Racial Oppression,Self-Efficacy,and Avoidance of Interpersonal Intimacy Among Queer Men of Color: A Longitudinal Investigation

Abstract

Queer men of color face pervasive experiences of racism, both in their daily lives and in romantic and sexual contexts (i.e., sexual racism), which carry deleterious effects on their psychological and behavioral well-being. Nevertheless, no studies have examined how racial oppression may impact experiences of interpersonal intimacy among this under-researched community. Grounded in the multidimensional racism-related stress model and intersectionality theory, the present study longitudinally investigated the associations between racial discrimination and sexual racism with avoidance of interpersonal intimacy, as well as the moderating role of self-efficacy. Participants included 177 queer men of color, who completed two surveys six months apart. Controlling for baseline avoidance of interpersonal intimacy, racial discrimination and sexual racism at Wave 1 were not directly longitudinally associated with avoidance of interpersonal intimacy at Wave 2. However, we found a significant interaction effect between racial discrimination and self-efficacy at Wave 1 predicting avoidance of interpersonal intimacy at Wave 2, as well as between sexual racism and self-efficacy predicting avoidance of interpersonal intimacy. Specifically, racial discrimination and sexual racism were longitudinally and positively associated with greater avoidance of interpersonal intimacy at high levels of self-efficacy, but not at low levels. The present study’s novel findings underscore the importance of addressing multilayered racism in queer men of color’s lives and considering the nuanced role of self-efficacy in interpersonal intimacy through social justice-informed research, clinical intervention, and prevention efforts.

Keywords

racism sexual racism avoidance of interpersonal intimacy self-efficacy queer men of color

Introduction

Queer individuals face unique challenges when navigating experiences of interpersonal intimacy compared to their heterosexual and cisgender counterparts, due to social and structural inequalities related to sexuality and gender (Frost, 2011). Over time, these relational difficulties may lead queer individuals to avoid interpersonal intimacy altogether, increasing risks for poorer well-being (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2010; Riggle et al., 2010). Interpersonal intimacy is a state of closeness and deep mutual understanding, accompanied by feelings of trust, affection, and the sharing of personal thoughts and experiences (Prager, 1995). It encompasses various dimensions, including cognitive, emotional, spiritual, and physical aspects (Reis & Shaver, 1988).

Interpersonal intimacy has primarily been studied among heterosexual and cisgender individuals, with fewer studies dedicated to queer individuals (Hammack et al., 2019). The few studies that have examined interpersonal intimacy among queer populations have found that avoidance of interpersonal intimacy is particularly pertinent among queer men, with 80% of queer men in Elder et al.’s (2015) qualitative study reporting avoiding emotional expression and 90% describing emotional intimacy as risky. Given the high prevalence rates, researchers have examined various sociocultural factors related to sexuality and gender that may influence queer men’s avoidance of interpersonal intimacy. For instance, Davis and Mehta (2022) found that sexual orientation and gender norms play a dominant role in shaping how gay men construct intimacy in their friendships with other gay and heterosexual men. Research centering queer people broadly indicates that societal devaluation of same-sex sexualities and intimacy results in experiences of stigma for queer people in romantic relationships (Frost, 2011; Frost & Meyer, 2009). Furthermore, according to the intraminority gay community stress theory (Pachankis et al., 2020), queer men also experience stress within the queer community that negatively affects their mental and behavioral health (Assink & Bos, 2024), such as increased engagement in sexual risk behaviors (Burton et al., 2020). Avoidance of interpersonal intimacy among queer men specifically may be attributed to experiences of internalized heterosexism and homophobia (Davis & Mehta, 2022), in which emotional vulnerability may be perceived as “unmasculine” and “girly” (Elder et al., 2015). These numerous barriers may make it challenging for queer men to achieve their needs and goals for interpersonal intimacy (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2010; Riggle et al., 2010), elevating the likelihood of this community avoiding interpersonal intimacy altogether.

The complexity in interpersonal intimacy is further magnified among the subgroup of queer men of color, who face minority stressors related to race that may be intertwined with the effects of sexuality and gender. Research has well-documented that racism permeates queer men of color’s lives, with 84% of queer men of color in Han et al. (2015) reporting facing racial discrimination within the gay community and 65% describing being stressed due to these experiences. A limited yet growing body of research captures how racially relevant factors may shape experiences of interpersonal intimacy among queer men of color. For instance, queer Latine and Black men in Elder et al.’s (2015) qualitative study reported that cultural gender role expectations socialized them to be more intolerant of emotional talk compared to their White counterparts. Additionally, queer Asian men have reported that experiences of racial discrimination in intimacy contexts drove them to engage in sexual risk behaviors (Han, 2007) and seek out taller men as romantic partners (Phan et al., 2026b). Furthermore, research among racial minorities broadly denotes that racial discrimination within romantic relationships may lead to increased trust violation and disconnection (Yampolsky et al., 2023), highlighting the negative effects of racism on experiences of interpersonal intimacy.

Still, despite evidence highlighting that emotional connection and emotional disclosure are critical for relationship satisfaction and longevity (Gottman et al., 2003; McCabe, 1999), and how avoidance of interpersonal intimacy may carry detrimental effects on queer men’s well-being (Greenfield & Thelen, 1997), our understanding of what racially relevant factors may be associated with queer men of color’s avoidance of interpersonal intimacy remains scarce. It is particularly important to examine avoidance of interpersonal intimacy as a maladaptive response to racial oppression, considering how coping strategies that involve attempts to avoid sources of stress can result in greater distress (West et al., 2010) and how avoidance coping related to racism-related stressors perpetuates racism’s detrimental effects (Barnes & Lightsey, 2005). Hence, the present study applies Crenshaw’s (1989) intersectionality theory and Harrell’s (2000) multidimensional racism-related stress model to investigate the longitudinal effects of everyday racism and sexual racism on avoidance of interpersonal intimacy among queer men of color, as well as the moderating role of self-efficacy.

Racism

Queer men of color face pervasive experiences of racial discrimination in their daily lives, which have detrimental impacts on their mental health (Layland et al., 2022). Harrell’s (2000) multidimensional model of racism-related stress serves as a useful framework in conceptualizing the effects of racial discrimination on queer men of color’s avoidance of interpersonal intimacy. Here, racism is defined as a system through which members of the dominant group utilize their power and privilege to subordinate persons of non-dominant communities based on racial identity designations, excluding them from power, esteem, status, or access to resources. Harrell (2000) posits that racial minorities face racial oppression from various sources in life, which causes significant psychological distress and negatively impacts their well-being. The racism literature has well-documented the associations between racial discrimination and poor mental and behavioral health outcomes among queer men of color, including depression and anxiety (Choi et al., 2013), alcohol use disorder (Souleymanov et al., 2020), and sexual risky behaviors (Han et al., 2015).

It is also possible that racism will be longitudinally and positively associated with greater avoidance of interpersonal intimacy among queer men of color. A few studies provide a glimpse into how forces of racism negatively impact racial minorities’ experiences with intimacy, particularly among Black adults. For instance, Perkins (2025) highlights that chronic exposure to racism may lead to race-based traumatic stress among Black Americans, negatively impacting their emotional regulation and ability to form stable, long-term memory, which may hinder their experience of intimacy and increase feelings of isolation within relationships. As a result, racial discrimination may lead to lower relationship satisfaction and greater relationship conflict among Black romantic relationships (Wallace et al., 2025). These findings may extend to queer men of color, where the association between racism and relational conflicts and intimacy difficulties may make queer men of color feel discouraged in their ability to achieve meaningful interpersonal intimacy over time, driving them to use avoidance as a form of self-protection. Furthermore, the stress from racial discrimination in queer men of color’s lives may drive them to exhibit behaviors such as displaying less warmth and more hostility in their relational interactions (Rice et al., 2023; Walker, 2020). Consequently, queer men of color facing racism may avoid interpersonal intimacy to prevent themselves from engaging in these undesirable behaviors that may negatively impact their loved ones.

Sexual Racism

In addition to racism, queer men of color face pervasive racial oppression within romantic and sexual contexts, a phenomenon known as sexual racism (Stember, 1978). Coupled with Harrell’s (2000) model of racism-related stress, Crenshaw’s (1989) intersectionality theory serves as a critical framework in understanding queer men of color’s experiences with sexual racism. Originally conceptualized to highlight Black women’s multidimensional identities at the crossroads of race and gender, intersectionality theory has been extended to examine the multilayered experiences of queer men of color, including sexual racism (Bhambhani et al., 2023). Sexual racism manifests as racial exclusion, racial denigration, sexual objectification, and fetishization targeting queer men of color in the White-dominated dating and sexual world (Bhambhani et al., 2023; Paul et al., 2010). Research examining sexual racism has documented the negative effects of this insidious form of racial oppression on queer men of color’s psychological and behavioral health outcomes, including depression, anxiety, loneliness, stress, alcohol and drug use, and risky sexual behaviors (Bhambhani et al., 2020, 2023), body dissatisfaction (Bhambhani et al., 2019), as well as suicidal ideation and self-injury (Hidalgo et al., 2020).

In addition to negative mental health outcomes, sexual racism may be longitudinally and positively associated with greater avoidance of interpersonal intimacy among queer men of color. This hypothesized association may be explained by the damaging effects of sexual racism on queer men of color’s self-concept. Sexual racism often glorifies queer White male bodies as possessing the ideal physical traits while relegating queer men of color to the bottom of the racialized hierarchy of attractiveness (Bhambhani et al., 2023; Callander et al., 2015; Stacey & Forbes, 2022). Consequently, experiences of sexual racism may lead queer men of color to question their self-worth and desirability (Han, 2007), carrying damaging effects on their self-esteem (Thai, 2020). Similar to how people with low self-esteem may engage in intimacy-limiting behaviors (Forest et al., 2023), queer men of color facing sexual racism may progressively avoid interpersonal intimacy out of fear of being rejected by others. This act of avoidance may also serve as a form of self-protection for queer men of color to evade feelings of marginalization, psychological distress, and anxiety stemming from sexual racism experiences (Bhambhani et al., 2019; Han & Choi, 2018). Furthermore, similar to how racial fetishization, a form of sexual racism (Bhambhani et al., 2023), makes queer men of color feel as if they are incapable of forming intimate social connections (Stacey & Forbes, 2022), exposure to sexual racism may over time reduce queer men of color’s confidence in their ability to achieve intimacy, driving them to avoid experiences of interpersonal intimacy altogether.

Self-Efficacy as a Moderator

According to Harrell’s (2000) model of racism-related stress, self-efficacy is one of the internal characteristics that may affect the association between racial oppression and health outcomes among racial minorities. Self-efficacy is an individual’s perceived capabilities in managing stressful and challenging situations (Bandura, 1977). Higher self-efficacy is linked with various positive health outcomes, including reductions in symptoms of depression, anxiety, vital exhaustion, and daily stress, increases in active problem-focused coping, and greater levels of optimism, self-regulation, and self-esteem (Luszczynska et al., 2009; Romppel et al., 2013; Schonfeld et al., 2016).

It is possible that self-efficacy may buffer against the longitudinal effects of racism and sexual racism on queer men of color’s avoidance of interpersonal intimacy, in which the associations between racism, sexual racism, and avoidance of interpersonal intimacy are only significant and positive at low levels of self-efficacy, but not at high levels. Self-efficacy’s protective effects may be explained by how studies have shown that queer men of color are not passive recipients of racial oppression. For instance, Han and Choi’s (2018) qualitative study highlights that queer men of color actively engage in resistance against racism by creating a non-White gay aesthetic that allows them to feel more authentic as queer men of color. It is possible that among queer men of color with high levels of self-efficacy, they may persist in relational pursuits in the face of everyday racism and sexual racism, knowing that they have the capacity to create change and challenge the effects of racial oppression. Additionally, self-efficacy is associated with greater critical consciousness among people of color (Stamps & Johnson, 2025). Perhaps among queer men of color with high levels of self-efficacy, their critical awareness of how their avoidance is a product of racial oppression may drive them to persevere in the face of White supremacy as a form of resistance. On the contrary, considering how students of color with high levels of racial coping self-efficacy are less likely to be affected by experiences of racial microaggressions (Collins & Stevenson, 2023), queer men of color with low levels of self-efficacy may be more vulnerable to negative psychological consequences when facing racial discrimination and sexual racism, making them more likely to avoid interpersonal intimacy as a coping mechanism.

The Present Study

The present study applies an intersectionality-grounded, longitudinal approach to provide a culturally informed understanding of what factors affect queer men of color’s willingness to engage in interpersonal intimacy by investigating the effects of racism, sexual racism, and self-efficacy on avoidance of interpersonal intimacy. First, we hypothesize that both racism and sexual racism at Wave 1 will be positively associated with avoidance of interpersonal intimacy at Wave 2. Second, we hypothesize that self-efficacy at Wave 1 will moderate the associations between racism and sexual racism with avoidance of interpersonal intimacy. Specifically, racial discrimination and sexual racism will be positively associated with avoidance of interpersonal intimacy at low levels of self-efficacy, but not at high levels.

Method

Participants

Table 1 provides comprehensive information about participants’ demographics. The final sample of the present study included 177 queer men of color. To determine the minimal number of participants needed for the present study, we utilized G*Power 3.1 (Faul et al., 2007). A priori power analysis for linear multiple regression with five predictor variables, 80% power, and an expected medium effect size (.15) demonstrated that a minimum of 55 participants would be needed. Data was collected longitudinally from October 2021 to February 2022 (Wave 1) and April 2022 to August 2022 (Wave 2, 6 months after Wave 1). Initially, 178 participants completed the survey at Wave 1, and of those 178 individuals, 156 proceeded to complete the survey at Wave 2. The retention rate from Wave 1 to Wave 2 of data collection was 88%. One participant missed both validity checks at Wave 1 and thus was excluded from analyses. Individuals who only missed one validity check were retained in the study. Hence, our final sample consisted of 177 queer men of color whose ages ranged from 18 to 72 (M = 28.87, SD = 8.93). Of these participants, 82 identified as Asian American, 37 identified as Latino, 27 identified as African American, and 22 identified as multiracial. Additionally, 20 individuals identified as transgender. Most of the present study’s participants were born in the United States (n = 135 born in the U.S.).

Table 1.

Sample Demographics

Variable	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent
Race
African American/Black	27	15.3	15.3
Native/Indigenous/First Nation	3	1.7	1.7
Asian or Asian American	82	46.3	46.3
Latino/Chicano/Hispanic	37	20.9	20.9
Middle eastern/North African	2	1.1	1.1
Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian	2	1.1	1.1
Multiracial and/or Multiethnic	22	12.4	12.4
Not listed above	2	1.1	1.1
Born in the United States
Yes	135	76.3	76.7
No	41	23.2	23.3
Transgender
Yes	20	11.3	11.3
No	155	87.6	87.6
Gender
Man	169	95.5	--
Genderfluid	7	4.0	--
Gender non-conforming	9	5.1	--
Agender	3	1.7	--
Not listed above	9	5.1	--
Sexual orientation
Bisexual	32	18.1	--
Pansexual	8	4.5	--
Gay	142	80.2	--
Uncertain	1	.6	--
Questioning	2	1.1	--
Queer	28	15.8	--
Asexual	5	2.8	--
Demisexual	1	.6	--
Generational status
1st Generation	26	14.7	14.7
1.5 generation	16	9.0	9.0
2nd Generation	80	45.2	45.2
3rd Generation and beyond	48	27.1	27.1
Adoptee	1	.6	.6
Not listed above	6	3.4	3.4
Educational attainment
High school diploma or less	10	5.6	5.8
Some college	35	19.8	20.2
College degree	66	37.3	38.2
Professional or graduate degree	62	35.0	35.8
Household income
Under $10,000	6	3.4	3.6
$10,000-$14,999	4	2.3	2.4
$15,000-$24,999	15	8.5	9.1
$25,000-$34,999	16	9.0	9.7
$35,000-$49,999	18	10.2	10.9
$50,000-$74,999	33	18.6	20.0
$75,000-$99,999	23	13.0	13.9
$100,000 or more	50	28.2	30.3

Note. The total percentage for gender and sexual orientation exceeds 100% since some participants identified with multiple identities in each category.

Procedure

All procedures for the current study were executed online, and the study received approval from the Institutional Review Board at a large mid-Atlantic university before data collection. To participate in the study, participants had to meet three eligibility criteria: (1) identify as a queer man of color, (2) live in the U.S., and (3) be 18 years or older. Recruitment was completed through contacting organizations that serve queer men of color. Participants were also recruited through various online forums and webpages (e.g., Facebook). Participants who met the inclusion criteria filled out informed consent and then completed a 10 to 15-min survey, which included a series of questionnaires related to demographic items, the study’s variables of interest, and two validity check items (e.g., “To indicate that you are paying attention, please select ‘Often’ for this item”) at Wave 1. After six months from the completion of the first survey, the research team followed up with participants via email to complete the second survey. Participants were compensated $15 for completing the first survey and $20 for completing the second survey.

Measures

Demographics

At Wave 1 of the study, participants completed demographic items related to ethnicity, race, educational attainment, income, age, gender, generational status, sexual orientation, and whether they were born in the United States or abroad.

Racial Discrimination

The Everyday Discrimination Scale (EDS; Williams et al., 1997) was used to capture experiences of racial discrimination at Wave 1. Since the original items did not specify the role of race/ethnicity in relation to experiences of discrimination, items were modified slightly so that participants in the present study were instructed to think explicitly about discrimination related to their racial/ethnic identity (Le & Iwamoto, 2019, 2022). Participants rated nine items about their experiences of racial discrimination (e.g., “You are treated with less respect than other people because of your race/ethnicity”) on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Never) to 6 (Almost everyday). Items were summed to generate a sum score, with higher scores denoting a greater frequency of racism experiences. The EDS has provided adequate reliability and validity in samples of African American and Latine American college students (Lui, 2020) and Asian American college students (Atkin & Tran, 2020). The version of the scale revised to target race/ethnicity has provided adequate reliability among samples of college men of color (Cronbach’s alpha = .94; Le & Iwamoto, 2022) and Asian American college students (Cronbach’s alpha = .92; Le & Iwamoto, 2019). The revised EDS produced a Cronbach’s alpha of .94 among queer men of color in the present study.

Sexual Racism

Experiences of racial discrimination within romantic and/or dating contexts were captured at Wave 1 using the Experienced Sexual Racism Items (Bhambhani et al., 2020), derived from Han et al.’s (2015) Sexual Racism Scale. Participants completed five items about how often they faced experiences of sexual racism either online or in-person (e.g., “I have experienced discrimination on mobile dating/hook up apps (Tinder, Grindr, Jack’D, Scruff) on the basis of my race/ethnicity”) and one item about whether stress accompanied these racist encounters (e.g., “When I have experienced any discrimination on mobile apps/Internet/real life because of my race/ethnicity, I have been stressed about it”). Participants rated all items on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Never) to 4 (Most of the time). Scores across the two subscales were summed, such that higher total scores indicated a greater frequency of sexual racism experiences. The scale has provided adequate reliability among samples of queer Asian American men (Cronbach’s alpha = .87; Phan & Le, 2025; Cronbach’s alpha = .89; Phan et al., 2026a) and queer men of color (Cronbach’s alpha = .89; Bhambhani et al., 2020). Cronbach’s alpha for the present study was .88.

Self-Efficacy

The General Self-Efficacy Scale-6 (GSE-6; Romppel et al., 2013), a revised version of the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE; Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995), was utilized to capture participants’ confidence in their ability to manage difficult situations at Wave 1. Participants rated six items (e.g., “I am confident that I could deal efficiently with unexpected events”) on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Not true at all) to 4 (Exactly true). A sum score was produced, with higher total scores indicating greater self-efficacy. The measure development study demonstrated evidence of concurrent validity, denoted by negative associations between the GSE-6 and symptoms of depression, anxiety, and vital exhaustion, as well as predictive validity, test-retest reliability, and internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .79; Romppel et al., 2013). The GSE-6 has also reported adequate reliability among a sample of queer Asian American men (Cronbach’s alpha = .85; Le & Kler, 2024). The GSE-6 produced a Cronbach’s alpha of .85 among queer men of color in the present study.

Avoidance of Interpersonal Intimacy

The Avoidance of Interpersonal Intimacy subscale from the Functional Idiographic Assessment Template-Questionnaire-Short Form (FIAT-Q-SF), derived from the FIAT-Q (Darrow et al., 2014), was used to measure participants’ levels of avoidance of interpersonal intimacy at Wave 1 and Wave 2. Participants rated eight items (e.g., “I do not want to share things about myself with others”) on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 6 (Strongly agree). All items were summed to produce a total score, with higher scores indicating greater levels of avoidance of interpersonal intimacy. The measure development study provided evidence of divergent and convergent validity, indicated by the scale’s positive correlation with psychological distress and negative correlation with life satisfaction, and test-retest reliability for the original FIAT-Q, as well as adequate reliability for the Avoidance of Interpersonal Intimacy subscale (Cronbach’s alpha = .82, Darrow et al., 2014). The subscale yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of .89 at Wave 1 and .91 at Wave 2 among queer men of color in the present study.

Data Analytic Plan

The research team established the data analytic plan before conducting data analysis. We used Mplus Version 8.1 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017) and SPSS (v.29) to execute all analyses, and alpha values p < .05 were considered statistically significant. To include data from all participants with missing data, the maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors estimator was utilized to handle missing data. Two waves of data were used in the model: October 2021 to February 2022 (Wave 1) and April 2022 to August 2022 (Wave 2, six months after the completion of the first survey). Wave 1 data included racial discrimination, sexual racism, self-efficacy, and avoidance of interpersonal intimacy, and Wave 2 data included avoidance of interpersonal intimacy. Multivariate outliers and multicollinearity were investigated. To assess the data’s normality, kurtosis and skewness were also examined. After investigating bivariate correlations between the study’s primary and demographic variables, we mean-centered the three independent variables and conducted two multiple regression models to examine whether the associations between racism and sexual racism at Wave 1 with avoidance of interpersonal intimacy at Wave 2 were moderated by self-efficacy at Wave 1. To evaluate the respective model fits, three indices were used: comparative fit index (CFI; .95 or above; Hu & Bentler, 1999), rootmean-square error of approximation (RMSEA; .08 or less; Browne & Cudeck, 1993), and the standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR; .08 or less; Hu & Bentler, 1999). Then, we input both models in Mplus Version 8.1 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017) and entered income and avoidance of interpersonal intimacy at Wave 1 as covariates, given their significant correlations with avoidance of interpersonal intimacy at Wave 2, and avoidance of interpersonal intimacy at Wave 2 as the outcome variable. For the first model, we entered the racial discrimination variable, the self-efficacy variable, and the interaction term. For the second model, we entered the sexual racism variable, the self-efficacy variable, and the interaction term. For each significant interaction, we probed their effects at one standard deviation (SD) above and below the mean.

Results

In the present sample, 93.8% of participants reported experiencing racial discrimination, and 87.5% of the participants reported experiencing sexual racism, underscoring the common and persistent nature of racial oppression in participants’ lives. The study’s main variables of interest yielded kurtosis values ranging from −70 to .61 and skewness values ranging from −.18 to .91, both of which were within the acceptable range (George & Mallery, 2010). Little’s Missing Completely at Random (MCAR) analysis revealed a nonsignificant chi-square statistic χ²(8) = 12.16, p = .14, indicating that data were missing completely at random. Therefore, following Parent’s (2013) recommendations to address missing data, the maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors estimator was executed in Mplus, and pairwise deletion was utilized in SPSS to include data from all participants with missing data. Regarding concerns with multivariate outliers and multicollinearity among the racial discrimination, sexual racism, and self-efficacy measures, we found that variance inflation factor and tolerance scores were in the acceptable range.

Correlation Analyses

Descriptive statistics and correlations for the current study’s main variables of interest are displayed in Table 2. Self-efficacy at Wave 1 was significantly and negatively correlated with avoidance of interpersonal intimacy at Wave 2. Avoidance of interpersonal intimacy at Wave 1 was significantly and positively correlated with avoidance of interpersonal intimacy at Wave 2. Of the demographic variables examined, income was significantly and negatively correlated with avoidance of interpersonal intimacy at Wave 2. Thus, we included income and avoidance of interpersonal intimacy at Wave 1 as covariates in subsequent analyses that included the corresponding correlated main variables of interest to control for their effects.

Table 2.

Correlations Matrix of Variables of Interest

Variable	Mean (SD)	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Racism	21.69 (9.08)	---
2. Sexual racism	12.30 (4.29)	.53**	---
3. Self-efficacy	16.22 (3.52)	−.02	.02	---
4. AII W1	27.56 (9.20)	.01	−.05	−.32**	---
5. AII W2	26.88 (9.10)	.07	−.01	−.32**	.72**	---
6. Age	28.87 (8.93)	.19*	.06	.07	.04	.11	---
7. Educational attainment	3.04 (.89)	.03	.09	.10	−.09	−.10	.19*	---
8. Income	5.89 (1.99)	−.12	−.01	.23**	−.17*	−.28**	−.06	.26**	---
9. Nativity	1.23 (.42)	−.03	−.07	.08	−.01	−.11	.01	.21**	−.04	---

Note. AII = Avoidance of Interpersonal Intimacy. W1 = Wave 1; W2 = Wave 2; Variables followed by W1 were assessed between October 2021 and February 2022; Variables followed by W2 were assessed between April 2022 and August 2022.

*p < .05, **p < .01.

Main Results

Given that income and avoidance of interpersonal intimacy at Wave 1 were correlated with avoidance of interpersonal intimacy at Wave 2, they were entered into the model as covariates. Next, two multiple regression models were conducted to examine the associations between racial discrimination, sexual racism, self-efficacy, and avoidance of interpersonal intimacy (see Table 3 for the model results). The measurement model was a good fit for model 1 (CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00, SRMR = .026) as well as model 2 (CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00, SRMR = .035).

Table 3.

Multiple Regression Models With Racial Discrimination, Sexual Racism, and Self-Efficacy on Avoidance of Interpersonal Intimacy

Variable	B	β	SE	p
IV: Racial discrimination
Income	−.60	−.13	.29	.04*
AII Wave 1	.69	.69	.06	<.001***
Racial discrimination	.05	.05	.06	.40
Self-efficacy	−.18	−.07	.16	.25
Racial discrimination X Self-efficacy	.05	.17	.02	.003**
IV: Sexual racism
Income	−.62	−.13	.29	.03*
AII Wave 1	.70	.70	.06	<.001***
Sexual racism	.05	.02	.11	.66
Self-efficacy	−.16	−.06	.16	.32
Sexual racism X self- Efficacy	.09	.16	.03	.007**

Note. IV = Independent Variable; AII = Avoidance of Interpersonal Intimacy; SE = Standard Error.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

For the first model, inconsistent with our hypothesis, after controlling for income and avoidance of interpersonal intimacy at Wave 1, racial discrimination at Wave 1 was not significantly associated with avoidance of interpersonal intimacy at Wave 2. However, we found a significant interaction effect between racial discrimination and self-efficacy predicting avoidance of interpersonal intimacy (see Figure 1). When examining simple slope analysis, we found that racial discrimination was significantly and positively associated with greater avoidance of interpersonal intimacy at high levels of self-efficacy (b = .21, p < .001). However, the link between racial discrimination and avoidance of interpersonal intimacy was nonsignificant at low levels of self-efficacy (b = −.11, p = .052). In other words, high levels of self-efficacy exacerbated the association between racial discrimination and avoidance of interpersonal intimacy. Figure 1 displays this model.

Figure 1.

The moderating effect of self-efficacy on the association between racial discrimination and avoidance of interpersonal intimacy

For the second model, inconsistent with our hypothesis, after controlling for income and avoidance of interpersonal intimacy at Wave 1, sexual racism at Wave 1 was not significantly associated with avoidance of interpersonal intimacy at Wave 2. However, we found an interaction effect between sexual racism and self-efficacy predicting avoidance of interpersonal intimacy (see Figure 2). When examining simple slope analysis, we found that sexual racism was significantly and positively associated with greater avoidance of interpersonal intimacy at high levels of self-efficacy (b = .36, p < .05). However, the link between sexual racism and avoidance of interpersonal intimacy became nonsignificant at low levels of self-efficacy (b = −.26, p = .11). In other words, high levels of self-efficacy exacerbated the association between sexual racism and avoidance of interpersonal intimacy. Figure 2 displays this model.

Figure 2.

The moderating effect of self-efficacy on the association between sexual racism and avoidance of interpersonal intimacy

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the associations between racial discrimination and sexual racism with avoidance of interpersonal intimacy among queer men of color, as well as the moderating role of self-efficacy. Incongruent with our first hypothesis, neither racism nor sexual racism at Wave 1 were directly longitudinally associated with avoidance of interpersonal intimacy at Wave 2. Furthermore, contrary to our hypothesized moderation, the associations between racism and sexual racism at Wave 1 and avoidance of interpersonal intimacy at Wave 2 were significant at high levels of self-efficacy at Wave 1, but not at low levels. Our significant moderated longitudinal findings contribute to Harrell’s (2000) racism-related stress model and Crenshaw’s (1989) intersectionality theory by highlighting the pernicious longitudinal effects of two forms of racial oppression and self-efficacy on avoidance of interpersonal intimacy among queer men of color. Furthermore, the present study advances the extant racism literature by indicating that, in addition to poor psychological (e.g., depression, anxiety, suicidality; Bhambhani et al., 2023; Hidalgo et al., 2020) and behavioral health outcomes (i.e., sexual risk behaviors, hazardous alcohol use; Han et al., 2015; Souleymanov et al., 2020), everyday racism and sexual racism also negatively impact queer men of color’s experience with interpersonal intimacy, depending on self-efficacy. Moreover, the exacerbating role of self-efficacy in the present study adds to the mixed findings in existing research regarding its typically positive influence (Schiaffino et al., 1991; Schonfeld et al., 2017).

Inconsistent with our first hypothesis, racial discrimination and sexual racism at Wave 1 were not directly longitudinally associated with avoidance of interpersonal intimacy at Wave 2. This lack of significant effect may be explained by applying a strengths-based perspective. Several queer men of color in Han and Choi’s (2018) qualitative study reported acknowledging that sexual racism is a racist act and thus should be confronted as a form of racial oppression. Hence, queer men of color in the present study may resist racial oppression by engaging in various coping strategies, including participating in racial justice movements and engaging in self-reflection or therapy (Choi et al., 2011; Le et al., 2025a, 2025b). These effective coping strategies may thus reduce queer men of color’s engagement in avoidance of interpersonal intimacy as a form of self-protection. Additionally, queer men of color in the present study may possess high critical consciousness and recognize that the racism that they face in online and offline dating venues is due to racialized systems, allowing them to persist in their intimacy pursuits instead of avoiding them. However, given that we did not collect data on these specific strengths-based variables, these ideas are speculative and merit additional empirical examination.

Self-Efficacy as Moderator

In terms of our moderation hypothesis, we found an unexpected effect in which the associations between racial discrimination and sexual racism with avoidance of interpersonal intimacy were significant and positive at high levels of self-efficacy, but not at low levels. While the exacerbating role of self-efficacy observed here is contrary to some previous studies that demonstrated the positive effects of self-efficacy (Luszczynska et al., 2009; Romppel et al., 2013), our finding also corroborates mixed findings in the literature. For instance, Schonfeld et al. (2017) highlight how individuals with high levels of self-efficacy are more likely to experience psychological stress and decreases in performance. Similarly, higher self-efficacy has been associated with greater symptoms of depression among adult patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis who experience high levels of pain (Schiaffino et al., 1991). Building upon these findings, the uncontrollable nature of everyday racism and sexual racism may lead to feelings of helplessness among queer men of color with high levels of self-efficacy, since their inability to control the situation is incongruent with perceived ability to handle difficult situations. Consequently, feelings of overwhelm may drive queer men of color with high self-efficacy to avoid interpersonal intimacy as a form of self-protection.

Additionally, we apply Pachankis and Hatzenbuehler’s (2013) “Best Little Boy in the World” hypothesis to explain the present study’s unexpected moderation effect. Here, the authors posit that sexual minority men may cope with experiences of heterosexism and sexual minority stigma by investing their time and energy in achievement-related success, including academics, appearance, and competition. This theory suggests that sexual minority men may thus avoid intrapersonal and interpersonal intimacy and instead focus on achievement to minimize the psychological pain of discrimination. Applying this hypothesis to queer men of color with high self-efficacy, queer men of color with high self-efficacy may be particularly prone to diverting their energy and attention to achievement when faced with exposure to everyday racism and sexual racism over time, thereby intensifying the positive associations between racism and sexual racism with avoidance of interpersonal intimacy. Similar patterns have been observed among both heterosexual and queer Asian American men (Keum et al., 2023; Le et al., 2025a), some of whom turn to goal-directed professional activities, activism, and/or advocacy to cope with and resist White supremacy. Conversely, queer men of color with low self-efficacy may feel less capable of managing everyday racism and sexual racism, leaving them with fewer alternative outlets to redirect their energy. As a result, they may be more willing to persist in experiences of interpersonal intimacy, rendering the associations between everyday racism and sexual racism with avoidance of interpersonal intimacy non-significant at low levels of self-efficacy.

Limitations and Strengths

Despite the study’s novelty as the first to our knowledge to apply a longitudinal design to examine the links between racial oppression, self-efficacy, and avoidance of interpersonal intimacy among queer men of color, its findings should be interpreted with some limitations. First, the present study homogenized subgroups of queer men of color, which may mask potential racial and ethnic differences regarding experiences of racial oppression, self-efficacy, and intimacy (Agishtein & Brumbaugh, 2013; Mao et al., 2004; Powell et al., 2023; Yuan et al., 2016). For instance, men of color face varying manifestations of gendered racial stereotypes, in which Asian men are emasculated as effeminate and submissive (Callander et al., 2015; Han et al., 2015), Black men are hypersexualized as dominant and aggressive (Fields et al., 2012), and Latino men are exoticized as sexually adventurous and passionate (Carballo-Diéguez et al., 2004). Additionally, experiences of colorism pervade the queer community (Stacey & Forbes, 2022), rendering queer Latino men with darker skin more vulnerable to experiencing racism compared to those with lighter skin tones (Wilson et al., 2009). Therefore, future research should examine how racial oppression may differentially affect experiences of interpersonal intimacy among specific groups of queer men of color. Furthermore, the present study did not account for differences in other demographics, such as gender identity. Considering how transgender people of color face oppression at the intersection of racism and cisgenderism in their daily lives (Farvid et al., 2021), and how transgender folks frequently face marginalization and feelings of isolation when navigating experiences of intimacy (Marshall et al., 2020), future research may expand on the present study to examine how intersectional forces of racism may impact transgender men of color’s avoidance of interpersonal intimacy. Future studies may also replicate the present study with a larger sample of queer men of color to bolster the generalizability of the findings.

With these drawbacks in mind, the present study still carries notable strengths. First, the study was grounded in the well-established frameworks of Crenshaw’s (1989) intersectionality theory and Harrell’s (2000) multidimensional racism-related stress model. Second, the present study utilized a longitudinal design, allowing us to identify the effects of everyday racism and sexual racism on queer men of color’s avoidance of interpersonal intimacy over time. Lastly, the present study advances Pachankis and Hatzenbuehler’s (2013) “Best Little Boy in the World” hypothesis by extending the effects of oppression related to sexual orientation to oppressive structures related to race through demonstrating the deleterious effects of racism and sexual racism.

Implications for Practice, Advocacy, Research, and Prevention

The present study’s intersectional and longitudinal findings carry nuanced implications for future social justice-informed research, clinical interventions, and prevention efforts. As the first study to provide insights into queer men of color’s avoidance of interpersonal intimacy, we encourage future research to continue expanding this limited literature to enhance our collective understanding of sociocultural forces that influence queer men of color’s relational well-being. Given the exacerbating effects of self-efficacy, future studies may continue integrating a strengths-based perspective to explore protective factors that may mitigate the effects of everyday racism and sexual racism on queer men of color’s avoidance of interpersonal intimacy, such as resistance and empowerment against racism (Suyemoto et al., 2022), collective racial self-esteem (Sanders et al., 2024), and racial/ethnic socialization (Umaña-Taylor & Hill, 2020Umaña‐Taylor & Hill, 2020). Future research may also extend this work by exploring self-efficacy within specific areas of queer men of color’s lives. For example, scholars might draw on Collins and Stevenson’s (2023) conceptualization of domain-specific racial coping self-efficacy when investigating the impact of racial oppression on queer men of color’s experience with intimacy.

Transitioning into clinical implications, when working with queer men of color with high self-efficacy, clinicians may consider exploring whether their clients engage in avoidance of interpersonal intimacy as a coping mechanism in response to everyday racism and sexual racism. This may look like providing psychoeducation for clients to utilize their self-efficacy adaptively, such as directly channeling their perceived ability to handle difficult situations into experiences of interpersonal intimacy to reduce avoidance behaviors. Clinicians may benefit from collaborating with their queer male clients of color to develop active resistance strategies by consulting Han & Choi, 2018; Le et al., 2025a empowerment-based findings, including building affirmative communities with fellow queer men of color, participating in racial justice advocacy, and distancing from Whiteness. Given that critical consciousness is a prerequisite for liberation (Prilleltensky, 2003, 2008), we encourage clinicians to name sexual racism as an inherently racist experience and provide psychoeducation for queer men of color to use this critical understanding to work toward disrupting systemic oppression and enhancing their own well-being (Callander et al., 2015; Han & Choi, 2018).

Nevertheless, the burden of addressing racial oppression should not fall solely on queer men of color; instead, prevention efforts should focus on reducing queer men of color’s exposure to everyday racism and sexual racism in the first place. We recommend that college campuses, particularly predominantly White universities, and workplaces implement intersectional policies that delineate clear consequences for acts of racism against queer men of color (Byrd et al., 2019). Institutions should also invest in efforts to diversify their workforces with more queer men of color to create more inclusive and equitable work environments. Considering how queer men of color face pervasive experiences of sexual racism in online geosocial networking platforms (English et al., 2024), we encourage preventionists to integrate digital literacy resources that educate queer White male users on what sexual racism may look like (i.e., sexual exclusion, racial fetishization) and how this form of racial oppression carries deleterious effects on queer men of color’s well-being. We also recommend that geosocial networking developers integrate a zero-tolerance policy for both racism and sexual racism on these platforms as a deliberate and active effort to protect queer men of color. Lastly, to reduce avoidance of interpersonal intimacy, geosocial networking applications may consider disseminating LGBTQ-affirming resources for their queer men of color users, which may foster positive identity development and interpersonal relationships (Puckett et al., 2017).

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program under Grant No. 2233001. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. Additionally, the authors would like to thank Amber Pasha for her extensive support with survey design and data collection.

ORCID iDs

Phúc Q. Phan

Lydia H. Ahn

Thomas P. Le

Ethical Considerations

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at a large mid-Atlantic university before data collection.

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Author Contributions

Author TL designed the study. Authors LA and PP facilitated the statistical analyses and led the statistical analyses. Author PP wrote the first draft of the manuscript. Authors LA and TL provided feedback and supervision on the writing of the manuscript. All authors contributed to and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The present study was funded by the third author's Faculty-Student Research Grant Award from the University of Maryland.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data is available upon request from the first author.*

Open Science Statement

As part of IARR's encouragement of open research practices, the authors have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data used in the research are available upon request from the first author by emailing pqphan@asu.edu. The materials used in the research are available upon request from the first author by emailing pqphan@asu.edu.

References

Agishtein

Brumbaugh

(2013). Cultural variation in adult attachment: The impact of ethnicity, collectivism, and country of origin. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, & Cultural Psychology, 7(4), 384–405. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0099181

Assink

Bos

H. M. W.

(2024). Mental well-being of sexual minority individuals: Exploring the role of intraminority stress. Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06836-2

Atkin

A. L.

Tran

A. G. T. T.

(2020). The roles of ethnic identity and metastereotype awareness in the racial discrimination-psychological adjustment link for Asian Americans at predominantly white universities. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 26(4), 498–508. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000323

Bandura

(1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Barnes

P. W.

Lightsey

O. R.

(2005). Perceived racist discrimination, coping, stress, and life satisfaction. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 33(1), 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1912.2005.tb00004.x

Bhambhani

Flynn

M. K.

Kellum

K. K.

Wilson

K. G.

(2019). Examining sexual racism and body dissatisfaction among men of color who have sex with men: The moderating role of body image inflexibility. Body Image, 28, 142–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2019.01.007

Bhambhani

Flynn

M. K.

Kellum

K. K.

Wilson

K. G.

(2020). The role of psychological flexibility as a mediator between experienced sexual racism and psychological distress among men of color who have sex with men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49(2), 711–720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1269-5

Bhambhani

Kellum

K. K.

Bentley

J. P.

Wilson

K. G.

(2023). Constructing a scale to measure sexual racism experienced by men of color who have sex with men. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 10(2), 190–205. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000526

Browne

M. W.

Cudeck

(1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen

K. A.

Long

J. S.

(Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

10.

Burton

C. L.

Clark

K. A.

Pachankis

J. E.

(2020). Risk from within: Intraminority gay community stress and sexual risk-taking among sexual minority men. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 54(9), 703–712. https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kaaa014

11.

Byrd

W. C.

Brunn-Bevel

R. J.

Ovink

S. M.

(Eds.), (2019). Intersectionality and higher education: Identity and inequality on college campuses. Rutgers University Press.

12.

Callander

Newman

C. E.

Holt

(2015). Is sexual racism really racism? Distinguishing attitudes toward sexual racism and generic racism among gay and bisexual men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(7), 1991–2000. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0487-3

13.

Carballo-Diéguez

Dolezal

Nieves

Díaz

Decena

Balan

(2004). Looking for a tall, dark, macho man. . . Sexual-role behaviour variations in Latino gay and bisexual men. Culture, Health and Sexuality, 6(2), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691050310001619662

14.

Choi

K. H.

Han

C. S.

Paul

Ayala

(2011). Strategies for managing racism and homophobia among U.S. ethnic and racial minority men who have sex with men. AIDS Education and Prevention: Official Publication of the International Society for AIDS Education, 23(2), 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1521/aeap.2011.23.2.145

15.

Choi

K. H.

Paul

Ayala

Boylan

Gregorich

S. E.

(2013). Experiences of discrimination and their impact on the mental health among African American, Asian and Pacific Islander, and Latino men who have sex with men. American Journal of Public Health, 103(5), 868–874. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.301052

16.

Collins

J. A.

Stevenson

H. C.

(2023). Racial climate reform in independent schools: How coping self‐efficacy buffers systemic and proximal racial stress for students of color. Psychology in the Schools, 60(11), 4427–4451. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22993

17.

Crenshaw

(1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 8.

18.

Darrow

S. M.

Callaghan

G. C.

Bonow

J. T.

Follette

W. C.

(2014). The Functional Idiographic Assessment Template-Questionnaire (FIAT-Q): Initial psychometric properties. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 3(2), 124–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2014.02.002

19.

Davis

G. E.

Mehta

C. M.

(2022). “We are okay to be ourselves”: Understanding gay men’s friendships with heterosexual and gay men. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 23(2), 209–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000381

20.

Elder

W. B.

Morrow

S. L.

Brooks

G. R.

(2015). Sexual self-schemas of gay men: A qualitative investigation. The Counseling Psychologist, 43(7), 942–969. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000015606222

21.

English

Carter

J. A.

Forbes

Tilove

A. M.

Smith

Bowleg

Rendina

H. J.

(2024). “Straight-acting white for same”: In-person and online/app-based discrimination exposure among sexual minority men. Sexual and Gender Diversity In Social Services, 36(4), 556–578. https://doi.org/10.1080/29933021.2024.2305461

22.

Farvid

Vance

T. A.

Klein

S. L.

Nikiforova

Rubin

L. R.

Lopez

F. G.

(2021). The health and well-being of transgender and gender non‐conforming people of colour in the United States: A systematic literature search and review. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 31(6), 703–731. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2555

23.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A. G.

Buchner

(2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146

24.

Fields

E. L.

Bogart

L. M.

Smith

K. C.

Malebranche

D. J.

Ellen

Schuster

M. A.

(2012). HIV risk and perceptions of masculinity among young black men who have sex with men. Journal of Adolescent Health, 50(3), 296–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.07.007

25.

Forest

A. L.

Sigler

K. N.

Bain

K. S.

O’Brien

E. R.

Wood

J. V.

(2023). Self-esteem’s impacts on intimacy-building: Pathways through self-disclosure and responsiveness. Current Opinion in Psychology, 52, 101596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101596

26.

Frost

D. M.

(2011). Similarities and differences in the pursuit of intimacy among sexual minority and heterosexual individuals: A personal projects analysis. Journal of Social Issues, 67(2), 282–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01698.x

27.

Frost

D. M.

Meyer

I. H.

(2009). Internalized homophobia and relationship quality among lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(1), 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012844

28.

George

Mallery

(2010). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference, 17.0 update (10a ed). Pearson.

29.

Gottman

J. M.

Levenson

R. W.

Gross

Frederickson

B. L.

McCoy

Rosenthal

Ruef

Yoshimoto

(2003). Correlates of gay and lesbian couples' relationship satisfaction and relationship dissolution. Journal of Homosexuality, 45(1), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v45n01_02

30.

Greenfield

Thelen

(1997). Validation of the fear of intimacy scale with a lesbian and gay male population. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14(5), 707–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407597145007

31.

Hammack

P. L.

Frost

D. M.

Hughes

S. D.

(2019). Queer intimacies: A new paradigm for the study of relationship diversity. The Journal of Sex Research, 56(4-5), 556–592. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2018.1531281

32.

Han

Ayala

Paul

J. P.

Boylan

Gregorich

S. E.

Choi

(2015). Stress and coping with racism and their role in sexual risk for HIV among African American, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Latino men who have sex with men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(2), 411–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0331-1

33.

Han

C.-S.

(2007). They don't want to cruise your type: Gay men of color and the racial politics of exclusion. Social Identities: Journal for the Study of Race, Nation and Culture, 13(1), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504630601163379

34.

Han

C. S.

Choi

K. H.

(2018). Very few people say “No Whites”: Gay men of color and the racial politics of desire. Sociological Spectrum: The Official Journal of the Mid-South Sociological Association, 38(3), 145–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/02732173.2018.1469444

35.

Harrell

S. P.

(2000). A multidimensional conceptualization of racism-related stress: Implications for the well-being of people of color. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 70(1), 42–57. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087722

36.

Hatzenbuehler

M. L.

McLaughlin

K. A.

Keyes

K. M.

Hasin

D. S.

(2010). The impact of institutional discrimination on psychiatric disorders in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: A prospective study. American Journal of Public Health, 100(3), 452–459. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.168815

37.

Hidalgo

M. A.

Layland

Kubicek

Kipke

(2020). Sexual racism, psychological symptoms, and mindfulness among ethnically/racially diverse young men who have sex with men: A moderation analysis. Mindfulness, 11(2), 452–461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-019-01278-5

38.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

39.

Keum

B. T.

Ahn

L. H.

Choi

A. Y.

Choudhry

Nguyen

Meizys

G. M.

Chu

Hearns

(2023). Asian American men’s gendered racial socialization and fragmented masculinity: Interpretive phenomenological analysis. The Counseling Psychologist, 51(5), 684–718. https://doi.org/10.1177/00110000231170310

40.

Layland

E. K.

Maggs

J. L.

Kipke

M. D.

Bray

B. C.

(2022). Intersecting racism and homonegativism among sexual minority men of color: Latent class analysis of multidimensional stigma with subgroup differences in health and sociostructural burdens. Social Science & Medicine, 293, Article 114602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114602

41.

T. P.

Iwamoto

D. K.

(2019). A longitudinal investigation of racial discrimination, drinking to cope, and alcohol-related problems among underage Asian American college students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors: Journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors, 33(6), 520–528. https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000501

42.

T. P.

Iwamoto

D. K.

(2022). Racial discrimination, gender role conflict, and depression in college men of color: A longitudinal test of the racist-gender stress model. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 23(1), 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000378

43.

T. P.

Kler

(2024). Queer Asian American men’s racialized dating preferences: The role of internalized racism and resistance and empowerment against racism. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 11(2), 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000602

44.

T. P.

Liu

Chao

M. L.

Vedamtam

Mayungo

S. N.

Mikita

S. M.

(2025a). Of race and romance: A qualitative investigation of queer Asian American men’s romantic relationships with queer Asian American men. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 42(8), 1928–1951. (Original work published 2025). https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075251334240

45.

T. P.

Oluwakemi

Samee

A. A.

Yeung

C. W.

Chong

E. S. K.

(2025b). “I find value in myself”: Queer Asian American men’s self-love and resistance in the face of white supremacy. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000812

46.

Lui

P. P.

(2020). Racial microaggression, overt discrimination, and distress: (In)direct associations with psychological adjustment. The Counseling Psychologist, 48(4), 551–582. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000020901714

47.

Luszczynska

Benight

C. C.

Cieslak

(2009). Self-efficacy and health-related outcomes of collective trauma: A systematic review. European Psychologist, 14(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.14.1.51

48.

Mao

Ven

P. V. D.

McCormick

(2004). Individualism-collectivism, self-efficacy, and other factors associated with risk-taking among gay Asian and Caucasian men. AIDS Education and Prevention, 16(1: Special issue), 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1521/aeap.16.1.55.27720

49.

Marshall

Glazebrook

Robbins-Cherry

Nicholson

Thorne

Arcelus

(2020). The quality and satisfaction of romantic relationships in transgender people: A systematic review of the literature. International Journal of Transgender Health, 21(4), 373–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2020.1765446

50.

McCabe

M. P.

(1999). The interrelationship between intimacy, relationship functioning, and sexuality among men and women in committed relationships. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 8, 31–38.

51.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998–2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

52.

Pachankis

J. E.

Clark

K. A.

Burton

C. L.

Hughto

J. M. W.

Bränström

Keene

D. E.

(2020). Sex, status, competition, and exclusion: Intraminority stress from within the gay community and gay and bisexual men's mental health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(3), 713–740. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000282

53.

Pachankis

J. E.

Hatzenbuehler

M. L.

(2013). The social development of contingent self-worth in sexual minority young men: An empirical investigation of the “Best little boy in the world” hypothesis. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 35(2), 176–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2013.764304

54.

Parent

M. C.

(2013). Handling item-level missing data: Simpler is just as good. The Counseling Psychologist, 41(4), 568–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000012445176

55.

Paul

Ayala

Choi

(2010). Internet sex ads for MSM and partner selection criteria: The potency of race/ethnicity online. The Journal of Sex Research, 47(6), 528–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490903244575

56.

Perkins

(2025). Racism’s impact on Black Intimacy. The Family Journal, 33(4), 598–606. (Original work published 2025). https://doi.org/10.1177/10664807251349846

57.

Phan

P. Q.

T. P.

(2025). Sexual racism and queer Asian American men's depression and hazardous drinking. Journal of Homosexuality, 72(10), 1918–1936. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2024.2398563

58.

Phan

P. Q.

T. P.

Nagata

J. M.

(2026a). Sexual racism, resistance and empowerment against racism, and muscle dysmorphia among sexual minority Asian American men. Current Psychology, 45(6), 588. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-025-08947-w

59.

Phan

P. Q.

Nagata

J. M.

T. P.

(2026b). Sexual racism, racial dating preferences, and height dating preferences among queer Asian American men. Sexuality & Culture. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-026-10546-1

60.

Powell

Parker

Moore

Xiong

Evans

Sidibe

(2023). Importance of public and private partnership supporting data disaggregation to measure racial, sexual orientation, and gender identity disparities in COVID-19. Health Security, 21(S1), S35–S41. https://doi.org/10.1089/hs.2023.0025

61.

Prager

K. J.

(1995). The psychology of intimacy. Guilford Press.

62.

Prilleltensky

(2003). Understanding, resisting, and overcoming oppression: Toward psychopolitical validity. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31(1-2), 195–201. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1023043108210

63.

Prilleltensky

(2008). The role of power in wellness, oppression, and liberation: The promise of psychopolitical validity. Journal of Community Psychology, 36(2), 116–136. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20225

64.

Puckett

J. A.

Horne

S. G.

Herbitter

Maroney

M. R.

Levitt

H. M.

(2017). Differences across contexts: Minority stress and interpersonal relationships for lesbian, gay, and bisexual women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 41(1), 8–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684316655964

65.

Reis

H. T.

Shaver

(1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In Duck

Hay

D. F.

Hobfoll

S. E.

Ickes

Montgomery

B. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions (pp. 367–389). John Wiley & Sons.

66.

Rice

T. M.

Jenkins

A. I. C.

Smith

S. M.

Alexander

McGregor

C. M.

(2023). Racial discrimination and romantic relationship dynamics among Black Americans: A systematic review. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 15(4), 793–821. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12535

67.

Riggle

E. D.

Rostosky

S. S.

Horne

S. G.

(2010). Psychological distress, well-being, and legal recognition in same-sex couple relationships. Journal of Family Psychology: Journal of the Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association, 24(1), 82–86. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017942

68.

Romppel

Herrmann-Lingen

Wachter

Edelmann

Düngen

H. D.

Pieske

Grande

(2013). A short form of the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE-6): Development, psychometric properties and validity in an intercultural non-clinical sample and a sample of patients at risk for heart failure. Psycho-Social-Medicine, 10. https://doi.org/10.3205/psm000091

69.

Sanders

S. M.

Williams

T. R.

Berry

A. T.

Garcia-Aguilera

Robinson

Martin

Jones

(2024). Internalized racism and mental health: The moderating role of collective racial self-esteem. Behavioral Sciences, 14(11), 1003. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14111003

70.

Schiaffino

K. M.

Revenson

T. A.

Gibofsky

(1991). Assessing the impact of self-efficacy beliefs on adaptation to rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care & Research: The Official Journal of the Arthritis Health Professions Association, 4(4), 150–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.1790040404

71.

Schönfeld

Brailovskaia

Bieda

Zhang

X. C.

Margraf

(2016). The effects of daily stress on positive and negative mental health: Mediation through self-efficacy. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 16(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2015.08.005

72.

Schönfeld

Preusser

Margraf

(2017). Costs and benefits of self-efficacy: Differences of the stress response and clinical implications. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 75, 40–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.01.031

73.

Schwarzer

Jerusalem

(1995). Generalized self-efficacy scale. In Weinman

Wright

Johnston

(Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35–37). NFER-Nelson.

74.

Souleymanov

Brennan

D. J.

George

Utama

Ceranto

(2020). Experiences of racism, sexual objectification and alcohol use among gay and bisexual men of colour. Ethnicity and Health, 25(4), 525–541. https://doi.org/10.1080/13557858.2018.1439895

75.

Stacey

Forbes

T. D.

(2022). Feeling like a fetish: Racialized feelings, fetishization, and the contours of sexual racism on gay dating apps. The Journal of Sex Research, 59(3), 372–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2021.1979455

76.

Stamps

D. L.

Johnson

(2025). Black communities’ relationship to hip-hop culture, self-efficacy and critical consciousness. Journal of Black Studies, 56(6), 477–497. (Original work published 2025). https://doi.org/10.1177/00219347251339681

77.

Stember

(1978). Sexual racism: The emotional barrier to an integrated society. Harper & Row.

78.

Suyemoto

K. L.

Abdullah

Godon-Decoteau

Tahirkheli

N. N.

Arbid

Frye

A. A.

(2022). Development of the resistance and empowerment against racism (REAR) Scale. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 28(1), 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000353

79.

Thai

(2020). Sexual racism is associated with lower self-esteem and life satisfaction in men who have sex with men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49(1), 347–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-1456-z

80.

Umaña‐Taylor

A. J.

Hill

N. E.

(2020). Ethnic–racial socialization in the family: A decade's advance on precursors and outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 244–271. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12622

81.

Walker

(2020). The unapologetic guide to Black mental health: Navigate an unequal system, learn tools for emotional wellness, and get the help you deserve. New Harbinger Publications.

82.

Wallace

T. M.

Bryant

C. M.

Kamp Dush

(2025). Multidimensional racism-related stress and the undermining of Black romantic relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.70028

83.

West

L. M.

Donovan

R. A.

Roemer

(2010). Coping with racism: What works and doesn’t work for black women. Journal of Black Psychology, 36(3), 331–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798409353755

84.

Williams

D. R.

Jackson

J. S.

Anderson

N. B.

(1997). Racial differences in physical and mental health: Socioeconomic status, stress, and discrimination. Journal of Health Psychology, 2(3), 335–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910539700200305

85.

Wilson

P. A.

Valera

Ventuneac

Balan

Rowe

Carballo-Diéguez

(2009). Race-based sexual stereotyping and sexual partnering among men who use the internet to identify other men for bareback sex. The Journal of Sex Research, 46(5), 399–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490902846479

86.

Yampolsky

M. A.

Rossini

Pagé

Leanza

Lalonde

R. N.

(2023). Intimate racism from one's partner in young intercultural couples. Journal of Social Issues, 79(1), 161–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12558

87.

Yuan

Weiser

D. A.

Fischer

J. L.

(2016). Self-efficacy, parent–child relationships, and academic performance: A comparison of European American and Asian American college students. Social Psychology of Education: International Journal, 19(2), 261–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-015-9330-x