A review of two decades of LGBTQ‐inclusive research in JSPR and PR

Abstract

The field of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) relationship science has grown significantly over the past two decades, coinciding with rapid changes in the social acceptance of LGBTQ+ people. However, it is unclear to what extent the top two journals in relationship science, the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships and Personal Relationships, have contributed to the field. In this critical review, we analyzed the 2181 manuscripts published in the journals between 2002 and 2021 for whether they included or excluded LGBTQ+ participants, the methodologies used to analyze their data, and their conclusions about LGBTQ+ lives and relationships. The overwhelming majority (85.8%) of manuscripts did not acknowledge LGBTQ+ relationships; however, there have been improvements compared to past research in retaining LGBTQ+ participants within a data set when they were present. We identified 92 manuscripts that contributed to knowledge about LGBTQ+ lives or relationships. We discuss the lack of intersectional analyses and methodological challenges of incorporating multiple forms of diversity within quantitative research. Overarching themes across manuscript content included minority stress, relationship formation, social support, and commitment. Overall, though the research in the two journals has contributed to the literature on LGBTQ+ relationships, our review suggests that scholars do not consider these two journals as a first choice for finding or publishing LGBTQ+ relationship science.

A systematic review of relationship sacrifices from 2002 to 2021: Moving toward inclusivity

“…Labeling different‐gender couples as “heterosexual” glosses over the experiences of bisexual individuals in these relationships (and those in same‐gender relationships) and the unique ways they may enact and experience sacrifices for their partners. Beyond compensatory addition of LGBTQ+ individuals in samples, Pollitt et al (in press) advocate for more depth in the inquiries of gender‐diverse and same‐gender relationship experiences.…”

“…Fourth, in a systematic review specific to the review of LGBT‐related articles (e.g., words or phrases such as bisexual, same‐sex, sexual orientation) published in family science journals from 2000 to 2015, van Eeden‐Moorefield et al (2018) coded 6832 published articles, finding that most of the studies focused on lesbian and/or gay couples and included primarily White and middle‐class individuals in the samples. Finally, authors reviewing LGBTQ+ research in Journal of Social and Personal Relationships (JSPR) and Personal Relationships (PR) over the past 20 years confirm that while researchers have made progress with LGBTQ+ inclusion, very little is known about the experiences of gender‐diverse individuals in relationships as published in these two journals (Pollitt et al, in press).…”

Friendship dynamics of young men with non-exclusive sexual orientations: Group diversity, physical intimacy and emotionality

“…We did not seek to recruit participants from beyond the elite institution. While this limits generalizability, given the qualitative nature of the sample and the need to expand the diversity of samples on intimate relationships (Pollitt et al, 2022; Williamson et al, 2022), we wanted to limit potentially confounding factors and focus on the experiences of university and young adult men with non-exclusive sexual orientations. The intention is not to produce generalizable findings but, by focusing on this sample, draw attention to how scholarly consideration of friendship diversity can be expanded through broader conceptualizations of sexuality.…”

“…Recognition of cross-sexuality friendships is still limited, and research in this area conceptualizes gay and straight sexualities as being exclusively oriented toward one gender (e.g., Davis & Mehta, 2022). This is part of a broader heteronormativity in much relationships research, which focuses on heterosexual friendships and relationships (Junkins et al, 2022;Pollitt et al, 2022). In this study, we address these issues by examining the friendship practices of men with non-exclusive sexualities (from "mostly gay" to "mostly straight").…”

Editorial: Not so WEIRD after all? Relationship science in diverse samples and contexts

“…Like many areas of psychology, relationship science suffers from historically drawing from “WEIRD” samples and stimuli (i.e., Western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic; Karney and Bradbury, 1995 ; Henrich et al, 2010a , b ; Judd et al, 2012 ). These biases are compounded through an over-representation of people who identify as straight, monogamous, and are interested in long-term partnerships (vs. being single) (Ogolsky and Stafford, 2022 ; Pollitt et al, 2022 ; Williamson et al, 2022 ). Despite over a decade's worth of awareness of the lack of inclusivity, relationship science remains largely dependent on biased samples (IJzerman et al, 2021 ; Ogolsky and Stafford, 2022 ; Williamson et al, 2022 ).…”