Stress and Relationship Functioning in Same‐Sex Couples: The Vulnerabilities of Internalized Homophobia and Outness

Abstract

Objective We examined whether high levels of internalized homophobia and low levels of openness about one's sexual identity (“outness”) were enduring vulnerabilities for same‐sex couples' relationship functioning. Background The vulnerability–stress–adaptation (VSA) model describes how stress can impact relationship functioning. This model has predominately been applied to the study of heterosexual couples, which leaves a dearth of literature on enduring vulnerabilities specific to same‐sex couples' relationship functioning. Method Dyadic longitudinal data from a convenience sample of 81 same‐sex couples were collected. Internalized homophobia and outness were assessed at baseline followed by 14‐day daily diaries assessing external stress and relationship functioning (i.e., severity of conflict, relationship quality, and commitment). Hypotheses were tested using longitudinal actor–partner interdependence models and multilevel modeling. Results On days that individuals with high (but not low) levels of internalized homophobia reported greater daily stress, they also reported greater severity of conflict and poorer relationship quality. On days that individuals with low (but not high) outness had a partner report greater daily stress, the individual reported lower commitment. Conclusion Hypotheses were partially supported; high levels of internalized homophobia and low outness were shown to be potential enduring vulnerabilities for individuals in a same‐sex relationship. Implications Helping same‐sex couples cope with their own and their partner's daily stress, as well as working to decrease internalized homophobia while increasing openness about their sexuality, may help to promote relational functioning.

Editorial: Dyadic Coping

“…Finally, more studies on clinical interventions focusing on the improvement of dyadic coping skills, such as the Couples Coping Enhancement Training (CCET) by Bodenmann and Shantinath (2004) or TOGETER by Falconier (2015) are needed. However, current research by Randall and Totenhagen shows promise in this area based on their research with sexual minority individuals experiencing stress due to their marginalized status (Randall et al, 2017a,b; Totenhagen et al, 2018).…”

The Legal Vulnerability Model for Same-Sex Parent Families: A Mixed Methods Systematic Review and Theoretical Integration

“…First, in jurisdictions without legally recognized relationships, dyadic designs (e.g., actor-partner interdependence models, Smith et al, 2020 ) can be used to contrast outcomes in legal and non-legal parents while taking further partner characteristics (e.g., minority stress) into account. Daily fluctuations in legal vulnerability and stress spillover effects could be assessed by dyadic diary studies (Totenhagen et al, 2018 ; Cooper et al, 2020 ).…”

“…The development of models related to sexual minority health on the individual, couple, and family-level has proliferated in recent years. Future research could integrate legal vulnerability in the family resilience model (Prendergast and MacPhee, 2018 ), the relationship uncertainty model (Monk and Ogolsky, 2019 ), or adaptations of the vulnerability-stress-adaptation model (Karney and Bradbury, 1995 ; Totenhagen et al, 2018 ), among others. Conversely, researchers could link other concepts of legal meaning making for sexual minorities, such as legal consciousness (Hull, 2016 ), with legal vulnerability.…”

Is “Coming Out” Still Relevant? Social Justice Implications for LGB‐Membered Families

“…A study conducted by Totenhagen, Randall, and Lloyd () found that high levels of internalized homophobia and low levels of “outness” were shown to be potentially enduring vulnerabilities that affect both LGB individuals and their families. The burden of internalized sexual stigma can contribute to reduced authenticity and congruence, leading to identity concealment, which in turn can affect the quality of family relationships.…”