2026/05/25 by Rasa Katinaitė, Klaidas Aretas Petručionis, Kristina Žardeckaitė–Matulaitienė · 1 voice
Psychology · Social Sciences · #LGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy #Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics #Gender Roles and Identity Studies
paper · doi:10.1080/19317611.2026.2671432
Objectives This meta-aggregation synthesizes findings from published qualitative studies with the aim to identify the cues LGBTQ+ individuals employ when assessing the social safety of the situation. This addresses a gap in literature on LGBTQ+ social safety, which is increasingly recognized as an important aspect in explaining the psychological health and well-being of LGBTQ+ individuals. However, a clear and empirically grounded understanding of what cues LGBTQ+ individuals use to determine whether a situation is safe for them remains lacking.Method A systematic meta-aggregation of qualitative literature was conducted. To be included in the review, empirical studies had to examine cues or signs that LGBTQ+ individuals rely on when determining whether a situation is safe, and to be grounded in the voices of LGBTQ+ individuals themselves. Studies that focused on correlates of social safety, rather than on LGBTQ+ individuals’ perceptions of safety were excluded. A systemic search was conducted across five databases: SAGE Journals, SpringerLink, Web of Science, Scopus and PsycArticles, resulting in 5269 studies. Following a structured review process, 120 studies published between 1996 and 2025 were included in the final review. Study quality was assessed using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research, and extracted results were synthesized through inductive coding.Results Identified safety cues were organized into four thematic sections: visible cues, safe people, safe places and behavior cues of safety. Each section was further broken down into specific themes and categories. The most frequently reported cues included rainbow iconography, the presence of other LGBTQ+ individuals, being in explicitly LGBTQ+ spaces, others demonstrating knowledge of LGBTQ+ specific issues, and experiencing normalization of LGBTQ+ identities.Conclusions The findings of this meta-aggregation suggest that LGBTQ+ individuals employ distinct signs to assess the safety of a situation, thereby supporting theoretical assumptions of the social safety theoretical perspective.