You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience and security.

Skip to main
DONATE Reach A Counselor Meet Friends

Personal Growth and Mental Health Among LGBTQ+ Young People

LGBTQ+ young people who report higher levels of personal growth are less likely to have considered or attempted suicide in the past year.
Donate

Key Findings

  • LGBTQ+ young people ages 18-24 and LGBTQ+ young people who are able to meet their basic economic needs report higher personal growth scores than their younger and less-resourced LGBTQ+ peers. 
  • Living in a LGBTQ+ affirming community and high levels of family support were both associated with higher personal growth scores. 
  • LGBTQ+ young people with higher personal growth scores were less likely to report frequent mental distress.

Background

Personal growth initiative (PGI) is a concept that describes an individual’s capacity to move toward goals and make changes for self-improvement.1 It is composed of four skills: readiness for change, planfulness, use of resources, and intentional behavior. Since researchers began measuring PGI skills over twenty years ago, they have been found to be associated with lower rates of depression,2 anxiety,3 and post-traumatic stress.2 PGI skills may operate as a protective buffer against suicidal ideation among adults with severe depression symptoms.1 Among adolescents, PGI skills are associated with a sense of meaning in life4 and psychological well-being.5 High school students who report higher levels of perceived social support also report higher PGI skills, suggesting that a young person’s peers and community may help them develop PGI skills.6

Given that PGI skills are malleable and can be improved via therapy,7 it is important to have a deeper understanding of how PGI skills may impact the mental health of LGBTQ+ young people and point to potential opportunities for intervention. PGI skills may help LGBTQ+ young people maintain positive mental health while navigating the unique challenges they encounter, like family conflict, discrimination, or victimization. While existing research on PGI skills among LGBTQ+ young people examines outcomes such as sexual behavior8 and education and advocacy,9 none has explored PGI skills and suicide risk, despite findings from the general population suggesting a protective effect. Using data from The Trevor Project’s 2025 U.S. National Survey on the Mental Health of LGBTQ+ Young People, this brief examines the relationship between PGI skills and LGBTQ+ young people’s access to support, as well as their suicide risk and mental health.

Results

Personal growth skills were measured using the Personal Growth Initiative Scale II (PGIS-II). The scale ranges from 0 to 5, with higher PGIS-II scores indicating higher levels of active and intentional growth.1 Among the full sample of LGBTQ+ young people, we observed a mean PGIS-II score of 2.99 and a standard deviation of 1.02.

Demographic differences in personal growth skills
LGBTQ+ young people ages 18-24 (M=3.10, SD=0.97) reported higher mean PGIS-II scores than LGBTQ+ young people ages 13-17 (M=2.76, SD=1.07). LGBTQ+ young people who reported having more than enough to meet their basic economic needs (M=3.04, SD=0.99) reported higher PGIS-II scores than their LGBTQ+ peers who only just met their basic needs (M=2.97, SD=1.05). Cisgender LGBTQ+ young people (M = 3.09, SD = 1.01) reported higher PGIS-II scores than their transgender, non-binary, or gender-questioning peers (M = 2.95, SD= 1.02). Heterosexual transgender young people (M=3.13, SD = 1.04) and queer young people (M=3.11, SD = 0.96) reported higher PGIS-II scores than their peers of other sexual orientations. LGBTQ+ young people living the South reported lower mean PGIS-II scores (M=2.95, SD=1.04) than LGBTQ+ youth living in other regions. Differences in PGIS-II scores were also observed by urbanicity, with post hoc analysis identifying that LGBTQ+ young people living in large cities had higher mean PGIS-II scores (M=3.15, SD=1.00) than LGBTQ+ young people living in other areas.

Access to support and personal growth skills
Several environmental factors, such as LGBTQ+ young people’s access to supportive communities, families, and mental health care, were also associated with higher PGIS-II scores. LGBTQ+ young people who reported that the community they lived in was very accepting of LGBTQ+ people (M=3.22, SD=0.97) reported the highest mean PGIS-II scores and those in very unaccepting communities (M=2.71, SD=1.16) reported the lowest PGIS-II. LGBTQ+ young people with high levels of family support reported higher PGIS-II scores (M=3.30, SD=0.94) than their LGBTQ+ peers with low levels of family support (M=2.87, SD=1.01). LGBTQ+ young people who were able to access desired mental health care in the last year reported higher PGIS-II scores (M=3.16, SD=0.97) than their peers who wanted mental health care but did not receive it (M=2.79, SD=1.01).

Mean Personal Growth Initiative Scores among LGBTQ+ Young People, by Community Acceptance chart

Personal growth skills, mental distress, and suicide
As PGIS-II scores decreased, LGBTQ+ young people were more likely to report a higher number of poor mental health days. LGBTQ+ young people who reported no poor mental health days in the last month reported the highest PGIS-II scores (M=3.54, SD=1.03), followed by those who reported 1-13 poor mental health days (M=3.25, SD=0.93), and those with 14 or more poor mental health days (i.e., frequent mental distress; M=2.79, SD=1.03) reported the lowest. Controlling for participant characteristics, each point increase in PGIS-II scores was associated with a 61% lower odds of reporting a higher category of poor mental health days (aOR = 0.39, CI = 0.41-0.36, p<.001).

Mean PGIS-II Score, by Number of Poor Mental Health Days in Last Month chart

PGIS-II scores were also associated with suicide ideation and suicide attempts. LGBTQ+ young people who seriously considered (M =2.76, SD =1.06) or attempted suicide (M =2.74, SD =1.14) in the past year had lower PGIS-II scores than those who did not seriously consider (M = 3.14, SD =0.97) or attempt suicide (M =3.03, SD =1.00) in the past year. Controlling for participant characteristics, each point increase in PGIS-II scores was associated with 28% lower odds of seriously considering suicide in the past year (aOR = 0.72, CI = 0.69-0.75, p<.001) and 17% lower odds of attempting suicide in the past year (aOR = 0.83, CI = 0.79-0.88, p<.001).

Looking Ahead

These findings build on the existing body of literature on personal growth initiative (PGI) and mental health. We observed several demographic differences in mean PGIS-II scores in our sample of LGBTQ+ young people, with older and more economically secure young people having higher scores than their younger and less economically secure peers. LGBTQ+ young people in large cities also reported higher PGIS-II scores than their peers living in other areas. Cisgender LGBQ+ young people reported higher PGIS-II scores that their transgender, non-binary, and gender-questioning peers, perhaps because anti-transgender policies block transgender and non-binary young people’s access to supportive relationships and programs, such as sports.10 LGBTQ+ young people in the South reported lower PGIS-II scores than their peers in other regions. Finally, heterosexual transgender young people and queer young people reported higher PGIS-II scores than their peers of other sexual orientations.

A number of environmental factors were associated with higher PGIS-II scores. Aligning with previous research on connections between social support and PGI among adolescents,6 living in an accepting community or having a supportive family were both associated with higher PGIS-II scores in our sample of LGBTQ+ young people. LGBTQ+ young people who wanted and received mental health care in the last year also reported higher PGIS-II scores, which may be related to the influence of therapy on PGI skills.7

These findings add to our understanding of PGI and mental health among LGBTQ+ young people. Higher PGIS-II scores were associated with fewer poor mental health days in the last month, as well as lower odds of both considering and attempting suicide in the past year, corroborating other scholarship on PGI and suicidality among depressed adults.4 LGBTQ+ young people who report higher levels of planfulness, use of resources, and intention for change may be more equipped to succeed in school and employment and benefit from the structure and resources that those each can provide. Given previous research showing that lower perceived life expectancy and lower life purpose are associated with higher suicide risk among LGBTQ+ young people,11 LGBTQ+ young people who agree more with statements in the PGIS-II such as “I set realistic goals for what I want to change about myself” may also have more positive feelings about their life purpose and a more concrete sense of their future.

There are limitations to this analysis; primarily we are unable to establish any temporal or causal relationships due to the cross-sectional nature of the data. It is likely that LGBTQ+ young people who have higher PGIS-II are more able to pursue and obtain desired mental health care, resulting in better mental health. Similarly, LGBTQ+ young people experiencing more poor mental health days may be less engaged in school, employment, or other skill-building activities that may support higher PGIS-II. It is also possible that older LGBTQ+ young people or those with adequate economic means have more time and opportunities to develop PGI skills. Future research should attend to the overlap in these related variables and investigate the development of PGI skills in order to better understand how LGBTQ+ young people acquire them. Nonetheless, it is the malleability of PGI skills that makes them so important to understanding and improving the mental health of LGBTQ+ young people. Therapists, teachers, and other adults who work with LGBTQ+ young people should consider giving them opportunities to practice the skills of planfulness, use of resources, and intentional behavior. They can also coach LGBTQ+ young people on their readiness to make changes. These component skills of PGI will serve LGBTQ+ young people across their lifetimes and may, as these findings suggest, help improve their mental health.

The Trevor Project is committed to supporting LGBTQ+ young people, their families, and the adults who support them. LGBTQ+ young people can reach our free crisis services 247 to receive support for the unique challenges they face. Our TrevorSpace platform is a safe and supportive online space for LGBTQ+ young people ages 13 to 24. Our Resource Center has information for youth, families, and adults, including guides on Finding Support and Building Community Amid Political Uncertainty and LGBTQ+ Friendly Resources for Mental Health Support. For more Trevor Project research on protective factors and mental health among LGBTQ+ young people, check out our briefs: Positive Events and Mental Health Among LGBTQ+ Young People and “You are Beautiful”: Advice and Encouragement For LGBTQ+ Young People From LGBTQ+ Young People.

Data Tables

Personal Growth Initiative Scores of LGBTQ+ Young People, by Participant Characteristics

Personal Growth Initiative Scores of LGBTQ+ Young People, by Participant Characteristics table

Methods

Sample
Data were collected through The Trevor Project’s 2025 U.S. National Survey on the Mental Health of LGBTQ+ Young People. In total, 16,667 LGBTQ+ young people between the ages of 13 and 24 were recruited via targeted ads on social media, posts from various LGBTQ+ “influencers,” state and national organizations that serve LGBTQ+ young people, and The Trevor Project’s direct outreach efforts (e.g., e-mail listservs).

Measures
Demographics (i.e., race/ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status), were assessed by asking participants to select a response from a provided list of answers.12 Personal growth was measured using the Personal Growth Initiative Scale II.1 Respondents were asked how strongly they agree or disagree with 16 statements, including “I set realistic goals for what I want to change about myself,” “I ask for help when I try to change myself,” and “I use resources when I try to grow.” Response options were “Disagree strongly,” “Disagree somewhat,” “Disagree a little,” “Agree a little,” “Agree somewhat,” and “Agree strongly.” Scores were summed for four subscales: Readiness for Change, Planfulness, Using Resources, and Intentional Behavior. Subscale scores were then summed and divided by 4 to produce the total mean score. Number of poor mental health days was assessed using an item from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)’s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey.13 Respondents were asked, “Now thinking about your mental health, which includes stress, depression, and problems with emotions, for how many days during the past 30 days was your mental health not good?” Respondents could choose any number between 0 and 30 and responses were recoded into groups for categorical analysis. Past-year suicidal ideation and past-year suicide attempt were assessed using items from the CDC’s Youth Risk Behavior Survey.14

Analysis
Independent samples t-tests were used to test differences in mean PGIS between two groups. For groups of more than two categories, one-way ANOVA and post hoc tests were used to test for differences in PGIS-II scores. Binary logistic regression models were used to examine associations between PGIS-II scores and suicide risk outcomes, and ordinal logistic regression was used to examine the association between PGIS-II scores and number of poor mental health days. All regression models controlled for age, socioeconomic status, gender identity, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, and census region. Unless otherwise noted, all analyses are statistically significant at p<0.05, meaning reported differences would be expected to arise in analysis less than 5% of the time if there were no true difference (i.e., the null hypothesis should not have been rejected). Percentages in tables may not add up to 100% because of rounding.

References

  2. 1. Robitschek, C., Ashton, M. W., Spering, C. C., Geiger, N., Byers, D., Schotts, G. C., & Thoen, M. (2012). Development and psychometric properties of the Personal Growth Initiative Scale – II. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59(2), 274-287. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027310
  3. 2. Blackie, L.E.R., Jayawickreme, E., Forgeard, M.J.C., & Jayawickreme, N., (2015). The protective function of personal growth initiative among a genocide-affected population in Rwanda. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 7(4), 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000010
  4. 3. Weigold, I. K., & Robitschek, C. (2011). Agentic personality characteristics and coping: Their relation to trait anxiety in college students. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 81(2), 255–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.2011.01094.x
  5. 4. Robitschek, C., Cukrowicz, K., Brown, S. L., & Ciavaglia, A. (2022). Personal growth initiative as a buffer against suicide ideation severity in psychotherapy outpatients with depressive symptoms. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 78(9), 1752-1763. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.23333
  6. 5. Asif, A., Yasin, H., & Iqrar, L. (2024). Personal growth initiative, resilience and psychological wellbeing in young adults of Pakistan. Journal of Asian Development Studies, 13(1), 412-421. https://doi.org/10.62345/jads.2024.13.1.35 
  7. 6. Laksono, N. A. P., & Saraswati, P. (2024). Perceived social support as a predictor of personal growth initiative in adolescents. International Conference of Applied Psychology, 340-360. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v9i5.15187 
  8. 7. Robitschek, C., Yang, A., Villalba II, R., & Shigemoto, Y. (2019). Personal growth initiative: A robust and malleable predictor of treatment outcome for depressed partial hospital patients. Journal of Affective Disorders, 246(1), 548-555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2018.12.121 
  9. 8. Forbes, C., Clark, L. F., & Diep, H. (2016). Positive attributes and risk behaviors in young transgender women. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 3(1), 129-134. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000148 
  10. 9. Szymanski, D. M., Mikorski, R., & Carretta, R. F. (2017). Heterosexism and LGB positive identity: Roles of coping and personal growth initiative. The Counseling Psychologist, 45(2), 294-319. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000017697195

    10. Williams, C. R., Feld, A., McGregor, K., & Boskey, E. R. (2026). Let them play: Physical activities and sports are associated with better psychosocial functioning for transgender and gender-diverse youth. Journal of Adolescent Health. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2025.12.266

    11. The Trevor Project. (2024). Life Purpose and Expectancy in LGBTQ+ Young People. https://doi.org/10.70226/JZKP1019

    12. Nath, R., Matthews, D.D., Hobaica, S., DeChants, J.P., Eden, T.M., Taylor, A.B., & Suffredini, K. (2026). 2025 U.S. National Survey on the Mental Health of LGBTQ+ Young People. West Hollywood, California: The Trevor Project. https://doi.org/10.70226/EKGT3197
  11. 13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2024). 2023 BRFSS Questionnaire. https://www.doi.org/10.15620/cdc/251894

    14. Mpofu, J. J., Underwood, J. M., Thornton, J. E., Brener, N. D., Rico, A., Kilmer, G., Harris, W. A., Leon-Nguyen, M., Chyen, D., Lim, C., Mbaka, C. K., Smith-Grant, J., Whittle, L., Jones, S. E., Krause, K. H., Li, J., Shanklin, S. L., McKinnon, I., Arrey, L., Queen, B. E., & Roberts, A. M. (2023). Overview and methods for the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System—United States, 2021. MMWR Supplements, 72(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.su7201a1

The Trevor Project. (2026). Personal Growth and Mental Health Among LGBTQ+ Young People. https://doi.org/10.70226/KTKL4493

For more information please contact: Research@TheTrevorProject.org

© The Trevor Project 2026

Download the Research Brief Return to Research Briefs Page