Androgyny may be linked with greater flexibility in using both problem-focused and emotion-focused coping. Masculinity may be associated with the use of problem-focused coping, and femininity may be correlated with the use of emotion-focused coping. Androgyny ‹ high masculinity and high femininity ‹ may be an asset for lesbian and bisexual women in coping with lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgendered (LBGT)-related prejudice. This study examined narrative reports of strategies for coping with LBGT-related prejudice written by 247 lesbian and bisexual women, as well as exploring the reported LBGT-related prejudice itself. Three independent raters coded narrative responses. The Bem Sex Role Inventory was used to measure sex role orientation.

Predictions were that androgynous participants would report more, more various, and more successful coping strategies compared to non-androgynous participants, that masculinity would be positively correlated with problem-focused coping strategies and that femininity would be positively correlated with emotion-focused coping strategies. None of the hypotheses received statistically significant support. Although androgynous participants reported an average greater number and variety of coping strategies compared to non-androgynous participants, this difference was not significant, although confidence intervals did not overlap. However, the inference probability suggests that these differences might reach significance in a larger sample. Androgynous women were not found to report successful coping significantly more often or unsuccessful coping significantly less often than non-androgynous women. Non-androgynous participants reported coping strategies that sometimes worked significantly more often than androgynous participants. No significant correlations emerged between femininity and emotion-focused coping or between masculinity and problem-focused coping. It may be that the group differences observed are due solely to chance, or the differences are too small to reach significance in the sample size of this study. Future exploration might employ more structured measures of emotion- and problem-focused coping strategies in addition to the narrative coding methods used in the present study, to help rule out differences in motivation to write out responses.

Problem-focused responses were the most frequently reported strategies for coping with LBGT-related prejudice, and social support mobilization responses were the least frequently reported. Participants indicated only about a third of the time whether or not coping strategies worked; however, the strategies most commonly reported to be effective were the three social support mobilization strategies, confrontation/negotiation and problem-solving, and the strategies most commonly reported to be unsuccessful were accepting responsibility/self blame, avoidance/escapism, self-control/ exercised caution, distancing/minimization and confrontation/negotiation. Confrontation/negotiation strategies might be better understood if broken down into more aggressive strategies versus more diplomatic strategies, since direct aggression tended to be described as less effective and assertive diplomacy tended to be described as more effective. Separating problem- and emotion-focused and combined aspects of social support mobilization strategies did not appear to provide any more information than considering these responses together.

The most common specific types of prejudice reported to have been experienced included global LBGT put-downs and intangible differential treatment, or were described in general terms and were not categorized as to specific type. The least commonly reported types of prejudice were property destruction and physical assault or threats of these. Bisexual women reported a significantly greater number of prejudice incidents compared to lesbian women. In particular, bisexual women reported more prejudice incidents encountered in the LBGT community, and more incidents of intangible differential treatment.

Future research might build upon the current study¹s exploration of reported LBGT-related prejudice and relevant coping strategies by creating a more structured measure of experienced prejudice and coping responses tailored specifically to surveying LBGT individuals.