Finding Acceptance Online: The Use of Online Support Groups by the Gay Community

Karina Alvarez
Loyola Marymount University

RUNNING HEAD: FINDING ACCEPTANCE

Abstract
Homophobia is present in todays world and causes for social discrimination and exclusion of
homosexuals in society by those that do not accept their lifestyle. Much research has been
dedicated to looking at social exclusion of homosexuals and also to the use of online support
groups. Research on online support groups is mainly based on those with similar medical issues,
for example, breast cancer or mental disability. However, not much has been done to view how
homosexuals seek acceptance and support online. Understanding how people identify with
groups and, more specifically, how this is done online is important in understanding how and
why homosexuals may choose an online support group.
Key words: computer-mediated communication, social identity theory, online support groups

RUNNING HEAD: FINDING ACCEPTANCE

Finding Acceptance Online: The Use of Online Support Groups by the Gay Community
The use of online support groups is seen with groups that share similar experiences such
as a physical disability (Finn, 1999). The use of a support group online allows the members to
self-disclose more personal information without a worry of their identity being revealed (Barak,
Boniel-Nissim, Suler, 2008; Finn, 1999; Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire, 1984; Rabby, 2007).
Author explains that an online group appears to be successful in overcoming social isolation for
some members (Finn, 1999, p. 227). Gays and lesbians experience social isolation (Floyd, 2000;
Floyd & Morman, 2000; Haag & Chang, 1998: Hall & LaFrance, 2012) and may benefit from
these online support groups. The use of online support groups have been researched through
various articles, however, there is not much research regarding the use of online support groups
by the gay community.
Social Identity Theory
Social identity theory is an individual finding self-identity through group membership
(Hogg, 2006; Tajfel 1974; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Finding identity within a group comes from
an individuals self-image that derive from the social categories to which he perceives himself
as belonging (Tajfel & Turner, 1979, p.40). Social identity is a feeling of belonging to a group
as a whole rather than finding specific individuals of different social categories to identify with
(Ellemers, Kortekaas, & Ouwerkerk, 1999). Although individuals may find a group they can
relate to, their individual growth with self-identity may enhance in-group boundaries, this
distances the group farther from out-groups with differing opinions (Hall & LaFrance, 2012).
Behavior changes depending on the group that a person identifies with and the situations
that they go through (Hogg & Reid, 2006). A group is defined by Tajfel and Turner (1979) as:

RUNNING HEAD: FINDING ACCEPTANCE

a collection of individuals who perceive themselves to be members of the same social

category, share some emotional involvement in this common definition of themselves,
and achieve some degree of social consensus about the evaluation of their group and their
membership of it. (p.40)
Once integrated, people act as a group when confronting a conflict rather than as an individual or
with a select few in the group (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Different groups and situations cause an
individual to act differently when moving from group to group or situation to situation due to
their identification with a specific group (Hogg & Reid, 2006). It is the individuals that embody
the groups norms that make each group different from the other (Hogg & Reid, 2006).
The above articles have given explanations of what social identity is and how it effects an
individual, but in order to answer the research questions given, further research needs to be done
to understand how social identity plays a role for those a part of the homosexual identity.
Ellemers et al. (1999) gives some insight into minority members and social identity by saying
minority group members simultaneously report strong self-categorisation as group members and
strong personal identification (p.385), however, does the same hold true for homosexuals?
Being an outcast.
When studying homophobic views, Floyd (2000) found that people had negative feelings
towards man-on-man hugging or affectionate touch. It was this homophobic view that leads us to
believe homosexuality is looked down upon by the general public. A strong correlation was
made between homosexuality and negativity, which was then classified as homophobia (Floyd
2000). One way homophobia is shown is through the use of language. When people accept the
use of homophobic language, for example the terms gay and fag, in reference to something
negative, this leads to social exclusion of gays (Hall & LaFrance, 2012). The use of these terms

RUNNING HEAD: FINDING ACCEPTANCE

are to describe something as unworthy and are mainly used due to consequence of mens existing
attitudes, as well as the man finding it important to self-identify with their masculinity (Hall &
LaFrance, 2012). The idea that the more acceptable a man finds derogatory communication
about gay men, the more he is afraid that other men may perceive him as gay (Hall & LaFrance,
2012, p.52) shows that homosexuality is highly stigmatized in some areas.
The language used in homophobic communication is most likely approved by those that
greatly identify with masculinity (Hall & LaFrance, 2012). According to Hall and LaFrance
(2012), an environment where homophobic communication is common is also where it is
accepted. Therefore, this homophobic communication may become a norm of the environment
that it is accepted in. Research states that when people go against the norm it is viewed as
inappropriate (Levine & Anders, 2000). So if a homosexual stands against this homophobic
language in an environment where it is accepted, will they be excluded from the environment?
The answer to this should be explored in order to give insight into what causes homosexuals to
feel the need to find acceptance or support online. When men reject the thought that their use of
terms like gay or fag is offensive it causes gays to keep their sexuality hidden (Hall &
LaFrance, 2012). Some stay in the closet due to an environment where homophobic language is
accepted. Even straight men that do not agree with the use of homophobic language may be
socially excluded from an environment where that language is accepted (Hall & LaFrance,
2012). Those that go against the norm of the environment they live in are subject to social
exclusion.
Some environments view homosexuality very negatively and people go so far as to avoid
certain behaviors with the fear of being seen as homosexual (Floyd and Morman, 2000). Based
on an individuals level of homophobia, he or she may go passed judging a homosexual and

RUNNING HEAD: FINDING ACCEPTANCE

decide to decrease contact with them (Floyd & Morman, 2000). Studies have shown that
homosexuals are excluded from some groups because they are seen as negative (Hall &
LaFrance, 2012; Floyd ,2000; Floyd & Morman, 2000), however, more research needs to be
done in terms of why this exclusion may cause homosexuals to seek acceptance online. The fact
that homosexuals may be socially excluded is not enough to provide answers to the research
questions.
Computer-Mediated Communication
When looking at computer-mediated communication, it is important to understand how it
is different from face-to-face communication. It is possible that computer-mediated
communication is just as efficient as face-to-face communication if members did not have to
type out and read a message (Siegel, Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & McGuire, 1986). In addition to this,
there are other factors that differentiate computer-mediated communication and face-to-face
communication. Relationships made online have more self-disclosure and anonymity which
changes the types of conversations made online (Kiesler et al., 1986; Rabby, 2007). In addition
to this, Kiesler et al. (1986) states, computer-mediated communication has the speed and energy
efficiency, but not the aural or visual feedback of telephoning and face-to-face communication
(p.1125). Computer-mediated communication also provides an uninhibited feeling to members of
online groups, which, in turn, lead to more member participation (Kiesler et al., 1986).
According to Kiesler et al. (1986), this increased participation is due to a lack of leadership,
which may cause the group to ignore social norms, standards, and precedents, causing both
choice shift and uninhibited behavior, (p.1130). Without the presence of social norms, those
involved in computer-mediated communication do not have the worry of abiding by certain
rules, therefore, they speak more openly than they would in face-to-face communication.

RUNNING HEAD: FINDING ACCEPTANCE

Computer-mediated communication in online groups is also different from that of faceto-face communicative groups. Specific norms are created within a group (Postmes, Spears, &
Leda, 2000; Siegel et al., 1986). It is these in-group norms that reduce concern about how others
in the group will react to a members behavior (Siegel et al., 1986). These norms structure the
content and form of messages and make them specific to the social group (Postmes et al., 2000).
Postmes et al. (2000) discuss similarities in-group messaging due to norms when they state
individual variations in within-group action were limited as the consequence of the formation of
social norms through interaction (p. 365). Looking at how computer-mediated communication
is different from face-to-face communication through both an individual and group perspective is
important, however, more research should be done to state how these differences are beneficial
for those seeking computer-mediated communication as their source of communication. This is
important when looking at support groups online and why they may choose an online source
opposed to a group that meets in person.
Online Support Groups.
Support groups are based off of the idea that people who share the same experiences and
difficulties will provide better support for one another than those who do not (Barak et al., 2008).
People began to recognize and use support groups as they learned it was an inexpensive and
helpful way to get help (Barak et al., 2008). It started out with support groups that met face-toface, then, in the 1990s, online support groups began developing (Barak et al., 2008). According
to Aukus & Rumsey (2010), social support at a distance fulfills a need for people to discuss
their situation with others facing similar issues (p.65). The online aspects of support groups
provide this distance. Everyday topics are discussed in these online support groups, which give
the group a feeling of normality and, therefore, feels therapeutic (Finn, 1999). An online group

RUNNING HEAD: FINDING ACCEPTANCE

for those with disabilities helps the members in overcoming social isolation (Finn, 1999). Those
in the homosexual community experience social isolation, therefore, further research should be
done to see if online support groups would also give them the same result of overcoming social
isolation.
If support groups are so helpful, why might some that are unaccepted by the society they
live in, opt for an online support group versus a face-to-face one? In an online support group,
members have the benefit of anonymity, which allows them to stay unknown, and they do not
have to communicate their stories face-to-face, which allows for more self-disclosure (Barak et
al., 2008; Finn, 1999). Members seek out help online and the privacy they get, while also selfdisclosing personal information, may be what makes an online form of support so attractive.
These supportive relationships that begin online always stay that way since they do not tend to
ever lead to face-to-face supportive relationships (Wright, 1999). Some may go for online
support groups while others prefer face-to-face, which is fine since size and satisfaction with
both on-line supportive relationships and face-to-face supportive relationships are related to a
reduction in perceived life stress (Wright, 1999, p.410). Both forms of support show positive
results, therefore, further research should be done to find out which form of support homosexuals
may prefer. Also, how they go about finding a support group to join should be researched.
Finding acceptance online.
The gay community has benefited from the use of the Internet (Chung-Chuan, 2000; Haag &
Chang, 1998). The creation of the World Wide Web has informed the gay community on things
that used to be hard to find (Haag & Chang, 1998). Even in Taiwan, where homosexuality is
taboo and highly unaccepted, the Internet has benefited the gay community (Chung-Chuan,
2000). Chung-Chuan (2000) adds that, the development of the internet have tremendous

RUNNING HEAD: FINDING ACCEPTANCE

impacts on the representation and control of mass media by homosexual communities in

Taiwan (p.168). The Internet in Taiwan is also less discriminatory towards gays when reporting
homosexual-related news stories compared to other media outlets (Chung-Chuan, 2000). Other
support has been created with the making of community center support groups in urban areas of
America for gays and lesbians to promote diversity and awareness (Haag & Chang, 1998).
However, these community centers may be intimidating since the simple act of walking into a
gay community center can easily make one feel vulnerable or uncomfortable. It also brings about
the unknown which an individual has no power to control what is at hand at any moment (Haag
& Chang, 1998, p.85). The Internet gives the members of a group control through online
interactions (Haag & Chang, 1998), therefore, gays and lesbians turn to online support.
One of the best things the gay and lesbian community believes comes from online
communication is the ability to stay anonymous (Haag & Chang, 1998). They add that it has
been a struggle for homosexuals to establish themselves in their community due to years of
oppression and other social issues. This anonymity also helps young gays and lesbians to come
out about their sexuality since they can interact comfortably online until they can come out in
real life (Haag & Chang, 1998). The internet is where the homosexual community can voice their
concerns about the public, share information with each other, and seek emotional support
without the fear of any negative consequences (Haag & Chang, 1998). The use of support groups
is just now beginning to rise in Taiwan where homosexuality is unmentionable (Chung-Chuan,
2000). The use of support groups for homosexuals needs to be researched to see if there is a
higher usage of these groups in the United states where it is more accepted to be homosexual and
if this correlates to a larger quantity of groups, more specifically online support groups.

RUNNING HEAD: FINDING ACCEPTANCE

10

After looking at articles researching social identity and the way people find acceptance
through online support groups, I have synthesized that not enough research has been done on the
use of online support groups by the gay community. This raises the following questions:
RQ1: How do members of the gay community choose the Internet to find acceptance?
RQ2: How are members accepted into a group online?
RQ3: How effective are online support groups in helping homosexuals find acceptance?

RUNNING HEAD: FINDING ACCEPTANCE

11

References
Aukhus, M., & Rumsey, E. (2010). Crafting supportive communication online: A
communication design analysis of conflict in an online support group. Journal of
Applied Communication Research, 38(1), 65-84. doi:10.1080/00909880903483581
Barak, A., Boniel-Nissim, M., & Suler, J. (2008). Fostering empowerment in online support
groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1867-1883. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.004
Chung-Chuan, Y. (2000). The use of the Internet among academic gay communities in Taiwan:
An exploratory study. Information, Communication and Society, 3(2),153-172.
Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P., & Ouwerkerk, J.W. (1999). Self-categorisation, commitment to the
group and group self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 371-389.
Finn, J. (1999). An exploration of helping processes in an online self-help group focusing on
issues of disability. Health & Social Work, 24(3), 220-231.
Floyd, K. (2000). Affectionate same-sex touch: Understanding the influence of homophobia on
observers interpretations of perceptions. Journal of Social Psychology, 140, 774788.
doi: 10.1080=00224540009600516
Floyd, K., & Morman, M. T. (2000). Reacting to the verbal communication of affection in samesex interaction. Southern Communication Journal, 65, 287299. doi:
10.1080=10417940009373177
Haag, A.M., & Chang, F.K. (1998). The impact of electronic networking on the lesbian and gay
community. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 7(3), 83-94.

RUNNING HEAD: FINDING ACCEPTANCE

12

Hall, J., & LaFrance, B. (2012). Thats gay: Sexual prejudice, gender identity, norms, and
homophobic

communication.

Communication

Quarterly,

60(1),

35-58.

doi:10.1080/01463373.2012.641833
Hogg, M.A. (2006). Social identity theory. In P. J. Burke (Ed.) Contemporary Social
Psychological Theories (pp. 111-136). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Hogg, M.A., & Reid, S.A. (2006). Social identity, self-categorization, and the communication of
group norms. Communication Theory, 16, 7-30. doi: 10.1111=j.14682885.2006.00003
Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T.W. (1984). Social psychology aspects of computermediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123-1134.
Levine, T.R., & Anders, L.N. (2000). Norms, expectations, and deception: A norm violation
model of veracity judgements. Communication Monographs, 67(2), 123-137.
Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (2000). The formation of group norms in computer-mediated
communication. Human Communication Research, 26(3), 341-371.
Rabby, M.K. (2007). Relational maintenance and the influence of commitment in online and
offline relationships. Communication Studies, 58(3), 315-337. doi:
10.1080/105110970701518405
Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T.W. (1986). Group processes in computermediated communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37,
157-187.
Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science Information, 13(65),
65-93. doi: 10/1177/053901847401300204

RUNNING HEAD: FINDING ACCEPTANCE

13

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin
& S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 3347). Monterey,
CA:Brooks Cole.
Wright, K.B. (1999). Computer-mediated support groups: An examination of relationships
among social support, perceived stress, and coping strategies. Communication Quarterly,
47(4), 402-414.