See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/50224802

Stigma and Intimacy in Same-Sex Relationships: A Narrative Approach

Article  in  Journal of Family Psychology · February 2011

DOI: 10.1037/a0022374 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
71 1,162

1 author:

David M Frost
University College London
76 PUBLICATIONS   2,467 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Minority stress and transgender population View project

LGBT Relationships and Well-being View project

All content following this page was uploaded by David M Frost on 03 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Family Psychology © 2011 American Psychological Association
2011, Vol. 25, No. 1, 1–10 0893-3200/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0022374

Stigma and Intimacy in Same-Sex Relationships: A Narrative Approach

David M. Frost
San Francisco State University

Lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals in romantic relationships experience stigma, prejudice,
and discrimination stemming from widespread social devaluation of same-sex relationships.
Research on same-sex couples has demonstrated a negative association between experiences
of stigma and relationship quality. However, critical questions remain unanswered regarding
how experiences of stigma become more or less meaningful within the context of same-sex
relationships. This paper presents a study of the stories that a purposive sample of 99
individuals in same-sex relationships wrote about their relational high points, low points,
decisions, and goals, as well as their experiences of stigma directly related to their relation-
ships. Narrative analysis of these stories revealed that participants utilized several psycho-
logical strategies for making meaning of their experiences of stigma within the context of
their relationships. Some participants framed stigma as having a negative impact on their
relationships, while others framed stigma as relevant, but external to their lives. Some
participants saw stigma as providing an opportunity to (re)define notions of commitment and
relational legitimacy. Additionally, many participants framed stigma as bringing them closer
to their partners and strengthening the bond within their relationships. The results of this
study illuminate the psychological strategies individuals in same-sex couples use to make
meaning of, cope with, and overcome societal devaluation thereby furthering understandings
of the association between stigma and intimacy within marginalized relationships.

Keywords: relationships, narrative, stigma, minority stress, intimacy

Lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals in same- mental health (Frost & Meyer, 2009; Meyer, 2003; Riggle,
sex relationships are stigmatized as a result of their sexual Rostosky, & Horne, 2010). Furthermore, societal devaluation
minority identity as well as their romantic involvement of intimacy in LGB individuals’ lives may even have an effect
with a partner of the same gender (Frost & Meyer, 2009; on the ways in which intimacy becomes and remains person-
Rostosky, Riggle, Gray, & Halton, 2007; Peplau & Fingerhut, ally meaningful for LGB individuals.
2007; Todosijevic, Rothblum, & Solomon, 2005). Same-sex
relationships are not supported and recognized by society as Stigma and Intimacy Among Sexual Minority
equal to those of heterosexuals (Herek, 2006), and as a result Individuals
same-sex couples experience stigmatization, prejudice, and
discrimination, often on a daily basis. These types of “minority Many individuals harbor unfounded stereotypes and as-
stressors” (Meyer, 2003; Meyer, Schwartz, & Frost, 2008) sumptions that intimacy and romantic relationships mean
characterize an environment that makes it difficult for individ- different things to LGB and heterosexual individuals. Public
uals in same-sex relationships to achieve their needs and goals opinion polls suggest that most people feel that same-sex
for intimacy. Thus, LGBs are at risk for not achieving their relationships should not receive the same legal recognition
intimacy-related goals, as well as decreased well-being and as heterosexual relationships (Lax & Phillips, 2009). Al-
though many Americans support legal recognition for same-
sex relationships in the form of civil unions, the majority
David M. Frost, Department of Sexuality Studies, San Francisco still oppose equal marriage rights, creating a separate but
State University. not equal distinction between same-sex and heterosexual
Funding for this project was provided by a Research Grant from relationships that further feeds the stigma surrounding
the City University of New York, Graduate School and University same-sex relationships (Herek, 2006). Negative stereotypes
Center. The author thanks Drs. Suzanne Ouellette, Ilan Meyer, regarding the meaning of intimacy in LGB individuals’
Michelle Fine, Brian Little, Robert Kertzner, and William Cross, lives and relationships create and reaffirm heterosexist op-
Jr. for their advice in designing the study and feedback on earlier portunity structures, which privilege heterosexuals’ oppor-
versions of this manuscript. The author also thanks Kelly Gola and
Richard Garcia for their assistance in coding the data reported in
tunities to express and achieve intimacy while impeding the
this article. intimacy-related goals of LGB individuals (Herdt &
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kertzner, 2006). The lack of public support for equal rela-
David M. Frost, Assistant Professor, San Francisco State Univer- tionship recognition illustrates that many people believe that
sity, Department of Sexuality Studies, 835 Market Street, Suite same-sex relationships are lesser than heterosexual relation-
517, San Francisco, CA 94103. E-mail: [email protected] ships on political, legal, and moral levels. Exposure to this

1
2 FROST

social discourse of devaluation of same-sex relationships individuals make meaning out of their life experiences. By
likely has an effect on gay men and lesbians in relationships systematically analyzing narratives, researchers are able to
above and beyond their denial of marriage (Herdt & gain an understanding of how and what aspects of social
Kertzner, 2006; Herek, 2006). The denial of equal rights context meaningfully become part of individuals’ lived ex-
associated with partnership establishes same-sex couples as perience via inclusion in their narratives.
second-class citizens and may diminish LGB individuals’ The stories individuals tell themselves and others about
social and psychological well-being (Herdt & Kertzner, their interpersonal romantic relationships further serve to
2006; King & Bartlett, 2006; Riggle et al., 2010). provide them with a sense of meaning regarding their rela-
LGB individuals in same-sex relationships experience tionships (Fiese & Grotevant, 2001; Fiese & Spagnola,
stigma on interpersonal levels as well. For example, some 2005; Fiese et al., 1999; Josselson, 2007; McLean &
same-sex couples experience discrimination in the form of Thorne, 2003). Relationship stories contain both behavioral
violence and hate crimes, as well as daily hassles and (i.e., what happened in the relationship story) and perceptual
harassment (Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007). LGB individuals in components (i.e., the teller’s valuation of what happened;
relationships experience greater stress related to not being see Conville, 1997; 1998). Research has consistently dem-
accepted and being misunderstood by other people in their onstrated that narrative accounts of relationships are often
lives, especially by their families, compared to single LGBs central in guiding individuals’ overarching life narratives
(Green, 2004; Lewis, Derlaga, Berndt, Morris, & Rose, and sense of self (e.g., Josselson, 2007; 2009). Individuals
2001). Members of same-sex couples often feel the need to make meaning through the construction of relationship sto-
conceal their relationships from others in order to avoid ries by choosing from the vast “menu” of culture, experi-
stigmatization. Although this may lead to short-term avoid- ence, values, and goals to include the most meaningful and
ance of external stigma, concealing one’s identity and rela- important aspects of lived experience into their stories
tionship is a cognitive burden that results in added social (Conville, 1997; McAdams & Pals, 2006). For example, a
stress (Lasala, 2000; Meyer, 2003). The societal stigma story about a high point in a gay man’s relationship may
surrounding same-sex relationships can also become inter- include several components: what actually happened be-
nalized by members of same-sex couples, which results in tween him and his partner; his values within his relation-
internalized stigma (Frost & Meyer, 2009). Experiences of ship; his perceptions of his family’s values; his recognition
stigmatization in its many forms constitute social stressors of cultural values of relationship “legitimization”; and so-
and are associated with decreased relationship quality and cial structures that limit his and his partner’s goals in his
satisfaction, as well as increased conflict, loneliness, and relationship (e.g., health care policy, marriage laws). Thus,
sexual problems (e.g., Frost & Meyer, 2009; Otis, Rostosky, relationship stories are constantly evolving units of analysis
Riggle, & Hamrin, 2006; Todosijevic et al., 2005). to which researchers and clinicians can look to holistically
The studies reviewed above have consistently established understand and study interpersonal relationships.
a general connection between stigma and relational func- Narratives further provide unique insight into the ways in
tioning. These studies suggest that the average member of a which culture and social structures, such as stigma and
same-sex couple experiences a negative association be- minority stressors, shape individuals’ constructions of
tween stigma and relationship quality. However, more re- meaning in their relationships (McAdams & Pals, 2006;
search is necessary to understand the complex nature of the Meyer & Ouellette, 2009; Ouellette & Frost, 2006). As a
role that stigma plays in the lives of individuals in same-sex result, narrative and life story approaches have been theo-
relationships. For example, although stigma is a common retically and empirically useful in understanding the lives of
experience among same-sex couples, many thrive in happy LGB individuals; highlighting how cultural and historical
and healthily relationships. Same-sex and heterosexual cou- concerns shape LGB identity development (e.g., Cohler &
ples demonstrate similar levels of relationship quality Galatzner-Levy, 2000; Hammack, 2005; Weststrate &
(Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007). Thus, it is important to understand McLean, 2010). Studying how stigma appears within, in-
how and when LGB people perceive stigma as meaningful in terrupts, challenges, and/or is overcome within LGB rela-
their relationships, thereby providing a more nuanced perspec- tionship stories can therefore provide unique insight into
tive on how experiences of stigma are negotiated in same-sex how stigma is perceived and experienced within same-sex
couples. relationships. Understanding how stigma becomes mean-
ingful within experiences of intimacy is important to ad-
Relationship Stories vance existing knowledge of the ways in which stigma and
minority stressors impact the everyday lived experiences of
The present study employed a narrative approach to ad- LGBs in same-sex romantic relationships.
vance existing understandings of the role of stigma in same-
sex relationships. Narrative approaches focus on how peo- The Current Study
ple create narratives and stories that reflect a sense of self
that is integrated within the varied contexts of their lives, This study systematically examined how individuals in
thus revealing what becomes more or less important, val- same-sex relationships narratively constructed the associa-
ued, and self-defining for individuals within their own life tion between stigma and intimacy in their relationship sto-
experiences (McAdams & Pals, 2006). In this regard, the ries. Previous quantitative research has established the as-
construction of narratives represents the process by which sociations between stigma and intimacy as unidirectional
 STIGMA AND INTIMACY 3

and negative. However, by focusing on how stigma and A total of 6,360 individuals completed the eligibility
intimacy emerge as relevant and interconnected in the rela- questionnaire and 3,391 individuals were eligible for the
tionship stories of individuals in same-sex relationships, this study. Only 247 of the eligible individuals were contacted
association can be examined in terms of if and how stigma for participation due to a large amount of oversample for the
and intimacy psychologically coexist and become meaning- heterosexual recruitment quotas. Of the 247 contacted indi-
ful in the context of same-sex relationships. viduals, 160 completed the study. Ten participants were
excluded from the final sample because they either failed to
Method provide adequate data or had broken up with their partners
Participants and Procedure before participating in the study. This resulted in a response
rate of 61%.
Narrative data for the current study are drawn from The The final sample of 150 individuals included 99 LGB-
Relationship Stories Project: a study of how relationship identified individuals who provided narrative data for the
narratives are constructed and associated with indicators of current study. On average, LGB participants were 34.38
well-being. Recruitment announcements were posted in a years old (SD ⫽ 9.53), their relationships lasted an average
total of 55 Internet venues from March through June 2008. of 6.86 years (SD ⫽ 5.00). Most lived with their partners
To avoid biasing the sample toward issues of sexual iden- (n ⫽ 83) and one fourth were married (n ⫽ 26). The sample
tity, stigma, and intimacy, the call for participants contained consisted of 48 men and 51 women. Most participants (n ⫽
very general language. Participants were told that the parent 77) identified as White, followed by Black/African-
study was focused on “how aspects of people’s lives and American (n ⫽ 11), and Asian (n ⫽ 6). Most participants
relationships are related to their well-being.” The study was had at least some college-level education (n ⫽ 91) and were
further described as “interested in including a diverse group employed full-time (n ⫽ 60). Participants resided in 36
of people . . . regarding age, race/ethnicity, and sexual ori- states within the United States.
entation.” Three recruitment strategies were used in order to
obtain a diverse sample (Meyer & Wilson, 2009). They
were active strategies (e.g., e-mails and listserv postings that Relationship Story Elicitation Method
reached participants directly through their personal e-mail
accounts); passive strategies (e.g., posting an announcement The final Internet-based questionnaire contained a mod-
on discussion forums or classified websites); and snowball ified version of McAdams’ guided autobiography (Foley
strategies (i.e., participants were provided with a link to an Center for the Study of Lives, 1997) adapted to elicit stories
eligibility questionnaire that they were encouraged to share of key events in individuals’ current relationships: High
with their friends, family, and co-workers). Announcements point experiences; low-point experiences; decision-making
were not placed on listservs or discussion forums specifi- experiences; and experiences related to an important goal in
cally focused on dating, relationships, sex, or relationship their relationships. In writing stories about these key events,
problems, in order to avoid biasing the sample. participants were asked to write one to two paragraphs for
In order to ensure that participants’ relationships were each event. For each story, participants were asked to ad-
long enough for them to reflect easily on distinct events that dress five issues/aspects of the experience: (a) What hap-
have occurred within their relationships, individuals had to pened?; (b) Who was involved and how were they in-
have been in a relationship for at least two years to be volved?; (c) What were you and/or your partner thinking,
eligible. In addition, individuals must have been 21 years feeling, and wanting?; (d) Why do you think that this is an
old, identify as LGB, and currently be in a same-sex rela- important event in your relationship?; and (e) How do you
tionship (measured by asking for partner gender). A com- think the society, time, and/or place this event happened in
parison group of heterosexual individuals in heterosexual mattered for how things turned out? Participants received
relationships was also recruited for the parent project, how- each story prompt separately, and were told to address the
ever, this paper will not report on the data from this sub- five questions in whatever order they wished.
sample. Each participant received the same ambiguous prompts
To ensure that the sample met the above eligibility cri- for their relationship stories. Using ambiguous prompts
teria, each potential participant was required to complete an allowed experiences of stigma in the relationship to emerge
online eligibility questionnaire. Eligibility criteria were not organically as participants deemed them meaningful. Given
disclosed. In addition to questions about demographic and participants may have experienced stigma in their relation-
relationship characteristics, the eligibility questionnaire ships that was not accounted for in the first four generic
contained the 4-item Couples Satisfaction Inventory (CSI: story prompts, participants responded to a fifth story prompt
Funk & Rogge, 2007). Recruitment quotas targeted equal that specifically asked them to recall an experience of
numbers of men and women, as well as equal numbers of stigma, prejudice, or discrimination pertaining to their rela-
individuals above and below the median response to the tionship with their partner. This prompt was presented last
CSI. This was designed to produce variability in partici- and participants were not permitted to go back and revise
pants’ relationship quality and relationship stories. These previous stories in order to avoid biasing responses to the
quota-based sampling techniques were employed to further generic story prompts. The study took approximately 45
reduce sampling and participant biases (Meyer & Wilson, minutes to complete and participants received a $15
2009). Transgender individuals were not eligible. Amazon.com voucher.
4 FROST

The use of Internet methods to conduct qualitative re- same-sex relationships actively constructed relationship sto-
search on same-sex relationships is not without precedent. ries that integrated experiences of both stigma and intimacy.
The social context of the Internet allows researchers to This approach to narrative analysis primarily emphasized
sample a broader diversity of same-sex relationships, both the hermeneutics of restoration (Josselson, 2004): taking
in terms of demographic characteristics and relational ex- participants’ stories as the best indication of their subjective
periences, compared to geographically-restricted conve- realities from which the researcher could investigate under-
nience samples (Meyer & Wilson, 2008; van Eeden- lying meaning-making processes. The stories were also
Moorefield, Proulx, & Pasley, 2008). The Internet may also analyzed using the hermeneutics of demystification (Jossel-
provide a sense of anonymity and safety, thus participants son, 2004): interpreting meaning from elements beyond the
may be more likely to discuss difficult experiences online objective text, such as contradictions and the lack of mate-
compared to traditional face-to-face interviews. Finally, rial that one might expect to be discussed based on existing
preliminary research has indicated that the integrity, depth, research (i.e., absences). For example, readings of relation-
and quality of qualitative data collected via the Internet are ship stories required an analytical approach that allowed for
no different than in data collected via face-to-face methods an understanding of how social structures (e.g., marriage
(van Eeden-Moorefield et al., 2008). laws) impacted relationships. As the sometimes subtle in-
fluence of such factors was often not explicitly addressed in
Analysis Plan participants’ stories, attending to their potential influence
was accomplished using this hermeneutic of demystification
The current study employed a two-phase qualitative anal- by interpreting what was actually written relative to existing
ysis of the relationship story data. The first phase consisted theory-guided understandings of LGBs’ lives and relation-
of a preliminary content analysis of all 99 participants’ ships.
relationship stories. The content analysis identified 75 par- Stories with co-occurrences of stigma and intimacy con-
ticipants who told a total of 120 stories that were included tent were subjected to multiple readings by the author
in the final narrative analysis. Each phase of analysis is focused on understanding patterns in the ways participants’
described below along with detailed information on the stories illustrated their subjective interpretations of connec-
number of participants and stories analyzed. tions between their experiences of stigma and intimacy in
Content analysis. Each story (99 participants ⫻ 5 stories their relationships. These connections identified in the nar-
each ⫽ 495 total stories) was first content analyzed for the ratives are referred to as strategies, as they are indicative of
presence or absence of themes related to stigma and inti- participants’ attempts to make meaning of their experiences
macy. Theory-derived indicators of stigma-related content of stigma and intimacy via narrative. From multiple close
included (a) experiences/expectations of rejection, (b) dis- readings, the author identified six distinct strategies in par-
crimination, (c) concealment of one’s sexual orientation or ticipants’ stories. Although no single story involved more
relationship, and (d) internalized homophobia. The defini- than one strategy, one participant may have utilized more
tions for these indicators were derived from Meyer’s (2003) than one strategy across the 5 stories that he or she wrote.
minority stress model and qualitative research on minority Next, a definitional codebook for the strategies was devel-
stress in same-sex couples (Rostosky et al., 2007). Indica- oped, and each story involving the co-occurrence of stigma
tors of intimacy-related content were derived from cogni- and intimacy was coded for the type of strategy used. The
tive, emotional, and behavioral theories of intimacy expe- stories were independently coded for strategy use by the
riences in the context of a romantic relationship (Prager, author and a graduate student rater trained in qualitative
1995). Specifically, intimacy-related content included expe- analysis. Coders reached or exceeded an acceptable level of
riences or discussions of (a) physical intimacy, (b) commu- reliability for each strategy (i.e., ⱖ.80) and all discrepancies
nicative intimacy, (c) emotional intimacy, (d) commitment, were able to be resolved via discussion.
and (e) trust. The definitions used for coding intimacy were
developed in a study of intimacy among gay men (Frost, Results
Stirratt, & Ouellette, 2008). Each story was coded by two
independent raters: the author and an advanced undergrad- The narrative analysis identified observable strategies in
uate trained in qualitative methods. The resulting reliability participants’ stories that provided insight into the ways
coefficients (i.e., Cohen’s Kappa) for stigma- and intimacy- participants were able to allow both their experiences of
related content were .87 and .81, respectively. The content stigma and their experiences of intimacy to coexist in an
analysis identified 394 stories that contained intimacy- integrative story, thus illuminating how stigma becomes
related themes and 166 stories that contained stigma-related more or less meaningful in their pursuits and experiences of
themes. A total of 120 stories contained co-occurrences of intimacy. Specifically, these participants’ stories pointed to
stigma and intimacy-related themes: 74 were in ambiguous six different strategies for framing stigma in relation to
story prompts, while 46 were in response to the stigma story intimacy. They were: The “Heavy Weight” of Stigma; The
prompt. Co-occurrences were distributed across 75 partici- Declining Importance of Stigma; Stigma “Isn’t a Big Deal,
pants. The following narrative analysis focused only on the But . . . ”; Stigma as Contamination; Stigma as Generative
stories containing co-occurrences of stigma and intimacy. Experience; and Stigma as Opportunity for (Re)Definition.
Narrative analysis. Narrative analytical techniques fo- Each strategy is reviewed below accompanied by an exem-
cused on understanding the ways in which individuals in plar story and its frequency of usage.
 STIGMA AND INTIMACY 5

“The ‘Heavy Weight’ of Stigma” (used by 23 participants discrimination (e.g., getting “married,” adopting children,
across 26 stories). Many participants described experi- buying a house, attending family events). However, in some
ences of stigma as having an ever-present, negative weight of these joyous moments, participants’ narratives turned
on their relationships. This weight was often portrayed as from positive to negative. Specifically, in moments of suc-
characteristic of “society’s” continued devaluation of non- cess and heightened positive affect, they often referenced
heterosexual sexualities and identities, as well as familial subtle aspects of stigma, which detracted from the full
disapproval of “choosing” to be in a relationship with a positive potential of their achievements. In this regard,
partner of the same gender. This strategy is most clearly stigma for some same-sex couples was framed as having a
articulated in a goal story written by a lesbian woman, age contaminating (McAdams, 2004) effect on what were oth-
40, in a 3-year relationship, living in the Southern United erwise positive relationship stories. For example, one les-
States. She wrote: bian woman, age 42, in an 8-year relationship, living in the
midwestern United States wrote the following in her deci-
We are trying to determine if we want to continue in our
relationship or become friends. It has been a long process to sion story about her commitment ceremony:
determine what is best for us as individuals and as a couple.
We are both meeting with our therapists to discuss & spend- I think our decision to have a commitment ceremony was the
ing dedicated time to working on our issues like my messi- most important decision we made together. We were both
ness & her controlling & the role of her mother in particular involved in the decision and discussed it for several months.
in our lives. Society as a whole cannot understand what we We created the entire ceremony, word for word, ourselves,
are going through. If I were a man & we were married, then which gave us many opportunities to talk about what com-
her mother would not be doing this..she is disrespectful of our mitment meant to us and how we felt. We both felt a desire
relationship because we are women & we have no children. It to make a public declaration of our feelings for one another
invalidates us in the eyes of many of our peers & those older and to celebrate our relationship in the presence of our com-
than us. Society does not treat or value us the same since we munity. This was an important decision b/c it made our
have no children and are not in traditional relationships. This relationship “permanent”—it was saying we were sure we
added stress of family of origin has weighed too heavily on wanted to stay together and build a home and family together.
our relationship. We can get no peace due to the invasion of Society, time and place mattered in that we were able to have
her mother & the lack of respect for our partnership. I have no this ceremony in 2000 with a supportive clergy person and the
faith that it will ever be worked out to my satisfaction. I support of many friends. However, none of our parents chose
believe my partner will allow her mother to ruin our relation- to attend, so the day was also quite sad.
ship. It is sad.
This story clearly illustrates a positive and joyful event in
This woman explicitly states that the interpersonal deval- this woman’s life, characterized by emotional and commu-
uation she experiences from her partner’s mother surround- nicative intimacy. She and her partner’s commitment cere-
ing their relationship constitutes “added stress” within her mony was an opportunity for them to make their relation-
relationship, and she directly connects this minority stress ship public, celebrate the bond they had built with one
experience to uncertainty about the future of her relation- another, and reaffirm their desire for a shared future and
ship with her partner. She attributes this devaluation, stem- family together in the eyes of their community and friends.
ming from both familial and societal sources, to her being in They were able to achieve what they desired; however, the
a relationship with someone of the same-gender, as well as potential of this positive experience was significantly less-
to her violation of traditional gender roles regarding child- ened by their parents’ lack of support for their relationship
rearing expectations. Despite her and her partner’s invest- reflected in their decisions not to attend.
ment in the future of the relationship and commitment to Events in same-sex relationship stories that had tremen-
working on their personal and relational “issues,” it is her dous positive potential for individuals’ relationships were
belief that external stigma-related stress will ultimately re- diminished by stigma-related factors on both interpersonal
sult in the end of their relationship. This belief is in turn and macrosocial levels. Therefore, although in stories like
associated with negative affect. these, stigma was not a constant heavy weight on the
This particular strategy for framing stigma in relation to relationship as the previous strategy and existing quantita-
intimacy illustrates the kind of negative and destabilizing tive studies suggest, it nonetheless contaminates what may
effect of stigma on intimacy and relationships put forth in have otherwise been blissful relational experiences.
the minority stress literature (Frost & Meyer, 2009; Ros- “The Declining Importance of Stigma” (used by seven par-
tosky et al., 2007; Todosijevic et al., 2005). Furthermore, ticipants across seven stories). For some others still, the
previous quantitative findings parallel the structure of this stigma surrounding intimacy in same-sex couples’ lives was
woman’s narrative. Specifically, the stigma she experiences narrated as peripheral and sometimes as an irrelevant con-
produces conflict and dissatisfaction within her relationship, cern in their lives. Many explicitly stated that stigma, al-
which leads to thoughts of ending the relationship. though once significant in their lives, was no longer a factor
“Stigma as Contamination” (used by seven participants and did not negatively affect their lives or prevent them
across seven stories). Not all participants described expe- from achieving their relationship goals in any way. This was
riences of stigma as ever-present negative factors in their often the case for those individuals living in supportive
experiences of intimacy and relationships. Many wrote sto- urban and suburban environments with community re-
ries of events or decisions in their lives that were charac- sources and accepting liberal neighbors. Narratives charac-
terized by experiences of acceptance and success in achiev- terizing the historical shifts in the importance and relevance
ing relationship goals unaffected by stigma, prejudice, or of stigma emerged unprompted to contextualize one’s rela-
6 FROST

tionship within the time and place he/she was living (Cohler to their relationships (stigma story). For example, one gay
& Galatzer-Levy, 2000). For example, a lesbian woman, man, age 40, in 13-year relationship, living on the Pacific
age 55, in 10-year relationship, living in the midwestern coast of the United States wrote a stigma story that reads:
United States wrote the following about her and her part-
ner’s decision to purchase a house: My husband and I are incredibly fortunate: we met in an
environment of total acceptance, moved to one of the most
In 2000, Joan [partner] and Delores [participant] bought a gay-tolerant cities on the planet not long into our relationship,
house together. This was a major decision, especially because and each has been accepted by the other’s family in almost
it meant that Delores would have to sell the house that she had every possible way. It is really difficult for me to think of a
owned for 15 years, a house to which she was very attached single instance of discrimination. One thing did happen,
emotionally. But that house had several drawbacks, one of though it hardly seems worth mentioning: we were returning
which was that it wasn’t “their” house. The new house was to the U.S. after a trip [abroad], and were waiting in the
more expensive than they felt they could afford, but they both customs and immigration line to officially re-enter the United
loved it, so they took a chance and bought it. They trusted that States. After watching obvious male-female couples go up to
they would either make it work, and they agreed that, if at the customs agents together, we walked up together as well.
some future time they could no longer manage the mortgage The agent was agitated, and motioned me to get back in line.
payments, they would sell it and find a smaller house. This “Are you two related?” he asked (in a sort of accusing way),
was an important decision because both Delores and Joan and when we said we were “partners,” he said “That doesn’t
have had to rely on each other to keep up with the mortgage count,” and directed me back to the line. By that time a
payments as well as the housework. Also, in another time and nearby agent was free, so I went through myself. It made me
place, lesbian neighbors might not be accepted, but in this realize that, regardless of what we thought and what the state
particular neighborhood, nobody seems to care who lives next of [redacted] had in their records, the U.S. Federal Govern-
door as long as they keep their lawn mowed. ment did not consider the two of us related in any way. It
made us both frustrated and angry, and made be pretty sad,
This woman’s story unfolds without any mention of since I have been accustomed to the bubble of acceptance I
stigma until the end. Her decision to by a house was mainly live in. Subsequent experiences returning to the U.S. did not
related to her and her partner’s desire for a shared home and turn out this way, and agents let us come up together. The
other future goals within their relationship. The narrative is agent in question may have just been concerned over security
or something else—it may not have been a question of gen-
mainly characterized by their commitment to one another der. Still, it felt like discrimination, but the barest brush of it.
and their desire to make their relationship and living ar-
rangement egalitarian. The end of her story references Before describing an intense experience with discrimina-
stigma surrounding lesbian couples, but not in a contami- tion, from both interpersonal and legal sources, this man
nating way as seen in the previous story. Instead, she makes it clear that he has a hard time thinking of any
positions her and her partners’ decisions and choices re- experiences with discrimination. He and his partner are
garding the purchase of their home as unrelated to stigma. “accustomed to [their] bubble of acceptance.” It may be his
As she says, people are tolerant (not necessarily accepting) appreciation for this acceptance or the fact that experiences
of same-sex couples as long as they adhere to expected of stigmatization are outside of the norm of his everyday life
modes of conduct. that shape his reluctance to fully attribute this experience to
It should be noted that this is a decision story, and the heterosexist customs agent. Alternatively, his refusal to
therefore was written unprompted for stigma-related engage fully with the negativity of the experience and its
themes. The fact that she and other participants explicitly overarching indication that there is widespread devaluation
chose to recognize the declining importance of stigma in and lack of recognition of his relationship may be a self-
their lives and relationships established stigma as something protective strategy. In other words, he may be narratively
that is maybe out of sight, but not out of mind: an important constructing this event as an exception to the norm of
cohort-defining experience of older same-sex couples acceptance he typically experiences in order avoid creating
(Cohler & Hostetler, 2002; Weststrate & McLean, 2010). room for heterosexism in his enduring conception of what it
Participants who used this strategy to describe the relation- is like for him and his partner in their everyday lives.
ship between intimacy-related pursuits and stigma recog- This strategy represents another way members of same-
nize their ability to pursue intimacy without devaluation or sex relationships distanced themselves and their relation-
barriers, but are nonetheless cognizant of the specter of ships from prevailing heterosexism. Individuals were able
stigma in previous less “tolerant” times. In this way, this to use strategies like this to externalize the stigma surround-
strategy distances stigma from their lived experiences, with- ing intimacy in same-sex couple’s lives, thereby locating
out complete removal. the source of the stigma in society and not in themselves
“Stigma “Isn’t a Big Deal, But . . .” (used by eight partici- (Meyer & Ouellette, 2008). This strategy of framing stigma
pants across nine stories). Some participants were reluctant is characteristic of the unwillingness of some victims of
to recognize that stigma had any direct relevance to their injustices to dwell on their perpetrators’ actions. In others, it
relationships. This was evident in the silences surrounding represents the mindset that experiences like the man’s above
some negative experiences in relationship stories that were may be expected aspects of what it is like to be a member
likely attributable to societal stigma, but were not recog- of a stigmatized minority (Wang, 2006); taken for granted
nized as such. More common, was reluctance on the part of aspects of everyday experiences that do not, in their minds,
participants to attribute obvious experiences of prejudice qualify as discrimination. As a result, this strategy may be
and discrimination to stigma when asked to write a story protective for couples’ relationships, making them less vul-
about a time when they experienced stigma, directly related nerable to psychological consequences of stigma. However,
 STIGMA AND INTIMACY 7

long-term denial of stigma may lead to negative conse- restrictive, and sometimes exclusionary heterosexist frame-
quences. works for “what a relationship should be” as opportunities
“Stigma as Generative Experience” (used by 25 participants to reinvent what relationship trajectories were ideal for their
across 27 stories). Some participants described stigma as own relationships. For example, some participants saw the
creating negative experiences in their lives and relationships expected trajectory of getting married, buying a house,
that resulted in positive outcomes. For example, living in a having kids, and retirement to be exclusive of same-sex
stigmatizing social environment motivated some partici- couples. In response to legal policies surrounding marriage
pants towards activism surrounding same-sex marriage is- that were not inclusive of same-sex couples, many individ-
sues, provided others with coping mechanisms that they uals wrote stories emphasizing the greater importance
transferred to other domains of their lives, and for others placed on buying a house together. For some, this was seen
served to make their relationships stronger. For example, as the “equivalent to heterosexual marriage”; allowing for a
one bisexual woman, age 42, in an 11-year relationship, public and legally recognized commitment to one another
living in the midwestern United States wrote the following and the envisioned permanency of their relationship. Others
stigma story: reported similar redefinitions of relationship milestones in
response to the lack of inclusion of same-sex couples in
At the grocery store, my partner, our daughter, and I were
together shopping. We are a multiracial family (my partner is “traditional” relationship trajectories. For example, one les-
African American, I am white, and our daughter is biracial). bian woman, age 28, in a 3-year relationship, living in the
People often assume we are not “together” and often do not southern United States wrote in her decision story:
see us as a family. During this event, a stranger began talking
about how pretty our daughter is, her attention solely focused The single most important decision in our relationship was to
on my partner. It was as if she didn’t even see me, and she had become committed to one another without benefit of marriage
obviously assumed that my partner was “the mom.” Soon, my or commitment ceremony neither of which would be legal for
daughter raised her arms and said “Mommy,” reaching for us as a couple in our state. Brianna and I decided that we
me. The woman looked confused but did not ask any ques- would define our own family and sense of commitment to-
tions. I was feeling invisible and unacknowledged; I’m sure gether regardless of how other people or society define it. We
my partner was feeling aware of this, but probably not as began this commitment to one another in earnest with the
emotionally upset as me. We both want for other to see us as purchase of our home together. Our next step is to identify
a family (this same event happens in reverse, too, where children to adopt. I think we both have feelings of love, pride
people see me as mom and ignore my partner). This was an and strength for decided to make our own path in life. I think
important event b/c it creates some stress and sadness for us, we both feel that this way is a more honest and genuine
but it also serves to affirm our strong commitment to one representation of how we express our love and commitment
another and to our family. I think society/time/place matter, rather than trying to make our life together conform to soci-
because ours is not a very racially integrated community. ety’s expectations.
People tend to not see us as a “unit” in part b/c we are both
women but in part b/c we are racially different, too. In more This woman’s story positions her and her partner’s def-
progressive/mixed communities, there is more recognition for initions of what is important in the history of their relation-
us (e.g., when we lived in [East Coast city]).
ship in opposition to “society’s expectations” of what their
This woman described experiencing subtle forms of ev- relationship “should” look like (Degges-White, 2006). The
eryday discrimination associated with her relationship with relationship trajectory that they have charted is very similar
another woman, but also related to her partnership with to the stereotypical relationship trajectory that is often con-
someone of another race/ethnicity. The result was her per- sidered “normal” or common for heterosexuals: getting
ception of a lack of public recognition of her family as a married (in this case, “committed”), buying a house, and
“unit,” which produced a feeling of invisibility and minority having or adopting children. Although this may seem like
stress (Meyer, 2003). The majority of this narrative mirrors assimilation to heterosexist expectations, it nonetheless rep-
what was discussed above in relation to the story exempli- resents an attempt by her and her partner as excluded
fying the “heavy weight of stigma.” However, the end of outsiders to make space within what is considered “normal”
this woman’s narrative illustrates the positive aspects that for their “non-traditional” relationship. What seemingly
she attributes to having experienced this kind of interper- matters most here, is that she and her partner were able to
sonal discrimination. Specifically, she described her rela- define and create the opportunities for relational commit-
tionship with her partner as being strengthened as a result of ment and public recognition that they desired.
external stigma and minority stress experiences. Stories with co-occurrences of stigma and intimacy with no
Stories like these illustrate a generative or redemptive strategy use. The six strategies reviewed above were iden-
(Bauer, McAdams, & Pals, 2008; McAdams, 2006) re- tified in the majority of stories involving the co-occurrence
sponse to stigma and positive aspects of marginalization of stigma and intimacy themes (i.e., the 82 stories told by 59
(Hall & Fine, 2005). In these stories, experiences of inti- participants discussed above). However, 38 stories told by
macy and overall relationship quality, which are sometimes 16 participants contained both stigma and intimacy themes
negatively affected by stigma, are instead shaped as resist- without a strategy. These stories contained varied, often
ing heterosexism and even indirectly benefiting from soci- casual, mentions of being treated differently from hetero-
etal devaluation. sexual couples (e.g., not being allowed to marry, being
“Stigma as Opportunity for (Re)Definition” (used by six unnecessarily sat in an undesirable corner of a restaurant)
participants across six stories). In a similar way, some with no evaluative ties to their experiences of intimacy
individuals in same-sex relationships saw the stereotypical, (positive/negative) in the story. In these cases, experiences
8 FROST

of stigma were peripheral to the overall purpose of the Although this analysis of strategies used by participants
narrative, and no direct narrative connections with intimacy to frame the relationship between stigma and intimacy seeks
were made in these stories. Using the hermeneutic of de- to categorize the strategies, it should be noted that individ-
mystification (Josselson, 2004) the lack of narrative connec- uals’ use of these strategies was more complicated. Per-
tion between stigma and intimacy occurring in the same ceived negative and positive outcomes of social devaluation
story was interpreted as an additional method of psycholog- were common to several of the strategies. It was the narrated
ically distancing experiences of stigma from one’s experi- outcome of individuals’ own stories that led to classifying a
ence of intimacy within same-sex relationships. This strategy as negative or positive. Future research should
method of distancing seemingly occurred implicitly, as focus on whether or not the strategies revealed in the current
compared to the more explicit distancing strategies previ- study have additional implications for same-sex couples.
ously discussed. Given the established relationship between narrative pro-
cessing and well-being (King, 2001; Pals, 2006), these
Discussion strategies for making meaning of stigma and intimacy re-
vealed in participants’ narratives may augment the impact
This study revealed that individuals in same-sex couples of stigma on important relationship and well-being out-
employ several strategies for framing the association be- comes for members of same-sex couples. Further, not every
tween stigma and intimacy in their relationships. These participant who mentioned experiencing stigma related to
strategies are important units of analysis as they revealed intimacy engaged in a strategy. It was the goal of this study
the multiple ways individuals in same-sex relationships to focus primarily on the many and complex ways individ-
negotiated their experiences of stigma surrounding inti- uals attempted to make meaning of the ways in which
macy. Generally, the strategies revealed in same-sex cou- stigma and intimacy coexist in their lives and relationships.
ples’ stories could be categorized as either positive or neg- However, the lack of connection between stigma and inti-
ative, regarding the ways in which they were employed to macy in these narratives is important as it may represent an
negotiate stigma and its connection to their experiences of implicit minimization or dismissal of the meaningfulness of
intimacy. The strategies that portrayed a negative effect of stigma in the context of one’s relationship. This may reflect
stigma on intimacy included “Stigma as a ‘Heavy Weight,’ yet another psychological distancing technique; one more
Stigma as Contamination,” and to a lesser degree, “The subtle than the previously discussed identifiable strategies.
Declining Importance of Stigma,” and “Stigma ‘Isn’t a Big The results of this study should be interpreted in light of
Deal But . . .” These strategies closely paralleled previous several limitations. Only individuals currently in relation-
research on stigma and relationship quality among same-sex ships of two or more years were eligible for the study. The
couples (Frost & Meyer, 2009; Rostosky et al., 2007; experiences of formerly partnered and newly partnered in-
Todosijevic et al., 2005) demonstrating the complex yet dividuals are important to take into consideration given the
persistent and damaging effects that stigmatization can have relationship between stigma and intimacy may be experi-
on same-sex relationships. The remaining two strategies enced differently across relationship stages (e.g., formation,
illustrated the positive effects that experiences of stigma can dissolution). Data were further limited to one partner’s
have within individuals’ relationships: “Stigma as Genera- perspective. Dyadic data may provide additional insight into
tive Experience” and “Stigma as an Opportunity for (Re) the processes under investigation in the current study. Fur-
Definition.” In both cases, the negative effects of stigma ther, the frequencies with which strategies were used in
were portrayed as secondary to the positive relational out- participants’ narratives are not generalizable, and were re-
comes that are the product of coping with, resisting, and ported here for the sole purpose of describing the data.
overcoming stigma. These two strategies represent the pos- Additionally, experiences of stigma in populations of low
itive narrative resolution of difficult life events: a form of socioeconomic status and racial/ethnic minorities may not
narrative processing indicative of heightened well-being be well-represented in the sample. The analytical focus was
(King, 2001; Pals, 2006). limited to sexual orientation stigma, and was not sensitive to
These findings parallel previous work on the relationship the intersectional experience of multiple forms of margin-
between stigma and self-esteem. For example, Crocker and alization (i.e., interracial same-sex couples). Given these
Major (1989) have pointed out how, in certain circum- populations often experience the highest levels of minority
stances, experiences of stigma can be self-enhancing. Apart stress (Meyer et al., 2008), experiences of stigma may have
from the strategies revealed in the narratives, the contents of been underrepresented in the current study.
participants’ narratives suggested that they seek out or fash- Despite these limitations, the current study’s use of a
ion safe spaces, communities, and rituals that may buffer the narrative approach represents a novel and meaningful con-
negative effects of stigma. These strategies match Meyer’s tribution to the study of stigma and its impact on same-sex
(2003) notion of community coping mechanisms for dealing couples. Utilizing relationship stories as the primary unit of
with minority stress and stigma, and further illustrate how analysis produced an understanding of stigma that both
stigmatization and marginalization can be generative and complements and complicates previous research on stigma,
redefine opportunities for same-sex couples to include minority stress, and same-sex couples. Thus, the findings
themselves in local and macro structures that are otherwise portray a nuanced understanding of how couples experience
exclusionary (Moradi, Mohr, Worthington, & Fassinger, stigma in their everyday lives. A narrative approach may be
2009). useful in studies of other marginalized relationships (e.g.,
 STIGMA AND INTIMACY 9

interracial, age-gap), as well as within studies of stigma Fiese, B. H., & Grotevant, H. D. (2001). Introduction to special
outside of the context of relationships. Furthermore, the issue on “Narratives in and about relationships.” Journal of
kind of idiographic and person-centered perspectives that Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 579 –581.
relationship stories afford may be useful in informing clin- Foley Center for the Study of Lives. (1997). Guided autobiogra-
ical and counseling interventions designed to improve the phy. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
Frost, D. M., & Meyer, I. H. (2009). Internalized homophobia and
lives of couples struggling with stigma and intimacy. Cer- relationship quality among lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals.
tain strategies for psychologically negotiating experiences Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 97–109.
of stigma and intimacy may lead to more positive outcomes Frost, D. M., Stirratt, M. J., & Ouellette, S. C. (2008). Understand-
than others. Counselors and clinicians, particularly those in ing why gay men seek HIV-seroconcordant partners: Intimacy
the field of narrative therapy (e.g., McAdams & Janis, and risk reduction motivations. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 10,
2004), can potentially apply the current findings in their 513–527.
attempts to help same-sex couples make sense of and cope Funk, J. L., & Rogge, R. D. (2007). Testing the ruler with item
with stigma and minority stress and reduce their negative response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for rela-
effects. tionship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal
Despite persistent experiences of stigma and minority of Family Psychology, 21, 572–583.
stress, this study demonstrates that many individuals in Green, R. J. (2004). Risk and resilience in lesbian and gay couples:
same-sex couples described having satisfying and success- Comment on Solomon, Rothblum, and Balsam (2004). Journal
of Family Psychology, 18, 290 –292.
ful relationships. Future research must focus on further Hall, R., & Fine, M. (2005). The stories we tell: The lives and
understanding the conditions under which couples are able friendship of two older black lesbians. Psychology of Women
to successfully navigate the negative effects of stigma, as Quarterly, 29, 177–187.
well as determine what conditions are necessary for stigma Hammack, P. L. (2005). The life course development of human
to take hold within relationships and negatively impact sexual orientation: An integrative paradigm. Human Develop-
couples’ relational and psychological well-being. The strat- ment, 48, 267–290.
egies revealed in the relationship stories of individuals in Herdt, G., & Kertzner, R. (2006). I do, but I can’t: The impact of
same-sex couples in this study provide a legitimate starting marriage denial on the mental health and sexual citizenship of
point for such investigations. Knowledge of the intricacies lesbians and gay men in the United States. Sexuality Research &
and complexities of these strategies will undoubtedly prove Social Policy, 3, 33– 49.
useful within future research agendas and interventions. Herek, G. M. (2006). Legal recognition of same-sex relationships
in the United States: A social science perspective. American
Psychologist, 61, 607– 621.
References Josselson, R. (2004). The hermeneutics of faith and the hermeneu-
Bauer, J. J., McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2008). Narrative tics of suspicion. Narrative Inquiry, 14, 1–28.
identity and eudaimonic well-being. Journal of Happiness Stud- Josselson, R. (2007). Playing Pygmalion: How people create one
ies, 9, 81–104. another. Lanham, MD: Jason Aronson.
Cohler, B., & Hostetler, A. (2002). Aging, intimate relationships, Josselson, R. (2009). The present of the past: Dialogues with
and life story among gay men. In R. Weiss & S. Bass (Eds.), memory over time. Journal of Personality, 77, 647– 668.
Challenges of the third age: Meaning and purpose in later life King, L. (2001). The hard road to the good life: The happy, mature
(pp. 137–160). New York: Oxford University Press. person. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 41, 51–72.
Cohler, B. J., & Galatzer-Levy, R. M. (2000). The course of gay King, M., & Bartlett, A. (2006). What same sex civil partnerships
and lesbian lives: Social and psychoanalytic perspectives. Chi- may mean for health. Journal of Epidemiology & Community
cago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Health, 60, 188 –191.
Conville, R. L. (1997). Between spearheads: Bricolage and rela- LaSala, M. C. (2000). Gay male couples: The importance of
tionships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, coming out and being out to parents. Journal of Homosexuality,
373–386. 39, 47–71.
Conville, R. L. (1998). Narrative, dialectic, and relationships. In R. Lax, J. R., & Phillips, J. H. (2009). Gay rights in the states: Public
Conville and L. Rogers (Eds.), The meaning of “relationship” in opinion and policy responsiveness. American Political Science
interpersonal communication (pp. 133–148). Westport: CT: Review, 103, 367–386.
Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group. Lewis, R. J., Derlega, V. J., Berndt, A., Morris, L. M., & Rose, S.
Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: (2001). An empirical analysis of stressors for gay men and
The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality, 42, 63– 88.
96, 608 – 630. McAdams, D. P. (2004). The redemptive self: Narrative identity in
Degges-White, S. (2006). An exploration of long-term, same-sex America today. In D. R. Beike, J. M. Lampinen, & D. A.
relationships: Benchmarks, perceptions, and challenges. Journal Behrend (Eds.), The self and memory: Studies in self and identity
of LGBT issues in Counseling, 1, 99 –119. (pp. 95–115). New York: Psychology Press.
Fiese, B. H., Sameroff, A. J., Grotevant, H. D., Wamboldt, F. S., McAdams, D. P. (2006). The redemptive self: Generativity and the
Dickstein, S., Fravel, D. L., . . . Schiller, M. (1999). The stories stories Americans live by. Research in Human Development, 3,
that families tell: Narrative coherence, narrative interaction, and 81–100.
relationship beliefs. Monographs of the Society for Research in McAdams, D. P., & Janis, L. (2004). Narrative identity and nar-
Child Development, 64, 1–162. rative therapy. In L. Angus & J. McLeod (Eds.), The handbook
Fiese, B. H., & Spagnola, M. (2005). Narratives in and about of narrative and psychotherapy: Practice, theory, and research
families: An examination of coding schemes and a guide for (pp. 159 –173). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
family researchers. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 51– 61. McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). A new Big Five: Funda-
10 FROST

mental principles for an integrative science of personality. Amer- riences: Pathways of personality development and positive self-
ican Psychologist, 61, 204 –217. transformation in adulthood. Journal of Personality, 74, 1079 –
McLean, K. C., & Thorne, A. (2003). Late adolescents’ self- 1110.
defining memories about relationships. Developmental Psychol- Peplau, L., & Fingerhut, A. (2007). The close relationships of
ogy, 39, 635– 645. lesbian and gay men. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 405–
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in 424.
lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and Prager, K. J. (1995). The psychology of intimacy. New York:
research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674 – 697. Guilford Press.
Meyer, I. H., & Ouellette, S. C. (2009). Unity and purpose at the Riggle, E., Rostosky, S., & Horne, S. (2010). Psychological dis-
intersections of racial/ethnic and sexual identities. In: P. Hammack tress, well-being, and legal recognition in same-sex couple rela-
& B. Cohler (Eds.), The story of sexual identity: Narrative, social tionships. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 82– 86.
change, and the development of sexual orientation (pp. 79 –106). Rostosky, S. S., Riggle, E. D. B., Gray, B. E., & Halton, R. L.
New York: Oxford University Press. (2007). Minority stress experiences in committed same-sex cou-
Meyer, I. H., Schwartz, S., & Frost, D. M. (2008). Social pattern- ple relationships. Professional Psychology: Research and Prac-
ing of stress and coping: Does disadvantaged social status confer tice, 38, 392– 400.
more stress and fewer coping resources? Social Science & Med- Todosijevic, J., Rothblum, E., & Solomon, S. (2005). Relationship
icine, 67, 368 –379. satisfaction, affectivity, and gay-specific stressors in same-sex
Meyer, I. H., & Wilson, P. A. (2009). Sampling lesbian, gay, and
couples joined in civil unions. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
bisexual populations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56,
29, 158 –166.
23–31.
Van Eeden-Moorefield, B. (2008). A comparison of Internet and
Moradi, B., Mohr, J. J., Worthington, R. L., & Fassinger, R. E.
(2009). Counseling psychology research on sexual (orientation) face-to-face (FTF) qualitative methods in studying the relation-
minority issues: Conceptual and methodological challenges and ships of gay men. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 4, 181–204.
opportunities. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 5–22. Wang, L. (2006). Discrimination by default: How racism becomes
Otis, M. D., Rostosky, S. S., Riggle, E. D. B., & Hamrin, R. routine. New York: New York University Press.
(2006). Stress and relationship quality in same-sex couples. Weststrate, N., & McLean, K. (2010). The rise and fall of gay: A
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 81–99. cultural-historical approach to gay identity development. Mem-
Ouellette, S. C., & Frost, D. M. (2006). The possibilities of ory, 18, 225–240.
personality psychology and persons for the study of health. In M.
Vollrath (Ed.), The handbook of personality and health (pp. Received June 12, 2010
235–255). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Revision received November 15, 2010
Pals, J. (2006). Narrative identity processing of difficult life expe- Accepted November 15, 2010 䡲

View publication stats