LGBTQ+ Students at Christian Institution | Christy, Rouse, and Krumrei-Mancuso (M Rank = 134.04) were significantly higher than heterosexual students (M Rank = 92.92; Z = -4.50, p < .001, ρ = .31). These results support our hypothesis that SM students would report higher levels of psycho logical distress and suicidality than heterosexual students. As exploratory analyses, we ran a MANOVA and Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon U tests to determine whether scores on each of the psychological symptom (CCAP-34) subscales differed between SM students and heterosexual students. The main effect of the MANOVA was statistically significant (F(4,206) = 4.97, p < .001). The between-subjects effect was significant on depres sion (F(1,209) = 10.68, p < .001), (F(1,209) = 18.17, p < .001), and social anxiety (F(1,209) = 6.33, p =.01). There was not a significant effect for academic distress (F(1,209) = 1.45, p = .23). Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon U tests found that the score rank difference between SM and heterosexual students on hostility (31.95, Z = -3.44, p < .001, ρ = .24) and substance and alcohol abuse (17.39, Z = -2.04, p = .04, ρ = .14) were significant, but differences on eating concerns (14.21, Z = -1.53, p = .13, ρ = .11) were not significant. Hypothesis 2 Contrary to our second hypothesis, a Mann-WhitneyWilcoxon U test found that students who experience same-gender attraction and are involved in the GSA (M Rank = 23.72) and students who experience samegender attraction and are not involved in the GSA (M Rank = 28.67) did not significantly differ on difficulty accepting their sexuality (Z = -1.16, p = .25, ρ = .17). An additional Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon U test found that students who experience same-gender attraction and are involved in the GSA (M Rank = 25.88) and students who experience same-gender attraction and are not involved in the GSA (M Rank = 24.83) did not significantly differ on incongruence between their religious beliefs and their sexuality (Z = -0.26, p = .80, ρ = -.04). These results do not support our hypothesis that students who experience same-gender attraction and are involved in the GSA would report having less difficulty accepting their sexuality and would report lower levels of incongruence between their religious beliefs and their sexuality than students who experience same-gender attraction and are not involved in the GSA. FALL 2024 PSI CHI JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH Hypothesis 3 To test our third hypothesis, we used two hierarchical regression analyses to examine whether intrinsic religiosity was predictive of lower levels of psychological distress and suicidality, respectively, and whether each of these relationships was moderated by SM status. In step one of the psychological distress model, we entered intrinsic religiosity and SM status. Intrinsic religiosity (β = -.06, p = .42) did not significantly predict psychological distress, but SM status (β = .27, p < .001) did significantly aid in the prediction of psychological distress. The overall model was significant (F[2,208] = 9.42, p < .001, R² = .08). When the interaction term was included in the second step, the overall model remained statisti cally significant (F[3,207] = 6.57, p < .001, R² = .09). However, the .01 change in R² values was not significant (F[1,207] = 0.89, p = .35) and the interaction term was not significant (β = -.07, p = .35). This lack of interaction between intrinsic religiosity and SM status suggests that SM status does not moderate a relationship between intrinsic religiosity and psychological distress. In step one of the suicidality model, we entered intrinsic religiosity and SM status. SM status (β = .32, p < .001) significantly aided in prediction, but intrinsic religiosity did not (β = -.13, p = .13). The overall model was significant (F[2,203] = 15.61, p < .001, R² = .13). When the interaction term was included in the second step, the overall model remained statistically significant (F[3,202] = 10.37, p < .001, R² = .13). However, the < .001 change in R² values was not significant (F[1,202] = 0.04, p = .83) and the interaction term was not significant (β = -.01, p = .83). This lack of interaction between intrinsic religiosity and SM status suggests that SM status does not moderate the relationship between intrinsic reli giosity and suicidality. These two moderation analyses do not support our hypothesis that the relationship between intrinsic religiosity and wellbeing would be weaker for SM students than heterosexual students. Hypothesis 4 For our final hypothesis, rho coefficients were used to analyze the relationship between intrinsic religiosity and LGBTQ+ identity-specific concerns among only those participants who reported same-gender attraction. Intrinsic religiosity was not significantly related to any of the LGBIS scales. This does not support our hypothesis that intrinsic religiosity would be correlated with higher levels of LGBTQ+ identity-specific concerns, such as internalized homonegativity, for students who report same-gender attraction. Additionally, two preregistered exploratory rho coefficients were used to analyze the relationship between LGBTQ+ identity-specific concerns and religious attendance and private religious practice. Religious attendance was significantly related with internalized homonegativity (ρ = .31, p = .02) and Identity Superiority scores (ρ = -.36, p = .005). Private religious practice was significantly related with Identity Superiority scores (ρ = -.28, p = .03). 187 COPYRIGHT 2024 BY PSI CHI, THE INTERNATIONAL HONOR SOCIETY IN PSYCHOLOGY (VOL. 29, NO. 3/ISSN 2325-7342)