Professional Psychology: Research and Practice Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association

2007, Vol. 38, No. 4, 392– 400 0735-7028/07/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0735-7028.38.4.392

Minority Stress Experiences in Committed Same-Sex Couple Relationships

Sharon Scales Rostosky, Ellen D. B. Riggle, Barry E. Gray, and Roxanna L. Hatton
University of Kentucky

Providing culturally competent services to same-sex couples requires an understanding of the social
context in which these relationships are formed and maintained. Using minority stress theory (I. H.
Meyer, 2003) as an interpretive framework, the authors conducted a dyadic-level qualitative analysis of
40 (20 female; 20 male) couples’ conversations about their committed partnerships. Findings indicate that
couples experience minority stress as they interact with their family members, coworkers, and commu-
nities. In response to stressors, couples use coping strategies that include reframing negative experiences,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

concealing their relationship, creating social support, and affirming self and partnership. Recommenda-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

tions for practitioners based on these findings include assessing minority stress, facilitating coping, and
taking a critical stance toward policies that perpetuate social stigma and chronic stress.

Keywords: social stress, relationship, gay, lesbian, discrimination

What do psychologists need to understand about the minority of same-sex couples and the implications of these experiences for
stress experiences of same-sex couples in order to provide appro- affirmative and efficacious treatment.
priate and affirmative therapy? Estimates indicate that lesbian, The committed relationships of same-sex couples are defined by
gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals seek mental health services at many of the same, or similar, features of heterosexual couples.
a higher rate than the general population (Cochran, 2001, Cochran, When reporting on their committed relationships, heterosexual and
Sullivan, & Mays, 2003). Correspondingly, the vast majority of same-sex couples report similar forces of attraction (e.g., high
psychologists providing professional therapy report seeing at least rewards and low costs) and forces of constraint (e.g., investments
one lesbian- or gay-identified client during their careers, and many and barriers to dissolution, Duffy & Rusbult, 1986; Kurdek, 1995,
report current lesbian and gay clients (Garnets, Hancock, Cochran, 2000). However, the committed relationships of same-sex couples
Goodchilds, & Peplau, 1991; Graham, Rawlings, Halpern, & are created and maintained in a social context characterized by
Hermes, 1984). Therefore, psychologists need to develop cultural stigma and discrimination. Challenges unique to same-sex couples
competence in working with sexual-minority clients, including include making decisions to disclose the relationship to family
same-sex couples (see Murphy, Rawlings, & Howe, 2002). The members and creating legal rights and protections in the absence of
purpose of this article is to describe the minority stress experiences marriage (Rostosky, Riggle, Dudley, & Wright, in press).

SHARON SCALES ROSTOSKY received her PhD in counseling psychology dation’s Wayne F. Placek Award (2000) and a 2002 University of Ken-
from the University of Tennessee in 1998. She is currently an associate tucky Summer Faculty Fellowship to Sharon Scales Rostosky. Portions of
professor in the counseling psychology program at the University of this research study were presented at the 114th Annual Convention of the
Kentucky. She is a cofounder of the Psychosocial Research Initiative on American Psychological Association, New Orleans, Louisiana, August
Sexual Minorities (PRISM, [Link]). Her research focuses 2006.
on the psychosocial health and well-being of sexual minority individuals WE THANK Beth Goldstein for providing initial consultation and support for
and families. this project. For serving as project coordinators, we express appreciation to
ELLEN D. B. RIGGLE received her PhD in political science from the Todd Savage, Ashley Reed, and Cydney Jackson. For help with data
University of Illinois, Champaign, in 1990. She is currently an associate collection we thank Gina Owens and Robert A. Prather. For transcribing
professor of political science and associate director of the Gender and
the data we owe a huge debt of gratitude to Marc Frisiello. We thank all of
Women’s Studies program at the University of Kentucky. She is cofounder
the members of PRISM for their energy and enthusiasm. Finally, we thank
of PRISM. Her research interests include the rights of same-gender loving
the couples who generously shared their lives with us, thereby profoundly
and partnered individuals.
enriching our own.
BARRY E. GRAY received his Ed S from the University of Kentucky, where
DR. BETHE KORFHAGE, age 30, one of the brightest and most beloved of our
he is a doctoral student in counseling psychology and a member of the
PRISM research team. His research interests focus on midlife male sexual PRISM team members, died as a result of fatal injuries sustained in an
identity development. He currently provides community mental health automobile accident that occurred on July 30, 2006, as she was returning
services at Pathways, in Mt. Sterling, Kentucky. to Kentucky at the conclusion of her APA predoctoral internship in Texas.
ROXANNA L. HATTON received her Ed S in counseling psychology from the We gratefully acknowledge and honor her passion and dedication as a
University of Kentucky in 2005. She is a member of the PRISM research scholar and ally in the work for social justice for LGB families.
team at the University of Kentucky and currently works as a family and CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING THIS ARTICLE should be addressed to Sharon
youth specialist for a therapeutic foster care agency, Specialized Alterna- Scales Rostosky at the Department of Educational and Counseling Psy-
tives for Families and Youth, in Lexington, Kentucky. chology, 245 Dickey Hall, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506-
THIS RESEARCH STUDY WAS FUNDED by the American Psychological Foun- 0017. E-mail: Rostosk@[Link]

392
 MINORITY STRESS 393

The minority stress model (Brooks, 1981; Meyer 1995, 2003) is networks. Interested couples contacted Sharon Scales Rostosky
a conceptual framework for understanding the negative effects on for more information about the study. Couples were informed
psychosocial health and well-being that are caused by a stigma- that the study was about the relationship values and experiences
tizing social context. Minority stress is the chronic social stress of committed same-sex couples and that they would be asked to
that results from belonging to a stigmatized social category and is discuss their relationship in a videotaped conversation and to
over and above the general stressors of daily life. As applied to individually complete a series of questionnaires about their
LGB individuals, minority stress is composed of five factors. attitudes and experiences. Couples who were willing to partic-
These factors are (a) experiences of discrimination, (b) anticipated ipate were scheduled for an appointment at Sharon Scales
rejection, (c) hiding and concealing their identities, and (d) dealing Rostosky’s university office.
with internalized homonegativity. In response to these four factors,
LGB individuals develop (e) coping strategies, the fifth factor in
the model (Meyer, 2003). Demographic Information
Minority stress for gay men and lesbians has been studied in a
variety of contexts. In work settings, minority stress factors have Eighty-five percent of the participants were European or Amer-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

been found to be associated with lower job satisfaction, increased ican White; 6% identified as African American, and 8% as other,
psychological distress, and more reported health problems (Waldo, non-White and non-African American racial or ethnic identities.
1999). Among gay men, minority stress factors have been associ- The mean age of couple members was 34.5 years (SD ⫽ 9.05). Just
ated with psychological distress (Meyer, 1995) and negative body over 1 in 4 (27.4%) participants had some college education
image (Kimmel & Mahalik, 2005). In the family context, higher (including those currently attending college), 32% had college
levels of the minority stress factors have been associated with degrees, and 31.3% had postbaccalaureate graduate or professional
feeling less competent and more defensive in a sample of Dutch degrees. The median reported household income bracket was
lesbian mothers (Bos, van Balen, van den Boom, & Sandfort, $30,000 –$39,999. The mean length of relationship was 5.33 years;
2004). Studies of same-sex couples (Otis, Rostosky, Riggle, & 35% had been in a relationship between 6 months and 2 years, 31%
Hamrin, 2006) and lesbian relationships (Balsam & Szymanski, had been together between 2 and 5 years, and 34% had been
2005) have documented significant associations between minority together more than 5 years (up to 23 years). The majority of the
stress factors and lower relationship quality scores. In Balsam and couples lived together (89.5%).
Szymanski’s (2005) study, higher levels of minority stress were
Although 94% were out to their families of origin, only 34%
also linked to reported incidents of domestic violence in this
believed that their family was supportive and/or accepting of their
sample of lesbians.
sexual orientation. Seventy-four percent of the couple members
To better understand and illustrate the lived experience of mi-
indicated that they liked their partner’s family, but only 36% of the
nority stress for same-sex couples, we formulated the following
couple members reported that their family accepted their partner
research question: “What specific minority stress experiences do
same-sex couples encounter in the context of forming and main- into their lives.
taining a committed relationship with each other?” In same-sex A vast majority of participants reported being verbally harassed
couple relationships, the interdependence of relational partners at some point in their life because of their sexual orientation.
(Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) means that the social stress experienced Forty-six percent reported that they had been verbally harassed
by one couple member will have a negative impact on his or her five or more times because of their sexual orientation. Addition-
partner (Kurdek, 2000; Otis, Riggle, & Rostosky, 2006; Rostosky ally, 19% reported being physically assaulted at least once because
& Riggle, 2002). Building on this foundational tenet of interde- of their sexual orientation.
pendence theory and the limited amount of available research
reviewed above, we reasoned that examining the minority stress
experiences of same-sex couples necessitated a discovery-oriented,
Procedures and Conversation Protocol
dyadic-level approach. Therefore, using as our interpretive frame-
Once informed consent procedures were complete, each couple
work the five minority stress factors listed above, we conducted a
member was given a set of conversation prompts to use in a guided
qualitative analysis of the dyadic conversations of same-sex cou-
discussion of his or her perceptions of their committed relation-
ples in committed relationships.
ship. These prompts, which were developed, piloted, and revised
by a research team of faculty and graduate students, asked couples
The Same-Sex Couples Study to discuss the meaning of commitment in their relationship. Sam-
ple prompts included “What does commitment mean to you?,”
The Couples “How do you know you are in a committed relationship?,” “What
Forty same-sex couples (20 male, 20 female) whose members were the ‘steps’ involved in forming a committed relationship with
were at least 18 years old and who had considered themselves each other?,” and “What are the pros and cons of being in a
to be a couple for at least 6 months were recruited through committed relationship?” Other prompts asked couples to discuss
e-mail announcements and advertisements in publications and encounters with disapproval of their relationship, their perceptions
at public events that drew members of the LGB community in of their families’ support or lack of support, and how these
a midsized city and the surrounding area in a midsouthern state. experiences affected their commitment to each other. Couples
In addition, each participating couple was given fliers about the were also prompted to compare their relationship to heterosexual
study to distribute to other same-sex couples in their social relationships that they observed and describe how they perceived
 394 ROSTOSKY, RIGGLE, GRAY, AND HATTON

their own commitment to be similar to or different from that seen Perceptions of Discrimination and Stigma
in those heterosexual relationships.1
After answering any questions, the researcher informed the Of the 40 couples, 33 discussed their stigmatized status in the
couple that they had 40 min to discuss the questions in any order larger culture or society. The content of their conversations fell
they chose, started the video- and audiotape, and then left the into three subcategories or themes. First, over half of the couples
couple alone to talk. The researcher returned after 40 min to turn discussed discrimination by institutions, most commonly religious
off the taping equipment and to proceed with the remainder of the and legal institutions. For example, Brett’s partner of 14 years,
study. (Couple members also individually completed a survey and Jim,2 noted,
an interview as part of a larger study of commitment and relation-
If you listen to many religious people, not only are your relationships
ship values in same-sex couples. The focus of this article, however,
not significant, but you’re going to burn in hell because of your
is on the analysis of the couples’ conversations.) At the conclusion relationship. So I definitely think that sends a signal to some people,
of the study, the couple was debriefed and paid a stipend to probably, that says, “We’re not going to recognize that you can have
compensate them for their time. a relationship.”
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Data Analyses Couples also discussed the lack of the legal rights of civil marriage
and the lack of legal protections for their partners that were
Consensual qualitative research (Hill, Thompson, & Williams, comparable to those automatically conferred on heterosexual mar-
1997; Hill et al., 2005) methods were used to perform the data ried couples. For example, Barb and Teri, a female couple together
analyses. A team of two graduate students coded all 40 transcripts 11 years, described their frustration with policies that unfairly
of the couples’ conversations; Sharon Scales Rostosky served as disadvantaged their family:
the auditor for the project. As suggested by Hill et al. (2005), the
data coders read published training materials (e.g., Hill et al., Barb: Anything we do, like having a kid together, we have to draw
1997) and several published exemplar studies that used consensual up documents and stuff, even though with a committed het-
erosexual relationship, even if you’re not married, it’s auto-
qualitative research (e.g., Knox, Hess, Williams, & Hill, 2003;
matic that you go to this person if something happens to you.
Williams et al., 1998). Sharon Scales Rostosky, who is experi-
enced with consensual qualitative research training and methods, Teri: You’ve got rights.
also met with the two coders regularly for consultation and feed-
back on each step of the procedures described below. Barb: With us, we have to make sure we have to have this and that.
The coding team began with a framework, or start list, that Teri: That’s the aggravating part.
consisted of the minority stress factors of experiences of discrim-
ination or stigma, anticipated or experienced rejection, hiding and Barb: And, too, with health insurance, I can’t be on [your] insurance
concealment or disclosure, internalized homophobia, and coping so I have to pay a separate policy which is more because I [am
responses. Coders were instructed to also mark any text that met self-employed]. I have to pay my own, whereas if we were a
the minority stress definition of “chronic, stigma-related social man and a woman, [you] could just pick me [and our son] up
stress” but did not fit into one of the five factors on the start list. on [yours] . . . I think that’s crazy because we’ve been to-
gether forever.
This procedure allowed for the possibility of emergent themes.
Each coder separately read and identified the text in the transcripts Teri: And the thing with the taxes irritates me to death. Last year I
relevant to each minority stress factor. The coders then met to got, because the way everything works out is, it looks like . . .
reach consensus and create a data set for analysis. The auditor I support all three of us, so on the taxes I claimed all three of
provided feedback and finalized the data set. Next, the coders us as dependents last year and got the deduction. This year,
wrote abstracts for each transcript for each factor or domain. The they changed it to only married people or blood relatives,
coders then examined these abstracts to determine the subcatego- which means [your] mother would be able to claim [our son]
ries that constituted each domain. The auditor reviewed the sub- as a dependent before I could, and we do not get any welfare,
no health provider, no anything. We support him solely
categories and made recommendations for revisions prior to gen-
ourselves.
erating a cross-analysis of each minority stress subcategory across
the full set of transcripts. The results of this cross-analysis are Barb: And we live together, and we really do take care of him.
described below.
Teri: It’s not the money, really, it’s just the fact that it’s discrim-
ination . . . everybody else gets that but we don’t . . . [even
Minority Stress Experiences though] we’re every bit as committed or more committed than
most other people that I know.
All of the couples’ experiences and perceptions that were indic-
ative of social stress related to sexual minority status could be The second typical theme, also mentioned by over half of the
categorized into one of the minority stress factors postulated by sample, was the negative stereotypes and attitudes that pervade
Meyer (2003); there were no new factors that emerged from these society. Specifically, couples discussed the common negative ste-
data. That is, this sample of couples related concrete examples of
experiences of discrimination and stigmatization, rejection, hiding
or concealment of their sexual minority identities, and internalized 1
The complete conversation protocol for this study is available from
homophobia. Couples also described their means of coping with Sharon Rostosky (rostosk@[Link]).
2
these negative experiences. All names are pseudonyms randomly generated by the authors.
 MINORITY STRESS 395

reotype that same-sex relationships are fleeting and impermanent. Other forms of rejection that couples discussed were direct stares
“I still think to a large degree that most of them [heterosexuals] and verbal attacks they received from strangers in public. Todd and
think that it won’t last. It’s not supposed to last, and it’s just not a Michael recounted this experience:
commitment per se” (Karen, partnered to Rhonda for 4 years).
Other negative stereotypes were also distressing to these couples, Michael: You know that boy [yesterday in the store] that you said
you thought he was looking back at you? I’m pretty
including assumptions that gay men and lesbians are promiscuous,
positive that he was making fun of us being gay . . . like
predatory, and immoral and therefore incapable of stable couple
we get that type of thing every once in a while. People
relationships. For some couples, the stereotypes that same-sex scoff in public or look at us oddly.
couples adhere to gender roles (that one partner is the “man” and
one is the “woman”) invalidated the experience of their relation- Todd: Well, they don’t look at you as much as they look at me.
ship as being free of gender-defined roles and limitations. Couples I present myself more gay than you do.
often expressed the perception that society disapproved of and
Michael: They think we’re flaunting the fact that we’re gay; we’re
devalued their committed relationships.
just walking through the stores acting like ourselves.
Finally, many couples lamented that the social stigma resulted in
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

a lack of visible positive role models available for same-sex Todd: Acting like a couple when we’re shopping . . . . we were
couples. In this respect, couples in our sample perceived them- shopping for a serving tray and the little boy said some-
selves to be disadvantaged, with few social supports or models for thing to us. But, oh well.
forming and maintaining their relationships. For instance, Todd
After repeated experiences of rejection by family members and
and Michael, together for 3 years, expressed a desire to talk with
strangers, couples may begin to anticipate rejection. The couples in
other couples in long-term relationships:
this study reported occasions when their behaviors and interactions
Todd: [I had heard] there were people . . . who had been together were in response to anticipated rejection. Cindy shared the follow-
23 years [that] I’d like to meet. ing with Joan, her partner of 3 years:

Michael: Yeah, I’d love to meet people that’s been together 23 The members of my family that actually have knowledge of our
years. relationship are not supportive of it, and I guess my assumption that
if I were to share that information with others, like with my parents,
Todd: I’d like to see how they get along. that the same disapproval is waiting in the wings, which I guess is why
the hesitancy is there to do that. I don’t know if that affects the way
Michael: The longest relationship I’ve seen is about 10 years. I’ve you perceive my commitment to you or not. I mean, the fact that we’re
never seen one 20 years. Ten is the max. obviously in a situation where I can’t be open and up front about it.
Todd: That’s what I’d like. I’d like to know if they go through
Donna talked with Jennifer, her partner of 7 years, about her
some of the things that we go through.
careful self-monitoring as a college instructor in order to avoid
rejection:
Experienced and Anticipated Rejection
I know people who are straight and who are teaching assistants [who
Couples experienced varying degrees and forms of rejection of say], “Oh, I mentioned my wife in class today.” I’ve never mentioned
you at all, and I know that part of that is born out of my own
their relationship. Many of these experiences of rejection or the
cowardliness, but I know part of it is born out of the fact that I’m
anxiety produced by anticipation of rejection involved relation-
standing there in front of 30 people who may or may not respond well
ships with their families of origin. Their experiences ranged from to it. I think the stress of that is something that heterosexual couples
expressed discomfort with the couple relationship, to refusal to never have to deal with.
acknowledge the partner or the relationship (e.g., in invitations or
holiday cards), to blatant attempts to cause the dissolution of the Disclosure or Concealment of Couple Relationship
relationship. Confrontations or verbal attacks came from family
members, friends, or coworkers, as well as strangers. For instance, The experiences of rejection and anticipation of rejection led
one couple member recounted her father screaming “dyke” at her many couples to respond with hypervigilence and concealment.
because of his disapproval of her relationship. Other couples Several couples mentioned that in anticipation of the kinds of
expressed pain over what their families did not say. For instance, stares, verbal attacks, or unspoken disapproval mentioned above,
Tamara recalled the lack of support when she first called to tell her they carefully monitor their behaviors so as to not appear to be a
parents about her partner, Linda: couple. Rob and Anthony, together for 11 years, described their
self-monitoring and concealment this way:
Tamara: Remember when I called Mom and Dad that night?
Rob: It’s not like a heterosexual relationship because you can’t
Linda: You were so happy. express the same things, at least publicly or in general
settings [like] most heterosexual couples can. I mean, we
Tamara: I was so excited because I had found the right person. cannot walk down the street holding hands. Well, we can,
but with a lot of concern . . . and you never know how
Linda: You were in love, I think you told me.
people are going to react . . . . You have to keep it [the
Tamara: Yeah, I said I was in love. [And then] that total rejection. relationship] more to yourself . . . . and it just comes down
to these outward things that couples do. I mean, we just
Linda: You were crushed . . . . You were hurt. can’t talk about our vacation at work.
 396 ROSTOSKY, RIGGLE, GRAY, AND HATTON

Anthony: At my work. who had been Russell’s partner for 7 months, illustrated his inten-
tion and efforts to interact normally and his concomitant frustra-
Rob: Yeah, just normal things.
tion at being perceived otherwise:
Anthony: And yet I like talking about those things, so that makes it
Brad: She [my sister] doesn’t ask about you, but I’ll bring it up,
a little bit difficult.
like just as casually . . . like, if you think about it, the
Rob: You kinda have to almost put a screen—a filter—through straight people I work with can casually mention, “me and
your conversations. . . . You have to filter what you tell to my girlfriend went to the mall yesterday.”
. . . most people because you just never know what the
Russell: Constantly.
reaction is going to be, unfortunately, being a homosexual
in this day and age. Brad: Yeah, like if I’m at work and I’m working with somebody
I’ve never worked with and he’s like, “Oh, me and my girl”
About half of the couples decided to conceal or hide their went to wherever, and I’m like, “Oh, me and Russell did
relationship from others if they anticipated rejection. Bill and that the other day,” or, “me and my boyfriend did that the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Randy, together for 21 years, saw isolating, hiding, and concealing other day,” just as casually. . . . [I] become a political,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

as a survival tactic: outspoken fag that’s shoving it in people’s faces, and it’s
like not, it’s a casual comment that is an important part of
Bill: Most of the people that I know that are involved in long- my life. I bring it up in just the same casual way [straight
term gay relationships are very secluded and reclusive, and people] do. But, I’ve noticed like talking with my sister,
I think it’s intentional, and I think it’s the right thing to do bringing up, you know, “Russell and I did that; Russell and
under the circumstances. I don’t think it’s a way of being I saw that movie,” she gets this look on her face like, “Oh,
paranoid of society or of keeping yourself from loving other he’s shoving it in my face.” And that really pisses me off.
people. It’s a way of protecting yourself.

Randy: Partly survival. Internalized Homophobia

Bill: Sure it is. I know a lot of people don’t want to admit what Just under half of the couples made statements in their conver-
happens when it comes to someone being targeted by soci- sations that revealed negative attitudes about homosexuality di-
ety, but I know it happens . . . just because they’re a gay rected toward the self or the relationship. Three themes captured
couple and because they stand for something [others] don’t the expression of these negative attitudes or internalized homo-
believe in. Gay people don’t want to admit that kind of thing phobia. First, about 1 in 4 of the couples expressed low expecta-
happens, either. tions for the longevity of their couple relationship. Holly (part-
nered with Diane for 2 years) illustrated her perception of the
Although concealing or hiding the relationship is perceived as a process of internalization of negative stereotypes about same-sex
way to cope with anticipated rejection, this form of coping often relationships:
comes at a price. Approximately one quarter of the couples dis-
cussed the costs to the relationship when there were discrepancies Two women or two men can hardly find any place in the world to
in levels of disclosure. For instance, Joan, whose partner of 3 have a public, legal marriage ceremony, and I think that’s a real
years, Cindy, was not out to her parents, referred to the stress of travesty. I think it’s completely unfair, and I think that contributes to
concealment on the couple’s relationship: same-sex partners feeling not enough support from the community. So
I think sometimes it can lead to that couple having maybe a defeatist
Most of the time it doesn’t make me question anything. I mean, I attitude toward staying together, believing it’s not going to work
know you’re committed to me and I know that you want to be with me anyway in the long haul.
and that we’re committed to working at a committed relationship.
Those rare occasions where I completely lose it and get upset and Nearly one in four of the couples in the sample discussed the
[think], ‘If you really loved me, if you really cared about me, if you ways that they defended or protected themselves by distancing
really wanted to be with me, then you would tell your parents,’ . . . themselves from, avoiding, or rejecting other gay people who were
[but] you have to do things at your own pace . . . and I back up and out in an attempt to hide their sexual orientation. Skip recounted a
reevaluate and regroup and you hold me and I cry it out and we go on recent public incident in which a stranger was shouting hostile and
from there. abusive names at his partner, David, and himself:

A reluctance to acknowledge the impact of concealment is It sucks that people like that are on this Earth. And it sucks that
illustrated by Jeff, who has been with James for 4 years: [people like that] make it to the point where we can’t. . . it makes me
not want to hang out with a lot of gay people who are openly gay
Well, the only thing is, my parents don’t know. My parents would because I don’t ever want to have that happen again. I don’t want to
not agree; they would disown me. So to them, we’re roommates. ever have someone come into my face and scream at me and tell me
But that’s not really influenced our relationship, it’s just influenced that I’m basically going to hell or something. I mean, that was a bad
how we present ourselves to them. . . I can’t be really open with feeling.
my parents. When I go down to visit [them] tomorrow, you won’t
go with me, obviously, and so that’s a bad thing that we can’t be Finally, several couple members disclosed their struggle to
fully open. accept their sexuality. Rhonda discussed her struggle within her
relationship with Karen, “I still fight homophobia within myself
In spite of the lack of support, however, many of these couples . . . and sometimes it pops up in this relationship and just like when
do disclose their relationship to their families and coworkers. Brad, I had a problem living back in my hometown and being in a
 MINORITY STRESS 397

relationship with you and having to face . . . the homophobia in Sue: We’re both from Baptist families, so we’re in this relation-
that town.” Charles (partnered with Marcus for 4 years) articulated ship knowing that if we pursue this we’re severing ourselves
the cycle of negative stereotypes, concealment, and internalized from everything—from the churches we grew up in, from
shame: the schools we grew up in, the school that we attended,
families we have—I mean, it was all homophobic. I didn’t
I didn’t know there [were] any gay relationships out there, other than have anyone in my life that would be even remotely open to
one-night stands. Until I started to come out 4 years ago and started this. I can’t think of one single person that I didn’t know I
talking to people . . . and finally getting over my fear of all these would be totally rejected by—and was.
myths and stereotypes of gay people as sex mongers, pedophiles, and
Janice: I think that’s pretty much it for both of us.
all that other garbage. I thought all those things were true . . . that
there wasn’t anything about love, and intimacy, and the need to be Sue: It shattered my whole life—it shattered everything.
with someone to fulfill the piece that was missing in your life. . . .
Why I had such a distorted view for a long time is that I didn’t realize Janice: Yeah, for both of us.
that gay people actually had committed relationships because I never
saw any. Sue: I had nothing left. I was totally alone. . . .You were it. . .I
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

had just gotten out of college and didn’t have a job yet
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

. . . . plans to go to grad school, and it was gone.

Coping Processes
Janice: I think because of our relationship it really messed up part
Couples discussed four general types of coping strategies that
of your life. I still feel responsible for that.
they used to deal with the stresses of their stigmatized status.
Self-acceptance as a sexual minority and positive views of the Sue: No, I don’t think our relationship was responsible for that;
couple relationship were important aspects of coping for some I think the reaction to our relationship was responsible for
couples. Tamara shared how she assertively proclaimed to her that.
family that her partner, Linda, was “every bit as much a spouse as
Janice: Well, if you hadn’t gotten involved with me, then you
any in-law in that family,” and the empowerment that came from
could’ve gone to grad school.
“sending the message loud and clear . . . what your position and
our position was in the whole scheme of things.” Barb recounted Sue: How has that influenced our commitment? We had nothing
this interaction in which she asserted the equal status of her else; it was, cling to each other or drown emotionally. I
relationship with her partner of 11 years: think it brought us closer together. I don’t think we would be
as committed to each other if we hadn’t had all that adver-
He [father] called and asked if I would come up for Thanksgiving and sity. We would have had no reason to connect so deeply
I said, “Is Teri invited?” because I figured by now they’d had enough with one another.
time to adjust to the idea of me and Teri being together. And I said,
“Is Teri invited, too?” And they said that I could go to my family and Finally, couples coped by creating support systems composed of
you could go to yours, and that’s it. And I said, “Would you come to family members, friends, other gay couples, and each other. These
my Thanksgiving dinner without your wife?” And he said, “No.” And couples expressed deep appreciation for the affirmation and vali-
I said, “Well, I won’t be there.” dation that they received.
Several couples discussed the importance of ignoring, compart- When we go out someplace and we’re around other lesbian couples,
mentalizing, or externalizing the rejecting experiences that they it makes me feel so good because I feel like I’m around people like I
encountered. Anthony, for instance, reminded Rob about the neg- am, and it makes me feel comfortable. It makes me feel like I am
ative influence that his religious background had on the quality of where I am supposed to be, and I get a lot of strength from that.
their relationship. “But you’re aware of how I’ve handled that, just (Rhonda).
sort of categorizing it [negative messages] and filing it away.”
Couples also coped by “looking at the pointing finger,” or exter- Charles credited validation from Marcus’s family for the stabil-
nalizing responsibility for the negativity rather than absorbing the ity of their couple relationship:
negativity around them and internalizing it. Jennifer (Donna’s
I know that your parents’ reaction has really played a huge part in my
partner of 7 years) noted the progress she had made in using this
feelings about our relationship and my feelings about myself. Their
strategy, “People are going to make these assumptions about me,
acceptance and support has gone a long way towards me feeling better
and I care a whole lot less about what people think about about being gay, and I think that goes hand in hand with me feeling
me . . . . I’m better able to [say] ‘[These] people are just flat stupid better about our relationship.
and they’re always going to treat me this way and that’s their
issue—I don’t care.’”
Many couples discussed how they reframed their negative ex-
Recommendations for Practitioners
periences as empowering rather than diminishing them. Sue and The findings in this study illustrate some of the common man-
Janice became partners while they were at college. They recounted ifestations of minority stress in the everyday lives of same-sex
the adversity that they had overcome to be together: couples. That the couples in this study were a community rather
than a clinical sample emphasizes the importance of assessing
Sue: We got involved in a Baptist college, so we had to hide right
from the start.
minority stress and its impact on same-sex couples who may seek
couples therapy because they feel they are floundering rather than
Janice: Right. From everybody. flourishing. In other words, even typical presenting problems that
 398 ROSTOSKY, RIGGLE, GRAY, AND HATTON

couples bring to therapy may be conceptualized within a minority bear in mind the importance of assessing and facilitating mutual
stress framework that takes into account the social context of support among families with gay members. Resources provided by
stigmatization and the effects of a stigmatized identity on couple support groups such as PFLAG (Parents, Families, and Friends of
functioning. On the basis of our findings, we suggest that in Gays and Lesbians) are particularly useful. Given the reality,
addition to directly assessing the specific minority stress factors however, that some families will reject gay family members and
(internalized homophobia, perceived discrimination, anticipation their partners, therapists need to be skilled at helping couples
and experiences of rejection, and hiding/concealment or disclosure address their anger and loss and find ways to create families of
decisions) that couples experience, psychologists need to recog- choice. Likewise, counselors should be knowledgeable about the
nize and attend to the dilemma of disclosure, assess access to importance of advance planning documents to create legal protec-
social support, mobilize couples’ strengths and coping resources, tions for the relationship, regardless of the relationship quality
and foster social justice through training and advocacy. between couple members and their families of origin (see Riggle &
Rostosky, 2005).
Recognize the Dilemma of Disclosure The importance of a supportive therapeutic alliance cannot be
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

underestimated in light of the invisibility and isolation that same-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Sexual minority persons must evaluate whether the psycholog- sex couples endure. Fostering a safe, affirmative therapeutic alli-
ical costs of hiding or concealing one’s identity outweigh the ance for same-sex couples is a necessary condition for supportive
potential benefits of disclosing a relationship (Harper & Schneider, therapy and requires that therapists have dealt with their own
2003). The couples in this study commented on the costs and internalized homophobia and heterosexism. In such a therapeutic
benefits of disclosing their relationship. For some couples, disclo- environment, couples can increase their level of open communi-
sure to family members or coworkers garnered various forms of cation within the dyad and with the therapist, allowing the couple
rejection. Other couples did not disclose their relationship to to develop their abilities to provide effective support to each other
certain family members or coworkers in anticipation of rejection. and garner support and validation for the relationship.
Still other couples disclosed their relationship and found support
and acceptance. Coming out may provide an important opportunity
to confront internalized homophobia as well as serve as a mech- Mobilize Couples’ Strengths and Coping Strategies
anism for gaining support (see Russell & Richards, 2003).
Making decisions about disclosing or concealing sexual identity In addition to accessing social support, couples need to develop
or a same-sex relationship is a persistent cognitive load that effective coping strategies for managing minority stress. A thor-
nonsexual minorities do not bear (see Lane & Wegner, 1995). ough assessment of couples’ strengths and resources is vital.
Although often enacted as a way to cope with anticipated rejection, Identifying and acknowledging different coping styles and strate-
censoring or disguising pronouns that identify the sex of one’s gies used by partners can help couples capitalize on their strengths
partner or avoiding interactions altogether can be costly in terms of and expand their individual repertoires. For example, our findings
the toll on psychological well-being and satisfying interpersonal are consistent with those of others, who have noted that verbal
relationships (Garnets & Kimmel, 1993). Therapists can help harassment and intimidation are a common form of minority stress
couples acknowledge disclosure dilemmas and the attendant feel- (Garnets, Herek, & Levy, 2003). Many couples in this study were
ings and fears, and assist the couple in evaluating the consequences able to reframe this type of negative experience in ways that
of taking various actions. This collaborative evaluation process empowered them rather than immobilized them. Similarly, couple
should take into respectful consideration couples’ interacting ra- members revealed the internal “subversive dialogues” that they
cial, ethnic, and religious identities. used to create positive self- and relational concepts to replace the
negative messages and stereotypes that they encountered (see also
Brown, 1994).
Assess Access to Social Support
For couples with stigmatized identities, emotion-focused coping
The findings from this study emphasize the important role of strategies such as awareness and acknowledgement of emotions
social support to same-sex couples’ perceptions of their well- and exploration of meanings (Austenfeld & Stanton, 2004) may be
being. In contexts in which hiding and concealing same-sex rela- as helpful or even more helpful than traditional problem-focused
tionships is pervasive, the cost may be inadequate social support coping strategies. Although couples are not responsible for the
for a relationship. Many of the couples in this study shared a social stigma that they endure, they need to take responsibility for
longing for role models for their relationship. The invisibility of engaging in a process of personal empowerment (Prilleltensky &
successful same-sex couple relationships or the lack of access to Nelson, 2002). Therapists can help to facilitate the agency of the
this type of social support exacerbated the sense of isolation client by acknowledging and educating same-sex couples about the
among these same-sex couples. Social support is a resource for social context of their problems as well as helping them to create
same-sex couples only to the extent that it is available and acces- and implement coping strategies that will empower them. For
sible. Therapists can help couples increase their social support by example, Russell and Richards (2003) found five resilience factors
encouraging them to network with other same-sex couples in the and numerous specific resilience activities that LGB individuals
community or via the Internet. Therapists may also consider cre- engaged in during and after the antigay politics surrounding the
ating short-term support groups for same-sex couples within their passage of Amendment 2 in Colorado in 1992. These activities,
practice settings. such as increasing participation and activism within the LGB
Many couples perceived that family support was of vital impor- movement, may serve as suggestions for positive and empowering
tance to the health of their couple relationship. Therapists should social outlets for couples.
 MINORITY STRESS 399

Confront Social Injustices That Compromise Individual regions of the country. These differences may include differences
and Family Functioning in access to LGB community resources. Regional differences in
availability and access may pose challenges for practitioners seek-
Training programs need to provide opportunities for developing ing to locate resources and social support for same-sex couples.
competence in working with sexual minority clients (Schneider,
Brown, & Glassgold, 2002). This training may include opportuni-
Conclusions
ties for counselors-in-training, in a safe environment, to address
topics of homophobia or homonegativity, sexual prejudice and Certainly, same-sex couples have a right to psychological ser-
stereotypes, and heterosexual privilege (Lidderdale, 2002). Biag- vices that affirm their partnership and their families of choice and
gio, Orchard, Larson, Petrino, and Mihara (2003) have effectively that understand the sociopolitical context in which same-sex cou-
argued the case for links among affirmative educational environ- ples create and maintain their relationships (Green & Mitchell,
ments, attraction and retention of LGB students and faculty, in- 2002). Whereas psychologists can help same-sex couples to mo-
clusive curricula, and affirmative research and practice in psychol- bilize their resources and enact effective coping strategies, ulti-
ogy graduate programs. Recent empirical evidence suggests that mately changes in the cultural, political, and social context that
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

providing such training increases the self-efficacy of psychologists

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

validate rather than stigmatize LGB identities and same-sex rela-

in providing affirmative therapy to their sexual minority clients tionships will be necessary for optimal well-being. Toward the
(Korfhage, 2005). goal of creating such a society, professional psychologists have
Psychologists in the 21st century are encouraged to envision much to contribute.
contributions beyond provision of individual psychotherapy. How-
ever, few training programs currently prepare psychologists to
conceptualize problems within a social context and intervene at 3
Analyses of the survey data collected from this sample have revealed
multiple levels of the system. Effective work with sexual minor-
only minor differences between the female and male couples (Otis, Ros-
ities requires a host of skills aimed at these objectives. Psycholo- tosky, et al., 2006; Rostosky, Otis, Riggle, Brumett, & Brodnicki, in press).
gists trained in a critical approach will examine the values that Thus, this sample may be more homogeneous than other samples on
underlie interventions and the power dynamics and inequities that demographic and social indicators.
are produced and maintained by current social policies and ar-
rangements. Psychologists can facilitate transformation, “which is
References
possible when [sexual minorities and other disadvantaged or stig-
matized groups] have a voice, community, and access to valued Austenfeld, J. L., & Stanton, A. L. (2004). Coping through emotional
resources” (Prilleltensky & Nelson, 2002, p. 68). Psychologists approach: A new look at emotion, coping, and health-related outcomes.
can also facilitate transformative change for sexual minorities by Journal of Personality, 72, 1135–1362.
using their expertise in a variety of ways: through program devel- Balsam, K. F., & Szymanski, D. M. (2005). Relationship quality and
opment and evaluation, consultation to organizations and coali- domestic violence in women’s same-sex relationships: The role of
tions, education and training of heterosexual allies, creation of new minority stress. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 258 –269.
Biaggio, M., Orchard, S., Larson, J., Petrino, K., & Mihara, R. (2003).
knowledge through research and effective dissemination, and pol-
Guidelines for gay/lesbian/bisexual-affirmative educational practices in
icy analysis and recommendation.
graduate psychology programs. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 34, 548 –554.
Limitations Bos, H. M. S., van Balen, F., van den Boom, D. C., & Sandfort, T. G. M.
(2004). Minority stress, experience of parenthood and child adjustment
Several limitations should be considered in evaluating the re- in lesbian families. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 22,
sults of this study. Although this sample contained an equal num- 291–304.
ber of female and male same-sex couples, there were no differ- Brooks, V. R. (1981). Minority stress and lesbian women. Lexington, MA:
ences in experiences of minority stress that emerged in the Lexington Books.
Brown, L. S. (1994). Subversive dialogues: Theory in feminist therapy.
analysis.3 Other samples and data analytic strategies may reveal
New York: Basic Books.
sex differences in experiences and coping strategies. In addition, Cochran, S. D. (2001). Emerging issues in research on lesbians’ and gay
the majority of the couple members were European or American. men’s mental health: Does sexual orientation really matter? American
We strongly encourage further research on the minority stress Psychologist, 56, 931–947.
experiences of racial and ethnic minority same-sex couples and Cochran, S. D., Sullivan, J. G., & Mays, V. M. (2003). Prevalence of
interracial same-sex couples. The effects of minority racial and mental disorders, psychological distress, and mental health services use
ethnic identity on the experiences of sexual minority individuals’ among lesbian, gay and bisexual adults in the United States. Journal of
social interactions have been documented by other researchers (see Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 53– 61.
Greene, 1997) and suggest that ethnic minority couples may report Duffy, S. M., & Rusbult, C. E. (1986). Satisfaction and commitment in
different experiences of minority stress related to their same-sex homosexual and heterosexual relationships. Journal of Homosexuality,
12, 1–23.
partnered relationship.
Garnets, L., Hancock, K. A., Cochran, S. D., Goodchilds, J., & Peplau,
This sample was recruited in an area in the midsouthern region. L. A. (1991). Issues in psychotherapy with lesbians and gay men: A
A majority of the couples lived in a city with a population of less survey of psychologists. American Psychologist, 46, 964 –972.
than 200,000; the remainder lived in smaller surrounding towns or Garnets, L. D., Herek, G. M., & Levy, B. (2003). Violence and victimiza-
rural areas. The minority stress experiences of these couples may tion of lesbians and gay men: Mental health consequences. In L. D.
differ from those living in major metropolitan areas or other Garnets & D. C. Kimmel (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on lesbian,
 400 ROSTOSKY, RIGGLE, GRAY, AND HATTON

gay, and bisexual experiences (2nd ed., pp. 188 –206). New York: Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian,
Columbia University Press. gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence.
Garnets, L. D., & Kimmel, D. C. (1993). Lesbian and gay male dimensions Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674 – 697.
in the psychological study of human diversity. In L. D. Garnets & D. C. Murphy, J. A., Rawlings, E. I., & Howe, S. R. (2002). A survey of clinical
Kimmel (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on lesbian and gay male psychologists on treating lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients. Professional
experiences (pp. 1–51). New York: Columbia University Press. Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 183–189.
Graham, D. L., Rawlings, E. I., Halpern, H. S., & Hermes, J. (1984). Otis, M. D., Riggle, E. D. B., & Rostosky, S. S. (2006). Dyadic effects of
Therapists’ needs for training in counseling lesbians and gay men. mental health on lesbian relationships. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 10,
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 15, 482– 496. 267–283.
Green, R. J., & Mitchell, V. (2002). Gay and lesbian couples in therapy: Otis, M. D., Rostosky, S. S., Riggle, E. D. B., & Hamrin, R. (2006). Stress
Homophobia, relational ambiguity, and social support. In A. S. Gurman and relationship quality in same-sex couples. Journal of Social and
& N. S. Jacobson (Eds.), Clinical handbook of couples therapy (3rd ed., Personal Relationships, 23, 81–99.
pp. 546 –568). New York: Guilford Press. Prilleltensky, I., & Nelson, G. (2002). Doing psychology critically: Making
Greene, B. (1997). Ethnic and cultural diversity among lesbians and gay a difference in diverse settings. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
men. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Riggle, E. D. B., & Rostosky, S. S. (2005). For better or worse: Psycho-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Harper, G. W., & Schneider, M. (2003). Oppression and discrimination legal soft spots and advance planning for same-sex couples. Professional
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people and communi- Psychology: Research and Practice, 35, 90 –96.
ties: A challenge for community psychology. American Journal of Rostosky, S. S., Otis, M. D., Riggle, E. D. B., Brumett, S., & Brodnicki, C.
Community Psychology, 31, 243–252. (in press). Religiosity and same-sex couple relationships. Journal of
Hill, C. E., Knox, S., Thompson, B. J., Williams, E. N., Hess, S. A., & GLBT Family Studies.
Ladany, N. (2005). Consensual qualitative research: An update. Journal Rostosky, S. S., & Riggle, E. D. B. (2002). ‘Out’ at work: The relation of
of Counseling Psychology, 52, 196 –205. actor and partner workplace policy and internalized homophobia to
Hill, C. E., Thompson, B. J., & Williams, E. N. (1997). A guide to disclosure status. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 411– 419.
conducting consensual qualitative research. Counseling Psychologist, Rostosky, S. S., Riggle, E. D. B., Dudley, M. G., & Wright, M. L. C. (in
25, 517–572. press). Commitment in same-sex relationships: A qualitative analysis of
Kimmel, S. B., & Mahalik, J. R. (2005). Body image concerns of gay men: couples’ conversations. Journal of Homosexuality.
The roles of minority stress and conformity to masculine norms. Journal Russell, G. M., & Richards, J. A. (2003). Stressor and resilience factors for
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 1185–1190. lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals confronting antigay politics. American
Knox, S., Hess, S. A., Williams, E. N., & Hill, C. E. (2003). “Here’s a little Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 313–328.
something for you”: How therapists respond to client gifts. Journal of Schneider, M. S., Brown, L. S., & Glassgold, J. M. (2002). Implementing
Counseling Psychology, 47, 102–115. the resolution on appropriate therapeutic responses to sexual orientation:
Korfhage, B. A. (2005). Predictors of therapists’ self-efficacy beliefs for A guide to the perplexed. Professional Psychology: Research and Prac-
providing affirmative counseling to lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients: tice, 33, 265–276.
An empirical investigation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer- Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups.
sity of Kentucky, Lexington. New York: Wiley.
Kurdek, L. A. (1995). Assessing multiple determinants of relationship Waldo, C. R. (1999). Working in a majority context: A structural model of
commitment in cohabitating gay, cohabitating lesbian, dating heterosex- heterosexism as minority stress in the workplace. Journal of Counseling
ual, and married heterosexual couples. Family Relations, 14, 261–266. Psychology, 46, 218 –232.
Kurdek, L. A. (2000). Attractions and constraints as determinants of Williams, E. N., Soeprapto, E., Like, K., Touradji, P., Hess, S., & Hill,
relationship commitment: Longitudinal evidence from gay, lesbian, and C. E. (1998). Perceptions of serendipity: Career paths of prominent
heterosexual couples. Personal Relationships, 7, 245–262. academic women in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling
Lane, J. D., & Wegner, D. M. (1995). The cognitive consequences of Psychology, 45, 379 –389.
secrecy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 237–254.
Lidderdale, M. A. (2002). Practitioner training for counseling lesbian, gay,
and bisexual clients. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 6, 111–120. Received January 11, 2006
Meyer, I. H. (1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men. Journal Revision received April 5, 2006
of Health and Social Behavior, 36, 38 –56. Accepted April 6, 2006 䡲