Search results

Theoretical and empirical integration of the rejection sensitivity (RS) model to sexual minority people is one of the few attempts to extend existing theoretical frameworks that explain mental health disparities for this population, namely the minority stress framework (Meyer,  2003 ) and its extensions (Hatzenbuehler,  2009 ; Testa, Habarth, Peta, Balsam, & Bockting,  2015 ). Theoretical origins of RS are rooted in the desire to understand how rejection from significant others affects subsequent other close relationships (Downey & Feldman,  1996 ). This was later extended to conceptualize rejection based on membership of a stigmatized group and modified to understand sexual orientation-related RS among sexual minorities (Dyar, Feinstein, Eaton, & London,  2016 ; Pachankis, Goldfried, & Ramrattan,  2008 ). Feinstein ( 2019 ) brings new life to this adapted application by grounding and integrating the basic tenets of sexual orientation-related RS alongside a critical health compromising process of minority stress: vigilance. Meyer theorized vigilance as a core form of proximal minority stressors and explains that “LGB people learn to anticipate—indeed, expect—negative regard from members of the dominant culture. To ward off potential negative regard, discrimination, and violence, they must be vigilant” and this vigilance is “related to feared possible (even if imagined) negative events” (Meyer,  2003 , p. 680–681). Feinstein explains that existing theoretical frameworks (Hatzenbuehler,  2009 ; Meyer,  2003 ) mention vigilance and RS as important processes, but lack a comprehensive integration of these concepts. Given that schemas for RS are formed early in the life course, we focus on the applicability to sexual minority adolescents, and other marginalized groups.

  BACKGROUND: The significance of the timing and chronicity of childhood adversity for depression outcomes later in life is unclear. Identifying trajectories of adversity throughout childhood would allow classification of children according to the accumulation, timing, and persistence of adversity, and may provide unique insights into the risk of subsequent depression. METHODS: Using data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, we created a composite adversity score comprised of 10 prospectively assessed domains (e.g., violent victimization, inter-parental conflict, and financial hardship) for each of eight time points from birth through age 11.5 years. We used semiparametric group-based trajectory modeling to derive childhood adversity trajectories and examined the association between childhood adversity and depression outcomes at the age of 18 years. RESULTS: Among 9,665 participants, five adversity trajectories were identified, representing stable-low levels (46.3%), stable-mild levels (37.1%), decreasing levels (8.9%), increasing levels (5.3%), and stable-high levels of adversity (2.5%) from birth through late childhood. Approximately 8% of the sample met criteria for probable depression at 18 years and the mean depression severity score was 3.20 (standard deviation = 3.95, range 0-21). The risk of depression in young adulthood was elevated in the decreasing (odds ratio [OR] = 1.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.19-2.48), increasing (OR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.15-2.86), and stable-high (OR = 1.80, 95% CI = 1.00-3.23) adversity groups, compared to those with stable-low adversity, when adjusting for potential confounders. CONCLUSIONS: Children in trajectory groups characterized by moderate or high levels of adversity at some point in childhood exhibited consistently greater depression risk and depression severity, regardless of the timing of adversity.