Abstract
Studies have consistently shown that LGBTQ individuals are at increased risk for several mental and physical health challenges including suicidality. The relationship between religion and LGBTQ well-being in general and LGBTQ suicidality specifically has increasingly been the subject of scholarly investigation. This systematic review examines all peer-reviewed articles included in the EBSCO PsycInfo database since 2000 that examined the relationship between religiosity and LGBTQ suicide (50 studies in all). These studies reveal a complex relationship that is nuanced and, at times, contradictory. Overall, 65% identified at least one religiosity-related predictor as a risk factor for LGBTQ suicidality, 41% identified at least one religiosity-related predictor as a protective factor against suicidality, while 53% found no associations between religiosity-related predictors and suicide risk. However, when specifically examining religious affiliation/denomination, salience, or beliefs and behaviors, typically, religiosity was either protective or unassociated with LGBTQ suicidality. This held particularly true for studies that had population-based samples, employed control variables and included comparison groups, thus enhancing their generalizability. The one religiosity-related predictor that was almost universally identified as a risk factor was when an individual felt conflicted between their religious and sexual-gender identities.
Suicide rates have steadily increased in the United States over the last two decades. According to a recent report by the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), suicide rates climbed 35% from 1999 to 2018 and, in the last year (2021), grew by another 4% (Curtin et al., 2022). According to the CDC’s Wonder website, suicide has been the second leading cause of death for individuals 10–34 from 1999 to 2020 (CDC, 2022). LGBTQ individuals are at greater risk of suicidality than the general population. One recent study found that LGBTQ suicide risk was three to six times greater than for heterosexual adults across every age group and race/ethnicity category (Ramchand et al., 2022). This is also true for LGBTQ adolescents, who have long been recognized as having a greater risk of depression and suicidality (Almeida et al., 2009; Buchman-Schmitt et al., 2014; Russell & Fish, 2016). This review examines the relationship between religiosity and LGBTQ suicidality. Specifically, this review seeks to better understand which aspects of religiosity are associated with which outcomes for which LGBTQ populations.
Theories of suicide
Many theories have sought to understand what leads individuals to consider suicide. Two theories that are perhaps the most widely used in relation to these issues are the interpersonal theory of suicide (in relation to suicidality in general) and minority stress theory (in relation to sexual/gender minorities). In the interpersonal theory of suicide, suicidality is thought to relate to a person’s sense of thwarted belongingness and perceived burdensomeness (Joiner, 2005). Thwarted belongingness refers to the unmet need for social connectedness. Perceived burdensomeness includes feeling that one is a burden to others and that others would be better off if the person did not exist. Though family and friends have received attention as important sources of belonging and self-worth, religiosity has received less attention. However, family, friends, and religion involve fundamental aspects of connectedness and feelings of self-worth and thus may play a role in adolescent suicidality. 1
Minority stress theory is a prominent theory of why LGBTQ individuals have higher rates of suicidality as well as other mental and physical health struggles (Baams et al., 2015; Meyer, 2003; Skidmore, Sorrell, & Lefevor, 2023). The theory posits that LGBTQ individuals are at increased risk for various negative outcomes related to stress experienced as a result of such things as individual prejudice and discrimination, societal inequity, internalized homophobia, and shame. These are sometimes referred to as minority stress factors. Much of the extant research on LGBTQ suicidality ties into this perspective, with many theorizing that religion may be a significant source of this stress by increasing stigma or shame while other studies point to religion as a protective factor through creating greater belonging and meaning making (e.g., Lefevor, Blaber, et al., 2020). Hence, the relationship between religion and LGBTQ suicidality is complex and multifaceted. Though few, if any, studies provide the necessary data to establish a causal relationship, many clearly show a correlative relationship between minority stress, religion, and LGBTQ suicidality (Meyer et al., 2021).
One final set of theories that may shed light on the influence of religion on LGBTQ well-being addresses identity development within the LGBTQ population. Identity issues play a major role in how LGBTQ individuals experience not only religion but many other issues. The most commonly cited LGBTQ developmental theory is Cass’ identity model. According to this model, LGBTQ individuals go through a six-step process of development: (1) identity confusion, (2) identity comparison, (3) identity tolerance, (4) identity acceptance, (5) identity pride, and finally (6) identity synthesis. These stages generally progress from confusion to exploration to pride and to acceptance of an LGBTQ identity. 2
Cass’ model has been questioned and challenged recently for being less pertinent now than when it was developed over 40 years ago and for not being representative of several LGBTQ identities such as lesbians, bisexuals, and asexuals (see Goodrich & Brammer, 2021; Kenneady & Oswalt, 2014). Those who challenge the theory argue that not all LGBTQ individuals go through all of these stages or go through them in this order. However, they don’t disagree that LGBTQ individuals go through a multi-staged developmental process.
LGBTQ individuals are likely to experience religion differently depending on where they are in this developmental process. This being the case, adolescent LGBTQ individuals are likely to experience religiosity differently than young adults, who likely experience it differently than older adults. Research has also shown that these developmental stages don’t always correspond with age and have pertinence, even for individuals who come out later in life.
Theories, such as the interpersonal theory of suicide and minority stress theory, and developmental theories, such as Cass’ identity model, provide potential pathways with which to explore the issue. The relationship between religion and LGBTQ well-being is being actively explored through scholarship. A search on EBSCO’s PsycInfo database combining several search terms for LGBTQ individuals and religion or spirituality turns up over 2000 peer-reviewed articles just since the year 2000.
The extant research shows that the relationship between religion and LGBTQ well-being is complex and multi-dimensional. One article that examined the relationship between LGBTQ adolescents found several risks and protective factors related to general well-being (Dahl & Galliher, 2012). The study pointed to religion being the cause of feelings of inadequacy, religious guilt, depressive symptoms, and social strain, on the one hand, and increased sense of self, acceptance of others, incorporation of religious values, and greater social support, on the other. In a comprehensive meta-analysis on the relationship between religion and LGBTQ well-being, researchers found religion to have a small but positive relationship with LGBTQ mental and physical health (Lefevor et al., 2021). However, the researchers also pointed out that there was a significant amount of heterogeneity in the findings.
Prior reviews
There have been three prior reviews on the association between religiosity and LGBTQ suicide. A review of 18 studies examining risk factors for substance abuse among Lesbians found a common theme for those who experienced suicidality was religion as oppression (Ricks, 2012). The authors do not explain how or why the 18 studies were chosen. Rather, they discuss how each study can/may connect with their primary emphasis, substance abuse within Lesbian populations. Another review of 45 studies examined suicidal ideation among transgender people actually found religiosity largely unassociated with or even protective against suicidality (Wolford-Clevenger et al., 2018). 3 The authors noted that though religion was protective in the more rigorous studies, they go on to make the point that religion may lose that protective nature depending on the level of acceptance the transgender individual experiences. Finally, a systematic review of six qualitative studies published between 2011 and 2016 found a variety of risk and protective factors associated with religiosity and LGBTQ suicidality (Wilkinson & Johnson, 2020). Though the authors did not specify the explicit connection between religiosity and LGBTQ suicidality, they pointed to two constructs related to risk for detrimental outcomes—including suicidality. These were conflict between religion and sexual/gender identity and bereavement of relationships and connections within their religious community. These findings fit well with the exploratory studies listed below.
As can be seen from the prior reviews, each focused on a limited aspect of sexual-gender identity (Lesbians or Transgender individuals) or the general association between religion and LGBTQ well-being while also including suicidality. None of them focused primarily on the role of religiosity in relation to LGBTQ suicidality. One focused primarily on substance abuse (Ricks, 2012), one combined religiosity with other coping skills (Wolford-Clevenger et al., 2018) while the final pointed to possible associations but did not connect these associations specifically to LGBTQ suicidality (Wilkinson & Johnson, 2020). The purpose of this review is to explicitly examine how religiosity is related to LGBTQ suicidality. Is religiosity a risk, a protective, or an unassociated factor, and more particularly, which aspects of religiosity are associated with which outcomes for which LGBTQ populations? 4 Suicidality in the present review includes suicidal ideation, suicidal planning, and suicidal attempts. Suicidal ideation refers to thoughts, ideas, wishes, or preoccupation with death and suicide. Suicidal planning refers to specific efforts to act on suicidal ideation. When findings are specific to one aspect of suicidality (ideation, planning or attempts) that will be noted in the text. The term religiosity refers to various aspects of religion including religious affiliation or denomination, religious salience or importance, religious beliefs, and religious behaviors. The specific aspect of religiosity included in each study will be noted.
Methodology
To obtain the studies for this review, the author performed a database search using EBSCO PsycInfo to locate all peer-reviewed studies that included religiosity, suicidality, and LGBTQ populations since 2000. The following criteria were used:
All peer-reviewed studies published between January 2000 and December 2022.
The search words used to identify LGBTQ identity were: lgbtq or lesbian or gay or homosexual or bisexual or transgender or “gender dysphoria” or “gender minority” or homosexual or queer or nonbinary or “non binary” or genderqueer or “sexual minority.”
The search words used to identify religiosity were: relig* or spiritual* or faith.
The search word used to identify suicidality was suicid*.
The initial search resulted in 93 studies. Preliminary analysis examined each study to make sure it (a) was a study (not a report, review, or commentary), (b) included measures of religiosity and suicide, and (c) analyzed the connection between the two. Forty-seven studies failed one or more of the criteria and were dropped, leaving 46 studies. Finally, two articles reporting original research that examined the relationship between religion and LGBTQ suicidality published by the author(s) in late 2022, and hence not yet indexed on PsycInfo, were added, and two additional studies published in 2023 were added for a final count of 50 studies. See the table in Supplemental Appendix A for a complete list of studies included.
Results
The main focus of this review is to investigate the connection between religiosity and LGBTQ suicidality. For this reason, the primary organization will be based on religiosity’s association with suicidality: (a) as a risk factor, (b) as a protective factor, or (c) as unassociated. 5 The findings from the identified studies will be divided into the appropriate sections, placing the emphasis on the specific findings and not the individual studies. In cases where distinct associations are identified within the same study, indicating clear moderation or mediation, such findings will be duly acknowledged. Furthermore, to delineate which aspects of religiosity are associated with which outcomes, each primary section (risk/protective/unassociated), will be further divided by the specific religiosity-related predictor being studied: (a) religious/sexual-gender identity conflict, (b) identity change efforts, (c) affiliation or denomination, (d) religious salience or importance, and (e) specific beliefs and/or behaviors. These five types of predictors encompass the religiosity constructs contained in every study identified with the keywords listed above. The first two predictors, identity conflict and change efforts, are not always explicitly connected to religiosity. However, both receive significant attention in the extant literature and are frequently intertwined with religiosity, so they will be included in this review. The final three constructs are more explicitly religious in nature. Finally, within the specific religiosity-related predictors, studies will be organized by the nature of the sample and the methodology employed: (a) exploratory, (b) convenience/purposive studies, and (c) population-based studies. Including this detail allows readers to see more clearly the strength of evidence and how each study contributes to our understanding and the generalizability of the associated findings.
For this review, exploratory studies are those which employ convenience/purposive samples that do not include controls or comparison groups. They are often (though not always) qualitative studies. Although caution is needed in interpretation and generalization, such studies can provide meaningful evidence which informs our understanding and also provide crucial information for further exploration. As the name indicates, convenience/purposive studies employ convenience/purposive samples, like exploratory studies, but are also more rigorous by employing controls and/or comparison groups.
By implementing suitable controls, such as age, gender, income, prior mental health, and utilizing comparison groups like religious versus non-religious individuals, or LGBTQ individuals with diverse religious affiliations or sexual/gender identities, the study gains enhanced interpretive capability when examining the results. Including controls minimizes confounding effects and improves generalizability and reliability. Comparison groups provide valuable context and provide possible reference points that help researchers interpret findings. Yet even with greater rigor, their generalizability is limited. Population-based studies employ population-based samples as well as controls and/or comparison groups. These studies provide the greatest confidence in conclusions and allow for more generalizability. Examining similarities and differences between the findings of all three types of studies provides evidence for the most scientifically defensible conclusions and helps us see the limits of the extant research and our current knowledge. In this review, there are 9 exploratory studies, 29 convenience studies, 12 population-based studies, and 3 reviews.
Religiosity as risk
Identity conflict
Exploratory studies
There were nine exploratory studies regarding identity conflict, all of which included findings suggesting a risk for LGBTQ suicidality. One study examined religious approaches to conversion therapy as a risk factor, with participants sharing the pain they experienced as a result of such efforts and ultimately reporting some level of past or present suicidality (T. W. Jones, Power, & Jones, 2022). These participants also spoke about how damage to their self-image and impairment of relationships within their religious community led to decreased mental well-being. Another study examined the experience of LGBTQ students in religious colleges and universities (Craig et al., 2017). These students spoke of institutionalized homo/transphobia, fear of exposure, marginalization, and internal struggle as the reasons for their struggles and consequent feelings of suicide. Such narratives strongly align with minority stress theory (Meyer, 2003). In fact, the majority of these exploratory studies spoke of the pain caused by the social stigma and homonegativity emanating from religious families and communities who were perceived as viewing sexual and gender minorities as flawed (Cerbone & Danzer, 2017; Mavhandu-Mudzusi & Sandy, 2015; Schuck & Liddle, 2001).
All of these studies explicitly referenced the internal struggle these participants experienced between their religious and sexual-gender identities (e.g., see Craig et al., 2017; Jacobsen & Wright, 2014; Schuck & Liddle, 2001). Individuals spoke of the emotional difficulties they experienced resulting from the inability to reconcile these seemingly incompatible identities. The title of one study refers to this issue as one of “(ir)reconcilable identities” (Alessi et al., 2021). For LGBTQ individuals who saw their religious and sexual-gender identities as irreconcilable, the psychic pain often led them to feel like there was no possible way forward, sometimes leading to suicidality.
All but one of the exploritory studies where qualitative in nature. The single quantitative study included in the exploratory section used a sample drawn from adults who had attended religiously focused home school as youth (S. O. Anderson & Lough, 2021). The study examined both risk and protective factors for these individuals but did not have a religiosity variable as part of their analysis of suicidality nor controls or comparison groups. The connection to religiosity was that their sample had been homeschooled in a Christian home. These individuals reported higher levels of suicidal ideation than the general population (72%), with 22% having attempted suicide. In contrast to the other exploratory studies, this study also explored protective factors—though none were religious.
Convenience/purposive studies
Like the exploratory studies above, the majority of convenience studies with controls and/or comparison groups found that religiosity was a risk factor for suicide when conflict between religious and sexual-gender identities existed. Two studies found that identity conflict and internalized homonegativity were associated with higher suicidality for 268 Australian adolescents (Gahan et al., 2014) and 554 adults in Spain and Italy (Baiocco et al., 2014). Religious identity conflict was also a risk factor for suicidal ideation and suicide attempts in 2949 young adults (Gibbs, 2015). Few studies focused exclusively on those questioning their sexuality. However, one such study of 801 adolescents and young adults found that questioning youth who answered, “I currently feel conflicted about being both my families religiosity and LGBTQ” were at increased risk of suicidality (Price-Feeney et al., 2021). In a study of 602 current or former Latter-day Saints LGBQ adults, religious struggle, identity conflict, and interestingly, positive religious coping were also associated with increased suicidal ideation (Lefevor et al., 2022).
Population-based studies
Though most population-based studies found religion to either be unassociated with or protective of LGBTQ suicide, a few found religion to be a risk factor. One population-based study that examined identity conflict found it was a risk factor for suicidality. A study, one of four studies in this review based on National Research Consortium of Counseling Centers in Higher Education data, collected data from 74 higher education institutions across the country and involved 24,626 students. Out of these students, 1333 identified as LGBQ. The findings indicated that parental negative statements about sexual identity based on religious reasoning were linked to higher levels of suicidality. Interestingly, the study did not find a significant association between personal religious conflict and suicidality (Lytle et al., 2015).
Identity change efforts
Identity change efforts may or may not intersect with religiosity but since the majority of current studies include some aspect of religiosity, they are included in this review. There were no exploratory studies or population-based studies that investigated identity change efforts.
Convenience/purposive studies
Three convenience/purposive studies found associations between sexual orientation conversion efforts (SOCE) and suicidality with some religiosity connection. In a study involving 6412 adolescents and young adults, researchers discovered that religious affiliation was linked to previous engagement in SOCE, which in turn was associated with increased levels of suicidality (T. Jones, Power, Hill, et al., 2022). In a study conducted on 3948 LGBTQ adolescents, more than half of whom identified as transgender or non-binary, it was discovered that religious leaders endorsing Sexual Orientation Gender Identity Conversion Efforts (SOGICE) were linked to higher rates of suicidal planning and attempts. However, no significant association was observed between religious leaders’ recommendations of SOGICE and suicidal ideation (Fenaughty et al., 2023). SOGICE that was independently chosen by the participant, or encouraged by their family, was also associated with increased suicidality and more strongly so than religiously recommended SOGICE. A study of 406 gay men from Nigeria found that forced conversion therapy at a religious, educational institution increased the risk of suicidal ideation over those who had not experienced forced conversion therapy. One study of 388 LGB adults examined sources of counseling (regardless of whether conversion therapy was involved) and found that seeking religious help as opposed to secular help prior to a suicide attempt was associated with increased suicidality (Meyer et al., 2015). One strength of this study is that it included controls for past mental illness in the analysis.
Affiliation/denomination
Convenience/purposive studies
Religious affiliation was a risk factor in four studies. A study of Indonesian LGBTQ adults found that minority religious affiliation (non-Muslim) was associated with a greater risk of suicidal ideation in comparison with Muslim LGBTQ individuals (Liem et al., 2021). Past religious affiliation or growing up in a religious household was also associated with higher suicidal ideation in three studies (Gahan et al., 2014; Gibbs, 2015; Hill et al., 2022). In a study of 2949 LGBTQ young adults, Gibbs found that disaffiliation, if prompted by unresolved religious conflict, predicted increased suicidal ideation for young adults (Gibbs, 2015). A study of 530 LGB adults examined how Latter-day Saint affiliation (past or present) was associated with suicidality. They found that those who were raised Latter-day Saint had higher suicidality than those not raised Latter-day Saint though current Latter-day Saints affiliation was negatively associated with suicidality through less outness of the individuals (Bridges et al., 2020).
Population-based studies
In a study that examined 40,150 college students from two waves (2006 and 2011) of the National Research Consortium of Counseling Centers in Higher Education, including 2679 LGBQ students, it was observed that being an “unspecified Christian” or Catholic was associated with a higher risk of suicidality within the past 12 months, compared to Atheist or Agnostic/Secular LGBQ students (considered as the base category; Blosnich et al., 2020). There was no statistically significant association for any other religious denomination.
Religious salience
Convenience/purposive studies
There were no exploratory studies that identified religious salience as a risk factor. Two convenience/purposive studies found religious salience a risk for LGBTQ suicidality. A clinical study of 129 adolescents found that adolescents who had higher religiosity were at greater risk for suicidal attempts, though there was no association for religious ideation (Shearer et al., 2018). The other study involved 554 Lesbian and Gay adults from Italy and Spain and found that higher levels of religiosity were associated with higher suicidal ideation but that it was moderated by internalized sexual stigma. Religious importance was more of a risk factor in this study at higher levels of internalized sexual stigma (Baiocco et al., 2014).
Population-based studies
A study using data from the National Research Consortium of Counseling Centers in Higher Education 2011 survey involving 21,247 students, 1416 LGBQ found that increased religious salience was associated with increased suicidality for specific subsets of their sample (Lytle et al., 2018). Lesbian and Gay students who felt religion/spirituality was very important to their identity were at higher risk for recent and lifetime suicidal ideation and attempts compared to those who felt religion/spirituality was not very important to their identity. Students who questioned their sexual orientation were also at greater risk for both suicidal ideation and attempts but not lifetime attempts. Another study replicated the Lytle et al. study using a more detailed measure of religiosity including denomination, religious activity, and religious importance (Dyer, 2022). Two aspects of religiosity were found to increase risk for specific groups. Religious importance was related to a higher risk of recent suicidal ideation for questioning students, and a religiosity factor score, which combined several aspects of religiosity, was associated with increased risk for recent suicidal ideation for Lesbian and Gay students.
Beliefs/behaviors
Convenience/purposive studies
Three studies found a risk between specific religious behaviors and LGBTQ suicidality. In a study of 180 transgender adults, religious practices (such as attendance, prayer, and reading scriptures) were associated with both the severity of suicidal ideation and suicidal attempts (Rabasco & Andover, 2023). A study of 150 LBQ women found that religious coping was positively associated with lifetime suicidal attempts (Rabinovitch et al., 2015). A study of 602 current or former Latter-day Saints LGBQ adults found that religious service was associated with increased suicidal ideation in the last 2 weeks (Skidmore, Lefevor, Golightly, & Larsen, 2023). However, the findings were nuanced as the relationship was moderated by whether belongingness came from the LGBTQ community or the church community. A stronger sense of LGBTQ belongingness was related to greater suicidal ideation when service attendance was high. A stronger sense of church belongingness was related to greater suicidal ideation when concealment was high, internalized homonegativity was low, and service attendance was low. There were almost no population-based studies that found specific religious beliefs/behaviors to be a risk factor.
Population-based studies
One study that included 12,107 adult LGB individuals found that religious attendance was a risk factor for suicidality, though interestingly, religious salience was protective (Park & Hsieh, 2023).
Religiosity as protection
Unsurprisingly, no studies found that identity conflict, minority stress factors, or identity change efforts were protective, so this section begins with affiliation and denominational associations.
Affiliation/denomination
Convenience/purposive studies
No exploratory studies examined affiliation/ denominational differences as protective. In research conducted on 601 LGB adults in Spain and Italy, with 47% assigned female at birth, the study revealed that religious affiliation offered protection to gay or bisexual men in Italy, as well as to the overall sample. However, the significance of religious affiliation was not observed among individuals in Spain. (Baiocco et al., 2015). A study of 625 adults (358 LGB) found that religious affiliation was protective of suicidal attempts for LGB individuals (Kralovec et al., 2014). Furthermore, a sense of belonging within your religious community was associated with lower suicidal ideation.
A 20,175 study of 310 former or current Seventh-Day Adventist LGBTQ individuals compared the reasons for suicide attempts by Seventh-Day Adventist LGBTQ individuals with those given in an earlier study done with a community sample of LGB youth. The former study showed that 50% of the suicide attempts of the LGB adolescents were related to their sexual orientation (D’Augelli et al., 2005); however, only 30% of the Seventh-Day Adventists study stated that their suicide attempt was related to their sexual orientation. The authors conjecture that the lower percent in their study may have to do with Seventh-Day Adventist teachings regarding caring for their own bodies, which would impact drug and alcohol use (a strong predictor of suicidality in the study) as well as suicidal behaviors itself.
Finally, one relevant study drew 1600 adults (1000 LGB) from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) “worker” dataset of over 500,000 individuals (Sowe et al., 2017). Though not a population-based study, the authors sought a more representative sample by not marketing specifically to LGB individuals. With such a large base sample, they were able to select a large number of LGB participants from the overall population. Current Christians had significantly lower suicidality than former Christians, while non-religious participants reported statistically higher suicidality than both former and current Christians.
Population-based studies
The earliest population-based study to find religiosity protective was done in 2015 (Lytle et al., 2015). This study is based on the National Research Consortium of Counseling Center in Higher Education survey and had a sample of 24,626 participants including 1333 LGBTQ. Compared to Christian LGBQ students, Agnostic/Atheist LGBQ individuals had greater odds of reporting past 12-month passive suicidal ideation, and Jewish LGBQ students were less likely to endorse past 12-month passive and active suicidal ideation.
Three studies were based on the Student Health and Risk Prevention (SHARP) Statewide survey which is funded through the Utah Department of Health and Human Services. SHARP surveys 6th, 8th, 10th, and 12th graders throughout the state of Utah every 2 years and is representative of Utah youth. One of those studies involved 73,982 adolescents in Utah (6137 LGBTQ) with data drawn from the 2019 SHARP survey found that for LGBTQ adolescents, Latter-day Saint affiliation was associated with lower suicidality than those who were not Latter-day Saints (McGraw, Docherty, et al., 2023). In addition, a study that included 12,107 adult LGB individuals found that religious salience was protective against suicidality, though religious attendance interestingly was a risk factor (Park & Hsieh, 2023).
Religious salience
Convenience/purposive studies
In a study of 336 LGB adults, investigators found that higher levels of religiosity (primarily defined as higher levels of religious involvement and religious salience) when combined with higher levels of agreeableness and extraversion were protective against suicidality such that LGB individuals with high levels of each reported lower levels of suicidality (Stroud et al., 2015).
One study referred to above focused on 602 active and non-active Latter-day Saints (Lefevor et al., 2022). Two constructs, orthodoxy, and religious commitments, theoretically related to salience, were protective. In the main effects model, orthodoxy was shown to be protective against suicidality, primarily for active Latter-day Saints. Interaction effects showed that religious commitment was protective for their sample but, interestingly, primarily for those who were not active Latter-day Saints.
Population-based studies
A study focusing on university students included 7625 total participants (996 LGBTQ participants) at Brigham Young University—a religiously affiliated university in Utah (Klundt et al., 2021). Researchers measured religiosity using the DUREL Religiosity Index, which measures both religious salience and practices. Higher religiosity was significantly protective for both heterosexual and LGBTQ students, though more so for heterosexual students. Another study used data from the Healthy Minds Study (2020 and 2021 waves), which involved 104,463 college students, with 13,555 identifying as LGBTQ (Oh et al., 2022). Religious salience was protective against both suicidal ideation and planning for LGBTQ individuals, though not as protective as it was for non-sexual/gender minorities. A randomized clinical trial examined a group of 1078 LGBTQ adolescents in 9th and 10th grade from 20 schools in Colorado. The study evaluated the impact of religious salience, on individuals’ susceptibility to suicidality. Researchers found that religious salience played a protective role for bisexual adolescents in terms of suicidal planning (Rivas-Koehl et al., 2022).
Beliefs/behaviors
Exploratory studies
Three exploratory studies mentioned religiosity as a possible protective factor, all of which were qualitative studies involving adult sexual minorities. In a study of 34 Middle Eastern and African refugees, several participants mentioned experiencing strength from their religious faith and that God was their only support (Alessi et al., 2021). Some spoke of how they felt like they drew nearer to God through their experiences. In a case study, a 52-year-old male spoke of receiving help from compassionate priests and also how fear of damnation provided protection or motivation not to harm himself (Cerbone & Danzer, 2017). Finally, in a study of 66 LGB adults, a few participants discussed how they drew strength from gay-affirming clergy and their spiritual life, which helped them learn how to resolve their religious identity concerns (Schuck & Liddle, 2001).
Convenience/purposive studies
Religious service attendance was found to be protective against suicidality for 406 gay adult men in Nigeria (Ogunbajo et al., 2022). A study of 299 current or former Seventh-Day Adventist LGBTQ individuals found that after controlling for a variety of demographic and religious variables, studying religious material (scriptures, books, etc.) was significantly associated with lower levels of suicidal ideation (Trecartin et al., 2022). In another study referenced earlier, when LGBQ current or former Latter-day Saints felt strongly belonging to their church community, church attendance was related to lower suicidal ideation. However, for individuals who felt a strong belonging to the LGBTQ community, lower levels of church attendance were associated with lower suicidal ideation (Skidmore, Lefevor, Golightly, & Larsen, 2023).
Population-based studies
As reported earlier, the 2021 study involving Brigham Young University students used the DUREL Religiosity Index, which captures religious salience and behaviors (Klundt et al., 2021). This study found that those with higher religiosity (including salience and behaviors) had lower suicidality.
Religiosity as not associated
Just over half of all studies reviewed found aspects of religiosity that were unassociated with suicidality. The majority also found other aspects that were either risk or protective factors (few studies found no associations alone).
Identity conflict/minority stress factors
Convenience/purposive studies
There were no exploratory studies finding identity conflict or minority stress factors unrelated to suicide. However, a study of youth who question their sexual orientation, discussed earlier, found youth religious conflict was unrelated to both suicidal ideation and attempts (Price-Feeney et al., 2021). Further, a study of LGB adults reported above found that experiencing religious prejudice was not associated with suicidality, though it was associated with depression and other mental health challenges (Sowe et al., 2017). There were no population-based studies that found identity conflict or minority stress factors unassociated with LGBTQ suicidality.
Identity change efforts
Convenience/purposive studies
There were no exploratory studies that found identity change efforts unassociated with suicidality. Though identity change efforts (SOCE and GICE—gender identity change efforts) are often associated with increased suicidality, four studies examined the impact of religiosity on suicidality in relation to these efforts and found no association. A study of 3948 LGBTQ adolescents and young adults found that religious leaders suggesting conversion efforts were not statistically related to suicidal ideation. These suggestions were associated with a greater risk for suicidal planning and attempts, but the association was less than self-suggested conversion efforts but higher than family or medical professional-suggested efforts (Fenaughty et al., 2023). A study of 27,715 transgender or non-binary adults found that both religious and non-religious conversion efforts were associated with increased odds of both suicidal ideation and attempts but that the impact of religious efforts was not significantly different than non-religious efforts (Heiden-Rootes et al., 2022). Another study using the same data similarly found no significant difference between GICE by secular professionals or religious advisors (Turban et al., 2020). Finally, a study of 234 LGBTQ young adults found that SOCE initiated by family but then performed by either a therapist or a religious leader similarly increased the odds of suicidality. The authors point out that family religiosity itself was linked to parental attempts to initiate SOCE, thus providing an indirect risk for suicidality (Ryan et al., 2010). There were no population-based studies that found identity change efforts unassociated with LGBTQ suicidality.
Affiliation/denomination
Convenience/purposive studies
In a study of 530 LGB individuals raised Latter-day Saints, path analysis between those who stayed affiliated vs. those who disaffiliated, and suicidality showed that affiliation was not significantly related to ideation directly, but it was related to less suicidality through outness (Bridges et al., 2020). Study authors speculate that the impact of affiliation may be moderated by increased homonegativity and support variables such that the negative effects of increased homonegativity and other minority stress factors are offset by the protective nature of social support that is found for some individuals, even in conservative religious settings. A study of LGB Australian adults reported above as being protective for suicidal attempts found that affiliation was unassociated with suicidal ideation (Kralovec et al., 2014). Another Australian study of 4370 Australian adolescents and young adult LGBTQ did not examine affiliation directly but whether the youth was raised in a religious household or not as a proxy for affiliation (Hill et al., 2022). They similarly found that growing up in a religious household was associated with increased suicidal ideation but not associated with suicidal attempts.
Population-based studies
Five population-based studies examined the association of affiliation or denominational differences with suicidality with all but one of them finding both protective and unassociated results. One study of LGB suicidality among 4345 college freshmen, that was not focused on religiosity but included religion in a contingency analysis, found that religious affiliation was unassociated with suicidality for LGB students (Shadick et al., 2015). Of the three studies involving high school students using the 2019 or 2021 Utah SHARP survey described above, two found that though religious affiliation was protective against suicidality for the entire population with significant differences by denomination, when controls were introduced for demographics, family connection, and community connection, the differences were no longer significant for LGBQ students (Dyer et al., 2022; Dyer & Goodman, 2022).
The other SHARP-based study found no difference by religious affiliation in terms of how family conflict/parental closeness impacted suicide risk. LGBTQ individuals, whether Latter-day Saint or not, were equally harmed by these family challenges. In other words, the family variables, rather than the religiosity variables, created the risk (McGraw, Docherty, et al., 2023). Finally, a study of college students reported above found that although Catholic and unspecified Christian students had higher suicidality, there was no association for Protestant/Latter-day Saint/Universalist/Jewish/Islam/Buddhist or Hindu students (Blosnich et al., 2020).
Religious salience
Convenience/purposive studies
No exploratory study found religious salience unassociated with LGBTQ suicidality. A study of 176 LB adult women, ages not reported, found that neither self-perceived importance of religion nor their perception of how important religion was to their parents was related to their suicidality (Mathy & Schillace, 2003).
Population-based studies
Four population-based studies examined the association between religious salience and LGBTQ suicidality and though they found it protective for most, it was a risk for a few, but unassociated for others. A study of college students reported earlier found that religious salience was unassociated with suicidal ideation for bisexuals, unassociated with recent suicidal attempts for LGB students, and unassociated with lifetime suicidal attempts for LGBQ students (Lytle et al., 2018). In another study of college students reported above, religious salience was unassociated with suicidal planning or attempts (Oh et al., 2022). A study of adolescents reported above found that religious salience was unassociated with both suicidal ideation and attempts (Rivas-Koehl et al., 2022). Finally, in a study of college students reported above, religious salience was unassociated with suicidal ideation, recent attempts, or lifetime attempts for all LGBTQ students, with the exception of increased risk found for questioning students (Dyer, 2022).
Belief/behaviors
Convenience/purposive studies
In a study of LBQ adults reported above, religious coping was not related to suicidal ideation (Rabinovitch et al., 2015). A study of 351 adult patients (83 LGBQ) admitted to the hospital for suicidal ideation in Austria found that religious beliefs, behaviors, and affiliations were unrelated to suicidality (Plöderl et al., 2020). A study of transgender adults reported above found that religious beliefs and belief in God were unrelated to suicidal ideation severity or lifetime frequency of suicidal attempts (Rabasco & Andover, 2023). A study including two separate samples totaling 948 LGBQ current or former Latter-day Saints found that neither affirming or non-affirming religious beliefs were associated with suicidality (McGraw, Skidmore, et al., 2023). No population-based study found religious beliefs or behaviors unassociated with LGBTQ suicidality.
Discussion
Even though the extant research is not extensive at this point, the above review indicates that religion has a complex, and at times seemingly contradictory, connection to LGBTQ suicidality. Simplistic claims of religion as either a risk or protection for LGBTQ suicidality simply do not fit the current findings. The reality is that at some times, in some situations, for some people, some aspects of religiosity are a risk factor for suicidality. On the other hand, at some times, in some situations, for some people, some aspects of religiosity are a protective factor for suicidality. Still, at some times, in some situations, for some people, some aspects of religiosity are unrelated to suicidality. This is in line with the principle of specificity that specifies that unique conditions and settings can impact how individuals respond to different constructs and processes (Bornstein, 2017). It also could indicate that differential developmental stages play a role in how individuals experience religion. Prior to examining the associations between different outcomes and specific aspects of religiosity, it is important to address how a participants’ specific sexual/gender identities or demographic characteristics may influence those associations.
Sexual/gender identities
The majority of studies, 43 out of the 50, had samples that included some combination of those who identify as various sexual minorities: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Questioning. Four involved only transgender participants, two involved only Gay participants, and one had only Lesbian participants. Though research has shown that suicidality is higher for gender minorities than sexual minorities (Kingsbury et al., 2022), studies that compare the impact of religion for sexual minorities and gender minorities have yet to demonstrate a statistically significant differential association (e.g., Dyer & Goodman, 2022). In some ways, this may be a matter of sample size and/or statistical power since there are rarely large numbers of transgender participants in suicide studies that also assess sexual orientation and religion.
When it comes to differences between sexual minorities, even though several studies showed differential associations, there was no clear pattern showing religion to be more of a risk, protection, or unassociated with a specific sexual identity or group of identities. Some studies found religion a risk for a specific sexual identity while others found no association or even that religion was protective for the same sexual identity, but there was no consistent pattern observed.
Demographic characteristics
Similarly, there is little evidence thus far that religion is associated differentially based on biological sex. However, one demographic characteristic, age, did show a pattern. Studies of adolescents LGBTQ almost universally found that religiosity was either protective or unassociated with suicidality. The exception was a study with a clinical sample of 41 LGBQ participants (Shearer et al., 2018). Young adults were also more likely to experience religiosity as protective or unassociated to suicidality, but there is more variation involved with this age group.
Though the reviewed studies did not generally include developmental considerations, it is possible that LGBTQ adolescents and young adults are more likely in the early stages of identity development, which, though not without challenges, may make viewing religion as less in opposition, or even as a resource, than some who are further along the developmental path and are perhaps more likely to struggle with the mixed messages they may be receiving in religious environments. There are two other issues that may explain why adolescents in particle, and some young adults, tend to find religion more helpful or at least less deleterious. First, at younger ages, they are less likely to be faced with large life decisions such as marriage and family issues and, as a result, are less conflicted with the often more heteronormative messages that are part of many religious traditions. And finally, there are significantly more population-based studies involving these two age groups because it is easier to obtain such a sample through school or university settings. As will be discussed below, the more representative/population-based a sample is, the higher the likelihood that religion serves as a protection or is simply unassociated with suicidality.
Risk/protective/unassociated?
With so many studies reaching disparate results, what conclusions can be drawn? One goal of this review was not only to report findings from the various studies but to include enough detail about the study to allow individuals to evaluate the strength of the evidence for each finding as well as possible methodological reasons for the differences. Most studies (65%) found some aspect of religiosity was a risk factor for LGBTQ suicidality, 53% found some aspect of religiosity to be unassociated, and 41% found some aspect of religiosity was protective for suicidality. Several studies found a combination of risk, protective, or unassociated factors, hence the percentages add up to more than 100%. With 65% of studies finding some level of risk, it is safe to say that certain aspects of religiosity are related to higher suicidality for some LGBTQ individuals in some situations.
This fits well with several aspects of the two dominant theories discussed earlier. The interpersonal theory of suicide posits that feeling disconnected from others (thwarted belongingness) and feelings of worthlessness (perceived burdensomeness) are the primary impetuses of suicidality. Minority stress theory posits that such things as prejudice, discrimination, societal inequity, internalized homonegativity, and shame lead to deleterious outcomes for minorities. Though few, if any, population-based studies have explored the direct connection between these constructs, religiosity, and LGBTQ suicidality, many exploratory and convenience/purposive studies have. This also fits with the developmental model discussed, where some of the stages include feelings of alienation and or anger/frustration at experiencing prejudice or social discrimination.
In several of the reviewed studies, LGBTQ individuals report experiencing rejection and feelings of disconnection from their religious communities (e.g., Alessi et al., 2021). Others report feeling rejected by God because of their sexual/gender identities (e.g., Schuck & Liddle, 2001). Such feelings often translate into feelings of worthlessness and shame. Feeling that not only your religious community but God discriminates against you has been connected to feelings of shame and internalized homonegativity, primary aspects of Minority stress theory. Thus, religion, when experienced this way, is almost a perfect storm fueling the tragedy of increased suicidality. The extant research shows clearly that this is the way many LGBTQ individuals experience religion in their lives. So, does this indicate that religiosity is more often than not a risk factor for LGBTQ individuals? It is more complicated than that.
Religiosity-related predictors
Identity change efforts and identity conflict
When examining the extant research, a pattern appears regarding which types of studies and which religiosity predictors tend toward risk. Almost every study examining identity change efforts and every study examining religious/identity conflict found that religiosity was a risk factor for suicidality. Half of these were exploratory study (all but one being a qualitative study). These two predictors account for 40% of all studies on religiosity and LGBTQ suicidality and make up the majority of those which found that religion was a risk factor for suicidality. Though even here, there are some questions regarding the impact of religion on identity change efforts, with some studies showing religion to have no impact. However, every study that explored identity conflict found that it was a risk factor.
Identity conflict itself is not an aspect of religiosity but refers to the tension that many LGBTQ individuals feel between their religious and sexual-gender identities. Studies that examine the role of identity centrality and integration with other aspects of LGBTQ well-being indicate that conflict between religious and sexual-gender identities almost universally leads to deleterious outcomes (Beagan & Hattie, 2015; Dahl & Galliher, 2012; Fernandes et al., 2023; Sherry et al., 2010). Such conflict is central to both minority stress theory and Cass’ identity development model. As such, identity conflict has the potential to explain many of the seemingly contradictory findings. There is little generalizable extant research exploring religious/sexual-gender identity conflict and LGBTQ suicidality. However, there are several studies that have explored the connection between identity centrality, conflict and integration, and other aspects of LGBTQ well-being (besides suicidality) (J. R. Anderson et al., 2023; Paulez et al., 2023; Rodriguez et al., 2019). Research along this line may hold the key to better understanding how and why religiosity is associated with risk for LGBTQ suicidality. A few studies included in this review have begun to examine this association (Bridges et al., 2020; Lefevor, McGraw, et al., 2021; Skidmore, Lefevor, Golightly, & Larsen, 2023).
The seemingly universally deleterious impact of identity conflict raises an important question. Why do so many studies of religious LGBTQ individuals find religion to be protective of LGBTQ well-being and, specifically, of suicidality? Do many religious LGBTQ individuals simply experience little to no identity conflict? Are many LGBTQ individuals able to resolve whatever identity conflict exists so that they do not experience the associated negative consequences, at least suicidality? Are there other aspects of religiosity that have a stronger, and protective, impact on suicidality mediating the suicidality risk? Does sexual or religious identity centrality mediate the relationship between identity conflict and well-being? Is identity conflict most deleterious for those whose sexual-gender identity is stronger than their religious identity? Are LGBTQ individuals whose religious identity is stronger than their sexual/gender identity protected from the negative consequences to some extent?
Though the extant literature does not provide clear answers to these questions, it does provide several possibilities. There are no generalizable studies that show what percent of LGBTQ individuals experience religious/sexual-gender identity conflict vs integration. The fact that most studies find that levels of LGBTQ religiosity are lower for the general population could be taken as evidence that there is an inherent conflict. And in fact, many studies assume there is an inherent conflict, but we have no data to verify that assumption. One study that explicitly examined the intersection between religious and sexual identities found that many LGBTQ individual are able to navigate religious and sexual identities in a way that they did not experience identity conflict (Sherry et al., 2010). The authors explain the implications of this for therapeutic treatment: The current data suggest that multiple selves do not necessarily become fragmented or overly conflicted. A therapist should not, as the authors initially did, make assumptions that a client who identifies as both spiritual or religious, as well as LGB is necessarily dealing with a conflict in negotiating their identities. As the current study has shown, many LGB people have successfully negotiated the integration of these two aspects of identity in a way that allows them to feel congruent and free from identity conflict. People are effectively able to adjust aspects of the self in useful and adaptive ways. (p. 117)
Studies of LGBTQ well-being (not just suicidality) provide support for these authors’ conclusions. Those who are most able to integrate their religious and sexual/gender identities experience fewer negative outcomes (Lefevor et al., 2021; Paulez et al., 2023; Rosenkrantz et al., 2016). Such findings raise the question of how it is possible for LGBTQ individuals to find identity reconciliation between their sexual-gender identities and their religious identities.
Reconciliation would appear most accessible for LGBTQ individuals whose religious beliefs and structures provide support for, and even affirmation of, their LGBTQ identity. Some LGBTQ individuals actively seek religious associations that are supportive of their sexual or gender identities such as the experience of some in these reviewed studies (Dahl & Galliher, 2009; Gahan et al., 2014; Raedel et al., 2020; Schuck & Liddle, 2001). However, this is not always the case. Some consciously stay religiously connected with religions that take a heteronormative/cisnormative approach to sexuality-gender (McCann et al., 2020) and, as can be seen from the above review, find their religiosity protective against suicidality. Are these individuals able to find some form of reconciliation? From the findings of this review, it appears some do. Which aspect of an individual’s identity predominates in their life may also help explain how.
An interesting study that examined this dynamic among Latter-day Saint LGBTQ individuals found that LGBTQ individuals “can flourish both by adopting an LGBQ identity and by rejecting such an identity” (Lefevor, Sorrell, et al., 2020). They divided their sample into those who prioritized their LGBTQ identity and those who prioritized their religious identity. And though there were more minority stress factors in the lives of those who prioritized their religious identity, there were no differences in mental or physical health outcomes. They theorize that it is because of other aspects of their religious experience, including a sense of belonging, even within a heteronormative/cisnormative religious denomination.
Interestingly, two studies that examined Latter-day Saint LGBTQ well-being found that those who embrace either a sexual minority identity or a Mormon identity have superior health outcomes relative to those who are confused or struggling to navigate both identities (Grigoriou, 2014; Lefevor, Blaber, et al., 2020). Again, identity centrality, whether an individual places their religious or their sexual-gender identity as their primary identity, appears to play a role in how religion is experienced by LGBTQ individuals. These two studies also seem to indicate that it is the identity struggle more than the focus on a religious or a sexual-gender identity that creates many of the deleterious outcomes.
These findings do not fit with Cass’ identity development model, which theorizes that identity acceptance and pride require an individual to become fully invested in their LGBTQ identity before they are able to synthesize their LGBTQ identity into their overall life in a healthy way. However, other LGBTQ developmental models theorize that there is more than one way for LGBTQ individuals to experience the benefits of identity synthesis, especially religious LGBTQ individuals (Yarhouse, 2001; Yarhouse et al., 2005). These theories also involve progressive stages of confusion, exploration, and acceptance. However, rather than assuming that the only way to find synthesis is by adopting an LGBTQ identity, these theories involve individuals accepting the reality of their sexual attractions without shame but who choose to focus on other aspects of their identity. As one group of researchers put it: “In this view, those who reject a sexual minority identity may successfully navigate the conflicts and stages of sexual identity development in a manner like LGBQ individuals but may describe themselves as SSA, heterosexual, or child of God.” For individuals in traditional religious contexts, there is some evidence that rejecting a sexual minority identity label may lead to similar mental health outcomes as identifying as LGBQ and rejecting a religious identity (Grigoriou, 2014; Lefevor, Sorrell, et al., 2020, p. 4).
There is also evidence that even internalized homonegativity, a construct that is almost uniformly negative for LGBTQ mental health 6 (Lefevor et al., 2023), seems to function differentially for some LGBTQ individuals in conservative heteronormative religions. While internalized homonegativity is never found protective against suicidality, it has been found to be unassociated with LGBTQ suicidality (Bridges et al., 2020) as well as other negative mental and physical health outcomes (Lefevor, Sorrell, et al., 2020). Furthermore, religiosity has been found to moderate the relationship between internalized homonegativity and LGBTQ depression such that higher religiosity moderated the relationship of internalized homonegativity on depression (Rosik et al., 2022). Yet, internalized homonegativity failed to moderate the health-protective benefits of religious belongingness for LGBTQ individuals (Skidmore, Lefevor, & Dillon, 2023).
Affiliation—denomination/salience/belief-behavior
When examining the three religiosity predictors that are specifically dimensions of religiosity, the majority of studies find religiosity either protective or unassociated with LGBTQ suicidality. This is especially true for the most generalizable studies with population-based samples and controls/comparisons.
Affiliation is the most frequently studied religiosity predictor. By a two to one basis, these studies found affiliation either protective or unassociated with LGBTQ suicidality. As a means of facilitating belonging, it makes sense for affiliation to be protective of suicidality according to the interdependent theory of suicide. It does raise the question of how this affiliation is related to identity conflict. One possible explanation is that those who choose to stay affiliated are those who have most successfully learned to navigate their religious and sexual/gender identities. Another possibility is that the benefits affiliated individuals receive outweigh the deleterious impact of whatever identity conflict they experience.
Again, by over a two to one margin, studies examining religious salience found it either protective or unassociated with LGBTQ suicidality, with almost half of these finding it protective and half finding it unassociated. Similar to affiliation, this would seem to indicate that the majority of LGBTQ individuals who feel religion is important have found a way to navigate identity conflict issues or are simply receiving more benefit than harm from their religious involvement. Perhaps these individuals not only find belonging but a sense of worth and purpose in line with the interpersonal theory of religion. It is also possible that LGBTQ individuals who find religion important use their religion to create resilience that mitigates against some of the negative consequences of minority stress factors.
A slight majority of studies that examined specific behaviors such as attendance, prayer, scripture study, and religious coping found these protective or unassociated with LGBTQ suicidality. Fewer studies examined specific religious beliefs and they were more mixed in outcome. In each of these three predictors, though a strong majority found religiosity protective or unassociated with suicidality, there were studies that also found risk. In these cases, most of the authors postulated and, in some cases, demonstrated some connection to an aspect of minority stress theory. 7
Limitations and future considerations
As this review has demonstrated, the relationship between religiosity and LGBTQ suicidality is multifaceted and belies a simplistic explanation. But is important to realize that this research is still young and there is much yet to learn. Though this review included every study published since 2000 in the EBSCO PsycInfo database on religiosity and LGBTQ suicidality, not every study on the topic is contained in the PsycInfo database. Future studies can expand on this review by including other social science databases.
Future research could benefit from a continual mixture of both more global (affiliation/attendance/salience) and more nuanced measures of religiosity. Such measures, when combined with population-based samples, provide our greatest confidence in the generalizability of the findings. But such measures often lack the nuance that is found in studies that tend to be convenience/purposive. In an ideal world, such nuanced measures will be used in more population-based studies but until then, combining both and comparing findings can add to our ability to understand this important topic. There is also a need for more population-based studies to help us get a more accurate picture of the percentages of LGBTQ individuals who experience religion in different ways to better understand the aggregate experience.
Another important issue going forward will be to encourage more studies that examine mediators and moderators, which could provide a greater understanding of not only basic associations but the processes behind them. More careful use of controls and comparison groups will also help us avoid misinterpretation from conflating factors. For example, there is a rich body of research pointing to known risk and protective factors for suicide such as gun ownership, population density, family structure, rurality, and perhaps most importantly, prior mental health. Including these in our study of religiosity and LGBTQ suicidality will help us to differentiate religion’s impact from other known constructs. Finally, there is a great need for more longitudinal research to help us move beyond basic association to the direction of influence and causation.
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-prj-10.1177_00846724241235181 – Supplemental material for Associations between religion and suicidality for LGBTQ individuals: A systematic review
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-prj-10.1177_00846724241235181 for Associations between religion and suicidality for LGBTQ individuals: A systematic review by Michael A. Goodman in Archive for the Psychology of Religion/Archiv Für Religionpsychologie
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-2-prj-10.1177_00846724241235181 – Supplemental material for Associations between religion and suicidality for LGBTQ individuals: A systematic review
Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-prj-10.1177_00846724241235181 for Associations between religion and suicidality for LGBTQ individuals: A systematic review by Michael A. Goodman in Archive for the Psychology of Religion/Archiv Für Religionpsychologie
Footnotes
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
