| 摘要: | 本研究旨在調查同性戀者的壓力源、壓力因應具體策略與心理健康狀態之現況，以及在同性戀者的身分認同程度下之差異狀況，研究方法採問卷調查法，生活於台灣之男、女同性戀者為研究樣本，以網路滾雪球取樣的方式，尋找問卷調查的對象，獲得有效樣本共414人。研究工具為研究者自編「同志心理健康狀態調查問卷」、Brady and Busse（1994）編制的「身分認同歷程量表」及葉英堃先生從英文直接翻譯而來的「症狀檢核量表」Sympton CheckList-90-Revised(SCL-90-R)，包含十個分量表，共有症狀項目90題。資料處理採用統計分析方法，包括描述性統計、卡方檢定、獨立樣本t檢定、多元迴歸等。
資料經統計分析得到以下結論：
1.不論性別差異，在「害怕家人不接受我的同志身分」、「同儕間流傳嘲笑、貶低同志的笑話」、「沒有可以吐露心事的朋友」、「出櫃可能會失去現有工作」、「缺乏支持或討論親密關係的對象」、「常被介紹異性對象或安排相親」之壓力因素上，「低身分認同者」有此壓力者顯著高於「高身分認同者」。
2.「高身分認同」之男同性戀者在「老師對同志的支持態度不明確」、「校園內未積極倡導同性戀平權觀念」之壓力因素上，顯著高於「低身分認同者」；然女同性戀者則未達顯著水準。「低身分認同」之女同性戀者在「擔心家人不接受我的伴侶」、「與伴侶親密關係引起他人關注」之壓力因素上，顯著高於「高身分認同者」；然男同性戀者則未達顯著水準。
3.不論性別差異，在「修正身旁他人對於同志的誤解」、「公開自己的性向」、「主動為同志發聲」的壓力因應方式上，「高身分認同組」選取人數百分比顯著高於「低身分認同組」之人數百分比；在「避免出現會被認為是同性戀的動作」、「偽裝自己是異性戀」、「壓抑自己受同性吸引的感受」、「迴避談論婚姻與感情相關話題」的壓力因應方式上，「低身分認同組」選取人數百分比顯著高於「高身分認同組」之人數百分比。
4.男同性戀者不同認同程度在症狀檢核量表總分、「強迫性行為」、「人際間敏感」、「憂鬱反應」、「焦慮反應」、「妄想意識」及「精神症狀」之得分，「低身分認同者」顯著高於「高身分認同者」；女同性戀者不同認同程度在「人際間敏感」之得分，「低身分認同者」顯著高於「高身分認同者」。
5.自評心理健康狀態、社會觀念的壓力、使用藥物舒緩情緒之因應策略及宣洩情緒之因應策略對於心理健康狀態有預測能力，其中以「自評心理健康狀態」最具有預測能力，預測力達34.4%。
The purpose of this study is to investigate lesbian and gay stressor, stress coping strategy and mental health status case in the high and low degree of homosexual identity. The subjects of this study are gay and lesbian living in Taiwan. The research method is Internet questionnaire investigation. The total returned questionnaires were 414. The data was analyzed by descriptive statistics, Chi-square test, T test, multiple regression. The research tools are “homosexual mental health status questionnaire” developed by this study, “Symptom Check List-90-Revised (SCL-90-R), and “The Gay Identity Questionnaire (GIQ). The major findings of this research were as follow:
1.Regardless of gender differences, for percentage of people on stressors ” I'm afraid the family does not accept my gay identity”, “Students spread ridicule, belittle gay jokes in school”, “There are no friends to share things of mind”, “Coming out may lose existing work”, “Lack of support or discuss couple relationship object”and “Introduction object or marriage”, group of low homosexual identity significantly higher than the group of high homosexual identity.
2.For percentage of people on stressors “Teacher's attitude is not clear in support of homosexuality”and “Not actively promote the concept of homosexuality in schools”,group of high gay identity significantly higher than the group of low gay identity; for percentage of people on stressors “I would worry about my family does not accept my lover”and “People pay attention to my lover's intimacy with the action”, group of low lesbian identity significantly higher than the group of high lesbian identity.
3.Regardless of gender differences, for percentage of people on stress coping methods “correct others’ misconceptions about homosexuality”,”coming out” and “Initiative for homosexual speech”, group of high homosexual identity significantly higher than the group of low homosexual identity; for percentage of people on stress coping methods “avoid similar homosexual behavior”, “disguised as heterosexual”, “repressed feelings by same-sex attraction”and “avoid talking about the topic of marriage”, group of low homosexual identity significantly higher than the group of high homosexual identity.
4.The score of “obsessive-compulsive”, ”interpersonal-sensitivity”, ”depression”, ”anxiety”, “paranoid” and “psychoticism”, group of low gay identity significantly higher than the group of high gay identity; the scores of “obsessive compulsive”, group of low lesbian identity significantly higher than the group of high lesbian identity.
5.“Mental health self-assessment”,”the stressor of social attitudes”,“the stress coping of use drug” and “the stress coping of use behavior to vent their emotions” could reflect the scores of SCL-90-R. |
