Center, which nearly always begins with reading through a student’s draft and asking follow-up questions about their thoughts and intentions. I frequently have writing consultations with students who are writing argumentative papers that are distressing to me as a woman and as a woman with a female partner. Many students make assumptions about their audience (me) based on the religious affiliation of the school and feel safe stating opinions on gender and sexuality that they might express more conscientiously elsewhere. Once we writing consultants have acquainted ourselves with the student’s ideas, we begin the challenging cognitive task of providing feedback and guidance for revision—which is similar to the study’s structure of exposing a participant to bias and then jumping into a difficult interview. Moreover, after a writing session, the student fills out a survey to evaluate the effectiveness of the writing consultation. The consultant is always aware that their work is being evaluated, both on an interpersonal level and in ways that are tied to ongoing employment. In short, the study designed by McGarrity and her coauthors and the results of this study are very relevant to the interpersonal interactions the occur at the Writing Center.
Here’s the ethical challenge: it is possible that I am a better writing consultant for students who express anti-gay bias precisely because they make me uncomfortable and I feel the need to overcompensate and protect myself by demonstrating my strengths as a teacher and writer? If our main concern is improving college writing, then maybe I should be taking on all of these students. If our main concern is my own health and well-being, then I probably should not be. However, since the research on the effects of minority stress on LGB people is far from complete or conclusive, I wonder if future research might complicate this scenario. Will it eventually show that I am actually a worse consultant for students who reveal anti-gay biases? Do I express my own anger toward their work subtly, in ways that damage them as writers—do I weaponize my greater experience as a writer to chip away at their confidence? Does this make them work harder, too? Multiple students have described me as “blunt” and then signed up for additional writing sessions with me. Needless to say, more research must be done to better understand the complexity of these interactions and allow us to make informed decisions at the Writing Center. At the same time, researchers need be cognizant of the fact that their work could be used to exploit LGB employees and those of us who currently work at college writing centers should be aware that what looks like effective tutoring could be symptomatic of minority stress.
Works Cited
McGarrity, Larissa A., et al. “Minority Stress, Emotion Regulation, and Executive Function: An Experimental Investigation of Gay and Lesbian Adults.” Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 46, no. 3, Mar. 2020, pp. 365–376, doi:10.1177/0146167219855047. Accessed 10 Feb. 2020.
Meyer, Ilan H. “Prejudice, Social Stress, and Mental Health in Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Populations: Conceptual Issues and Research Evidence.” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 129, no. 5, 2003, pp. 674-697, doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674. Accessed 10 Feb. 2020
[1] “Minority stress theory (Meyer, 1995, 2003) proposes that the stress associated with these discrimination experiences, chronic expectations of rejection, internalized homophobia, and concealment of sexual orientation negatively impact mental health. Other authors have proposed mechanisms for these effects, including difficulties with emotion regulation, stressors in interpersonal relationships, and negative thought patterns” (McGarrity 365).
[2] This study only covered participants identifying as one of those three categories, not the full LGBTQ+ range.
[3] For example, the authors of this study explain that “Minority stress is the prevailing explanation for health disparities between LGB and heterosexual individuals” (McGarrity 367).
[4] As Ilan H. Meyer writes, “The study of mental health of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) populations has been complicated by the debate on the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder during the 1960s and early 1970s” and “Studies demonstrated that social stressors are associated with mental health outcomes in LGB people, supporting formulations of minority stress.”
About the Author
Rachel Linn Shields received an M.F.A. in creative writing from the University of Washington in 2014 and is currently pursuing a Ph.D. in literature at Saint Louis University. Her research traces connections between ecological sensibilities in medieval poetry and those of modern/postmodern writers. She contributed an essay on pedagogy to Beyond the Frontier: Innovations in First Year Writing (Vol. 2) in 2018 and has a collection of linked stories with pop-up illustrations called Household Tales forthcoming from Meekling Press in fall 2020.