Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity © 2014 American Psychological Association

2014, Vol. 1, No. 4, 325–334 2329-0382/14/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000053

LGBT Strengths: Incorporating Positive Psychology Into Theory, Research,

Training, and Practice

Michelle D. Vaughan Eric M. Rodriguez

The University of Mount Union New York City College of Technology

This article serves as the first in a series of 4 articles providing a theoretically and empirically informed
approach to understanding lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals and communities
from the perspective of positive psychology. Termed LGBT strengths, this perspective aims to comple-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

ment existing perspectives in LGBT psychology focused on distress and pathology to provide a more
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

balanced and representative understanding of LGBT lives. In the present article we provide an intro-
duction to the 3 pillar model of positive psychology and its relevance to the unique experiences of LGBT
individuals. Drawing connections between positive psychology and related strengths-based concepts
within the existing literature in LGBT psychology, we provide evidence for LGBT strengths across the
3 pillars and within diverse populations of sexual and gender minorities. Discussing the role and
importance of fostering a psychological science of these strengths informed by an understanding of the
diversity and complexity of LGBT lives, we conclude with an overview of the goals of this series and
introduce the subsequent articles in the series which will address implications of LGBT strengths for
theory, research, training, and practice.

Keywords: positive psychology, sexual orientation, gender identity, LGBT, strengths

LGBT Psychology: From Pathology to Strengths
In the past five decades of literature within mainstream psychol-
ogy on sexual and gender minorities,1 a substantial and unmistak-
able shift has occurred with respect to the depictions of and
assumptions about individuals with same-gender attraction. Fol-
lowing Hooker’s (1957) landmark research questioning the inher-
ent pathology of gay men, the gradual removal of homosexuality
from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(Conger, 1975) became part of a movement to understand the
larger experiences of self-identified lesbian, gay, or bisexual
(LGB) individuals within psychology (Herek, 2010). In contrast,
transgender individuals are still routinely diagnosed as having a
mental disorder through the diagnostic label of gender dysphoria
(American Psychiatric Association, 2013), despite a growing base
of psychological literature that rejects assumptions of inherent
pathology based solely on cross-gender identification.
Michelle D. Vaughan, Department of Psychology and Neuroscience,
The University of Mount Union; Eric M. Rodriguez, Social Science De-
partment, New York City College of Technology.
Portions of this paper were presented as part of a symposium conducted
during the 2013 annual meeting of the American Psychological Associa-
tion in Honolulu, Hawaii, “LGBT Strengths: Positive Psychology and the
Intersection of Identities,” chaired by Michelle D. Vaughan.
We thank Christine Wilson and Xu “Evan” Wenxu for assistance with
earlier draft of this article, David Shmerler for comments and feedback on
earlier drafts of the piece, as well as the anonymous reviewers for their
input.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Michelle
D. Vaughan, Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, The University
of Mount Union, 1972 Clark Avenue, Alliance, OH 44601. E-mail:
vaughamd@mountunion.edu
Although lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) indi-
viduals often possess other salient identities that intersect with
their status as sexual and/or gender minorities, they also share
common experiences related to the rejection of traditional gender
norms based on heterosexism (Fassinger & Arseneau, 2007). As a
consequence, sexual and gender minorities face minority stress
(Meyer, 1995, 2003)— unique experiences of stigma, prejudice,
and discrimination related to their stigmatized social status(es).
Such experiences and their related effects have served as an
important point of focus in the modern literature on LGBT psy-
chology, providing a context for understanding the impact of
minority status on a wide range of psychological phenomena.
However, such work has largely focused on the negative psycho-
logical effects of minority stress (e.g., distress, mental disorders,
dysfunction), inadvertently maintaining a focus on heterosexual
and cisgender (nontransgender) individuals as the norm to which
LGBT individuals are measured against. Although such work has
made valuable contributions to understanding LGBT lives, this
focus on the negative aspects of LGBT lives serves to offer an
incomplete, and unintentionally biased understanding of what it
means to be a sexual and/or gender minority. This pattern echoes
themes in modern psychology as a whole regarding the fascination
with disorder, distress, and dysfunction at the expense of investi-
1
Throughout this series, references to same-gender attraction and sexual
minorities will refer to individuals with attraction to the same gender who
may or may not self-identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual. The term gender
minority refers to individuals whose gender identity does not match with
their gender assigned at birth, regardless of whether they self-identify as
transgender (T). The terms and acronyms that most accurately represent the
population being described will be used within each section (e.g. LGB for
existing research on self-identified lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals).

325
 326 VAUGHAN AND RODRIGUEZ
gating and understanding positive psychological phenomena
(Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). These phenomena, collec-
tively referred as strengths, have been broadly conceptualized as
qualities or conditions (internal or external, often culturally bound,
and developmental in nature) that helps individuals adaptively
cope with life or that which makes life more fulfilling for oneself
and others (Aspinwall & Staudinger, 2003).
Within the field of positive psychology, strengths have been
systematically organized into three interrelated pillars: (1) positive
subjective experiences; (2) virtues and character strengths; and (3)
positive institutions/organizations that foster the two pillars within
individuals (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Although other
models and frameworks of strengths exist (e.g., Seligman, 2011),
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
the three pillar model offered by Seligman and Csikzentmihalyi
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
provides the broadest, most widely researched and useful heuristic
for conceptualizing strengths. Within this context, strengths may
be internally or externally focused, they often unfold in a devel-
opmental context, and they are heavily influenced by the cultural
group(s) with which individuals identify. Yet, literature that ex-
plicitly focuses on these phenomena within sexual and minority
populations remains rare, despite recent calls for more psycholog-
ical literature devoted to explicitly positive aspects of LGBT lives
(Bonet, Wells & Parsons, 2007; Konik & Crawford, 2004; Savin-
Williams, 2008).
Introduction to the Series on LGBT Strengths
The current series of four articles on LGBT strengths as defined
earlier addresses three interrelated goals:
1. Provide an introduction to positive psychology and its
relevance to the unique cultural experiences of LGBT
individuals for theorists, researchers, clinicians, and
training programs in psychology.
2. Address the themes within the existing theoretical and
empirical literature on LGBT psychology related to pos-
itive psychology, and draw attention to areas of identity
intersection (e.g., race/ethnicity, orientation, gender) rel-
evant to LGBT strengths.
3. Highlight the existing themes and future opportunities for
understanding and fostering the diversity and complexity
LGBT strengths through theory, research, training, and
practice.
This article serves as a review of selected literature on the
intersection of positive psychology and LGBT psychology, includ-
ing early strengths-based perspectives as well as the three-pillar
model of positive psychology (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi,
2000). Using this model as a conceptual framework for under-
standing LGBT strengths, we highlight notable contributions from
theory and research within LGBT psychology that describe phe-
nomena within the three pillars, including manifestations of these
strengths in diverse populations. We also discuss calls for more
strength-based LGBT literature and explore how integrating the
three pillar model into future literature can allow psychology to
expand beyond negative outcomes and contribute to a better well-
rounded, accurate representation of sexual and gender minorities.
Early Strength-Based Perspectives in Psychology
Responding to deterministic, pathology-based models of per-
sonality development offered by Sigmund Freud, work by Maslow
(1954); Erikson (1959) and Rogers (1961) were among the first to
offer a view of personality formation rooted in the innate potential
for psychological growth and the development of strengths
through the life-span. Briefly referenced within positive psychol-
ogy (e.g., Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Seligman & Csikszentmi-
halyi, 2000; Sheldon, 2006; Taylor, 2001), these theorists were
highly influential in describing subjective experiences and charac-
ter strengths (e.g., peak experiences, self-actualization: Maslow,
1954; congruence, fully functioning: Rogers, 1961) relevant to
healthy coping and fulfilling lives. Rogers (1961) also played an
essential role in describing how environmental influences (e.g.,
parents, therapists) could foster the development of strengths by
providing empathy and fostering authenticity, concepts that have
subsequently been incorporated into Seligman and Csikszentmi-
halyi’s (2000) model.
Of particular relevance to modern models of lesbian and gay
(LG) identity development, Erikson’s (1959) life-span theory of
personality development was among the first to explicitly discuss
the role of social and cultural factors the promotion of psycholog-
ical well-being of members of (racial/ethnic) minority groups.
Describing a generally linear process in which individuals must
confront and successfully cope with developmental tasks, Erikson
argued that working through stressful experiences produced what
positive psychologists would later call character strengths (Selig-
man & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). In addition, Erikson’s notion that
subjective experiences of growth often occurred as a result of
navigating stressful experiences has been broadly incorporated
into positive psychology as a positive subjective experience known
as stress-related growth (SRG; Park, Cohen, & Murch, 1996).
For Erikson (1959), specific developmental crises (stresses) are
intrinsically associated with specific character strengths (what he
termed basic strengths), with social institutions and organizations
facilitating and nurturing the development of strengths by provid-
ing support and encouragement. For example, successful naviga-
tion of the identity crisis (identity vs. role confusion) through
developing a personal and social identity is supported by rituals
and youth-focused organizations. As a result, strengths related to
identity and sense of belongingness become enduring aspects of
one’s adult personality (see Vaughan & Rodriguez, 2013, for an
in-depth discussion on Erikson’s influence on positive psychol-
ogy). Erikson’s postulated links between stress and psychological
growth, and between growth and healthy personality can be found
in LG identity developmental models (e.g., Berzon, 1979; Cass,
1979; Troiden, 1979) and the three pillar model of positive psy-
chology (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), serving as an im-
portant thread connecting these bodies of literature.
Three-Pillar Model of Positive Psychology
Emerging within the early 20th century, Seligman and Csik-
szentmihalyi’s (2000) landmark work on positive psychology
served as a renewed call to action to respond to the historical focus
on pathology and dysfunction within psychology and an organiz-
ing framework for studying positive psychological phenomena.
 LGBT STRENGTHS
Positive Subjective Experiences
The first pillar of positive psychology captures a wide-array of
intrinsically valued experiences, including positive affective/emo-
tional states, and aspects of subjective well-being (i.e., happiness;
Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Two more recent additions
to the category of positive subjective experiences have amassed a
particularly rich base of literature in psychology: resilience2 and
SRG. Intrinsically linked to minority stress, these experiences
center on healthy psychological adjustment in the context of social
adversity (resilience; Carver, 1998) and perceived experiences of
psychological growth associated with such stressors (SRG: Park et
al., 1996). Thus, they serve as hallmarks for understanding how the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
unique experiences of being a sexual and/or gender minority can
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
translate into strengths found within the first pillar of positive
psychology that allow these individuals to adapt and thrive in a
heteronormative and cisgenderist (assuming one’s gender assign-
ment at birth matches one’s gender identity) world.
Resilience. Representing both experiences of good psycho-
logical or social outcomes and the avoidance of negative psycho-
social outcomes in the context of social adversity (Carver, 1998),
work on this subjective experience also predates the three pillar
model of positive psychology.3 Identifying individual and social
protective factors that serve to increase the chances of positive
outcomes, as well as risk factors that reduce the likelihood of the
same outcomes, work on resilience has amassed a substantive base
of literature within psychology. Although much of this work has
focused on experiences of poverty, family mental illness, and
racial/ethnic prejudice, this work also has been broadly incorpo-
rated into LGBT theory and research.
Within Meyer’s (1995, 2003) work on minority stress, he argued
that LGB individuals drew on their coping and social support
resources to respond to these stresses and they may develop (or
access) additional resources from other members of their commu-
nity to become mentally healthy. These coping resources included
a sense of group cohesion and positive identity as potential pro-
tective factors for mental health. Thus, Meyer’s model serves as an
important framework for explicitly incorporating aspects of posi-
tive psychology (including, but not limited to resilience) into the
current literature on LGBT psychology.
Applying resilience theory to successful coping with anti-LGB
legislation, Russell and Richards (2003) assessed protective factors
that served to promote positive psychological outcomes in LGB
individuals. Nearly three-quarters of their sample endorsed at least
one of the resilience items, producing five domains that incorpo-
rated positive LGB identity, coping resources, social support, as
well as LGB community-based strengths, domains consistent with
resources described within Meyer’s (1995, 2003) minority stress
model. A qualitative investigation on the factors predicting long-
term relationship success in lesbian couples (Connolly, 2005)
found somewhat similar themes with respect to resources from the
LGBT community (e.g., social support) that served as protective
factors. In addition, the participants described several individual
characteristics that bear a strong resemblance to character
strengths (i.e., interdependence, persistence, and a sense of per-
spective) that fostered resilience via maintaining meaningful rela-
tionships despite chronic sexual minority stress.
Echoing and building on these themes within the lives of LGBT
elders, Butler (2004) discussed possible protective factors that
327
promote psychological well-being. These included strong “social
networks of choice” (p. 32), successful coping skills, as well as
flexibility in gender roles that may promote successful navigation
of minority stress as well as the adjustment to old age. Each of
these potential protective factors represented strengths that were
developed over time as the direct consequence of sexual minority
stress, consistent with Erikson’s (1959) work on the process by
which his basic strengths developed.
Within the context of the experiences of transgender individuals,
Sanchez and Vilain (2009) explored the role of collective self-
esteem on overall psychological distress in a sample of 53 self-
identified male-to-female transsexuals. They found that trans-
women who felt they were a valued member of transsexual
community, those who positively evaluated this community, and
those who felt that this group incorporated important aspects of
their identity, each reported lower levels of mental health symp-
toms, demonstrating resilience. In a recent content analysis of
counseling psychology literature on LGB people of color, Huang
and colleagues (2010) found that 15 to 20% of articles on this
population referenced concepts related to resilience (e.g., protec-
tive and/or risk factors). However, empirical data on these factors
was found in less than 10% of these articles, suggesting that
resilience is frequently mentioned as an important construct in the
context of these intersecting identities, but empirical research
documenting and exploring this phenomenon has been uncommon
within LGB people of color.
As a potential consequence of the growing interest, yet rela-
tively small body of empirical literature in psychology on LGBT
resilience, a growing number of psychologists have called for more
research on this topic (e.g., Moradi, Mohr, Worthington, &
Fassinger, 2009; Rosario, Rotheram-Borus & Reid, 1996; Savin-
Williams, 2001). This pattern indicates a growing recognition of
the importance of and need for a substantive base of literature on
this phenomenon, as well as other positive subjective experiences
such as SRG.
SRG. Rooted in Erikson’s (1959) work on the role of devel-
opmental crises in forming basic strengths, experiences of psycho-
logical growth attributed to a stressful experience (Park et al.,
1996) have frequently been referenced in the psychological liter-
ature on LGBT individuals, despite the relatively recent emergence
of the term SRG to label such experiences. In the context of her
landmark book on lesbian and gay identity development, Positively
Gay, Berzon (1979) described the propensity toward positive
change as a result of this process as “our own special, life-
affirming gay growth track” (p. 13), a track that may produce
psychological strengths that can be utilized as resources in coping
with subsequent minority stress (i.e., future protective factors in
resilience terminology). Berzon and other influential LG identity
theorists (e.g., Cass, 1979; Troiden, 1979) described remarkably
consistent examples of SRG that emerge as a result of working
through identity-related tasks forming a positive LG identity.
Within qualitative research on the process and outcomes of sexual
minority identity development, experiences of SRG have been
2
The subjective experience of resilience should not be confused with the
concept of trait resilience or hardiness, which asserts that individuals
possess a generalized resistance to the negative effects of stress throughout
their lives (e.g., Masten, 2001).
3
See footnote 2.
 328 VAUGHAN AND RODRIGUEZ
particularly broad, including perceived gains in authenticity, cre-
ativity, positive affect/emotion, life satisfaction, identity, social
intelligence, social support, as well as awareness of/commitment
to LGBT social justice (e.g., Cass, 1979; Coleman, 1982; Riggle,
Whitman, Olson, Rostosky, & Strong, 2008; Savin-Williams,
2001; Troiden, 1979).
Growth experiences that may be unique to specific subgroups
also have been identified, including sexual freedom/exploration for
bisexually identified individuals (Rostosky, Riggle, Pascale-
Hague, & McCants, 2010) as well as questioning of artificial
dichotomies with respect to both gender and sexual orientation.
For transgender men and women, these experiences of SRG also
included new insights into the nature of sex and gender (i.e.,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
unique perspectives on both maleness and femaleness based on
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
one’s personality experiences) as well as increased spirituality
and/or connection to a higher power (Riggle, Rostosky, McCants,
& Pascale-Hague, 2011).
Quantitative research on the levels and rates of SRG remains
very rare in LGBT psychology, as existing measures may not be
particularly well-suited to capture growth experiences related to
minority stress, the literature on SRG has thus far neglected
marginalized populations (e.g., racial/ethnic minorities, Lechner,
Tennen, & Affleck, 2009). Despite these limitations, the few
published studies have found relatively high levels of SRG asso-
ciated with sexual and minority stress (Bonet et al., 2007; Golub,
Walker, Longmire-Avital, Bimbi, & Parsons, 2010; Vaughan &
Waehler, 2010). Evidence also indicates that LGBT people of
color may report higher levels of SRG than those typically found
from events such as natural disasters and life-threatening illness
(Bonet et al., 2007). These results suggest that the unique experi-
ences and related stresses associated with navigating multiple
minority statuses (i.e., LGB people of color) may foster unique
growth experiences and/or greater overall potential for SRG. Link-
ing SRG to overall psychological health, higher levels of SRG
have been repeatedly associated with greater psychological well-
being in minority populations (Helgeson, Reynolds & Tomich,
2006), stronger LG identities (Vaughan & Waehler, 2010) and
higher levels of safer sex behavior (Golub et al., 2010) in lesbian,
gay, and transgender populations. This link between SRG and
psychological well-being indicate that SRG may serve as an im-
portant pathway by which other strengths develop. In this context,
these strengths may go on to serve as protective factors that buffer
future experiences of minority stress. Despite the fact that the
LGBT literature in psychology rarely uses terms such as SRG or
incorporates theory or research from positive psychology, the
broad-based references to psychological gains associated with the
stress of minority stress clearly indicate the relevance of SRG to
the lives of sexual and gender minorities.
Character Strength and Virtues
The second pillar of positive psychology is comprised of 24
specific character strengths that are embedded within six broad
domains termed virtues (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). An organiz-
ing system for the character strengths, each of the virtues reflects
a larger domain (i.e., wisdom and knowledge, courage, humanity,
justice, temperance, and transcendence; see Table 1). Each char-
acter strength references a characteristic with broad-based cultural,
historical, and intrinsic value that is thought to be relative stable
over time. In the tradition of Erikson’s (1959) life-span model,
each of these individual-level strengths are nurtured by societies
through specific norms and/or social institutions that foster its
development. These 24 character strengths are described as the
ingredients or pathways in which the virtues are expressed, and
thus serve as major focus of study for positive psychological
phenomena at the individual level, along with subjective experi-
ences. This review provides an overview of themes and limitations
in LGBT psychology within the eight character strengths that have
received the greatest attention in theory and research, highlighting
how these trait-like qualities are expressed in diverse populations
of sexual and gender minorities.
Wisdom and knowledge: Creativity. Within the virtue cen-
tered on the attainment and use of information, LG research has
often highlighted the evidence of creativity, the development and
use of original, adaptive ideas or behaviors that foster self-
expression, social support, and/or coping (Peterson & Seligman,
2004). One of the earliest and most descriptive examples of sexual
minority, creativity can be found in the work of Brown (1989),
who described the process of LG identity development as “some-
thing we had to invent for ourselves . . . [by] actively deconstruct-
ing and recreating our visions of human behavior” (p. 452). As a
response to questioning the expectations associated with tradi-
tional gender norms, Brown argued that all LG individuals “chal-
lenge the conventional wisdom” (p. 451) regarding societal expec-
tations. In the context of chronic sexual minority stress, innovative
coping strategies such as selective disclosure and the creation of
families of choice that included biological family, friends, and/or
romantic partners (Berzon, 1979; Cass, 1979). Each of these pro-
vide innovative and adaptive ways of providing a sense of safety
as well as increasing instrumental (e.g., shared physical resources,
advice) and social support. Through creativity, sexual and gender
minorities expand and develop new ways to cope with stigma and
discrimination, including efforts to cognitively reframe stigmatiz-
ing experiences through the lens of heteronormativity and/or cis-
genderism.
Qualitative research has bolstered support for the creativity of
sexual and gender minorities through a variety of firsthand ac-
counts that demonstrate the many forms of this character strength.
Riggle and colleagues (2008), in their work on the positive aspects
of self-identifying as LG, found multiple examples of flexible and
imaginative thinking used to question and alter the structure, roles,
and/or rules within their relationships. Riggle et al. (2008) and
others (e.g., Oswald, 2000; Rostosky et al., 2010) also found
strong support for creativity in the lives of LGB people through the
creation of relationship structures that often include open/polyam-
orous relationships as a pathway to greater sexual freedom. For
transgender-identified individuals, expressions of creativity have
been described in terms of pursuing alternate ways of thinking
about and/or expressing one’s gender in terms of pronouns, iden-
tity labels, and appearance (e.g., Riggle et al., 2011). In contrast,
LGBT people of color have reported that their unique experiences
have allowed them to think in more complex, multifaceted ways
about how their identities intersect (e.g., Ritter & Terndrup, 2002),
simultaneously seeing similarities and differences with those who
share aspects of their identities. As a result, these individuals
report unique insights into the meaning of identities based on
race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender identity and the
implications for these complex intersections.
 LGBT STRENGTHS 329

Table 1
Virtues and Character Strengths

Virtues/character strengths
Wisdom and knowledge—Cognitive strengths related to knowledge
Creativity: Thinking of novel and productive ways to do things
Curiosity: Taking an interest in all of ongoing experience
Open mindedness: Thinking things through and examining them from all sides
Love of learning: Mastering new skills, topics, and bodies of knowledge
Perspective: Being able to provide wise counsel to others
Courage—Emotional strengths to accomplish goals in the face of opposition
Bravery: Not shirking from threat, challenge, difficulty, or pain
Persistence: Finishing what one starts
Integrity: Speaking the truth and presenting oneself in a genuine way
Vitality: Approaching life with excitement and energy
Humanity—Interpersonal strengths regarding tending and befriending others
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Love: Valuing close relationships with others

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Kindness: Doing favors and good deeds for others

Social intelligence: Being aware of the motives and feelings of self and others
Justice—Civic strengths that underlie healthy community life
Citizenship: Working well as a member of a group or team
Fairness: Treating all people the same according to notions of fairness
Leadership: Organizing group activities and seeing that they happen
Temperance—Strengths that protect against excess
Forgiveness and mercy: Forgiving others who have done wrong
Humility: Letting one’s accomplishments speak for themselves
Prudence: Being careful about one’s choices, not saying or doing things that might later be regretted
Self-regulation: Regulating what one feels and does
Transcendence—Strengths that force connections to the universe and provide meaning
Appreciation of beauty and excellence: Noticing and appreciating beauty, excellence, and/or skilled
performance in all domains of life
Gratitude: Being aware of and thankful for the good things that happen
Hope: Expecting the best and working to achieve it
Humor: Liking to laugh and tease; bringing smiles to other people
Spirituality: Having coherent beliefs about the higher purpose and meaning of life
Note. Adapted from Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification (pp. 29 –30), by C.
Peterson and M. E. P. Seligman, 2004, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Copyright 2004
by American Psychological Association. Adapted with permission.

Courage: Bravery, authenticity and zest. Just as the process
of minority identity development provides opportunities to de-
velop and express creativity, the LGBT literature within psychol-
ogy has frequently demonstrated how sexual and gender minorities
embody character strengths within the virtue of courage. Repre-
senting emotional strengths that individuals develop and utilize to
overcome obstacles and reach important goals (Peterson & Selig-
man, 2004), character strengths within this domain frequently
serve as assets in coping with minority stress in the lives of sexual
and gender minorities (see also Meyer, 1995). Defined by a com-
mitment to action despite known threats to one’s physical, emo-
tional, psychological, or social well-being (Peterson & Seligman,
2004), the process of coming out and confronting heteronormativ-
ity on a daily basis requires bravery on a daily basis (e.g., Berzon,
1979; Cass, 1979; Lee, 1977). In the context of threats of physical
violence, job discrimination, social exclusion, withdrawal of sup-
port, and inequality in marriage rights, disclosure and the risk of
being outed exposes LGBT individuals to such risks, especially for
those who engage in LGBT advocacy (discussed in greater depth
within the virtue of humanity).
Evidence of authenticity, another character strength within this
virtue has been pervasive within theory and research on LG
identity development. Representing the desire to be honest and
genuine both intrapersonally and interpersonally (Peterson &
Seligman, 2004), the process by which individuals address this
need is central to the process of LG identity development (e.g.,
Berzon, 1979; Cass, 1979; Lee, 1977). Consistent with Erikson’s
(1959) assertion that resolving the identity crisis fosters specific
strengths, the character strength of authenticity closely mirrors
Erikson’s basic strength of fidelity, allowing individuals to commit
themselves to important causes and relationships once they estab-
lish a positive personal and social identity.
The concept that a positive identity can serve as coping resource
in responding to future sexual minority stress also has been well-
represented in psychological theory (Berzon, 1979; Cass, 1979;
Meyer, 1995), providing a strong, confident, secure sense of self in
the face of stigma and discrimination. Within LGBT people of
color, the process of exploring one’s identities and seeking coher-
ent answers may result in more integrated, complex, and/or mul-
tifaceted answers to the question “Who am I? What does that mean
for my life?” (Ritter & Terndrup, 2002). Qualitative research with
bisexual and transgender individuals frequently provide firsthand
accounts of acceptance of and/or congruence with intrapersonal
and interpersonal experience, describing these expressions of au-
thenticity as positive aspects of their experience as sexual and
gender minorities (Riggle et al., 2011; Rostosky et al., 2010).
As the final character strength discussed within the domain of
courage, zest captures the tendency toward positive affect and
emotions (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Encompassing high levels
of subjective well-being, life satisfaction, and frequent experiences
 330 VAUGHAN AND RODRIGUEZ
of joy and contentment, zest has frequently been described as an
outcome of forming a positive LG identity and/or disclosing one’s
identity to others (Cass, 1979; Lee, 1977), a theme also found
within literature on LGBT people of color (Ritter & Terndrup,
2002). Empirical research has broadly supported the concept that
disclosure is associated with gains in quality of life/overall well-
being in both bisexual (Rostosky et al., 2010) and transgender
individuals (Budge, Tebbe, & Howard, 2010; Pitts, Couch, Mul-
care, Croy, & Mitchell, 2009), although explicit references to the
positive psychology have been absent within this literature. None-
theless, this literature strongly supports the existence of authentic-
ity, bravery, and zest in the lives of LGBT individuals, as well as
the apparent role of minority stress and identity development in
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
fostering these emotional strengths.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Humanity: Love and social intelligence. The third virtue,
humanity, represents a collection of interpersonal strengths related
to forming and maintaining important relationships with others
(Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Incorporating aspects of physical
affection, attraction, and emotional intimacy, the character strength
of love has often been referenced as a motive for, or an outcome
of, identity disclosure within LG identity theories (Berzon, 1979;
Cass, 1979; Lee, 1977). This desire to maintain or enhance rela-
tionships with others by coming out also has been echoed in
research with bisexual (Rostosky et al., 2010) and transgender
(Riggle et al., 2011) populations. Evidence also suggests that
individuals in same-sex couples embody aspects of the character
strength of love in ways that promote high levels of emotional
intimacy and/or relationship quality (Balsam, Beauchaine, Roth-
blum, & Solomon, 2008), demonstrating the importance of this
strength in sexual and gender minorities.
As the second character strength within the virtue of humanity,
social intelligence encompasses a host of skills related to perceiv-
ing and using emotional information— both from self and oth-
ers—to make decisions regarding social interactions. Describing
how the experience of being a member of a stigmatized minority
group fosters aspects of social intelligence, Cass (1979) and Brown
(1989) argued that being lesbian or gay facilitates sensitivity to and
processing of social information regarding potentially hostile/non-
affirming situations to promote their safety and well-being. Such
skills may allow sexual minorities to quickly pick up and accu-
rately interpret subtle cues that indicate one may belong to the
same group (e.g., Ambady, Hallahan & Conner, 1999; Carroll &
Gilroy, 2002) or may be an LGBT ally.
Using the term cognitive flexibility, Konik and Crawford (2004)
found that bisexual individuals scored higher on social awareness
and ability to modify one’s behavior to address unique situations
and problems compared to both heterosexuals and LG individuals.
Highlighting the unique manifestations of social intelligence in the
lives of gender minorities, Riggle and colleagues (2011) found
similar themes among transmen and women who reported that
their experiences gave them insights into what it means to be both
male and female on social and emotional levels. It also has been
suggested that LGBT individuals who are members of multiple
minority groups may be particularly likely to develop and use
social intelligence to select and evaluate social information in
settings where one minority group predominates, modifying their
reactions to maximize their own psychological and social well-
being (Ritter & Terndrup, 2002).
Justice: Citizenship and fairness. Along with the skills to
successfully navigate one’s interpersonal relationships and build
critical social resources as sexual and gender minorities, themes
related to the larger connection to other LGBT people and com-
munities are heavily involved in the last two character strengths
examined in this review— citizenship and fairness.
Within the last virtue discussed in this review, justice, we
explore the expressions of civic-themed character strengths related
to creating and maintaining healthy communities (Peterson &
Seligman, 2004). As the character strength of citizenship can be
expressed through a sense of commitment or belongingness, as-
pects of this strength can be found in LG identity literature that
describes the development of positive group identity, and partici-
pation in the LGBT community(Berzon, 1979; Cass, 1979; Lee,
1977). Some may express this desire through social events and
groups (e.g., LGBT community organizations, clubs, pride festi-
vals), while involvement in LGBT advocacy or activism (Berzon,
1979; Cass, 1979; Lee, 1977) may tap into a commitment to
equality found in the character strength of fairness (Peterson &
Seligman, 2004).
The self-described benefits of bonding with other LGBT indi-
viduals have been found within research with bisexual or trans-
gender populations as well (Riggle et al., 2011; Rostosky et al.,
2010). Within LGBT people of color, both character strengths
have been discussed within work on the benefits of social engage-
ment with and connection to racial/ethnic and LGBT communities,
as well as sensitivity to oppression experienced by other minorities
(Ritter & Terndrup, 2002). Similar themes regarding belonging-
ness and/or positive group affiliation have been found in Black
lesbian women (Bowleg, Craig, & Burkholder, 2003) and trans-
gender women (Sanchez & Vilain, 2009). Thus, the internalized
sense of connection and commitment to sexual and gender minor-
ity others often produces character strengths related to awareness
of and commitment to creating a more just world, particularly
those who identify as LGBT.
Positive Institutions/Organizations
Including physical, social/cultural, and legal institutions that
nurture the development of positive subjective experiences and/or
character strengths, literature on positive social institutions has
acknowledged the role of schools, community organizations, faith
communities, as well as institutions such as marriage in fostering
positive psychological phenomena at the individual level. Consis-
tent with Erikson (1959); Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000)
asserted that society uses institutions/organizations to promote the
development of character strengths, which in turn, foster positive
subjective experiences. It is unfortunate that little research on this
pillar has been conducted within positive psychology (Schueller,
2009) or psychology as a whole, providing little data about how
institutions foster strengths or which strengths may be particularly
sensitive to the influence of institutions/organizations.
Providing access to social support (love), belongingness (citi-
zenship), fostering positive identities (authenticity), and advancing
equal rights (fairness), these groups also may facilitate positive
emotions for LGBT individuals. The potential role of LGBT-
affirming campus, community, and faith-based groups in buffering
minority stress has been broadly acknowledged (Meyer, 2003),
with qualitative literature with LG populations highlighting how
 LGBT STRENGTHS
such institutions provide critical resources to foster positive out-
comes (e.g., Rodriguez, 2010). For transgender individuals, af-
firming health care organizations may be particularly critical in
facing the unique medical and legal challenges involved in gender
identity/expression (Pitts et al., 2009).
This overview of the relevant theory and empirical literature
demonstrates the overall breadth and applicability of the three
pillar model of positive psychology to the conceptualization of
LGBT strengths. Across positive subjective experiences, virtues
and character strengths, and positive institutions/organizations,
LGBT individuals and LGBT-affirming social institutions embody
many of these strengths. However, the lack of common terminol-
ogy to unify strengths-based themes, as well as the lack of a
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
systematic focus on relevant theory and research on these con-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
structs calls for the organizing framework positive psychology can
provide to advance the study of LGBT strengths.
Culture and Positive Psychology
Despite the clear advantages of utilizing the framework of
positive psychology for LGBT strengths, positive psychology has
been broadly criticized regarding the lack of inclusion of culturally
diverse populations and experiences (e.g., Bacigalupe, 2001; Ger-
stein, 2006). Consistent with Meyer (1995), the supposition that
one’s minority status provides specific, unique challenges that can
result in positive psychological outcomes in consistent with the
concept of “culturally bound strengths” (Smith, 2006, p. 26).
Although early work on the three pillar model (Peterson & Selig-
man, 2004) acknowledged the role of cultural groups in nurturing
and recognizing strengths and others have argued that culture is a
“primary influence on the development and manifestation of hu-
man strengths” (Lopez et al., 2006, p. 224), empirical literature in
this domain been widely criticized for failure to engage in system-
atic, thoughtful inclusion of culture (Bacigalupe, 2001; Walsh,
2001). When present, discussion of cultural differences and their
impact have been limited to racial/ethnic minority status or reli-
gious identity (e.g., Lopez et al., 2002; Pedrotti, Edwards & Lopez,
2009; Smith, 2006). LGBT individuals and their communities have
been almost entirely absent from this literature. Out of nearly
1,000 peer-reviewed publications using the official PsycINFO
subject heading of positive psychology, only three (McFadden,
Frankowski, Flick, & Witten, 2013; Savin-Williams, 2008;
Vaughan & Rodriguez, 2013) included sexual or gender minority
populations. None of these were published in the flagship journal
for this subfield (Journal of Positive Psychology), indicating a lack
of recognition of LGBT individuals as members of a cultural
minority group. Thus, despite the contributions of positive psy-
chology to advancing theory and research, those in this field have
failed to include LGBT individuals in the existing literature on
positive psychology.
The Promise of LGBT Strengths
The present disconnect between these two bodies of literature
stands as a disservice to understanding the strengths of LGBT
individuals and their communities. As a consequence, LGBT psy-
chology runs the risk of unintentionally reinforcing narratives in
which heterosexual and cisgender people remain the default stan-
dard (i.e., the norm) with respect to how strengths develop and are
331
expressed. Without a coherent framework or organizing structure,
the study of LGBT strengths will remain disorganized and isolated
into separate silos, with little awareness, much less integration,
between these bodies of literature. As a result, psychologists
involved in training, practice, and research are at a disadvantage in
providing scientifically informed perspectives on these strengths
within the context of diverse cultural contexts (Bingham, 2003).
Within the past decade, the need for a systematic body of
literature on LGBT strengths has become a call to arms for
psychologists who study sexual and gender minorities (e.g., Bonet
et al., 2007; Moradi et al., 2009; Riggle et al., 2008; Savin-
Williams, 2008). Such work must recognize the unique contexts
and issues relevant to specific identities within the LGBT com-
munity, exploring the impact of other minority statuses/identities
on the development and expression of strengths across the three
pillars. For example, important commonalities and differences
may exist between transgender and bisexual individuals, just as
resilience may be expressed differently within people of color and
European Americans. The often overlooked experiences of indi-
viduals who self-identify as queer and questioning individuals
represent another area in which positive psychology may offer a
language for understanding how these individuals experience
strength.
Given the current disconnect between these bodies of literature,
future work on LGBT strengths must be rooted in a meaningful
knowledge of positive psychology and use precise operational
definitions of positive psychological constructs (see O’Leary,
1999). Employing qualitative and mixed-method approaches in
empirical research may prove particularly useful in examining how
members of multiple minority groups conceptualize, develop and
manifest specific character strengths. Such work may be particu-
larly valuable in instances in which differences from heterosexual
and cisgender individuals have been framed in negative terms,
such as decisions related to nonselective disclosure, rejection of
LGBT identities, navigating multiple minority identities, and non-
exclusivity in sexual relationships. Such work also may require the
development and/or validation of measures to represent how
strengths are expressed within the lives of diverse members of the
LGBT community (e.g., Vaughan & Waehler’s, 2010 Coming Out
Growth scale).
Research on the positive impact of positive organizations/institu-
tions in the lives of LGBT individuals also serves as an area of inquiry
in which psychologists may make critical contributions to this under-
studied pillar. Examining how campus, community, and faith-based
groups can facilitate positive subjective experiences and character
strengths can provide unique insights into what it means to be an
LGBT-affirming institution (Rodriguez & Vaughan, 2013). Given the
relative dearth of literature on how such institutions foster strengths,
this work may allow organizations such as churches, Gay–Straight
Alliances, and academic programs to demonstrate their positive im-
pact and potentially justify allocation of resources for sexual and
gender minority individuals.
Conclusions
Through systematically incorporating positive psychology the-
ory and research into work on sexual and gender minority identity
development and minority stress theory, we can work to recognize
and reframe difference as a potential source of strength and
 332 VAUGHAN AND RODRIGUEZ
growth, while continuing to study the negative effects of margin-
alization, exclusion, and discrimination. Such efforts also may play
a critical role in identifying protective factors that promote resil-
ience in the context of minority stresses as well as better under-
standing character strengths, subjective experiences, and LGBT-
affirming institutions/organizations as important phenomena in
their own right.
Although a formidable challenge, the field of LGBT psychology
has a unique opportunity to lead the way in developing a more
theoretically and empirically based understanding of LGBT
strengths that can inform training, practice, and research settings
for decades to come. Building on our commitment to positive
adaptation and psychological health, we can create an explicit
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
dialogue about how sexual and gender minorities enrich their own
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
lives and society at large. As a field, we have the opportunity and
responsibility to “continue to have difficult dialogues . . . [about]
race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion . . . to change and grow
so that we can continue to focus on positive growth for individuals
and society” (Bingham, 2003, p. 290) We can and should lead by
example in utilizing positive psychology to providing a compli-
mentary base of literature on LGBT strengths that offers an anti-
dote to the historical focus on pathology, distress, and disorder.
The Next Three Articles
The next three articles in this series build on the introduction to
positive psychology as it applies to LGBT individuals provided in
this article and discuss implications for future theory, research,
training, and practice. The second article provides a content anal-
ysis of the peer-reviewed literature in psychology relevant to
LGBT strengths since the depathologization of homosexuality.
Exploring the relative representation of specific racial/ethnic, sex-
ual, and gender minority subgroups and specific strengths within
the three pillar model, the second article showcases existing
themes within the literature as well as the substantial challenges
that exist with respect to representation of specific groups and the
inclusion of theoretically and empirically based approaches to
studying LGBT strengths. The third article in this series focuses on
considerations for graduate training on, and clinical practice with,
LGBT populations within psychology. This article provides initial
recommendations regarding useful frameworks/approaches for concep-
tualizing LGBT clients and planning interventions that are in-
formed by the literature on positive psychology and strengths-
based counseling and recognize the complexity of LGBT lives.
The last article in this series serves as a reflection/rejoinder for the
series. It offers a perspective on the potential contributions of a
science and practice of LGBT strengths through the lens of exist-
ing work on minority stress theory. Highlighting contributions,
opportunities, and challenges identified throughout the series and
offering perspectives on the future of LGBT strengths for theory,
research, practice, and training.
References
Ambady, N., Hallahan, M., & Conner, B. (1999). Accuracy of judgments
of sexual orientation from thin slices of behavior. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 77, 538 –547. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.538
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical man-
ual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric
Publishing.
Aspinwall, L. G., & Staudinger, U. M. (Eds.) (2003). A psychology of
human strengths: Fundamental questions and future directions for a
positive psychology. Washington, DC: APA Books.
Bacigalupe, G. (2001). Is positive psychology only White psychology?
American Psychologist, 56, 82– 83. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.1.82b
Balsam, K. F., Beauchaine, T. P., Rothblum, E. D., & Solomon, S. E.
(2008). Three-year follow-up of same-sex couples who had civil unions
in Vermont, same-sex couples not in civil unions, and heterosexual
married couples. Developmental Psychology, 44, 102–116. doi:10.1037/
0012-1649.44.1.102
Berzon, B. (Ed.). (1979). Positively gay: New approaches to gay and
lesbian life (1st ed.). Berkley, CA: Celestial Arts.
Bingham, R. P. (2003). Fostering human strength through diversity and
public policy: A counseling psychologist’s perspective. In W. B. Walsh
(Ed.), Counseling psychology and optimal human functioning (pp. 279 –
295). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bonet, L., Wells, B. E., & Parsons, J. T. (2007). A positive look at a
difficult time: A strength based examination of coming out for lesbian
and bisexual women. Journal of LGBT Health Research, 3, 7–14.
doi:10.1300/J463v03n01_02
Bowleg, L., Huang, J. B., Brooks, K., Black, A., & Burkholder, G. (2003).
Triple jeopardy and beyond: Multiple minority stress and resilience
among Black lesbians. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 7, 87–108. doi:
10.1300/J155v07n04_06
Brown, L. S. (1989). New voices, new visions: Toward a lesbian/gay
paradigm in psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13, 445– 458.
doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1989.tb01013.x
Budge, S. L., Tebber, E. N., & Howard, K. A. S. (2010). The work
experiences of transgender individuals: Negotiating the transition and
career decision-making processes. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
54, 377–393. doi:10.1037/a0020472
Butler, S. S. (2004). Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) elders:
The challenge and resilience of this marginalized group. Journal of
Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 9, 25– 44. doi:10.1300/
J137v09n04_02
Carroll, L., & Gilroy, P. J. (2002). Role of appearance and nonverbal behaviors
in the perception of sexual orientation among lesbians and gay men. Psy-
chological Reports, 91, 115–122. doi:10.2466/pr0.2002.91.1.115
Carver, C. S. (1998). Resilience and thriving: Issues, models, and linkages.
Journal of Social Issues, 54, 245–266.
Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model.
Journal of Homosexuality, 4, 219 –235. doi:10.1300/J082v04n03_01
Coleman, E. (1982). Developmental stages of the coming out process.
Journal of Homosexuality, 7(2–3), 31– 43. doi:10.1300/J082v07n02_06
Conger, J. J. (1975). Proceedings of the American Psychological Associ-
ation for the year 1974: Minutes of the annual meeting of the council of
representatives. American Psychologist, 30, 620 – 651. doi:10.1177/
0011000005281318
Connolly, C. M. (2005). A qualitative exploration of resilience in long-
term lesbian couples. The Family Journal, 13, 266 –280. doi:10.1177/
1066480704273681
Erikson, E. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. New York, NY: International
Universities Press.
Fassinger, R. E., & Arseneau, J. R. (2007). “I’d rather get wet than be
under that umbrella”: Differentiating the experiences and identities of
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. In K. J. Bieschke, R. M.
Perez, & K. A. DeBord (Eds.), Handbook of counseling and psycho-
therapy with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender clients (2nd ed., pp.
19 – 49). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:
10.1037/11482-001
Gerstein, L. H. (2006). Counseling psychology’s commitment to strengths:
Rhetoric or reality? The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 276 –292. doi:
10.1177/0011000005283518
 LGBT STRENGTHS
Golub, S. A., Walker, J. J., Longmire-Avital, B., Bimbi, D. S., & Parsons,
J. T. (2010). The role of religiosity, social support, and stress-related
growth in protecting against HIV risk among transgender women.
Journal of Health Psychology, 15, 1135–1144. doi:10.1177/
1359105310364169
Helgeson, V. S., Reynolds, K. A., & Tomich, P. L. (2006). A meta-analytic
review of benefit finding and growth. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 74, 797– 816. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.74.5.797
Herek, G. M. (2010). Sexual orientation differences as deficit: Science and
stigma in the history of American psychology. Perspectives on Psycho-
logical Science, 5, 693– 699. doi:10.1177/1745691610388770
Hooker, E. (1957). The adjustment of the male overt homosexual. Journal
of Projective Techniques, 21, 18 –31. doi:10.1080/08853126.1957
.10380742
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Huang, Y., Brewster, M. E., Moradi, B., Goodman, M. B., Wiseman,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
M. C., & Martin, A. (2010). Content analysis of literature about LGB
people of color: 1998 –2007. The Counseling Psychologist, 38, 363–396.
doi:10.1177/0011000009335255
Konik, J., & Crawford, M. (2004). Exploring normative creativity: Testing
the relationship between cognitive flexibility and sexual identity. Sex
Roles, 51, 249 –253. doi:10.1023/B:SERS.0000037885.22789.83
Lechner, S. C., Tennen, H., & Affleck, G. (2009). Benefit-finding and
growth. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Oxford handbook of
positive psychology (pp. 633– 640). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Lee, J. (1977). Going public: A study in the sociology of homosexual
liberation. Journal of Homosexuality, 3, 49 –78.
Lopez, S. J., Prosser, E. C., Edwards, L. M., Magyar-Moe, J. L., Neufeld,
J. E., & Rasmussen, H. N. (2002). Putting positive psychology in a
multicultural context. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook
of positive psychology (pp. 700 –714). New York, NY: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Lopez, S. J., Magyar-Moe, J. L., Petersen, S. E., Ryder, J. A., Krieshok,
T. S., O’Byrne, K. K., . . . Fry, N. A. (2006). Counseling psychology’s
focus on the positive aspects of human functioning. The Counseling
Psychologist, 34, 205–227. doi:10.1177/0011000005283393
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper
and Row.
Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in develop-
ment. American Psychologist, 56, 227–238. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56
.3.227
McFadden, S. H., Frankowski, S., Flick, H. & Witten, T. M. (2013).
Resilience and multiple stigmatized identities: Lessons from transgender
persons’ reflections on aging. In J. D. Sinnott (Ed.), Positive psychology:
Advances in understanding adult motivation (pp. 247–267). New York,
NY: Springer Science & Business Media.
Meyer, I. H. (1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men. Journal
of Health and Social Behavior, 36, 38 –56. doi:10.2307/2137286
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay,
and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psy-
chological Bulletin, 129, 674 – 697. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674
Moradi, B., Mohr, J. J., Worthington, R. L., & Fassinger, R. E. (2009).
Counseling psychology research on sexual (orientation) minority issues:
Conceptual and methodological challenges and opportunities. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 56, 5–22. doi:10.1037/a0014572
O’Leary, V. E. (1998). Strength in the face of adversity: Individual and
social thriving. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 425– 446.
Oswald, R. F. (2000). Family and friendship relationships after young
women come out as bisexual or lesbian. Journal of Homosexuality,
38(3), 65– 83. doi:10.1300/J082v38n03_04
Park, C. L., Cohen, L. H., & Murch, R. L. (1996). Assessment of prediction
of stress-related growth. Journal of Personality, 64, 71–105. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00815.x
Pedrotti, J. T., Edwards, L. M., & Lopez, S. J. (2009). Positive psychology
333
within a cultural context. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Oxford
handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed., pp. 49 –57). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195187243.013
.0006
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and
virtues: A handbook and classification. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Pitts, M. K., Couch, C., Mulcare, H., Croy, S., & Mitchell, A. (2009).
Transgender people in Australia and New Zealand: Health, well-being
and access to health services. Feminism & Psychology, 19, 475– 495.
doi:10.1177/0959353509342771
Riggle, E. D. B., Rostosky, S. S., & Danner, F. (2008). LGB identity and
eudaimonic well-being in midlife. Journal of Homosexuality, 56, 786 –
798. doi:10.1080/00918360903054277
Riggle, E. D. B., Rostosky, S. S., McCants, L. E., & Pascale-Hague, D.
(2011). The positive aspects of a transgender self-identification. Psy-
chology & Sexuality, 2, 147–158. doi:10.1080/19419899.2010.534490
Riggle, E. D. B., Whitman, J. S., Olson, A., Rostosky, S., & Strong, S.
(2008). The positive aspects of being a lesbian or gay man. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 39, 210 –217. doi:10.1037/0735-
7028.39.2.210
Ritter, K. Y., & Terndrup, A. I. (2002). Sexual minorities within other
minority populations. In K. Y. Ritter & A. I. Terndrup (Eds.), Handbook
of affirmative psychotherapy with lesbians and gay men (pp. 189 –220).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Rodriguez, E. M. (2010). At the intersection of church and gay: A review
of the psychological research on gay and lesbian Christians. Journal of
Homosexuality, 57, 5–38. doi:10.1080/00918360903445806
Rodriguez, E. M., & Vaughan, M. D. (2013). Stress-related growth in the
lives of lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals. In J. Sinnott (Ed.), Positive
psychology: Advances in understanding adult motivation. New York,
NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-7282-7_18
Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of
psychotherapy. London, England: Constable.
Rosario, M., Rotheram-Borus, M. J., & Reid, H. (1996). Gay-related stress
and its correlates among gay and bisexual male adolescents of predom-
inantly Black and Hispanic background. Journal of Community Psychol-
ogy, 24, 136 –159. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199604)24:2⬍136::
AID-JCOP5⬎3.0.CO;2-X
Rostosky, S. S., Riggle, E. B. D., Pascale-Hague, D., & McCants, L. E.
(2010). The positive aspects of a bisexual self-identification. Psychology
& Sexuality, 1, 131–144. doi:10.1080/19419899.2010.484595
Russell, G. M., & Richards, J. A. (2003). Stressor and resilience factors for
lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals confronting antigay politics. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 313–328. doi:10.1023/A:
1023919022811
Sanchez, F. J., & Vilain, E. (2009). Collective self-esteem as a coping
resource for male-to-female transsexuals. Journal of Counseling Psy-
chology, 56, 202–209. doi:10.1037/a0014573;10.1037/a0014573.supp
Savin-Williams, R. C. (2001). A critique of research on sexual-minority
youths. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 5–13. doi:10.1006/jado.2000.0369
Savin-Williams, R. C. (2008). Then and now: Recruitment, definition,
diversity, and positive aspects of same-sex populations. Developmental
Psychology, 44, 135–138. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.44.1.135
Schueller, S. M. (2009). Promoting wellness: Integrating community and
positive psychology. Journal of Community Psychology, 37, 922–937.
doi:10.1002/jcop.20334
Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of
happiness and well-being. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology:
An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5–14. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.55.1.5
Sheldon, K. (2006). Getting older, getting better? Recent psychological
 334 VAUGHAN AND RODRIGUEZ

evidence. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. S. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), A life
worth living: Contributions to positive psychology (pp. 215–229). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Smith, E. J. (2006). The strengths-based counseling model. The Counseling
Psychologist, 34, 13–79. doi:10.1177/0011000005277018
Sue, D. W., & Constantine, M. G. (2003). Optimal human functioning in
people of color in the United States. In W. B. Walsh (Ed.), Counseling
psychology and optimal human functioning (pp. 151–169). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Taylor, E. (2001). Positive psychology and humanistic psychology: A reply
to Seligman. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 41, 13–29. doi:
10.1177/0022167801411003
Troiden, R. (1979). Becoming homosexual: A model of gay identity
acquisition. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Pro-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Vaughan, M. D., & Rodriguez, E. M. (2013). The influence of Erik Erikson
on positive psychology theory, research and practice. In J. Sinnott (Ed.),
Positive psychology: Advances in understanding adult motivation
(pp. 231–245). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-
7282-7_15
Vaughan, M., & Waehler, C. (2010). Coming out growth: Conceptualizing
and assessing experiences of stress-related growth associated with com-
ing out as gay or lesbian. Journal of Adult Development, 17, 94 –109,
doi:10.1007/s10804-009-9084-9.
Walsh, R. (2001). Positive psychology: East and West. American Psychol-
ogist, 56, 83– 84.
Received October 17, 2013
Revision received July 17, 2014

cesses, 42, 362–373. Accepted July 19, 2014 䡲

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

New Editors Appointed, 2016 –2021

The Publications and Communications Board of the American Psychological Association an-
nounces the appointment of 9 new editors for 6-year terms beginning in 2016. As of January 1,
2015, manuscripts should be directed as follows:

● History of Psychology (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/hop/), Nadine M. Weidman, PhD,

Harvard University
● Journal of Family Psychology (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/fam/), Barbara H. Fiese,
PhD, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
● JPSP: Personality Processes and Individual Differences (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/
psp/), M. Lynne Cooper, PhD, University of Missouri—Columbia
● Psychological Assessment (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/pas/), Yossef S. Ben-Porath,
PhD, Kent State University
● Psychological Review (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/rev/), Keith J. Holyoak, PhD, Uni-
versity of California, Los Angeles
● International Journal of Stress Management (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/str/), Oi Ling
Siu, PhD, Lingnan University, Tuen Mun, Hong Kong
● Journal of Occupational Health Psychology (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/ocp/), Peter
Y. Chen, PhD, Auburn University
● Personality Disorders (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/per/), Thomas A. Widiger, PhD,
University of Kentucky
● Psychology of Men & Masculinity (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/men/), William Ming
Liu, PhD, University of Iowa

Electronic manuscript submission: As of January 1, 2015, manuscripts should be submitted

electronically to the new editors via the journal’s Manuscript Submission Portal (see the website
listed above with each journal title).

Current editors Wade E. Pickren, PhD, Nadine J. Kaslow, PhD, Laura A. King, PhD, Cecil R.
Reynolds, PhD, John Anderson, PhD, Sharon Glazer, PhD, Carl W. Lejuez, PhD, and Ronald F.
Levant, EdD, will receive and consider new manuscripts through December 31, 2014.