LGBT RELATIONSHIP DEVELOPMENT AND DYNAMICS:
YOUNG COUPLES’ EXPERIENCES INTRODUCING
PARTNER TO PARENTS
A Thesis Presented to the Faculty
of
California State University, Stanislaus
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
of Master of Social Work
By
Shani Dharmasena
May 2016
CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL
LGBT RELATIONSHIP DEVELOPMENT AND DYNAMICS:
YOUNG COUPLES’ EXPERIENCES INTRODUCING
PARTNER TO PARENTS
By
Shani Dharmasena
Signed Certification of Approval page is
on file with the University Library
____________________________________________ _______________________
Dr. John A. Garcia
Professor of Social Work
Date
____________________________________________ _______________________
Dr. Valerie Leyva
Associate Professor of Social Work
Date
© 2016
Shani Dharmasena
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
DEDICATION
I dedicate my thesis to my family and friends who have supported and guided
me throughout the process. I am appreciative for all you have done. Thank you for
being my biggest cheerleaders.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to thank many professors who were more than generous with their
expertise and precious time. A special thanks to Dr. John A. Garcia, my thesis
chairperson for his countless hours of reflecting, reading, encouraging and patience
throughout the entire process. Thank you to my reader, Dr. Valerie Leyva who was
ever so generous with her time and proficiency.
Finally, I would like to thank Dr. Chuck Floyd for your never-ending
guidance and support throughout this process. Go Patriots!
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Dedication ...............................................................................................................
iv
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................
v
List of Tables .......................................................................................................... viii
Abstract ...................................................................................................................
ix
CHAPTER
I.
Introduction ...........................................................................................
1
Statement of the Problem ..........................................................
Statement of Purpose ................................................................
Significance of the Study ..........................................................
1
5
6
Literature Review..................................................................................
8
Overview ...................................................................................
Theories and Relationship Development ..................................
Theories of Relationship Dynamics ..........................................
Research Findings .....................................................................
8
9
15
18
Methodology .........................................................................................
23
Overview ...................................................................................
Research Design and Sampling Plan ........................................
Instrumentation .........................................................................
Data Collection .........................................................................
Plan for Data Analysis ..............................................................
Protection of Human Subjects ..................................................
23
23
24
25
26
27
Results ...................................................................................................
28
Overview of the Chapter ...........................................................
Overview of the Sample............................................................
Pre-Introduction ........................................................................
During Introduction ..................................................................
28
28
30
31
Post Introduction .......................................................................
General Questions .....................................................................
33
35
II.
III.
IV.
vi
V.
Discussion .............................................................................................
41
Major Findings and Previous Research ....................................
Limitations ................................................................................
Clinical Implications .................................................................
Future Research ........................................................................
41
42
43
44
References ...............................................................................................................
47
vii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
PAGE
1. Participants’ Racial or Ethnic Group ................................................................
29
2. When Did You Introduce Partner to Parent (s) for the First Time ...................
31
3. How Did You Interact With Your Partner While Meeting Your Parent(s) ......
33
4. After Meeting Your Partner, Did Your Parent(s) .............................................
35
5. Who Do You Turn to For Relationship Advice ................................................
36
6. What Are Some Stressors That Come From Within the Relationship..............
37
7. What Are Some Challenges You Have Faced in Emerging Adulthood ...........
38
8. What to Do to Shift Your Parent(s) Perspective of Your Relationship ............
39
viii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to describe relationship development and dynamics of
LGBT emerging adults, ages 18-25, specifically on the introduction of LGBT partner
to parents. A quantitative study, using an electronic survey was used to probe three
main areas of pre introduction, during introduction, and post introduction of partner to
parents. Twenty-five participants completed the survey. The major findings
indicated that most participants introduced their partner to their parents during their
first relationship and felt more comfortable with the introduction with their female
biological mother than any other parent. Some of the greatest challenges faced in
emerging adulthood were their identity and finances, while stressors coming from
outside, were jobs and family. The critical finding was that the majority of the
participants had a positive experience when introducing their partner to their families.
Unfortunately, there remains a dearth of research on introducing one’s LGBT partner
to his or her parents, suggesting that research around this topic is needed. Critical
implications for practice, policy and future research are examined.
ix
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
In the United States, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT)
individuals are influenced by the social stigma of same-sex relationships. Even with
the societal advances around legalization of same sex marriage, same-sex
relationships continue to be less supported and recognized by society as equal to
those of heterosexuals (Hereck, 2006). Consequently, the LGBT population
continues to face stressors such as discrimination, prejudice, stigmatization and
family disapproval on a regular basis. The LGBT individuals become susceptible to
these stressors related to their sexual or gender minority status. This in turn places
them at a higher risk for adverse health outcomes (Bauermeister et al., 2010;
Diamond, Savin-Williams, & Dube, 1999; Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007) making it
difficult for LGBT individuals to achieve their potential, particularly as it relates to
intimacy (Frost, 2011).
Oppression of LGBT individuals begins at a young age. Unfortunately,
LGBT youth experience more victimization and greater psychological suffering than
their heterosexual peers (Mays and Cochran 2001; Meyer et al. 2007), which is
largely related to their sexual identity. Studies show that these stressors also occur at
home. For instance, LGBT adolescents’ relationships with their parents are often
challenged when parents learn about their children being LGBT and during the time
1
2
of disclosure of sexual identity or “coming out” (D’Augelli, Grossman, & Starks,
2005; Patterson, 2000; Savin-Williams, 1998a, 1998b; Savin-Williams & Dubé,
1998; Tharinger & Wells, 2000). During this process of coming out, LGBT
individuals are often shunned by their family member’s and friends and some
individuals do not tell their families due to the fear of parent’s negative reactions
(D’Augelli & Hershberger, 1993; D’Augelli, Hershberger, & Pilkington, 1998).
Some LGBT persons report being verbally abused and physically attacked by family
members once opening up to them (Pilkington & D’Augelli, 1995).
Often parents of LGBT youth perceive sexual orientation as something the
child will “grow out of” and that they are in a “phase” of their sexual development;
habitually questioning the rationality of their child’s sexual orientation (Henderson,
1998). According to Henderson (1998), in the past, most gay and lesbian children
disclosed to their sexual orientation to parents after the age of 20; however, during the
past few years, the age of disclosure has been dropping; youth are now “coming out”
to their families at ages 14, 15 and 16. For LGBT youth, disclosing to parents may be
viewed as a means toward identity integration (LaSala, 2000); however, for many
parents, hearing that their child is LGBT will result in “mourning” the loss of the
person they once perceived as their child (Davis, 2012). Often, a family crisis is
precipitated after the disclosure, and the heterosexual parents feel a sense of guilt,
blaming themselves or their spouses for failing to properly socialize their children
(Javaid, 1993; Silverstein, 1977). No matter how families go about conveying their
acceptance of their LGBT child, due to the prevalence of negative stereotypes and
3
attitudes, many parents emphasize that they would never wish a non-heterosexual
orientation upon their child (Strommen, 1989).
The social context of homophobia and heterosexism in the United States
specifically around social pressures, gender roles and expectations creates
condemnation and stigmatization for LGBT persons (Schneider, 2001). On the
contrary, research also shows that having accepting and supportive parents promotes
resiliency and development throughout adverse situations (Mustanski, Birkett,
Greene, Hatzenbuehler, & Newcomb, 2014). "…Coming out…allows an individual
to integrate gay and straight lives, assert maturity, renegotiate power within family
relationships, and test the strength of blood ties" (Beeler & DiProva, 1999, p.444).
Thus, coming out for the LGBT persons is a probable cause of emotional stress, for
the individual as well as his or her family members. Despite the ongoing advances of
the rights of LGBT individuals, this population continues to remain oppressed in the
form of stigmatization, discrimination and rejection publicly as well as within their
own families.
Romantic relationship involvement is a milestone during one’s adolescence
and specifically in the development of emerging adulthood. According to Arnett
(2000), emerging adults are between the ages 18-25. Most young people at this age
would disagree that they have reached adulthood by this time; they see themselves
gradually making their way to adulthood. The term emerging captures the fluidity
and dynamic quality of this period (Arnett, 2000); this includes the LGBT
community. Prior research by Kurdeck (2005), points out the resemblance between
4
heterosexual and LGBT couples and what links the two groups. The variables that
are known to be relevant and similar in relationship development among heterosexual
and LGBT couples are: characteristics each person brings to the relationship (such as
personality traits), how each partner views the relationship (such as trust), how each
person behaves towards the other (such as communication and conflict resolution
styles) and finally their perceived level of support (such as encouragement from
family members and friends) (Kurdek, 2005). However, LGBT couples are affected
in a distinctive manner specifically pertaining to support from families and friends.
As stated previously, studies show that when individuals have supportive and
understanding parents, well-being and good health are evident throughout the
relationships.
As LGBT couples in the United States are increasingly being granted equal
opportunity, social workers will be expected to intervene and continue to assist this
population particularly in the area of family relationship development. However,
interestingly, a notable limitation of current knowledge is that most research
conducted on relationship development has been primarily around heterosexual
relationships (Ogolsky, Lloyd, & Cate, 2013). In order to assist the LGBT population
further, more research is needed to characterize relationship development of LGBT
couples in emerging adulthood, which would shed a light on areas where existing
relationship models need revision in order to reflect LGBT identity. The literature
shows that the LGBT community is still facing adversities, unfortunately amongst
their own families as well. It is understood that a crucial milestone in emerging
5
adulthood is developing romantic relationships. However, the literature shows that
conflict tends to arise at home when parents become aware of their child’s LGBT
status: this in turn could cause adverse reactions in the LGBT individual’s adult
relationships, specifically, within his or her romantic relationships. Considering the
multiple stressors that could arise for both the families as well as the LGBT couple,
more research is needed to characterize LGBT relationship development particularly
in emerging LGBT adults.
Statement of Purpose
The purpose of this study is to describe relationship development and
dynamics of LGBT emerging adults, ages 18-25, particularly, their experiences with
their parent’s reactions to their adult romantic relationships. This quantitative study
uses a 33-item survey to probe four areas when introducing their partner to their
parents for the first time: pre-introduction, during introduction, post introduction and
a general questions section. The study is be guided by three questions: What were the
most common pre-planning steps used to introduce one’s partner to the family? What
were the most prominent reactions/challenges during the introduction to family? After
the introduction of partner to parents, what were the successes/challenges coming
from the parents as well as society?
Based on the existing knowledge base, the assumption underpinning this study
is that the LGBT participants will likely experience more challenges than successes
due to their family’s reactions. Introducing one’s partner to his or her family may
cause a relapse of negative emotions, which in turn may cause stressors such as fear
6
of not being accepted, ousted from religion, depression, sadness, pressure,
abandonment, and or sadness.
Significance of the Study
This study is relevant to the social work profession and is imperative in order
to promote social justice specifically within the LGBT community. As with any
research, it is impossible to isolate all factors that may be important; however, this
study will heighten awareness of relationship dynamics in the LGBT community and
would yield results to provide a clearer picture of where the deficits are and where the
need is for services. Identifying how parents react to the introduction of one’s LGBT
partner is essential due to the fact that it could affect the dynamics of the parent-child
relationship. Research shows that peer support groups, access to resources, and
access to information could be vital in helping those LGBT individuals and their
family members (Davis, 2012). It is a critical area to explore, as it is fundamental for
developing interventions that support healthy parent adjustments and is imperative for
the family’s well-being, preservation, and as social workers, for a more culturally
competent and just practice. This research is essential in order to portray the
necessities among the LGBT individuals and their families so as to be better served in
both protective and treatment capacities.
The social worker’s role is to strive for justice and equality for all. The
current study has been developed in an effort to identify specific areas of need by
targeting relationship development amongst LGBT emerging adults and the families
outcomes, so that social workers are equipped with evidence based interventions of
7
where and what services are needed to best serve the LGBT population and their
families. In the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Code of Ethics
(2008), it is stated that social workers should promote and take part in research to
contribute to the growth of knowledge. This objective directly ties into the NASW
goal of cultural competence and social diversity. Social workers should obtain
education and seek to understand social diversity and oppression in regards to race,
ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression,
age, marital status, political belief, religion, immigration status, and mental or
physical disability. It is essential to the promotion of social justice that social
workers pursue knowledge so they may best serve the underserved in an effort to
strive for equality.
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Overview
The review of the literature consists of an examination of theoretical
frameworks, research findings, and knowledge gaps related to relationship
development and dynamics. Specifically, this chapter contains information on LGBT
emerging adults ages 18-25 and their experiences of introducing their partner to their
parents. The literature review focuses on three main issues. The first component of
the literature review addresses the relationship development and theories explaining
how LGBT emerging adults are developing relationships and theoretical
considerations of why relationship development may be challenging for this
population. The second section focuses on the relationship dynamics and the longterm psychological effects that exist with the coming out process and the introducing
of one’s partner to parents. The third section focuses on the research findings that
have been produced on studies on this particular population and explores the
experiences of LGBT adults introducing their partner to their parents and their
parent’s reactions. Due to the dearth of information on this topic, parallel literature
on successes and non-successes of heterosexual emerging adults is examined along
with the gaps in the literature related to this topic.
8
9
Theories and Relationship Development
The prominence of relationships is evident in the fact that it has been
addressed candidly in many developmental theories (Bowlby,1977; Erikson,1980;
Maag,2006). These theories often initiate primary relationships in the late
adolescence or in the early adulthood years (Starks, Newcomb, & Mustanski, 2013).
According to Erickson’s (1980), theory of psychosocial development, it is suggested
that intimacy is established and becomes the prominent developmental task as
individuals emerge from adolescence to emerging adults: ‘‘the capacity to commit
one self to concrete affiliations which may call for significant sacrifices and
compromises’’(p. 70). Yet, LGBT individuals challenge these dominant theories of
structures and processes. Unfortunately, there currently exist few theoretical models
for LGBT relationship development. Two (heterosexual) prominent models that have
been used to understand relationship development are Knapp’s model of relational
development (1978) and Levinger’s 5 stages of relationships (1980). These two
models are discussed here as a mechanism for connecting LGBT emerging adults and
the role that the introduction of partner to family (parents) plays in relationship
development.
Knapp (1978) views relationship development as a 10-step staircase process
broken into two phases that helps to understand how a relationship progresses (i.e.,
initiating, experimenting, intensifying, integrating and bonding) and deteriorates (i.e.,
terminating, avoiding, stagnating, circumscribing and differentiating)
(“Communication Theory,” n.d.). Each stage in the development process is
10
characterized by a unique phenomenon that acknowledges researchers to differentiate
between stages (Avtgis, West, & Anderson, 1998; Ayres, 1982; Dunleavy &
BoothButterfield, 2009; Shea & Pearson, 1986; Welch & Rubin, 2002; Wheeless,
Wheeless, & Baus, 1984; Wilmot & Baxter, 1983).
According to Communication Theory (n.d.), in Knapp’s relationship
escalation model, he suggests the first step is initiation; it occurs immediately upon
meeting someone and involves making favorable impressions; the physical
appearance plays a key role in impressing the other such as the clothing worn or
perfume used. Initiating is usually dictated by social norms and values for greeting
another person such as handshakes, introductions, and superficial topics dominate
initial conversation (Knapp & Vangelisti, 2009). This initiation process may be
different for a young LGBT youth, in the sense that the initiation process may be
delayed for the fear of shame, being judged or they are more likely to anticipate
rejection (Pachankis, Goldfried, & Ramrattan, 2008). Data also suggest that
experiences of rejection from peers are also common for sexual minority youth
(Starks, Newcomb, & Mustanski, 2014). According to a study done by Kosciw,
Greytak, Palmer, and Boesen (2013), close to 8000 sexual minority students in the US
between the ages of 13 and 21 were surveyed. They found that 74.1% reported verbal
harassment, 36.2% reported physical harassment, 16.5% reported physical assault,
and 55.5% felt unsafe at school because of their sexual orientation. This lack of
encouragement and support may increase social isolation and reinforce existing
negative self-image (Rosario, Schrimshaw, & Hunter, 2009). This would occur in a
11
manner that increases the likelihood of developing insecure relationships and
decreases the likelihood of encountering social interactions that would challenge
these expectancies (Starks, Newcomb, & Mustanski, 2014).
The next stage, experimentation, focuses on exploring and getting to know
one another. In this stage, each one will analyze the other in order to decide whether
to maintain a relationship amongst them. In this specific stage, LGBT youth may
have similar experiences to their heterosexual peers. The relationship intensifies and
becomes less formal in the intensifying stage. Personal information is exchanged and
ways to nurture the relationship and form attachment such as gift giving, asking the
other out on dates and expecting a commitment will be assumed. This stage for
LGBT youth may not have a drastic difference; on the contrary, it may be similar to
heterosexual youths’ experiences—depending on each LGBT individual and his or
her life experiences. According to Starks, Newcomb, and Mustanski (2014), based on
the assumptions of attachment theory, one would hypothesize that secure attachment
to parents increases the likelihood of secure attachments to peers. In turn, these
healthy interactions with peers further inform and shape behavior in successive
romantic relationships such that youth with more secure peer and parental
attachments establish higher quality romantic relationships.
The integration stage is when the level of intimacy progresses and each will
make the relationship much more personal. This is the stage where the introduction
of one’s partner to parents occurs and the relationship is made official. This stage
may be delayed for LGBT youth as they first have to experience coming out to their
12
parents, unlike heterosexual youth who do not have to go through this phase.
Consequently, heterosexual youth may go through this phase much smoother and
quicker than LGBT youth.
Less is known about LGBT adults introducing their partner to their parents in
research and little to no studies have examined the role of parent–child connectedness
and sexual or dating history among sexual minority youth (Bouris et al., 2010).
However, there is a great deal of advice and recommendations on websites and blogs
for sexual minority on this topic--all of the advice seems to be consistent. According
to the NYACyouth website (n.d.), introducing a same sex partner to one’s family can
be one of the most stressful times after the coming out event. The website presents
the importance of discussing one’s sexuality with their family prior to introducing his
or her partner--as getting parents comfortable with one’s sexual orientation could
make the introduction go much smoother. Additionally, planning when, where and
how one plans to introduce his or her partner to one’s parents is a vital strategy. If the
family reacted with anger during the coming out event or is uncomfortable with one’s
sexual orientation, the website recommends introducing one’s partner at a restaurant
so that it is a neutral territory and would also force one to be on his or her best
behavior in a public setting. If the coming out event went well, the recommendation
is to invite one’s partner home for dinner, which would give the parents and the
partner more time to get to know each other. In order to make the integration process
go smoother and be less stressful, these strategies are recommended by various
sources for LGBT emerging adults.
13
If the introduction is successful and both parties decide to move forward, they
progress to the next stage, which is bonding. The bonding stage is where the
relationship is recognized and usually partners will honor their commitment legally.
In Knapp’s (1978) relationship termination model, he suggests that when a
relationship progresses, there will be misunderstandings and conflicts and the
relationship might fail to persist. Similar to the escalation model, his coming apart
model has 5 stages. Knapp conceptualizes his model as needing to be done one step
at a time so that the process could be more effective.
According to Levinger’s ABCDE model (Levinger, 1980), there are 5 stages
of a relationship and they are all interconnected and effect how or if you make it to
the next stage, whether it is a friend, lover or family member. He proposed that
people get attracted to each other and through bonding build a relationship, increased
interdependence and the assessment of partner suitability, continue to deepen the
commitment process, or deteriorate and end (Macapagal, Greene, Rivera, &
Mustanski, 2015). To date, little to no studies have examined relationship
developmental pathways among sexual minority individuals. Therefore, as some of
these heterosexual stages may be similar to what LGBT youth may experience, they
may also very well vary. Emerging adulthood is a time when many directions in life
seem possible to explore, especially in love, work and worldviews (Arnett, 2000).
While LGBT emerging adults continue to develop their gender or sexual identities
during the crucial years of 18-25, they may encounter these relational experiences
such as introducing partner to parents, getting married and starting a family. LGBT
14
individuals and their families challenge these dominant theories of family structure
and processes. Inopportunely, studies that describe LGBT couples’ relationship
development are very limited (Macapagal, Greene, Rivera, & Mustanski, 2015).
Both theories discuss and describe relationship structure and processes and
identify key assumptions within heterosexual relationships. LGBT relationships and
families provide a prolific testing ground for family theories, posing stimulating and
interesting challenges to these theories. It is imperative to pose and examine how
well these existing theories and frameworks explain relationship development and
functioning in diverse relationships such as LGBT families. In order to incorporate
the existing challenges of diverse LGBT relationships, it is crucial to identify
important assumptions and biases within these theories and examine whether they can
be expanded or revised to fit the needs of LGBT relationships.
It is important to understand relationship development from a variety of
standpoints; what it is that 18-25 year olds are expected to experience and what they
are supposed to be going through in terms of developing relationships and the
obstacles being encountered along the way? Existing models on developing
relationships, however, focus largely on heterosexual adults’ experiences and
overlooks young LGBT couple’s relationship development and how it impacts
relationship progression (Macapagal, Greene, Rivera, & Mustanski, 2015).
According to Arnett (2000), emerging adulthood is a critical transition period in
which many young people grow independent from their families; however, they have
not completely adapted to the adult role settings and responsibilities. They may
15
encounter various stressors such as going to college, getting a job, forming identities,
in addition to moving away from home. In the absence of relationship models for
sexual and gender minorities, LGBT emerging adults may continue to form their
identities and model their partnerships after heterosexual relationships (Macapagal,
Greene, Rivera, & Mustanski, 2015). Although these models have been deemed as
positive ones, they may be limited in being able to guide LGBT emerging adults,
especially when their relationships shift from the norm and are not represented in the
heterosexual models.
Theories of Relationship Dynamics
Most LGBT youth report that they want strong family relationships (Goldfried
& Goldfried, 2001; Savin-Williams, 1989, 1996), and that a major reason for coming
out to parents is the desire for heightened closeness (Savin-Williams, 2001).
Unfortunately, when LGBT youth come out to their parents, most parents react with a
sense of panic, sadness, and a feeling of loss (Saltzburg, 2004); fear for the child’s
safety (Beeler & DiProva, 1999) and introspection and personal growth (Boxer,
Cook, & Herdt, 1991). Saltzberg (2004) reported that while some withdraw for a
time from their parental roles, others are able to move towards supporting their LGBT
children and become activists for gay rights (Vernaglia, 2000). Beeler and DiProva
(1999) described it as, “acceptance and integration are, perhaps, not an end point but,
in an important way, a beginning point” (p. 454).
Initially, the prevailing responses from parents whose child had just come out
to them were emotionally focused: shock, denial, anxiety, anger, and confusion were
16
the notable interpersonal responses (Phillips & Ancis, 2008). Consequently, research
has exhibited that, for both youth and their parents, the parental reaction to the child
coming out is a critical component of their post-disclosure relationship (Ben-Ari,
1995).
In a society that continues to stigmatize people for not being heterosexual, it is
important to support LGBT individuals in every way possible. Recognizing the
devastating effects that parental non-acceptance and rejection can have on the
psychological well being of an LGBT individual is crucial. According to Goldfried
and Goldfried (2001), parental acceptance and support play an important role in
furthering the psychological well being of LGBT individuals. After coming out to
parents, the next significantly stressful event as noted by many sources is introducing
one’s partner to his or her parent’s. Depending on how smooth the coming out
process was, the introduction of the partner to parent could go either way; loss of
family support or a strong and continuously supportive family.
Despite the current important advances occurring in the LGBT community,
they nonetheless continue to represent a stigmatized segment of our society—both
inside and outside the home. According Goldfried and Goldfried (2008), surveys
have shown that one of every three LGBT youth experiences verbal abuse from
family members. It is the easier route, however, to point fingers at parents and be
mad at them for rejecting their LGBT children. When one thinks of the social stigma
around LGBT youth and the broader message that is being sent, it is not surprising
that the parents would react the way they do when a child comes out to them or
17
confirms they are in fact LGBT when they introduce their partner to them. It is
important to comprehend the reasons behind the anger, feelings of guilt, the fear for
the child’s welfare and the loss of the joys of life such as marriage and children
(Goldfried & Goldfried, 2008).
Conversely, those with what Bauer and McAdams (2004) call an integrative
style seemed to use more cognitive adaptive strategies. The hallmark of the
integrative style is the ability to think in complex ways about oneself and one’s
interactions with others (Bauer & McAdams, 2004). According to Phillips and Ancis
(2008), several integrative parents reported that negotiating relationship issues with
the child was an important milestone. As an example in their study (2008), one set of
parents knew that they had reached a turning point when they were able to welcome
their son’s boyfriend into their home, and the parents became aware that nothing in
the gay culture seemed unusual or odd any longer. Phillips and Ancis (2008) found
that the turning point for the mother was when she had reached the point of being able
to laugh about the issue of her son’s sexual orientation. Savin-Williams (1989)
discovered that self-esteem among lesbians was positively related to having a
satisfactory relationship with their mother and among gay men, self-esteem was
associated with a positive relationship with both their mother and their father.
It appears hard to not consider the psychological well being of LGBT
individuals without addressing the social stigmatization to which they have been
subjected. Although there has been a greater societal acceptance of sexual minorities,
clearly more needs to be done. As minorities, they also are somewhat unique in that
18
they represent a marginalized segment of our society whose parents do not share their
minority status (Goldfried & Goldfried, 2001). Subsequently, they are antagonized
with the additional challenge of not only being stigmatized by the broader society, but
also the prospect of being a castaway in their own homes.
Research Findings
The knowledge base for relationship development in emerging adults is
largely based on heterosexuals (Ogolsky, Lloyd, & Cate, 2013) and most studies on
relationship research on minorities have focused on negative outcomes of
relationships such as HIV infection (Macapagal, Greene, Rivera, & Mustanski, 2015).
Existing research on these models largely represent heterosexuals adults’ experiences
and overlooks how sexual minorities’ developmental stage impact relationship
progression (Macapagal, Greene, Rivera, & Mustanski, 2015). Contrary to popular
belief, research has shown in relation to heterosexual couples, same-sex couples tend
to resolve conflict constructively and assign fair distributions of household chores,
while receiving less support from family and more from friends (Kurdeck, 2005).
Despite these trials, LGBT couples overcoming difficulties together appeared to
strengthen relationships, a finding consistent with adult same-sex couples (Frost,
2011).
Though there are similarities between heterosexual and LGBT couples
(Kurdek, 2005; Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007), the latter are in a distinctive situation that
could influence their relationship development. Parallel to these developmental tasks,
LGBT emerging adults may continue to form their sexual identities in the absence of
19
relationship scripts for sexual minorities and may model their first partnerships after
heterosexual relationships (Klinkenberg & Rose, 1994; Patterson, Ward, & Brown,
2013). Although these models may be positive ones, they are limited in their ability
to guide LGBT emerging adults when their relationships diverge from or are not
represented in heterosexual scripts. For example, LGBT individuals may encounter
lawful, social, or real-world barriers to demonstrating relationship seriousness such as
disclosing their relationship to family and or marriage. It is unclear how young
LGBT couples maneuver through these relational events, as past research has either
focused on adults (Kurdek, 1996; Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007) or younger adolescents
(Diamond et al., 1999; Savin-Williams, 1996), and only recently have studies
investigated couples in emerging adulthood (Macapagal, Greene, Rivera, &
Mustanski, 2015).
Research around relationship development in sexual minorities, specifically in
introducing their partner to their parents remains inadequate. There is not a whole lot
of information on this topic; however, from what is known from various websites and
blogs, LGBT individuals introducing their partner to their parents could be an
extremely stressful time especially if the parents did not receive the coming out
process adequately. Through traditional heterosexual’s introductions of partners in
emerging adulthood, we know that introductions of partners to parents could be much
easier and smoother for heterosexuals than for LGBT individuals. The only article
that was found that referred to LGBT emerging adults introducing their partner to
parents was, “The Best Is Always Yet to Come”: Relationship Stages and Processes
20
Among Young LGBT Couples by Macapagal, Greene, Rivera, and Mustanski (2015).
In the article, the only mention of LGBT couples introducing their partner to their
parents was that most lesbian couples described this milestone more often than gay
couples (65% vs. 35% of excerpts), perhaps reflecting group differences in
commitment (Macapagal, Greene, Rivera, & Mustanski, 2015). Both lesbian and gay
couples discussed this similarly in the sense that the introduction was as stressful and
marked by disapproval from one or both partner’s families (Macapagal, Greene,
Rivera, & Mustanski, 2015). In this particular article (2015), family stressors were
discussed more often by lesbian couples than gay couples (65% vs. 35%); yet, both
parties described similar occurrences with difficulty in getting along with family
members, being responsible for a family member such as caretaking, or family
disapproval of the LGBT individuals identity or relationship. Consequently, these
stressors led LGBT couples to live together early on in their relationship while others
moved in with their partners families due to their own parents disapproving of their
sexual identity and their partner (Macapagal, Greene, Rivera, & Mustanski, 2015).
The article by Macapagal et al., (2015) found that, consistent with stage
models of heterosexual relationship development (Levinger, 1980), couples described
progressing toward more serious phases of their relationships that involved evident
gestures of commitment such as engagement. What was not included in these stage
models were factors that moderated relationship development. The study discovered
that the LGBT couples’ experiences of these stages were much more impacted by
their sexual minority identity (Macapagal, Greene, Rivera, & Mustanski, 2015). For
21
example, during relationship initiation, LGBT individuals met frequently through
LGBT social networks, which needed them to be out about their LGBT status on the
social network. In comparison, heterosexual emerging adults typically do not have to
come out, to determine a prospective partner’s sexual identity or seek out specific
heterosexual identified social networks to find partners (Eyre et al., 2007). Therefore,
initiating relationships might pose additional obstacles and risks for LGBT emerging
adults.
Macapagal et al., (2015) discovered that in contrast with previous research,
differences related to LGBT identity were especially pronounced during the
relationship negotiation, cohabitation and commitment stages. For gay couples,
relationship agreement discussions were a significant step; they are not typically
represented in heterosexual relationship developmental models. This discussion
could possibly reflect differing levels of HIV risk (Sullivan et al., 2009) and norms
concerning monogamy among heterosexual and gay couples (Peplau & Fingerhut,
2007). An issue that was previously not described in relationship development
literature was that although cohabitation tended to occur out of necessity and when
couples are not ready for heterosexual emerging adults (Stanley, Rhoades, &
Fincham, 2011), lack of family support of one’s sexual or gender identity potentiated
this reason for cohabitation among LGBT couples (Macapagal, Greene, Rivera, &
Mustanski, 2015).
Amongst the challenges discovered in the study done by Macapagal et al.,
(2015), LGBT individuals’ sexual identity posed certain trials to couples’
22
commitment milestones. For example, the desire for LGBT couples to have children
was similar to heterosexual couples. Participants in the study done by Macapagal et
al., (2015) described plans to form families through adoption and medically assisted
reproductive technologies; these are avenues often viewed as alternative methods
among heterosexuals. They also found that seeking family support for one’s
relationship can reflect increased commitment, participants described concealing their
relationships from family who disapproved of their LGBT partnerships (Solomon,
Rothblum, & Balsam, 2004).
More research is needed to characterize relationship development of LGBT
couples in emerging adulthood, which would shed light on areas where current
relationship models need revision to reflect LGBT identity, developmental stage, and
demographic factors. As LGBT couples in the United States are increasingly being
granted legal rights to form families, research is needed to help set the stage for
programs that promote their relationship, family and mental health.
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Overview
The purpose of this study is to describe relationship development and
dynamics of LGBT emerging adults ages 18-25. The descriptive study examines
LGBT parent’s reactions to being introduced to their adult child’s romantic partner
for the first time. The study is guided by the following questions: What are the most
common pre-planning steps used to introduce one’s partner to the family? What are
the most prominent reactions/challenges during the introduction to family? and, after
the introduction of partner to parents, what are the successes/challenges coming from
the parents as well as society?
In emerging adulthood, introducing one’s partner to his or her family may
cause anxiety and stress that may result in a relapse of undesirable emotions. Based
on existing research, LGBT individuals experience more stressors than successes
when disclosing their sexual identity or romantic relationships to their families
(D’Augelli & Hershberger, 1993; D’Augelli, Hershberger, & Pilkington, 1998).
Therefore, the hypothesis supporting this study is that the LGBT participants will
experience more stressors than successes due to their family’s reactions.
Research Design and Sampling Plan
This study uses a descriptive quantitative research design. According to
Rubin and Babbie (2008), a quantitative design emphasizes the production of precise
23
24
and generalizable statistical findings. Description typically refers to the
characteristics of a population that is based on quantitative data obtained from a
sample of people. In order to answer the research questions in this quantitative study,
a traditional survey design was utilized. A traditional survey design is a quantitative
study that allows the researcher to take the measurement of the variable in question at
one point in time. The variable under study is parent’s reactions: parent’s reactions
are examined in terms of, prior to the introduction, during the introduction and after
the introduction of one’s partner.
In order to be a participant in this study, there were three sampling criteria.
First, the participant needs to self identify as being from the LGBT community;
second, the participant needs to be between the ages of 18-25; and lastly, the
participant needs to have introduced one’s partner to his or her parents. In order to
gain access to participants, the survey was sent to the Stockton pride center and other
various pride centers and it was disseminated to people who they believed fit this
criteria. The survey was also uploaded to the various centers websites and social
media.
Instrumentation
The tool for this study, a survey, was developed by the researcher. The tool
has five sections; the first three sections of the survey examine before, during, and
after the introduction of one’s partner to his or her parents respectively; the fourth
section assesses general questions regarding the participant’s relationship; and the
final section is demographic questions. The 33-item survey uses likert type scales to
25
evaluate and focus on parents’ reactions. It may have taken participants
approximately 8-15 minutes to complete the online survey.
The reason it was developed by the researcher was due to the lack of
information available on the topic. Information was drawn from multiple studies.
Macapagal, Greene, Rivera and Mustanski (2015)’s study, ‘The best is yet to come’:
Relationship Stages and Processes Among Young LGBT Couples was the inspiration
for this study. They indicated that qualitative analyses were similar to past research
on heterosexuals such as relationship stages and processes; however, participants’
subjective experiences reflected their LGBT identities and milestones, which
employed additional stress on the relationship. A number of research studies
(Ogolsky, Lloyd, & Cate, 2013; Beeler & DiProva, 1999; Henderson, 1998) were
used in the crafting of the first, second and third sections of the tool. Arnett (2000),
The Theory Around Development in Emerging Adulthood was used in crafting
questions that related to most of the survey, specifically in the general questions
section.
Data Collection
In order to collect data, an electronic survey was utilized. Participants had
two ways in which they could participate. In the first step, a mass survey was sent
out to e-mail addresses chosen by the various pride centers to whom they believed fit
the criteria. In the second step, the survey was posted on the various pride centers’
websites and other online forums so people visiting the websites could take the
survey.
26
Survey monkey was the platform that disseminated the surveys. Participants
were expected to take the surveys individually, be self-administered, and submitted
online. The survey was open for six weeks. Three e-mail reminders were sent out by
the researcher to the various pride centers, who in turn, sent out e-mails and
reminders to the prospective participants. The first e-mail reminder went out in the
first week. The second reminder e-mail went out two weeks later and the third
reminder e-mail went out a week before the survey closed. The rationale for sending
out e-mails was in the hopes that it would increase the sample size. The rationale for
keeping it open for six weeks was to try and get a large enough sample for the study.
A descriptive quantitative research design with a traditional survey was
chosen for the purpose of this study due to its ease of obtaining a snapshot of the
measurable variables through the quantitative tool. The advantage of using an online
survey was that it could be quickly and inexpensively sent out to a large number of
respondents around the world; however, the limitation is the representativeness of the
respondents (Rubin and Babbie, 2008, p. 397).
Plan for Data Analysis
This study focuses on a quantitative data analysis approach and uses
univariate analysis to explore the data. The intention was also to conduct bivariate
analysis; however, due to the sample size being small, bivariate analysis was not
used. Univariate analysis such as frequency distributions, measures of central
tendencies, and measure of dispersions assist in looking into each chosen variable
individually as well as how the sample responded to these domains.
27
Protection of Human Subjects
As a part of the survey there was an informed consent statement that
participants were expected to complete. The informed consent provided an
understanding of the risks and benefits of the study as well as obtained permission
from the participant prior to conducting the survey. Participants were made aware
that their participation was entirely voluntary. Potential harm that may arise from
participating in the survey was addressed in the informed consent. Participants were
informed that if any stress should arise during the completion of the survey,
information would be provided that would link them to services if needed. Most
importantly, participants were informed that all data collected would be protected
from any inappropriate disclosure and that their names would not be linked to the
answers they provided. Participants were informed about confidentiality and made
aware that their names and any other identifying information would not be used in the
reporting of the results.
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Overview of the Chapter
This chapter is organized around five components. The first part of this
chapter looks at the demographic characteristics of the sample. It provides an insight
as to who participated in the study and participants’ background information such as
gender, ethnicity and age. This information is presented in order to contextualize the
information and findings. The second part of the chapter looks at the results related
to pre-introduction. This section looks at the steps taken prior to the introduction of
partner to parents and presents the participant’s responses. The third part looks at the
results related to experiences with the introduction of the partner to parents. This
section focuses on the participant’s experiences when they were introducing their
partner to their parents and their parent’s reactions. The fourth section focuses on the
post introduction. In this section the participants responded to questions that were
related to after introducing their partner to their parents. The fifth and final segment
is the general questions section where the participants were asked about the stressors
within and outside of their relationship related to emerging adulthood.
Overview of the Sample
Twenty-five participants were surveyed using an electronic survey. They
were recruited through the San Joaquin County pride center, social media sites, wordof-mouth and flyers through various other pride centers. Of those twenty five
28
29
participants, the age distribution was 18-54 years old. This study was intended to
focus on emerging adults; however, participants within the anticipated age as well as
outside of this age distribution contributed to the answers. Due to the shortage of
participation and receiving twenty-five responses, this chapter shares the findings of
all twenty-five participants since the time was taken to complete the survey. The
participants outside of the anticipated age range reflected back to the time they were
emerging adults when completing the survey. Of the participants in the study, twelve
were ages 18-25, six were 26 years and above, and seven skipped answering their
age. As seen in Table 1, more than half (52.63%) of the participants were Caucasian,
42.11% were Latino or Hispanic, 5.26% participants specified as ‘other’ (Middle
Eastern). The percentage of male participants was 31.58% and female participants
was 63.18% and the percentage of “other” participants was 5.26%, who specified as
Agender Assigned Female at Birth (AFAB).
Table 1
Participants’ Racial or Ethnic Group
Answer Choices
Responses
Caucasian
52.63%
Latino or Hispanic
42.11%
Other
5.26%
African American
0.00%
Native American
0.00%
Asian
0.00%
30
Pre-Introduction
There were ten questions that were addressed in order to examine the
participants’ experiences prior to introducing their partner to their parents. These
questions probed a variety of areas. As seen in Table 2, more than half (54.55%) of
the participants introduced their partner to their parents in their 1st relationship, 4.55%
introduced their partner in their 2nd relationship, 18.18% introduced their partner in
the 3rd relationship, 9.09% introduced their partner in the 4th relationship and 13.64%
stated ‘other relationship’. Three quarters of the participants (77.27%) were in the
relationship for less than a year before introducing their partner to their parents,
18.18% introduced their partner between 1-3 years of being in a relationship and
4.55% introduced their partner to their parents after 3 years of being in the
relationship. Around 77% of participants answered that they were extremely or very
committed in this relationship, while 22.73% were somewhat committed.
Emphasizing his or her partner’s good points (70.83%) was the most reported method
used to influence their parents about their partner. The next popular method was
emphasizing good points about the relationship (45.83%) followed by talking about
what they do on dates and where they go (33.33%).
Most participants (50%) were ready to introduce their partner to their parents
when their partner indicated they were ready to do so. Just over 80% reported that
they were ready to introduce their partner to their parents according to their maturity
levels and when their parents were accepting of their LGBT identity and relationship.
31
More than a quarter of the participants (27.27%) indicated they were ready to
introduce their partner when their family inquired about their partner in a positive
manner and 22.73% specified “other”. Some of the ‘other’ answers that indicated it
was safe to introduce their partner to family were, ‘Impulse/intuition’, ‘hearing them
discuss LGBTQ related news in a positive manner’ and ‘I was so committed to the
relationship, I didn’t care what my parents thought…’ Most participants felt more
ready to introduce their partner to their female parent (73%) rather than their male
parent (45%).
Table 2
When Did You Introduce Partner to Parent (s) for the First Time
Answer Choices
Responses
1st Relationship
54.55%
2nd Relationship
4.55%
3rd Relationship
18.18%
4th Relationship
9.09%
Other
13.64%
During Introduction
These questions were designed to look at parents’ reactions when introducing
their partner to them for the first time. There were ten questions used in this section.
Half of the participants (50%) reported that their biological male parent was very
accepting or somewhat accepting, while 85% reported that their biological female
32
parent was very accepting or somewhat accepting of their partner. Both the
individual (80%) and partner (78.95%) felt they were most comfortable with their
partner’s biological female parent, especially due to that family member being more
accepting and open towards the partner (58.82%) and the individual (57.89%). More
than 35% stated that having met that family member prior and due to the family
member being the same sex as the couple also made it more comfortable with that
parent. A little over half (52.94%) of the partners reported that they were either
extremely happy or happy upon seeing their partner’s biological father’s reaction, and
73.69% reported the same emotion in seeing their partner’s biological female parent’s
reaction. Over half (55%) of the participants reported they weren’t affectionate at all
with each other during the introduction. While 25% reported they held hands
throughout or when no one was around, 10% reported they showed affection towards
each other all the time, and 10% specified “other.”
33
Table 3
How Did You Interact With Your Partner While Meeting Your Parent(s)
Answer Choices
Responses
We were not affectionate at all
55%
We held hands throughout
15%
We held hands when no one was around
10%
We showed affection towards each other
10%
all the time
Other
10%
I didn’t sit next to my partner
0.00%
I ignored my partner
0.00%
Post Introduction
This section comprised of five questions in total. The questions explored the
dynamics of the couple’s relationship after meeting his or her partner’s parents for the
first time. More than half (70%) of the participants reported they talked normally like
other times with each other after the encounter with their parents, 20% reported they
talked more than other times, while 10% specified “other” and reported they argued a
lot after the encounter. Fewer than half (45%) described the encounter with their
parents as being extremely successful, while many also (50%) reported the encounter
was successful and somewhat successful. A small sample (5%) reported it wasn’t
successful at all. In order for the transition to go smoothly, 26.67% of participants
34
reported they should have talked to their family about their partner in advance. A
little over half (53.34%) reported that they should have told their family how much
they care about their partner and been affectionate with their partner in order to show
them how much they love each other. A third of the sample (33.33%) reported they
should have taken ‘other’ steps to prove their love to their family. An
overwhelmingly large percentage (84.21%) reported that after meeting their partner,
their parents were more concerned about their partner in a positive way and more than
half (57.89%) of the participants reported that their parents routinely asked about
future plans with partner.
Table 4 shows that parents’ responses were much more positive than negative
after having met their child’s LGBT partner for the first time. While the introduction
was positive and most participants seemed to have had encouraging experiences,
there were some interesting discoveries. The findings suggest that 30% of
participant’s parents nicknamed their partner something strange and asked what they
see in their partner. And, 25% of the parents told their children that their partner was
not right for them and talked about other people they could date. These are some
indications that even though the majority of the participants’ meetings were
successful, there were still some families that had mixed reactions.
35
Table 4
After Meeting Your Partner, Did Your Parent(s)
Yes
No
Talk about other people I could date?
25%
75%
Ask me what I see in my partner?
30%
70%
Nickname my partner something strange?
30%
70%
Tell me to wait until I’m older to date someone else?
10.53%
89.47%
Not talk to my partner when he/she comes around?
15.79%
84.21%
Leave the room when my partner is around?
15%
85%
Tell me my partner isn’t right for me?
25%
75%
Attempt to fix me up on other dates?
10%
90%
General Questions
There were six questions addressed in this section. This section explored the
possible general stressors that may occur within the relationship. Table 5 shows that
everyone who answered the question, turned to their friends rather than family
members for relationship advice. Jobs and families were among the main outside
stressors weighing on the LGBT relationship, reported by 77.78% of the participants.
A little less than one fifth (16.09%) of the participants reported that society and
friends weighed as a stressor on their relationship. Table 6 represents the stressors
that contribute within the relationship. More than half (68.42%) reported the major
36
stressor is disagreements, while 36.84% reported needing more space and 26.32%
reported jealousy.
Table 5
Who Do You Turn to For Relationship Advice
Answer Choices
Friends
Responses
100%
Biological female parent
31.58%
Sibling
26.32%
Counselor
10.53%
Other
5.26%
Biological male parent
0.00%
Non biological male parent
0.00%
Non biological female parent
0.00%
As seen in Table 7, overwhelmingly the most significant challenges faced by
emerging adults was dealing with their financial issues (78.95%) and their identity
(78.95%). More than half (68.42%) reported their living situation to be challenging,
63.16% reported starting college was a challenge and 57.89% reported they were
questioning their careers. Fewer than half (42.11%) stated that their partner being at a
different stage of development was challenging.
37
Table 6
What Are Some Stressors That Come From Within the Relationship
Answer Choices
Responses
Disagreements
68.42%
Needing space
36.84%
Other
31.58%
Jealousy
26.32%
Children
10.53%
Infidelity
5.26%
Constant breakups
0.00%
Participants reported that, if the introduction of their partner to their parents
wasn’t successful, the stressors that were on their relationship that were from their
parents were mainly from parental rejection of the relationship (55.56%) and parents
not accepting their LGBT identity (55.56%). Less than a quarter of participants
(22.22%) reported cultural differences was also a stressor, along with 33.33%
reporting that partner’s socioeconomic status (SES) and having responsibility of
taking care of a family member was a stressor. More than 70% responded as being
unable to shift their parent’s perspective of their LGBT relationship status.
38
Table 7
What Are Some Challenges You Have Faced in Emerging Adulthood
Answer Choices
Responses
Finances
78.95%
Identity
78.95%
Living situation
68.42%
Starting college
63.16%
Career questioning
57.89%
Debt
47.37%
Partner being at a different stage of
42.11%
Development
Other
5.26%
However, as seen in Table 8, 29.41% reported they would continue to bring
their partner around their family, and 23.53% reported that it would help to be more
open and confident about their LGBT identity, while 17.65% reported it would help
to attend LGBT events with family members.
39
Table 8
What to Do to Shift Your Parent(s) Perspective of Your Relationship
Answer Choices
Responses
Nothing
70.59%
Continue to bring my partner around my
29.41%
family
Be more open and confident about my
23.53%
LGBT identity
Attend LGBT events with my family
17.65%
Attend family counseling
0.00%
Attend individual counseling
0.00%
Other
0.00%
This study looked at four areas: pre introduction of partner to parents, during
introduction of partner to parents, post-introduction of partner to parents and general
questions regarding the relationship. The intention of this study was to find out: what
were the most common pre-planning steps used to introduce one’s partner to the
family? What were the most prominent reactions/challenges during the introduction
to family? and, after the introduction of partner to parents, what were the
successes/challenges coming from the parents as well as society?
The results revealed that a great number of LGBT individuals introduced their
partners to their parents in their first relationship, and during the introduction, most
40
participants felt comfortable with their female biological parent than any other. In
this study, the female biological parent was also rated as the most accepting parent.
The major strategy of pre planning the meeting was to emphasize his or her partner’s
good points to his or her parents. One of the biggest challenges coming from their
parents as well as during emerging adulthood was possible rejection of the
relationship and their LGBT identity. In analyzing the general questions, it is
demonstrated that this LGBT population not only faces stressors related to
introducing their partner to their parents, but are also dealing with life’s challenges in
emerging adulthood such as finances and their identities. However, contrary to
popular belief, the observation was that most participants received a positive response
from their parents when introducing their partner to them for the first time.
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
In this chapter, the results of the study are interpreted and discussed.
Additionally, the results are compared to the existing knowledge base and other
research studies. The chapter includes four sections. The first section identifies the
major findings and relates the major findings to the literature. The second section of
the study looks at the clinical implications for these findings. The third section looks
at the limitations of the study, and the fourth and final section identifies future
research issues.
Major Findings & Previous Research
There were five major findings to this study. The first major finding
suggested that most participants introduced their partner to their parents during their
first relationship. Unfortunately, there appears to be no previous research that has
explored this issue; therefore, the findings have limited prior research to be compared
to. This may suggest, however, that it might be an area of focus that needs to be
further explored. Concurrent with other major studies the second major result found
that more participants were more comfortable with their female biological parent than
any other parent. This is similar to what Lasala (2010) discussed about closeness
between a mother and a child in comparison to fathers, and that mothers typically
have an advantage whereby they usually interact more with their children. In turn,
this allows them to form closer and stronger bonds with their child regardless of their
41
42
child’s sexual identity. The third major finding was that in emerging adulthood, the
main stressor coming from the outside was their job and family. The fourth major
result suggested that the biggest challenges faced in emerging adulthood were dealing
with their LGBT identity and finances. These findings remain consistent with other
studies. Erickson (1950) theorized that identity versus role confusion occurs during
the adolescent years in life—in the years later, this theorist believed that
industrialized societies allow a prolonged adolescence for extended identity
explorations. And according to Arnett (2000) it is during the ages of 18-25 in
emerging adulthood when most identity exploration takes place. Arnett (2000) also
reported that one of the main characteristics that matter most to emerging adults in
their subjective sense of attaining adulthood is becoming more financially
independent. The fifth and most important finding of this study was that majority of
participants had a positive experience when introducing their partner to their families.
Unfortunately, there remains a dearth of research on introducing one’s LGBT partner
to their parents; therefore, this suggests that research around this topic is needed.
Limitations
There were several limitations to this study. Firstly, the study was designed to
focus specifically on LGBT emerging adults; this made the study more challenging
due to its limited focus. The limitation was that people outside of emerging
adulthood participated; however, the design of the study had its advantage of being
able to capture the richness and depth of the participants’ experiences.
43
Another major limitation of this study was that it had a small sample size.
The anticipated outcome of participants was less than expected; therefore, this was an
issue that didn’t permit grasping how many people were affected by the issues
discussed in this study. For instance, one of the main findings was that this group had
no problem introducing their partner to their family. The results may have been
different had there been a larger sample. Due to the limited size, findings from this
study must be viewed with caution.
Clinical Implications
The findings of this study perhaps may be valuable for social workers and
researchers who work specifically with LGBT emerging adults. However, based on
the limitations of this study, it is imperative to be cautious with implications for
practice due to the small sample size. Based on what was found in this study, there
are some conceivable insights. For instance, there were 25 people in the study who
talked about the successes they had with the introduction of their partner to their
parents. The results of this study might suggest that through the use of the strengths
perspective, social workers may perhaps learn from LGBT emerging adults what
worked for them during their experiences. This approach may be deemed beneficial
when working with an LGBT client who is going through hardships. The direct
practitioner could then potentially implement and apply the learned information to an
apprehensive LGBT client. Hence, the potential practice implication is that when
there is an identified LGBT individual who has had success through their hardships,
applying the strengths perspective, the direct practitioner should attempt to learn from
44
that individual, what worked, so that the information could be passed on to others
who are going through similar adversities.
A potential clinical implication could be to develop programs that are
specifically targeted towards LGBT emerging adults and their families. The current
study was developed in order to identify specific areas of need by targeting
relationship development amongst LGBT emerging adults and their family dynamics.
Therefore, with continued research, social workers could be better equipped with
evidence based interventions of where and what services are needed to best serve the
LGBT population and their families and for policy implications for this population.
Future Research
This study found several areas for potential research. However, this study was
faced with multiple barriers, one, for instance, was sample size. Despite the best
efforts of attempting to recruit LGBT emerging adult participants for the survey, there
were several limitations. This study was unable to obtain a large enough sample;
therefore research with larger samples is needed in order to generalize the findings.
A strategy for obtaining more participants perhaps may be to connect with college
communities and organizations that have already established LGBT groups. This
may be an advantageous method as most college students are in the emerging adult
years of 18-25. In order to further understand and implement programs for LGBT
emerging adults, further studies with larger samples should continue to focus on
LGBT emerging adults, as there is very limited research in this particular area.
45
Additionally, another implication for further research is that there was clearly
a desire for people outside of this age group of emerging adults that wanted to tell
their story. This area of focus needs to be opened up for further research in order to
learn more about that specific population and what their needs are. People seem to
want to talk more about their experiences therefore, research on a wider age range
should be explored in order to obtain more insight.
After examining the literature thoroughly, it was found that this was the first
study of its nature—there is a dearth of literature around this topic. The closest study
was one done by Macapagal, Greene, Rivera and Mustanski (2015), The best is yet to
come’: Relationship Stages and Processes Among Young LGBT Couples. There is a
plethora of literature on the ‘coming out’ process and the research seems to have
stopped there. It is important to not only study the coming out process, but to also
follow these adolescences into their emerging adulthood as they encounter multiple
stressors from the outside world such as dealing with finances, identities and more.
And, in order to provide services to the LGBT emerging adult population, social work
practitioners need more information and studies such as these. If research fails to
follow through, it is likely that social work practitioners will simply continue to
naively believe that what happens to heterosexual young adults are the same
experiences that the LGBT population faces, and that is not the case. It is
unacceptable, and it is important that there is a shift in thinking. This is a call to the
research community and social workers that more studies of this nature need to be
done. The social work profession owes it to the LGBT population.
REFERENCES
47
REFERENCES
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood. A theory of development from the late teens
through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469 – 480.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469.
Avtgis, T. A., West, D., & Anderson, T. L. (1998). Relationship stages: An inductive
analysis identifying cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions of
Knapp’s relational stages model. Communication Research Reports, 15, 8087. doi: 10.1080/08824099809362124.
Ayres, J. (1982). Perceived use of evaluative statements in developing, stable, and
deteriorating relationships with a person of the same or opposite sex. Western
Journal of Speech Communication, 46, 20-31.
doi:10.1080/10570318209374062.
Bauer, J. J., & McAdams, D. P. (2004). Personal growth in adults’ stories of life
transitions. Journal of Personality, 72, 573–602.
Bauermeister, J. A., Johns, M. M., Sandfort, T. G., Eisenberg, A., Grossman, A. H.,
& D’Augelli, A. R. (2010). Relationship trajectories and psychological wellbeing among sexual minority youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39,
1148 –1163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s10964-010-9557-y.
Beeler, J. & DiProva, V. (1999). Family adjustment following disclosure of
homosexuality by a member: Themes discerned in narrative accounts. Journal
of Marital and Family Therapy, 25(4), 443-459.
48
Ben-Ari, A. T. (1995). The discovery that an offspring is gay: Parents’, gay men’s,
and lesbians’ perspectives. Journal of Homosexuality, 30(1), 89–112.
Bouris, A., Guilamo-Ramos, V., Pickard, A., Shiu, C., Loosier, P. S., Dittus, P.,
Waldmiller, J. M. (2010). A systematic review of parental influences on the
health and well-being of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth: Time for a new
public health research and practice agenda. Journal of Primary Prevention,
31, 273–309.
Bowlby, J. (1977). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. British Journal of
Psychiatry, 130(3), 201–210.
Boxer, A. M., Cook, J. A., & Herdt, G. (1991). Double jeopardy: Identity transitions
and parent-child relations among gay and lesbian youth. In K. A. Pillemer &
K. McCartney (Eds.), Parent-child relations throughout life (pp. 59–92).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
D’Augelli, A.R. (2006). Stress and Adaptation Among Families of Lesbian, Gay, and
Bisexual Youth: Research Challenges. In Bigner, J. J. (Ed), An introduction to
GLBT family studies (pp. 135-157). New York, NY: Haworth Press.
D’Augelli, A. R., & Hershberger, S. L. (1993). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth in
community settings: Personal challenges and mental health problems.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 421–448.
D’Augelli, A. R., Hershberger, S. L., & Pilkington, N. W. (1998). Lesbian, gay, and
bisexual youth and their families: Disclosure of sexual orientation and its
consequences. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68(3), 361-371.
49
D’Augelli, A. R., Grossman, A.H., & Starks, M.T. (2005). Parents’ awareness of
lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths’ sexual orientation. Marriage and Family
Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(2), 474-482. doi:10.1111/j.00222445.2005.00129.x.
Davis, E. J. (2012). Internalized Homophobia among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and
Transgendered Persons: Contributing Factors and Effects. Retrieved from
https://etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle/10415/3296/IHaLGBTp.
Demo, D. H., & Allen, K. R. (1996). Diversity within Lesbian and Gay Families:
Challenges and Implications for Family Theory and Research. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 13(3), 415-434.
doi:10.1177/0265407596133007.
Diamond, L. M., Savin-Williams, R. C., & Dube, E. M. (1999). Sex, dating,
passionate friendships, and romance: Intimate peer relations among lesbian,
gay, and bisexual adolescents. The development of romantic relationships in
adolescence (pp. 175–210). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316182185.009.
Dubé, E. M., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (1999). Sexual identity development among
ethnic sexual-minority male youths. Developmental Psychology,35(6), 13891398. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.35.6.1389.
Dunleavy, K. N., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2009). Idiomatic communication in the
stages of coming together and falling apart. Communication Quarterly, 57,
426-432. doi: 10.1080/01463370903320906.
50
Eyre, S. L., Milbrath, C., & Peacock, B. (2007). Romantic relationships trajectories of
African American gay/bisexual adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research,
22, 107–131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0895904805298417.
Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.
Erikson, E. H. (1980). Identity and the life cycle. New York: Norton.
Frost, D. M., (2011). Stigma and Intimacy in Same-Sex Relationships: A Narrative
Approach. Journal of Family and Psychology, 25, 1-10.
Goldfried, M. R., & Goldfried, A. P. (2001). The importance of parental support in
the lives of gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 57, 681– 693.
Henderson, M. G. (1998). Disclosure of sexual orientation: Comments from a
parental perspective. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68, 372-375.
Herek, G. M. (2006). Legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the United
States: A social science perspective. American Psychologist, 61, 607– 621.
Introducing your same sex partner to your family. (2016). Retrieved from
http://www.stepbystep.com/Introducing-Your-Same-Sex-Partner-to-YourFamily-149863/.
Javaid, G. A. 1993. "The Children of Homosexual and Heterosexual Mothers." Child
Psychiatry and Human Development, 23(4), pp. 235-248.
Knapp, M. L. (1978). Social intercourse: From greeting to goodbye. Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Knapp, M. L., & Vangelisti, A. L. (2009). Interpersonal communication and human
51
relationships (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Palmer, N. A., & Boesen,M. J. (2013). The 2013
National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual
and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York: Gay, Lesbian and
Straight Education Network (GLSEN).
Kurdek, L. A. (2005). What do we know about gay and lesbian couples? Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 251–254.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00375.x
LaSala, M.C. (2000). Lesbians, gay men, and their parents: Family therapy for the
coming-out crisis. Family Process, 39(1), 67-81.
Lasala, M. C. (2012). Coming out, coming home: Helping families adjust to a gay or
lesbian child. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38(3), 568-569.
doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2012.00312.x.
Levinger, G. (1980). Toward the analysis of close relationships. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 510–544. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/0022-1031(80)90056-6.
Maag, J.W. (2006). Social skillstraining for students with emotional and behavioral
disorders: A review of reviews. Behavioral Disorders, 32(1), 5–17.
Mays, V.M., & Cochran, S.D. (2001). Mental Health Correlates of Perceived
Discrimination Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults in the United
States. Am J Public Health Journal of Public Health, 91(11), 1869-1876.
doi:10.2105/ajph.91.11.1869.
52
Meyer, I. H. (2007). Prejudice and discrimination as social stressors. In I. Meyer and
M. Northridge (Eds.), The health of sexual minorities: Public health
perspectives on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender populations (pp. 242267). New York: Springer.
Mustanski, B., Birkett, M., Greene, G. J., Hatzenbuehler, M. L., & Newcomb, M. E.
(2014). Envisioning an America without sexual orientation inequities in
adolescent health. American Journal of Public Health, 104, 218 –225.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301625.
National Association of Social Workers (2008). Code of ethics. Retrieved from
https://www.socialworkers.org/pubs/code/default.asp
NYAC Youth. (n.d.). Bringing home your gay partner to your parents without stress.
Retrieved from http://www.nyacyouth.org/bringing-home-your-gay-partnerto-your-parents-without-stress/.
Ogolsky, B. G., Lloyd, S. A., & Cate, R. M. (2013). The developmental course of
romantic relationships. New York, NY: Routledge
Peplau, L. A., & Fingerhut, A. W. (2007). The close relationships of Lesbians and
gay men. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 405–424.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085701
Pilkington, N. W., & D’Augelli, A. R. (1995). Victimization of lesbian, gay, and
bisexual youth in community settings. Journal of Community Psychology, 23,
34–56.
Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., & Hunter, J. (2009). Disclosure of sexual
53
orientation and subsequent substance use and abuse among lesbian, gay, and
bisexual youths:Critical role ofdisclosure reactions. Psychology of Addictive
Behaviors, 23(1), 175–184.
Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. R. (2008). Research methods for social work.
Saltzburg, S. (2004). Learning that an adolescent child is gay or lesbian: The parent
experience. Social Work, 49, 109–118.
Savin-Williams, R. C. (1989). Coming out to parents and self-esteem among gay and
lesbian youths. Journal of Homosexuality, 18(1–2), 1–35.
Savin-Williams, R. C. (1996). Self-labeling and disclosure among gay, lesbian, and
bisexual youths. In J. Laird & R.-J. Green (Eds.), Lesbians and gays in
couples and families: A handbook for therapists (pp. 153–182). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
Schneider, M (2001). Toward a reconceptualization of the coming-out process for
adolescent females. In D’Augelli, A.R. & Patterson, C.J. (Eds.), Lesbian, gay,
and bisexual identities and youth, (pp. 71-96). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Shea, B. C., & Pearson, J. C. (1986). The effects of relationship type, partner intent,
and gender on the selection of relationship maintenance strategies.
Communication Monographs, 53, 352-364. doi:10.1080/03637758609376149.
Silverstein, C. 1977. A Family Matter: A Parent's Guide to Homosexuality. New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Shea, B. C., & Pearson, J. C. (1986). The effects of relationship type, partner intent,
54
and gender on the selection of relationship maintenance strategies.
Communication Monographs, 53, 352–364.
Solomon, S. E., Rothblum, E. D., & Balsam, K. F. (2004). Pioneers in partnership:
Lesbian and gay male couples in civil unions compared with those not in civil
unions and married heterosexual siblings. Journal of Family Psychology, 18,
275–286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200 .18.2.275.
Mustanski, B., Starks, T., & Newcomb, M. E. (2013). Methods for the Design and
Analysis of Relationship and Partner Effects on Sexual Health. Arch Sex
Behav Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(1), 21-33. doi:10.1007/s10508-0130215-9.
Strommen, E. F. 1989. "You're a What? Family Member Reactions to the Disclosure
of Homosexuality." in F. W. Bozett, ed., Homosexuality and the Family. New
York: Harrington Press.
Sullivan, P. S., Salazar, L., Buchbinder, S., & Sanchez, T. H. (2009). Estimating the
proportion of HIV transmissions from main sex partners among men who
have sex with men in five US cities. AIDS, 23, 1153–1162.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/QAD.0b013e32832baa34.
Vernaglia, E. R. (2000). Parents as straight allies: A qualitative study of the
experiences of heterosexual parents in the gay rights movement (Doctoral
dissertation, Boston College, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61,
1100.
Welch, S.-A., & Rubin, R. B. (2002). Development of relationship stage measures.
55
Communication Quarterly, 50, 24-40. doi: 10.1080/01463370209385644
Wheeless, L. R., Wheeless, V. E., & Baus, R. (1984). Sexual communication,
communication satisfaction, and solidarity in the developmental stages of
intimate relationships. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 48, 217230. doi: 10.1080/10570318409374158.
Wilmot, W. W., & Baxter, L. A. (1983). Reciprocal framing of relationship
definitions and episodic interaction. Western Journal of Speech
Communication, 47, 205-217. doi: 10.1080/10570318309374118.