Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Sep 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Fam Psychol. 2024 Jun 20;38(6):889–898. doi: 10.1037/fam0001250

Minority Stress and Romantic Relationship Functioning among Young Sexual Minority Women

Sarah W Whitton 1, Elissa L Sarno 2, Michael E Newcomb 2
PMCID: PMC11781158  NIHMSID: NIHMS2050609  PMID: 38900542

Abstract

Growing research suggests that minority stress adversely affects relationship functioning among same-gender couples. However, studies have predominantly focused on concurrent, between-persons associations and neglected the relationships sexual minority people have with partners of other genders. We used multiwave longitudinal data from 200 young sexual minority women in relationships with cisgender men, cisgender women, and transgender or non-binary [TNB] individuals to assess between- and within-person associations between minority stress and relationship functioning, and to test for differences in these associations by partner gender. Participants reported on minority stressors (couple marginalization; microaggressions; internalized heterosexism) and relationship functioning (quality; destructive conflict) from the same partnership at 3–7 assessments (mean = 4.44), collected at 6-month intervals. Multilevel models (MLMs) assessing each minority stressor separately revealed between-person associations of each stressor with worse relationship quality and conflict; however, only couple marginalization showed within-person associations with relationship functioning. In MLMs including all three minority stressors, couple marginalization showed unique within- and between-persons associations with worse relationship functioning; microaggressions were only uniquely associated with couple conflict at the between-persons level. Moderation analyses revealed a negative between-persons association of microaggressions with relationship quality only for participants with cisgender male partners, and a positive within-person association of microaggressions with relationship quality only for those with cisgender female partners. Several associations were weaker for participants with TNB compared to cisgender partners. Findings highlight the importance of couple-level minority stress and partner gender in understanding how sexual minority stress affects relationship functioning.

Keywords: minority stress, relationship functioning, sexual minorities, partner gender

Growing research indicates that the romantic relationships of sexual minority individuals are negatively affected by sexual minority stress (i.e., stressors based in societal stigma against non-heterosexuality; Cao et al., 2017; Scott et al., 2023). However, this literature is limited by its heavy reliance on cross-sectional data, greater attention to men than women, and singular focus on same-gender couples that excludes the many relationships sexual minority people have with partners of other genders. In this study, we extend prior research by using longitudinal data to explore the within- and between-persons associations between sexual minority stressors and relationship functioning in a sample of young sexual minority women (YSMW) and assessing for differences in these associations by partner gender.

Effects of Sexual Minority Stress on Romantic Relationship Functioning

Relationship theories emphasize how stressful environmental contexts play a powerful role in shaping couple dynamics and outcomes (Karney & Bradbury, 1995; Neff & Karney, 2017; Randall & Bodenmann, 2009). Common stressors such as financial strain and job stress are proposed to negatively affect relationship quality by limiting couples’ opportunities to engage in relationship-promoting activities, increasing opportunities for tensions to arise, and hindering partners’ use of adaptive conflict management behaviors (Neff & Karney, 2017). Consistent with these theories, general population research has repeatedly demonstrated associations between external stress and poor relationship functioning, including destructive couple conflict and low relationship satisfaction (e.g., Falconier et al., 2015; Neff & Karney, 2004; Neff & Karney, 2009). Although research on sexual minority relationships is scarce, common external stressors have similarly been linked with decreased relationship quality in same-gender couples (Totenhagen et al., 2012; Totenhagen et al., 2017).

Beyond the common external stressors faced by all, sexual minority individuals also face unique stressors based in societal stigma, collectively referred to as minority stress (Brooks, 1981; Meyer, 2003). According to minority stress theory (Meyer, 2003), sexual minority people encounter stigma-based stress along a continuum of proximity to the self (distal to proximal). Distal minority stressors refer to external experiences or events, including heterosexist discrimination, rejection, and microaggressions (everyday, subtle actions that convey negative attitudes toward nonheterosexuality). Repeated exposure to such events can lead to proximal minority stress, which refers to internal cognitive and emotional experiences such as internalized heterosexism, in which a person feels shame and discomfort with their sexual identity (Newcomb & Mustanski, 2010). Despite overall trends toward more societal acceptance of sexual minority people in recent years (Pew Research Center, 2019; Roberts, 2019), minority stress experiences remain common. In the U.S., sexual and gender minority adults are four times more likely to be victims of violence than other people (Flores et al., 2020) and over half report daily discrimination and harassment (Dwyer, 2017). In addition, sexual minority people routinely face stigma against their relationships (i.e., couple-level minority stress), such as marginalization, rejection, or denial of the partnership (LeBlanc et al., 2015; Rostosky & Riggle, 2017).

A growing literature suggests that, like other forms of stress, minority stress may adversely affect sexual minority relationship functioning. Two meta-analyses of studies conducted prior to 2015 revealed negative associations between sexual minority stress and measures of relationship well-being in same-gender couples, with stronger effects for proximal than distal stressors (Cao et al., 2017; Doyle & Molix, 2015). More recent studies have generally confirmed these findings, demonstrating that proximal (Nguyen & Pepping, 2022; Pepping et al., 2019; Scott et al., 2023; Thies et al., 2016) and distal sexual minority stressors (Feinstein et al., 2018; Frost et al., 2022; Scott et al., 2023) are negatively associated with various indices of relationship functioning. Everyday discrimination and microaggressions tend to show more reliable associations with relationship functioning than do acute acts of victimization (Feinstein et al., 2018; Frost 2022), in line with general population findings that minor common stressors affect couples more strongly than do major stressors (Randall & Bodenmann, 2009). Some data also suggest that minority stress may have greater effects on negative than positive relationship dimensions (Doyle & Molix, 2015; Feinstein et al., 2018; Frost et al., 2022), perhaps via emotional dysregulation and negative affect that lead to destructive behavior and conflict. Much less research has explored couple-level minority stress, but emerging data indicates it is negatively associated with relationship quality, beyond individual-level minority stress (Gamarel et al., 2023; Neilands et al., 2020).

Despite the recent progress in this area of research, several limitations leave gaps in our understanding of how minority stress affects the relationships of sexual minority people today. First, the vast majority of studies are cross-sectional (Cao et al., 2017) so do not speak to direction of effects. Though the few existing longitudinal studies (Feinstein et al., 2019; Mohr & Daly, 2008; Nguyen & Pepping, 2022) indicate that minority stress is associated with subsequent decreases in relationship functioning-- suggesting that minority stress affects relationship functioning -- they only speak to between-persons effects. That is, the findings tell us that people who experience more minority stress tend to have poorer relationship functioning, and to experience greater declines in relationship functioning, than people who experience less minority stress. It remains unclear, however, whether within-individual changes in minority stress over time are associated with corresponding changes in relationship functioning. Evidence of such within-person effects is important for informing interventions, as it would suggest that targeting minority stress might be an effective component of efforts to improve relationship functioning within sexual minority individuals (Pentel & Baucom, 2022; Scott et al., 2019). Second, YSMW have been underrepresented, which is particularly concerning given evidence that their relationships are more strongly affected by minority stress (Cao et al., 2017; Song et al., 2022) and at higher risk for breakup (e.g., ONS, 2021; Kolk & Andersson, 2020) than sexual minority men’s relationships. To improve the representativeness and generalizability of this literature, we need studies focused on the relationships of sexual minority women.

In addition, existing research is limited to studies of same-gender relationships (i.e., between two cisgender men or two cisgender women); we were unable to identify a single published study examining associations between minority stress and couple functioning within other relationships of sexual minority people (i.e., with different-gender partners, including those who identify as transgender or gender nonbinary [TNB]). Yet, same-gender relationships only represent a portion of YSMW’s partnerships. Many lesbian women report relationships with men, especially during adolescence and young adulthood (Diamond & Savin-Williams, 2000), and the 60% of sexual minority women that identify with a bi+ identity (i.e., bisexual, pansexual, or any identity that conveys attraction to more than one gender; Krueger et al., 2020), are more likely to partner with men than with women (Parker, 2015). For example, data from the National Health Interview Survey indicated that the majority of partnered bi+ individuals were in a different-gender union; only 7% of married and 19% of cohabiting bi+ adults were in a same-gender union (Hsieh & Liu, 2019). In addition, many YSMW are romantically involved with TNB partners (Whitton et al., 2019). Therefore, to understand how minority stress affects the romantic relationships of YSMW, it is important to be inclusive of their partnerships with not only women, but also with men and TNB individuals.

It seems likely that the effects of minority stress on couple functioning may differ by partner gender, given evidence of differences by partner gender in the minority stress experiences of YSMW. Bi+ women partnered with women and TNB individuals have reported more discrimination than those partnered with men (Xavier Hall et al., 2021), likely due to the visibility of their sexual identity; consequently, their relationships may be more affected by minority stress. On the other hand, YSMW partnered with cisgender men are more likely to experience other minority stressors, including identity concealment, lack of support for their sexual identity, and relationship marginalization from the queer community (Dyar et al., 2014; Morandini et al., 2018), which may have adverse effects on their relationship functioning. Further, YSMW in relationships with women or TNB individuals share a minoritized identity with their partner; these partners may bond through shared minority stress experiences in ways that strengthen rather than harm their relationship (Baams et al., 2014; Rostosky & Riggle, 2015). Research is clearly needed to better understand these issues.

The Current Study

In the current study, we aimed to expand the field’s knowledge of associations between sexual minority stress and relationship functioning by examining these associations in a sample of YSMW involved in romantic relationships with partners of various genders (i.e., cisgender men, cisgender women, and TNB individuals). Building upon the existing largely cross-sectional data, we used multiwave longitudinal data to assess both between- and within-person associations between minority stress and relationship functioning, which can inform the utility of targeting minority stress in efforts to promote sexual minority relationship health. Based on previous evidence that effects may differ by type of sexual minority stressor (Cao et al., 2017), we included three types of minority stress: an individual-level distal stressor (microaggressions), a proximal stressor (internalized heterosexism), and a couple-level stressor (couple marginalization). We examined two indices of relationship functioning, relationship quality and destructive couple conflict, to explore associations of minority stress with both positive and negative relationship dimensions (Feinstein et al., 2018; Frost et al., 2022).

We hypothesized that all three minority stressors would show between-person associations with worse relationship functioning (i.e., lower quality and higher destructive conflict), replicating findings from previous cross-sectional studies. Although we are aware of no previous studies assessing within-person associations between minority stress and relationship functioning, general population studies have shown that relationship quality tends to be lower on days when partners experience more common stress than on other days (Buck & Neff, 2012). We hypothesized that, similarly, YSMW would report worse relationship functioning at waves when they experienced more couple marginalization, microaggressions, and internalized stigma than at waves when they experienced less minority stress. We made no directional hypotheses about the moderating effects of partner gender, given the lack of relevant research.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Participants were 200 YSMW, diverse in racial and sexual identity (See Table 1 for sample demographics). Data were drawn from FAB400 (Whitton et al., 2019), an ongoing longitudinal cohort study of sexual and gender minority youth assigned female at birth (total N = 488) that includes two cohorts: (1) a late adolescent cohort recruited for FAB400 in 2016–2017 (N = 400; 16- to 20-years-old at baseline); and (2) participants from Project Q2, a previous cohort study of sexual and gender minority youth recruited in 2007 (N = 88; 23- to 32-years old at FAB 400 baseline). Eligibility criteria at original enrollment were being 16–20 years old, assigned female at birth, and either identifying with a sexual or gender minority label or reporting same-sex attractions or sexual behavior. All participants were recruited using venue-based recruitment, social media, and incentivized snowball sampling. Participants completed a baseline assessment (Wave 1), followed by 5 additional assessments every 6 months (Waves 2–6), and Wave 7, which occurred one year after Wave 6. Retention rates were 96.3%, 94.7%, 92.8%, 92.4%, 90.3%, and 87.9% at Waves 2–7, respectively. At each wave, participants reported on up to three sexual or romantic partnerships from the previous six months. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Northwestern University with a waiver of parental permission for participants under 18 years of age under 45 CFR 46, 408(c). Participants provided written informed consent, and we used mechanisms to safeguard participant confidentiality (i.e., a federal certificate of confidentiality).

Table 1.

Participant Demographics (N = 200)

M (SD)
Age 20.59 (3.81)
N (%)
Race/Ethnicity
 Black/African American 76 (38.0)
 Hispanic or Latino/Latina/Latinx 52 (26.0)
 White 51 (25.5)
 Multiracial 15 (7.5)
 Asian 5 (2.5)
 Other 1 (0.5)
Sexual Orientation
 Bisexual/Pansexual 112 (56.0)
 Lesbian/Gay 58 (29.0)
 Queer 14 (7.0)
 Unsure/Questioning 7 (3.5)
 Asexual 5 (2.5)
 Not Listed 4 (2.0)
Partner Gender Identity
 Cisgender man 95 (47.5)
 Cisgender woman 78 (39.0)
 Gender minority 27 (13.5)
  Transgender man 10
  Transgender woman 5
  Non-binary 9
  Gender queer 1
  Not listed 1
Open in a new tab

The present study used data from Waves 1–7 (collected from November 2016 to July 2021) from all cisgender sexual minority women who reported on the same serious romantic partner for at least three consecutive waves (n = 200), to allow for estimation of within-person associations between minority stress and couple functioning within the same relationship. To ensure that participants were reporting on the same partner across waves, they provided a first name or nickname for the romantic partner at each wave and were directly asked by interviewers if it was the same partner as reported in previous wave(s). We excluded TNB participants given the additional gender minority stressors they face (consistent with previous literature; e.g., Frost et al., 2022) and because we did not have sufficient numbers of TNB participants to explore partner gender (our main construct of interest) in the context of varying participant genders. This study was not preregistered.

Measures (collected at each wave).

Minority Stress

Couple Marginalization.

On Lehmiller and Agnew (2006)’s measure of relationship marginalization, participants respond to six items regarding acceptance versus marginalization of their relationship (e.g., “My friends are not accepting of my relationship”) on a scale from 1 (not true) to 9 (very true). Responses were averaged, with higher scores reflecting more perceived marginalization of the relationship (α = .77).

Sexual Orientation Microaggressions.

On the 19 item Sexual Orientation Microaggressions Inventory (SOMI; Swann et al., 2016), participants were asked “In the past six months, how often have you had the following experiences?” (e.g., “You heard someone say ‘that’s so gay’ in a negative way.”) Items are rated on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (almost every day) and averaged, with higher scores reflecting more frequent experiences of sexual orientation microaggressions (α = .92). A previous study using the SOMI with sexual minority young people provided evidence of validity (e.g., expected associations with LGBT victimization and internalizing symptoms; Dyar et al., 2020).

Internalized Heterosexism.

On the Desire to be Heterosexual subscale of Puckett et al. (2017)’s adapted and validated measure, participants rated agreement with eight statements (e.g., “Sometimes I think that if I were straight, I would probably be happier”; 1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree). For items that referenced sexual orientation, each participant’s sexual orientation was piped in from responses to demographic items. Scores reflect the mean response across items; higher scores indicate higher levels of internalized heterosexism (α = .83). This measure has shown a unidimensional factor structure and expected correlations with victimization, anxiety, and depression among SGM youth (Dyar et al., 2020).

Relationship Functioning

Relationship Quality.

On the seven item Relationship Quality subscale of the Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS; Vaughn & Matyastik Baier, 1999), participants respond to each item on a 5-point Likert-type scale (e.g., “In general, how satisfied are you with your relationship?” was rated from 1 (not satisfied) to 5 (very satisfied)). Items were averaged into a single score, with higher scores indicating higher relationship quality (α = .85). The RAS has shown evidence of reliability (α = .86) and convergent validity among sexual and gender minority young people in relationships (Dyar et al., 2021).

Destructive Couple Conflict.

On the four item Couple Conflict: Danger Signs Scale, which measures key features of destructive couple communication (Stanley et al., 2002), participants used a 3-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (almost never) to 3 (frequently) to rate frequency of four destructive conflict behaviors (e.g., “Little arguments escalate into ugly fights with accusations, criticisms, name-calling, or bringing up past hurts”; α = .76). This measure has shown evidence of reliability and convergent validity in samples of married adults (Stanley et al., 2002) and sexual and gender minority young adults (Dyar et al., 2021).

Partner gender

Participants were asked to indicate their partner’s gender identity, with the following options: cisman, ciswoman, transman, transwoman, gender nonconforming, genderqueer, nonbinary, and not listed (please specify). Responses were used to categorize partner gender as cisgender man, cisgender woman, or TNB (all other options).

Data Analysis Plan

Analyses were conducted with Mplus Version 8. There were 200 participants who reported on the same significant romantic partner for at least three consecutive waves of data collection. Across these 200 participants, there were 967 observations, 80 of which were excluded because they had missing data on predictor variables (i.e., at least one of the minority stress variables), so their missingness was not addressed with full maximum likelihood estimation, which focuses on handling missingness on endogenous variables. This yielded a final analytic sample of 200 participants and a total of 887 observations, which had less than 1% missing data. There was an average of 4.44 observations per participant. This means that, on average, participants provided data at four to five assessments spanning 1.5–2 years.

First, we used multilevel models to examine within- and between-person associations of minority stress (i.e., couple marginalization, sexual orientation microaggressions, internalized heterosexism) with relationship functioning (i.e., relationship quality and couple conflict), with waves (Level 1; N = 887 observations) nested within persons (Level 2; N = 200 participants). Predictor variables were centered at the group-mean to test within-persons associations and at the grand-mean to test between-persons associations. In separate models predicting relationship quality and destructive conflict, we first ran univariate models including only one minority stressor in each model. Then, we ran multivariate models in which all three minority stressors were included as predictors to assess the unique associations of each minority stressor with relationship functioning in the context of the others.

Next, we used two types of models to test for moderating effects of partner gender. The first set of models used an interaction term between partner gender and the minority stressor at the between-persons level to test whether between-persons associations between each minority stressor and relationship functioning differed by partner gender. The second set of models used cross-level interactions to test whether partner gender (a between-persons level variable) moderated the within-person association of each minority stressor (i.e., couple marginalization, microaggressions, or internalized heterosexism) with each relationship functioning outcome (i.e., relationship quality or couple conflict). The first set of models assessed for differences by partner gender in the extent to which individuals’ average levels of minority stress are associated with their average levels of relationship functioning; the second set assessed for differences by partner gender in the extent to which minority stress and relationship functioning covary across time within individuals. Models were tested first with cisgender man and then with cisgender woman as the reference group to test for differences among all three partner genders.

Models controlled for demographic factors, including age, relationship duration, race/ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Race/ethnicity was coded into four categories: White, Black, Latinx, and Other; White was used as the referent group. Sexual orientation was coded into three categories: Lesbian, Bi+ (Bisexual/Queer/Pansexual), and Other; Lesbian was used as the referent group. Sensitivity analyses were run excluding race as a covariate. Results were unchanged from models including demographic controls and are therefore not presented.

Study data, materials, and analysis code are available by request from the first author. The study was not preregistered.

Results

Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations among variables are presented in Table 2. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) indicated substantial proportions of variance in the relationship functioning variables both at the between persons (45–67%) and within-persons (33–55%) levels, which were available to be predicted by the minority stressors at each level. Zero-order correlations showed expected positive associations of each minority stressor with conflict, as well as expected negative associations of couple marginalization and microaggressions, but not internalized heterosexism, with relationship quality at the between-persons level. At the within-persons level, couple marginalization was associated with lower relationship quality and higher couple conflict, microaggressions were weakly associated with higher relationship quality, (r = .08, p <.05) and internalized heterosexism was not associated with either relationship functioning variable.

Table 2.

Correlations and Descriptive Statistics for Main Study Variables

Variable Couple Marginalization Microaggressions Internalized Heterosexism Relationship Quality Couple Conflict
Couple Marginalization – .03 .03 −.30** .20**
Microaggressions .27** – .17** .08* −.03
Internalized Heterosexism .17* .32** – −.02 −.01
Relationship Quality −.49** −.18* −.13 – −.58**
Couple Conflict .36** .31** .18* −.62** –
Mean 2.80 1.51 1.55 4.23 1.56
Standard deviation 1.67 .50 .51 .72 .54
Possible Range 1–9 1–5 1–4 1–5 1–3
ICC .67 .45 .66 .48 .51
Open in a new tab

Note. ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient. Correlations above the diagonal are within-persons correlations; correlations below the diagonal are between-person correlations.

*

p < .05;

**

p < .001

Associations between Minority Stress and Relationship Functioning

Results of models testing within- and between-persons associations between minority stress and relationship functioning are displayed in Table 3 (univariate models in the top panel, multivariate model in the bottom panel). As hypothesized, in both the univariate and multivariate models, couple marginalization showed negative associations with relationship quality and positive associations with destructive conflict at both the within- and between-persons levels. This indicates that at waves when participants had higher levels of couple marginalization in their relationships, they reported lower relationship quality and more destructive conflict than at waves when they experienced less couple marginalization. In addition, participants who reported higher average couple marginalization across waves experienced lower relationship quality and more destructive conflict than participants who reported less marginalization across waves.

Table 3.

Within- and Between-Persons Associations of Minority Stress with Relationship Functioning

Univariate Models
Outcome
Relationship Quality Couple Conflict
Predictor Level Estimate p-value Estimate p-value
Couple Marginalization Within −.16 <.001 .08 <.001
Between −.20 <.001 .10 <.001
Microaggressions Within .07 .22 0.01 .85
Between −.25 .03 0.35 <.001
Internalized heterosexism Within −0.08 .296 0.01 .77
Between −0.20 .046 0.23 .001
Multivariate Model
Outcome
Relationship Quality Couple Conflict
Predictor Level Estimate p-value Estimate p-value
Couple Marginalization Within −.17 <.001 .08 <.001
Between −.20 <.001 .08 <.001
Microaggressions Within .19 .10 −.01 .91
Between −.01 .90 .24 .003
Internalized heterosexism Within −.05 .48 .01 .89
Between −.08 .41 .12 .09
Open in a new tab

When considered alone, sexual orientation microaggressions showed expected associations with relationship quality and destructive conflict at the between-persons level. This indicates that participants who experienced more frequent microaggressions on average across waves reported lower relationship quality and more destructive couple conflict than those who experienced fewer microaggressions across waves. However, microaggressions were not associated with either relationship construct at the within-persons level. Results of the multivariate model indicated that, when controlling for the other two minority stressors, only the between-persons association between microaggressions and couple conflict remained significant.

In univariate models, internalized heterosexism was associated with lower relationship quality and higher destructive couple conflict at the between-persons level, as hypothesized. However, it was not associated with either relationship variable at the within-person level. In the multivariate model, controlling for the other minority stressors, internalized heterosexism was not associated with relationship quality or conflict at either the within- or between-persons level.

Tests of Partner Gender as a Moderator

Results from models testing partner gender as a moderator of minority stress and relationship functioning at the between-persons level showed that partner gender moderated the between-person association between couple marginalization and relationship quality. Specifically, this association differed for participants with cisgender male partners compared to those with TNB partners (Estimate = .19, p = .004) but not compared to those with cisgender female partners (Estimate = .11, p = .07). The association did not differ between participants with cisgender female partners and those with TNB partners (Estimate = .07; p = .32). As shown in Figure 1A, simple slopes analyses revealed a significant negative between-persons association between couple marginalization and relationship quality for participants with cisgender male and female partners, but not for participants with TNB partners (Estimate for cisgender male partners = −.26, p < .001; for cisgender female partners = −.14, p = .006; for TNB partners = −.07, p = .20).

Figure 1. Associations between Minority Stressors and Relationship Functioning, by Partner Gender.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Note. Figures show the simple slopes for each partner gender of : A) the between-persons association between couple marginalization and relationship quality, B) the between-persons association of microaggressions and relationship quality, C) the between-persons association of internalized heterosexism and couple conflict, and D) the within-persons association of microaggressions and relationship quality.

Partner gender also moderated the between-persons association of microaggressions and relationship quality, which differed for participants with cisgender male partners compared to those with TNB partners (Estimate = .53, p = .02) but not compared to those with cisgender female partners (Estimate = .21, p = .40). The association also did not differ between participants with cisgender female partners and those with TNB partners (Estimate = .33; p = .14). Simple slopes analyses (see Figure 1B) showed that there was a negative between-persons association between microaggressions and relationship quality for participants with cisgender male partners, but not for those with TNB or cisgender female partners (Estimate for cisgender male partners = −.37, p = .03; for cisgender female partners = −.17, p = .36; for TNB partners = .16, p = .27).

Finally, partner gender moderated the between-persons association of internalized heterosexism and couple conflict, which differed for participants with cisgender male partners compared to those with TNB partners (Estimate = .44, p = .004) but not compared to those with cisgender female partners (Estimate = −.01, p = .95). The association also differed between participants with cisgender female partners and those with TNB partners (Estimate = .45; p = .001). Simple slopes analyses (see Figure 1C) revealed a significant positive between-persons association between internalized heterosexism and couple conflict for participants with TNB partners, but not for participants with cisgender male or cisgender female partners (Estimate for cisgender male partners = .18, p = .11; for cisgender female partners = .17, p = .10; for TNB partners = .62, p < .001). No other between-persons level interaction effects were significant.

Only one significant cross-level interaction was observed: partner gender moderated the within-persons association between microaggressions and relationship quality, which was significantly different for participants whose partners were cisgender women compared to those whose partners were cisgender men (Estimate = .32, p = .04). The association did not differ for participants with TNB partners compared to those with cisgender female partners (Estimate = −.22, p = .26) or cisgender male partners (Estimate = .10, p = .56). As shown in Figure 1D, simple slopes analysis revealed that participants with cisgender female partners reported higher relationship quality at waves when they experienced more microaggressions than at waves when they experienced fewer microaggressions (Estimate = .27, p = .02). In contrast, there was no within-person association between microaggressions and relationship quality for participants with cisgender male partners (Estimate = −.05, p = .57) or TNB partners (Estimate = .05, p = .74).

Discussion

Extending the largely cross-sectional literature on associations between sexual minority stress and relationship quality, we used longitudinal data to examine associations of distal, proximal, and couple-level minority stress with relationship functioning at both the between- and within-persons level among YSMW partnered with cisgender men, cisgender women, and TNB individuals. Overall, study findings underscore the links between sexual minority stress and poor relationship functioning, while revealing differences in these associations by type of minority stressor, level of analysis (i.e., between- or within-person), and partner gender.

Results from models examining each minority stressor separately indicated that sexual-orientation based microaggressions, internalized heterosexism, and couple marginalization were each associated with lower relationship quality and more frequent destructive conflict at the between-persons level. These findings replicate previous studies showing that sexual minority people who experience more distal (Feinstein et al., 2018; Frost et al., 2022; Scott et al., 2023), proximal (Nguyen & Pepping, 2022; Pepping et al., 2019), and couple-level minority stress (Neilands et al., 2020) tend to report worse relationship functioning than those who report less minority stress. Importantly, we observed these between-persons associations in a sample of YSMW in romantic relationships with partners of various genders (cisgender women, cisgender men, and TNB individuals), addressing the singular focus on same-gender relationships in previous research. As such, the present findings provide novel evidence that minority stress may have broad adverse consequences on relationship health that are present for YSMW whether they are part of a same-gender or different-gender couple.

In addition, by assessing multiple types of minority stress, estimating within-person associations, and evaluating differences in associations by partner gender, the current study adds important nuance to our understanding of the links between sexual minority stress and relationship functioning. First, of the three minority stressors examined, the most robust effects were observed for couple marginalization, which was associated with both positive and negative aspects of relationship functioning at the between- and within-person level, even when controlling for individual minority stressors. These findings extend previous evidence of negative cross-sectional associations of relationship marginalization (Neilands et al., 2020) and relationship stigma (Rosenthal & Starks, 2015) with relationship quality in same-gender relationships in several ways. First, these associations were present not only in YSMW’s relationships with other women, but also with cisgender men and TNB partners, highlighting the adverse effects of couple marginalization on YSMW’s relationship functioning with partners of all genders. Second, the current observed within-person associations between couple-level minority stress and relationship functioning suggest that changes within an individual in the amount of couple marginalization they experience may create corresponding changes in relationship wellbeing. As such, these findings suggest that interventions that reduce a couple’s sense of relationship marginalization may be effective in reducing couple conflict and improving relationship quality. This supports tailored SGM relationship education programs that include strategies to help couples build social support for their relationship by creating families of choice or joining supportive communities, and to distance themselves from people who do not support their relationship (e.g., Whitton et al., 2016, 2017).

Findings for internalized stigma suggest important caveats to the field’s consensus that it is the minority stressor most robustly associated with relationship functioning (Cao et al., 2017; Doyle & Molix, 2015). Though we replicated the small between-persons associations of internalized stigma with lower relationship quality and higher destructive conflict observed in previous cross-sectional studies, these associations became non-significant when controlling for distal individual- and couple-level minority stress. Given that minority stressors are not generally experienced in isolation, this finding may have important implications for YSMW’s lived experiences, suggesting the salience of minority stress experiences that are enacted by others (vs. an internal experience). The pattern of findings also raises the possibility that the associations between internalized stigma and relationship functioning may be accounted for by couple-level minority stress. That is, internalized stigma may contribute to couple-level minority stress, which in turn has adverse effects on relationship functioning; future longitudinal tests of mediation could explore this possibility. It is also interesting that, in moderation analyses, a between-persons association between internalized stigma and couple conflict was only present for those with TNB partners. Though this finding requires replication, it echoes evidence that YSMW are more likely to perpetrate identity abuse (i.e., abuse tactics that leverage systemic oppression) against TNB partners than cisgender male or female partners (Whitton et al., 2019). Perhaps internalizing society’s negative views of sexual and gender minorities is more likely to create conflict with a partner whose gender identity does not conform to societal expectations.

The present findings also revealed interesting nuances in the associations between microaggressions and relationship functioning. Consistent with past research (Feinstein et al., 2018; Frost 2022), between-persons analyses revealed that YSMW who experienced more microaggressions across time reported lower relationship quality and higher couple conflict than those who experienced fewer microaggressions. Like other frequent, relatively minor stressors (Randall & Bodenmann, 2009), sexual orientation microaggressions appear to be associated with poor couple functioning in YSMW’s relationships. However, moderation analyses revealed that this between persons association was only present for participants with cismale partners, not those with cisfemale or TNB partners. Further, counter to hypotheses, within-person findings for participants partnered with cisgender women were in the opposite direction. That is, women in same-gender relationships reported higher relationship quality at waves when they reported more frequent microaggressions than at waves when they reported fewer microaggressions. It is possible that, among YSMW partnered with men, those who experience more microaggressions are at greater risk for couple dysfunction for the hypothesized reasons (i.e., because everyday, common stressors strain the relationship; Randall & Bodenmann, 2009) as well as because some of the microaggressions may come from their male partners themselves. Bisexual women often experience stigma from their male partners, including denial of their bisexuality and assumptions of hypersexuality and an inability to be faithful to one partner (Dyar et al., 2014). In contrast, YSMW in relationships with women or TNB individuals, who share a minoritized identity with their partner, may cope with experiences of everyday stigma in ways that promote bonding and closeness, increasing the quality of their relationship. Qualitative research suggests that minority stress (e.g., rejection from parents) brings some sexual minority couples closer together (Reczek, 2016), particularly those who engage in dyadic coping strategies such as building social support for the relationship and affirming self and partnership (Rostosky et al., 2016). Research is needed to explore conditions under which, and the mechanisms through which, increased experiences of microaggressions may have positive rather than negative effects on YSMW’s relationships.

It is interesting that neither internalized heterosexism nor microaggressions were associated with worse relationship quality or destructive couple conflict at the within-persons level. This indicates that although people who generally experience more distal and proximal minority stressors report worse relationship functioning than other people (i.e., between-persons effects), increases in the level of those stressors within an individual do not correspond to negative changes in that person’s relationship functioning. This is surprising, given that internalized stigma and microaggressions have both shown positive within-person associations with anxiety and depression symptoms among sexual minority young adults (Dyar et al., 2020) and these internalizing symptoms have shown within-person associations with worse relationship functioning (Sarno et al., 2022). It is possible that we failed to detect associations that are present in the population due to low levels of minority stress in this sample, too few observations from each participant, or too long of an interval between assessments to capture the effects of minority stress experiences on an individual’s relationship functioning. Alternately, these findings may indicate that YSMW’s mental health is more strongly associated with the levels of internalized stigma and microaggressions experienced across time than with changes in those experiences over time. As such, they highlight the importance of broad efforts to reduce societal stigma in lasting ways; sustained, low levels of microaggressions and internalized stigma may be most important for YSMW’s mental health.

Conclusions should be drawn keeping study limitations in mind. Our recruitment approach may have selected for YSMW who were more out and connected to the queer community than others, affecting generalizability of findings. Though our tests of within-person associations between minority stress and relationship functioning are an important addition to the literature, we could not use lagged analyses to assess prospective within-person associations due the relatively low number of waves for each participant. Future studies with more assessments within a single relationship, perhaps using daily diary methods, are needed to explore directionality of effects. We also had data from only one person in each partnership. Given evidence that minority stress may affect both one’s own and one’s partner’s perceptions of relationship functioning (Scott et al., 2023), future research using dyadic data (i.e., from both partners) is needed to fully explore the ways that minority stress may affect SM relationships. It is possible that some measures we used may not function equivalently across demographic subgroups of the sample or across same-gender and different gender relationships. Finally, due to insufficient numbers of TNB participants in the larger study, we could not test interactions between self- and partner-gender in determining how minority stress affects relationship functioning. A key goal for future research is to recruit enough TNB participants to explore these interactions.

Despite these limitations, study findings advance our understanding of associations between sexual minority stress and relationship functioning, highlighting the importance of attending to couple-level minority stress, differences in associations by level of analysis (i.e., between- vs. within-person), and partner gender in future research.

Acknowledgments

Data collection and preparation of this manuscript were supported by a grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD086170; PI: Whitton). The content of this article is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily reflect the views of any funding agency. Study data, materials, and analysis code are available by request from the first author. None of the authors have disclosures to report. Some of this data was presented at the 2022 Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapy Convention.

References

  1. Baams L, Bos HM, & Jonas KJ (2014). How a romantic relationship can protect same-sex attracted youth and young adults from the impact of expected rejection. Journal of Adolescence, 37(8), 1293–1302. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.09.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Brooks VR (1981). Minority stress and lesbian women. Lexington Books, Washington, D. C. . [Google Scholar]
  3. Buck AA, & Neff LA (2012, Oct). Stress spillover in early marriage: the role of self-regulatory depletion. J Fam Psychol, 26(5), 698–708. 10.1037/a0029260 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Cao H, Zhou N, Fine M, Liang Y, Li J, & Mills-Koonce WR (2017). Sexual Minority Stress and Same-Sex Relationship Well-Being: A Meta-Analysis of Research Prior to the U.S. Nationwide Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage. J Marriage Fam, 79(5), 1258–1277. 10.1111/jomf.12415 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Doyle DM, & Molix L (2015). Social Stigma and Sexual Minorities’ Romantic Relationship Functioning: A Meta-Analytic Review. Pers Soc Psychol Bull, 41(10),1363–1381. 10.1177/0146167215594592 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Dwyer M (2017). Poll finds a majority of LGBTQ Americans report violence, threats, or sexual harassment related to sexual orientation or gender identity; one-third report bathroom harassment https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/poll-lgbtq-americans-discrimination/
  7. Dyar C, Feinstein BA, & London B (2014). Dimensions of sexual identity and minority stress among bisexual women: The role of partner gender. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1(4), 441–451. [Google Scholar]
  8. Dyar C, Messinger AM, Newcomb ME, Byck GR, Dunlap P, & Whitton SW (2021). Development and initial validation of three culturally-sensitive measures of intimate partner violence for sexual and gender minority populations. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36 (15–16) NP8824–NP8851. doi: 10.1177/0886260519846856 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Dyar C, Sarno EL, Newcomb ME, & Whitton SW (2020). Longitudinal associations between minority stress, internalizing symptoms, and substance use among sexual and gender minority individuals assigned female at birth. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 88(5), 389–401. 10.1037/ccp0000487 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Falconier MK, Nussbeck F, Bodenmann G, Schneider H, & Bradbury T (2015). Stress from daily hassles in couples: its effects on intradyadic stress, relationship satisfaction, and physical and psychological well-being. J Marital Fam Ther, 41(2), 221–235. 10.1111/jmft.12073 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Feinstein BA, McConnell E, Dyar C, Mustanksi B, & Newcomb ME (2019). The influence of stress on depression and substance use problems among young male same-sex couples: Relationship functioning as an underlying mechanism. Clinical Psychological Science, 7(5), 928–940. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Feinstein BA, McConnell E, Dyar C, Mustanski B, & Newcomb ME (2018). Minority stress and relationship functioning among young male same-sex couples: An examination of actor–partner interdependence models. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 86(5), 416. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Flores AR, Langton L, Meyer IH, & Romero AP (2020). Victimization Rates and Traits of Sexual and Gender Minorities in the US. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/sgm-victimization-us/ [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  14. Frost DM, Fingerhut AW, & Meyer IH (2022). Social change and relationship quality among sexual minority individuals: Does minority stress still matter? J Marriage Fam, 84(3), 920–933. 10.1111/jomf.12827 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Gamarel K, Farrales W, Venegas L, Dilworth SE, Coffin LS, Neilands TB, Johnson MO, & Koester KA (2023). A mixed-methods study of relationship stigma and well-being among sexual and gender minority couples. J Soc Issues, 79(1), 232–263. 10.1111/josi.12552 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Hsieh N, & Liu H (2019). Bisexuality, Union Status, and Gender Composition of the Couple: Reexamining Marital Advantage in Health. Demography, 56(5), 1791–1825. 10.1007/s13524-019-00813-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Karney BR, & Bradbury TN (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, methods, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118(1), 3–34. 10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Kolk M, & Andersson G (2020). Two Decades of Same-Sex Marriage in Sweden: A Demographic Account of Developments in Marriage, Childbearing, and Divorce. Demography, 57(1), 147–169. 10.1007/s13524-019-00847-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Krueger EA, Fish JN, Hammack PL, Lightfoot M, Bishop MD, & Russell ST (2020). Comparing national probability and community-based samples of sexual minority adults: Implications and recommendations for sampling and measurement. Archives Of Sexual Behavior, 49, 1463–1475. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. LeBlanc AJ, Frost DM, & Wight RG (2015). Minority Stress and Stress Proliferation Among Same-Sex and Other Marginalized Couples. J Marriage Fam, 77(1), 40–59. 10.1111/jomf.12160 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Lehmiller JJ, & Agnew CR (2006). Marginalized relationships: the impact of social disapproval on romantic relationship commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(1), 40–51. 10.1177/0146167205278710 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Meyer IH (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697. 10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Mohr JJ, & Daly CA (2008). Sexual minority stress and changes in relationship quality in same-sex couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(6), 989–1007. 10.1177/0265407508100311 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Morandini JS, Pinkus RT, & Dar-Nimrod I (2018). Does partner gender influence relationship quality among non-monosexual women? Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 33(1–2), 146–165. [Google Scholar]
  25. Neff LA, & Karney BR (2004). How does context affect intimate relationships? Linking external stress and cognitive processes within marriage. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 134–148. 10.1177/0146167203255984 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Neff LA, & Karney BR (2009). Stress and reactivity to daily relationship experiences: How stress hinders adaptive processes in marriage. J Pers Soc Psychol, 97(3), 435–450. 10.1037/a0015663 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Neff LA, & Karney BR (2017). Acknowledging the Elephant in the Room: How Stressful Environmental Contexts Shape Relationship Dynamics. Curr Opin Psychol, 13, 107–110. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Neilands TB, LeBlanc AJ, Frost DM, Bowen K, Sullivan PS, Hoff CC, & Chang J (2020). Measuring a New Stress Domain: Validation of the Couple-Level Minority Stress Scale. Arch Sex Behav, 49(1), 249–265. 10.1007/s10508-019-01487-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Newcomb ME, & Mustanski B (2010). Internalized homophobia and internalizing mental health problems: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(8), 1019–1029. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cpr.2010.07.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Nguyen J, & Pepping CA (2022). Prospective effects of internalized stigma on same-sex relationship satisfaction: The mediating role of depressive symptoms and couple conflict. J Consult Clin Psychol, 90(2), 184–194. 10.1037/ccp0000713 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Parker K (2015). Among LGBT Americans, bisexuals stand out when it comes to identity, acceptance. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/20/
  32. Pentel KZ, & Baucom DH (2022). A clinical framework for sexual minority couple therapy. Couple And Family Psychology: Research And Practice, 11(2), 177–191. 10.1037/cfp0000187 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Pepping CA, Cronin TJ, Halford WK, & Lyons A (2019). Minority Stress and Same-Sex Relationship Satisfaction: The Role of Concealment Motivation. Fam Process, 58(2), 496–508. 10.1111/famp.12365 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Pew Research Center. (2019). Public opinion on same-sex marriage. https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/
  35. Puckett JA, Newcomb ME, Ryan DT, Swann G, Garofalo R, & Mustanski B (2017). Internalized Homophobia and Perceived Stigma: A Validation Study of Stigma Measures in a Sample of Young Men who Have Sex with Men. Sex Res Social Policy, 14(1), 1–16. 10.1007/s13178-016-0258-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Randall AK, & Bodenmann G (2009). The role of stress on close relationships and marital satisfaction. Clin Psychol Rev, 29(2), 105–115. 10.1016/j.cpr.2008.10.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Richards C, Bouman WP, Seal L, Barker MJ, Nieder TO, & T’Sjoen G (2016). Non-binary or genderqueer genders. International Review of Psychiatry, 28(1), 95–102. 10.3109/09540261.2015.1106446 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Roberts LL (2019). Changing worldwide attitudes toward homosexuality: The influence of global and region-specific cultures, 1981–2012. Soc Sci Res, 80, 114–131. 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2018.12.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Rosenthal L, & Starks TJ (2015, Dec). Relationship stigma and relationship outcomes in interracial and same-sex relationships: Examination of sources and buffers. J Fam Psychol, 29(6), 818–830. 10.1037/fam0000116 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Rostosky SS, & Riggle ED (2015). Happy Together: Thriving as a Same-Sex Couple in Your Family, Workplace, and Community. American Psychological Association. [Google Scholar]
  41. Rostosky SS, & Riggle ED (2017). Same-sex relationships and minority stress. Curr Opin Psychol, 13, 29–38. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.04.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Sarno EL, Dyar C, Newcomb ME, & Whitton SW (2022). Relationship quality and mental health among sexual and gender minorities. J Fam Psychol, 36(5), 770–779. 10.1037/fam0000944 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Scott SB, Parsons AM, Do QA, Knopp K, & Rhoades GK (2023). Actor-partner effects of sexual minority stress on relationship quality in female same-gender couples. Couple And Family Psychology: Research And Practice, 12(2), 73–91. 10.1037/cfp0000183 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Scott SB, Whitton SW, & Buzzella BA (2019). Providing Relationship Interventions to Same-Sex Couples: Clinical Considerations, Program Adaptations, and Continuing Education. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 26(2), 270–284. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cbpra.2018.03.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Song C, Buysse A, Zhang W-H, & Dewaele A (2022). Perceived Discrimination and Relationship Satisfaction Among Same-Sex Couples: The Role of Dyadic Stress and Sex. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 48(6), 567–578. 10.1080/0092623X.2021.2022048 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Stanley SM, Markman HJ, & Whitton SW (2002). Communication, conflict, and commitment: insights on the foundations of relationship success from a national survey. Fam Process, 41(4), 659–675. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12613123 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Swann G, Minshew R, Newcomb ME, & Mustanski B (2016). Validation of the Sexual Orientation Microaggression Inventory in two diverse samples of LGBTQ youth. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(6), 1289–1298. 10.1007/s10508-016-0718-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Thies KE, Starks TJ, Denmark FL, & Rosenthal L (2016). Internalized homonegativity and relationship quality in same-sex romantic couples: A test of mental health mechanisms and gender as a moderator. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 3(3), 325–335. 10.1037/sgd0000183 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Totenhagen CJ, Butler EA, & Ridley CA (2012). Daily stress, closeness, and satisfaction in gay and lesbian couples. Personal Relationships, 19(2), 219–233. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01349.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Totenhagen CJ, Randall AK, Cooper AN, Tao C, & Walsh KJ (2017). Stress Spillover and Crossover in Same-Sex Couples: Concurrent and Lagged Daily Effects. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 13(3), 236–256. 10.1080/1550428x.2016.1203273 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Vaughn MJ, & Matyastik Baier ME (1999). Reliability and validity of the relationship assessment scale. American Journal of Family Therapy, 27(2), 137–147. [Google Scholar]
  52. Whitton SW, Dyar CE, Mustanksi B, & Newcomb ME (2019). Intimate partner violence experiences of sexual and gender minority adolescents and young adults assigned female at birth. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 43. 232–249. 10.1177/0361684319838972 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Whitton SW, Scott SB, Dyar C, Weitbrecht EM, Hutsell DW, & Kuryluk AD (2017). Piloting relationship education for female same-sex couples: Results of a small randomized waitlist-control trial. Journal of Family Psychology, 31(7), 878–888. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Whitton SW, Weitbrecht EM, Kuryluk AD, & Hutsell DW (2016). A randomized waitlist-controlled trial of culturally sensitive relationship education for male same-sex couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(6), 763–768. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Williams Institue (2015). Just the Facts: LGBT Data Overview 2015. http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/datablog/just-the-facts-data-overview-2015/
  56. Xavier Hall CD, Feinstein BA, Sales JM, Girod C, & Yount KM (2021). Outness, discrimination, and depressive symptoms among bi+ women: The roles of partner gender and sexual identity. J Bisex, 21(1), 24–41. 10.1080/15299716.2021.1886219 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES