“The Best is Always Yet to Come”: Relationship Stages and Processes Among Young LGBT Couples

Abstract

Limited research has examined relationship development among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) couples in emerging adulthood. A better understanding of LGBT couples can inform the development of relationship education programs that reflect their unique needs. The following questions guided this study: 1) what are the stages and processes during young LGBT couples’ relationship development? and 2) how do these compare to existing literature on heterosexual adults? A secondary goal was to explore similarities and differences between couples assigned male (MAAB) and female at birth (FAAB). Thirty-six couples completed interviews on their relationship history. Qualitative analyses showed that relationship stages and processes were similar to past research on heterosexuals, but participants’ subjective experiences reflected their LGBT identities and emerging adulthood, which exerted additional stress on the relationship. These factors also affected milestones indicative of commitment among heterosexual adults (e.g., introducing partner to family). Mixed-methods analyses indicated that MAAB couples described negotiating relationship agreements and safe sex in more depth than FAAB couples. Relationship development models warrant modifications to consider the impact of sexual and gender identity and emerging adulthood when applied to young LGBT couples. These factors should be addressed in interventions to promote relationship health among young LGBT couples.

Romantic relationship involvement is a significant event in the development of emerging adults (Arnett, 2000; Collins, 2003) and can confer a number of mental and physical health benefits (Loving & Slatcher, 2013). For lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) emerging adults, romantic relationships can buffer against stressors related to their sexual or gender minority status (e.g., discrimination, family disapproval) that place them at higher risk for adverse health outcomes (Bauermeister et al., 2010; Diamond, Savin-Williams, & Dube, 1999; Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007). Yet our knowledge of relationship development in young couples is largely based on heterosexuals (Ogolsky, Lloyd, & Cate, 2013) and most relationship research on sexual and gender minorities has focused on negative outcomes of relationships (e.g., HIV infection). The present study sought to describe relationship stages and processes among young LGBT couples¹ and shed light on how they may be similar or different from heterosexuals, which can inform the design of relationship education programs that address their unique needs.

Two main perspectives have been used to understand relationship development in heterosexual adults. Stage models (e.g., Knapp, 1978; Levinger, 1980) conceptualize relationship development as a generally linear sequence of stages associated with escalating levels of commitment. For example, Levinger ‘s ABCDE model (1980) proposed that individuals become attracted to each other; build a relationship through bonding, increased interdependence, and assessment of partner suitability, continue to deepen commitment and progress, or deteriorate and end. In contrast, process models (e.g., Altman & Taylor, 1973; Rusbult, 1980; Wieselquist, Rusbult, Foster, & Agnew, 1999) propose that interpersonal processes such as closeness, trust, interdependence, and commitment are the mechanisms that propel relationships in different directions. One such model (Baxter & Bullis, 1986) proposed that progression through relationship events, or “turning points,” varies as a function of interpersonal processes such as perceived satisfaction and commitment. For example, among college students, the turning point of getting to know one another was linked with increased relationship commitment, while the emergence of romantic rivals was associated with a significant decrease.

However, existing research on these models largely represents heterosexual adults’ experiences and overlooks how sexual and gender identity and developmental stage impact relationship progression. Though there are similarities between heterosexual and LGBT couples (Kurdek, 2005; Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007), the latter are embedded in a unique social and cultural environment that can influence their relationship development in distinct ways (Meyer, 2003; Mustanski, Birkett, Greene, Hatzenbuehler, & Newcomb, 2014). In addition, emerging adulthood is a critical transition in which many young people become more independent from their families of origin, yet have not fully adopted adult roles or responsibilities (Arnett, 2000). Emerging adults may encounter stressors related to forming an adult identity, moving away from home, going to college, or getting a job. Parallel to these developmental tasks, LGBT emerging adults may continue to form their sexual and gender identities, and in the absence of relationship scripts for sexual and gender minorities, they may model their first partnerships after heterosexual relationships (Klinkenberg & Rose, 1994; Patterson, Ward, & Brown, 2013). While these models may be positive ones, they are limited in their ability to guide LGBT emerging adults when their relationships diverge from or are not represented in heterosexual scripts. For example, LGBT individuals may encounter legal, social, or practical barriers to demonstrating relationship seriousness (e.g., disclosing their relationship, marriage). It is unclear how young LGBT couples navigate these relational events, as past research has either focused on adults (Kurdek, 1996; Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007) or younger adolescents (Diamond et al., 1999; Savin-Williams, 1996), and only recently have studies investigated couples in emerging adulthood.

Two qualitative studies provide initial evidence of how sexual identity and developmental stage impact relationship trajectories among emerging adults. Interviews with Black, gay and bisexual, 16–20 year old men indicated that while some aspects of relationship development appear similar to heterosexual peers (e.g., meeting in school, “talking” to a potential partner), others reflect concerns germane to sexual minority identity (Eyre, Milbrath, & Peacock, 2007). For instance, youth who were involved in a gay or bisexual social network were better able to identify prospective, openly gay partners and access information about navigating LGBT relationships. Moreover, some youth described preferring relationships with older men, who were more likely to be out and be perceived as a “role model” of an adult same-sex relationship (Eyre et al., 2007). In contrast, heterosexual young adults by default gain information about heterosexual relationships, which are the predominant model of intimate relationships in society and in the media. In addition, heterosexual young adults’ social networks likely consist primarily of openly heterosexual peers, and as such they experience little need to ascertain the sexual identity of a potential partner. Another interview study with mostly White, sexual minority women aged 20–27 revealed that differing levels of outness between partners often slowed relationship progression (e.g., delaying the start of sexual activity) or caused relationship stress (e.g., pretending to be friends in public) (Patterson et al., 2013). As emerging adults continue to develop their sexual or gender identities (Rosario, Schrimshaw, & Hunter, 2008; Savin-Williams & Diamond, 2000), concerns about outness and its implications for the couple’s interactions in public spaces may affect young LGBT couples’ relationship progression.

In addition to developmental stage and sexual or gender minority identity, other demographic factors may influence LGBT couples’ relationships. For instance, little is known about how LGBT couples’ relationship development may differ by the couple’s birth sex or gender. Discussions about safe sex and relationship agreements may be expected to be a more common or important relationship milestone among young male couples, who are at increased risk for HIV (Sullivan, Salazar, Buchbinder, & Sanchez, 2009). Moreover, young female couples who live together may be more stable and less likely to end their relationships than male couples (Lau, 2012). Couples who were both assigned male (MAAB) or female at birth (FAAB) may have similar experiences when encountering other relational events, such as meeting partners, getting married, and starting a family. However, studies that describe LGBT couples’ relationship development are typically limited to one gender and preclude comparisons of MAAB and FAAB couples. In addition, given varying attitudes toward sexual and gender identity across different racial and ethnic groups (e.g., Herek & Gonzalkez-Rivera, 2006), relationship development may reflect individuals’ intersecting racial, cultural, and sexual or gender identities. More research is needed to characterize relationship development of LGBT couples in emerging adulthood, which would shed light on areas where existing relationship models need revision to reflect LGBT identity, developmental stage, and demographic factors.

As LGBT couples in the United States are increasingly being granted legal rights that affect their ability to marry and form families, research is needed to help set the stage for programs that promote their relationship and family health. To date, existing interventions are largely focused on heterosexual adult couples and reflect relationship norms and gender roles that may not apply to LGBT couples in emerging adulthood. Basic research that characterizes young LGBT couples’ relationships and identifies when they are vulnerable to relationship stress can inform programs that are better suited for this group. As qualitative methods are valuable for hypothesis generation when research is lacking, and when the goal is to give a voice to groups who are infrequently heard (Sofaer, 1999), we used dyadic interviews to explore young LGBT couples’ relationship development. The following questions guided our paper: 1) what are the stages and processes that occur in young LGBT couples’ relationship development? and 2) how do these compare to the literature on LGBT and heterosexual adult couples? A secondary aim was to explore similarities and differences between MAAB and FAAB couples. We did not seek to determine whether one relationship model is better than the other; instead, our aim was to highlight how these models may need to be adapted for work with young LGBT couples.

Method

We recruited one partner from each couple from existing longitudinal cohort studies of community samples of LGBT youth and emerging adults in the Midwest (Mustanski, Johnson, Garofalo, Ryan, & Birkett, 2013; Mustanski, Garofalo, & Emerson, 2010). Individuals in a serious relationship at their most recent study visit were asked if they were interested in participating in a sub-study of young LGBT couples. Interested parties were asked to invite their partner, who was not enrolled in the larger projects, to participate in a couples’ interview. Partners were required to be of the same birth sex as the larger project in part focused on HIV risk in young male couples, a criterion that was then applied to the couples interview study. Participants were required to be at least 18 years old. The ages of individuals recruited from our existing projects were restricted by the nature of being in the cohort study (ages 18–24), and there was no upper age limit for the second partner as age-discrepant relationships are a reality for many young LGBT couples (Mustanski & Newcomb, 2013; Savin-Williams, 1998). Couples were excluded if 1) they were not sexually active, given the larger study’s focus on HIV risk, and 2) either partner reported intimate partner violence with their current partner to avoid the possibility that the interview would trigger repeat violence. Of the 39 couples recruited, two were excluded for fabricating their relationship and one was excluded for lack of sexual activity.

Procedures

The university’s Institutional Review Board approved all study procedures. Upon arrival to the study site, research staff gave couples an overview of the study and each individual provided written informed consent. Participants separately completed computerized self-report measures assessing demographics, sexual orientation and gender identity, and relationship characteristics (e.g., relationship length, commitment) among other variables. The couple was brought back together for the dyadic interview, which was conducted by one or two trained interviewers with several years of experience in mixed-methods research with LGBT youth. Interviews lasted approximately 90 minutes, and participants were compensated with $30 each.

Measures and Interview Guide

Participants were asked to indicate whether their relationship was less than 1 year, between 1–3 years, or greater than 3 years long. Commitment was assessed using one item designed for this study: “How committed are you to your relationship?” Response options were “completely committed”, “very committed”, “somewhat committed”, and “not at all committed”.

A semi-structured interview covered the following topics: the couple’s relationship history (e.g., How did you meet? Tell us about your relationship history), how they defined their relationship and its progression (e.g., What were the stages in your relationship? How did you know your relationship was “serious”?), sex and sexual health (e.g., What does safe sex mean for you? Have you talked about practicing safe sex in the relationship?), relationship agreements (e.g., Do you and your partner have an agreement about monogamy or having sex outside the relationship?), stressors (e.g., What are the main sources of stress outside your relationship?), and relationship supports (e.g., Who do you turn to for relationship advice, guidance or support?) Other portions of the interview guide not described here covered couples’ experience in research studies and preferences for relationship intervention programs (Greene, Andrews, Kuper, & Mustanski, 2014; Greene, Fisher, Kuper, Andrews, & Mustanski, 2015).

Coding and Analysis

Couples were recruited until interview data reached saturation, which was identified through comparison of interview summaries at weekly team meetings. Interview transcripts were uploaded into Dedoose (2012), a Web-based qualitative and mixed methods analysis program. Our analysis was guided by grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), an inductive method in which hypotheses are not tested but emerge from the data. Analysis involved open coding, where data are broken down into smaller components and examined; axial coding, where connections are made between these components to create broader themes or “codes”; and selective coding, in which themes are organized conceptually to form a larger story (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).

Coding focused on references to couples’ actual experiences and excluded abstract references to relationships. As the interview covered several topics, the first round of coding identified references to relationship stages and milestones (215 excerpts), defined as significant events that indicated positive or negative relationship changes, references to relationship formation and dissolution, and descriptions of certain phases of relationships (e.g., being “serious”). Then, open coding identified themes within these excerpts that pertained to different relationship stages and milestones. Coders included a research assistant, postdoctoral fellow, and faculty member who had graduate training in psychology and qualitative methods. Coders independently reviewed the excerpts and generated a list of potential themes, which consisted of any topic that the coder perceived to be a significant or recurring pattern in the data. Themes were not required to be mentioned a minimum number of times to be considered significant, as frequency may not necessarily reflect its importance, particularly at this stage of hypothesis generation research. Coders then combined their lists and used constant comparison (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) to reduce their 182 themes into 20 discrete axial codes (Table 1). This final set of codes included emergent themes and a priori themes based on the interview guide. These codes were subsequently applied to the 215 excerpts. A pooled Kappa of .79 indicated good (Koch, Landis, Freeman, Freeman, & Lehnen, 1977) to excellent (Fleiss, 1971) intercoder reliability.

Table 1.

Axial codes, code application frequencies, and descriptions of relationship milestones and processes.

Axial code	Excerpts	Description
Relationship milestones
Meeting	73	References to how couples first met one another
Talking	70	References to talking, flirting, communicating or increasing communication
Dating	50	References to “hanging out”, dating, or going out on date-like activities
Sex, condoms, and testing	43	References to sexual activity, condom use, STI & HIV testing
Relationship agreements	70	References to relationship’s rules (e.g., monogamy vs. non-monogamy)
Living together	54	References to moving in together or living with each other
Introducing partner to family	5	References to meeting each other’s close friends or family
Engagement and marriage	6	References to actual or planned engagement or marriage
Having children	8	References to actual or planned pregnancies, adoption, or becoming a co-parent to a partner’s child(ren)
Relationship processes
Emerging adulthood issues	25	References to challenges associated with the tasks of emerging adulthood (e.g., starting college) or with partners being at different stages of development
Serial or concurrent relationships	15	References to overlapping or serial relationships (i.e., starting relationship immediately after ending one)
Hesitation	32	References to hesitation or ambivalence regarding proceeding in the relationship
Building & breaking trust	42	References to developing, having, increasing or breaking trust
Independence/interdependence	46	References to shared interests/habits or independence or separateness in these areas
Within-couple stressors	41	References to stressors coming from within the relationship (e.g. jealousy, disagreements, infidelity, breaking up, needing space).
Family stressors	16	References to family as source of stress on relationship (e.g. family rejection of relationship, taking care of family)
External stressors	15	References to stressors originating outside of relationship (e.g., work, finances, cultural issues) that impact the relationship
Relationship strengtheners	25	References to entities, events, or people that strengthen the couple’s relationship, whether positive (e.g., parents as role models) or negative (e.g., a breakup)

Data were analyzed thematically (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Numbers of excerpts are presented, rather than how many couples described the theme, as couples often referenced one theme multiple times. Mixed methods analyses (Axinn & Pearce, 2006) explored differences in code application rates and meanings between MAAB and FAAB couples (Figure 1). Following prior studies, mixed-methods results are reported for codes with meaningful differences, defined by code application rates that differed by at least 20% between groups (Greene et al., 2014; Magee, Bigelow, Dehaan, & Mustanski, 2012). Quotes from both members of the couple label the speakers as Partner 1 (P1) and Partner 2 (P2) and include each partner’s age and their relationship length. Following Matthews (2005), lengthy explanations of quotes are avoided; rather, quotes are presented to illustrate conclusions drawn from the data.

Figure 1.

Differences in code application rates stratified by male assigned at birth (MAAB) couples and female assigned at birth (FAAB) couples.

Note. Bars represent weighted code values that account for differences in sample size between groups (Dedoose, 2012). Asterisks indicate code application rates that differed by 20% or more.

Results

The analytic sample (Table 2) consisted of 36 couples (16 FAAB, 20 MAAB; mean age = 22.2, SD = 4.2 years). Most participants identified as a racial or ethnic minority and as gay or lesbian. All but four participants reported a gender identity congruent with their birth sex. MAAB couples were more likely to be in age-discrepant relationships (> 5 year age difference). Female-born couples reported higher levels of commitment, though the majority of couples in both groups indicated being “very” or “completely” committed to their relationship.

Table 2.

Sample characteristics by individual and couple.

	FAAB participants (n = 32)	MAAB participants (n = 40)	All participants (n = 72)
Age range (Mean years, SD)	18–27 (21.8, 1.5)	18–46 (22.5, 3.2)	18–46 (22.2, 2.4)
Race/ethnicity, n (%)
Black	22 (68.7)	19 (47.5)	41 (56.9)
White	6 (18.7)	6 (15.0)	12 (16.7)
Hispanic/Latino	3 (9.4)	8 (20.0)	11 (15.3)
Multiracial	1 (3.1)	5 (12.5)	6 (8.3)
Sexual orientation, n (%)
Gay/Lesbian	23 (71.9)	34 (85.0)	57 (79.2)
Bisexual	5 (15.6)	5 (12.5)	10 (13.9)
Heterosexual	1 (3.1)	1 (2.5)	2 (2.8)
Declined to answer	3 (9.4)	0 (0.0)	3 (4.2)
Gender identity, n (%)
Male	1 (3.1)	39 (97.5)	40 (55.6)
Female	29 (90.6)	1 (2.5)	30 (41.7)
Transgender	2 (6.2)	0 (0.0)	2 (2.8)
Living situation, n (%)
With partner	14 (43.8)	8 (20.5)	22 (31.0)
With family	13 (40.6)	15 (38.5)	28 (39.4)
Other stable housing	5 (15.6)	13 (33.3)	18 (25.4)
Unstable housing	0 (0.0)	3 (7.7)	3 (4.2)
Relationship commitment, n (%)
Completely	23 (71.9)	19 (47.5)	42 (61.1)
Very	5 (15.6)	21 (52.5)	26 (30.6)
Somewhat	4 (12.5)	0 (0.0)	4 (8.3)
Not at all	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)
	FAAB couples (n = 16)	MAAB couples (n = 20)	All couples (n = 36)
Age difference: Mean years (SD)	2 (1.1)	4.4 (4.1)	3.3 (2.7)
Within 5 years, n (%)	15 (93.7)	16 (80.0)	31 (86.1)
> 5 years, n (%)	1 (6.3)	4 (20.0)	5 (13.9)
Race, n (%)
Congruent	13 (81.2)	13 (65.0)	26 (72.2)
Incongruent	3 (18.7)	7 (35.0)	10 (27.8)
Relationship length, n (%)
< 1 year	5 (31.2)	7 (35.0)	12 (33.3)
1–3 years	10 (62.5)	8 (40.0)	18 (50.0)
> 3 years	1 (6.2)	5 (25.0)	6 (16.7)

Relationship Stages and Milestones

During selective coding, themes reflecting specific relationship events (i.e., milestones) were grouped into five conceptual stages – discernment, initiation, negotiation, cohabitation, and commitment. These are presented in roughly sequential order to facilitate readability; some milestones did not always occur in the sequence described (e.g., cohabitation) and not every couple described each stage or milestone. Mixed-methods results were woven into descriptions of themes where meaningful differences emerged between MAAB and FAAB couples.

Discernment

Meeting was the most commonly-discussed relationship milestone (73 excerpts) and consisted of descriptions of how couples met. Nearly two-thirds of the couples met through a mutual friend in an LGBT social circle, or through LGBT-specific and non-LGBT specific social networking websites and phone lines. Websites and phone lines were used largely to meet LGBT peers and not necessarily to find a partner. More FAAB couples met through a social networking site compared to MAAB couples (38% vs. 15%). After couples met, they began a period of talking (70 excerpts) that lasted a week to two years before dating. Talking involved getting to know each other in person, over the phone or text, or via the Internet and gauging each other’s suitability as a romantic partner. Participants who met online or through a chat line often reported talking for several weeks or months before meeting in person.

Initiation

Dating (50 excerpts) signaled the beginning of the couple’s formal relationship and was characterized by spending more time together, greater intimacy, and use of relationship labels (e.g., boyfriend, girlfriend). Most dates consisted of “hanging out” – watching TV or playing video games. During relationship initiation, having sex, using condoms, and getting tested for HIV/STIs (43 excerpts) was also described, with MAAB couples discussing this theme more frequently than FAAB couples (83% vs 17% of excerpts). Excerpts from MAAB couples largely focused on condom use. While they reported consistent condom use at the beginning of their relationship or during sex with outside partners, most reported inconsistent or nonexistent condom use at the time of the interview. In contrast, FAAB couples did not describe condom use and instead discussed having sex and being tested for HIV and STIs. Excerpts suggested that FAAB couples were more likely to wait longer to have sex than MAAB couples, like this participant, for whom delaying sex meant taking the relationship more seriously:

When we met she instantly wanted me to sleep with her… and I just wanted to try something different… I told her it’s best if she wait. I wanted to treat her like a woman… and see [if] maybe my relationship can last longer than what it used to… So, I made her wait and… it was worth the wait. (Couple 27F, age 20, partner age 23, together 1–3 years)

While most excerpts indicated that testing prior to having sex was important, only one participant described the importance of being tested throughout the relationship:

We’re going to get tested every six months… I just love my future that I just can’t give it up for sex… [If] you catch [an STI] then you stuck... Before we ever did our first “adventure” we went and got tested… and I’m like, “Okay, [I’m] clean, we can do somethin’,” and she’s like, “You so silly…” I’m not, it’s just dangerous. (Couple 21F, age 21, partner age 20, together 1–3 years)

Negotiation

Relationship agreements were frequently described (70 excerpts), and included whether the couple was monogamous or non-monogamous and how the couple arrived at that agreement. These agreements were discussed at various points in couples’ relationships. MAAB couples discussed agreements more frequently (64% vs 36% of excerpts). While both MAAB and FAAB couples discussed monogamy and non-monogamy, only MAAB couples described plans for condom use with their primary and outside partners. Excerpts indicated that most couples were monogamous, and that some couples’ agreements changed over time. This excerpt describes how one MAAB couple modified their relationship agreement:

P1: We were monogamous when we started dating…

P2: …We just didn’t think that sex was that big of a deal. Like people blow it up to like this epic craziness, when in reality it’s just like a need that humans have…

P1: …The caveat to that is always being conversant with each other but also anyone else that you not just have sex with, but that you’re intimate with, in any form… even if it’s like something as innocent as holding someone’s hand or giving them like a quick kiss. (Couple 12M; P1 age 26, P2 age 23, together > 3 years)

While most couples had at least one explicit conversation about their agreement, two assumed monogamy based on how they felt or acted around each other, as described by this participant:

We kind of share the same like morals and beliefs. Like we just kind of know each other… we won’t… have like a serious sit down conversation about like you know, “This is monogamy,” but [we know we’re monogamous] just through our daily interactions. (Couple 16F, age 24, partner age 25, together > 3 years)

Cohabitation

Living together was another frequent theme (54 excerpts), with 21 couples cohabiting at some point during their relationship. FAAB couples discussed this milestone more frequently (70% vs 30% of excerpts). This likely reflected that more FAAB couples were living together (7 couples vs 4 couples); otherwise, both groups discussed cohabitation in similar ways. Couples who moved in together shortly after beginning to date often did so out of necessity (e.g., parental rejection after coming out, finances) and felt they were not ready. Couples who waited longer often did so to demonstrate commitment. While participants expressed generally positive feelings about living together, some indicated ambivalence related to the prospect of breaking up, handling finances with their partners, or negative experiences with previous partners. This participant expressed concern that cohabitation would negatively affect their relationship:

I’ve been kinda scared for us to move in together, like what if… you stop liking me? …I lived with someone before, but not [someone] as serious as this, ‘cause we get along like perfect… [with] my other boyfriends it wasn’t like that. (Couple 40M, age 22, partner age 19, together 1–3 years)

Commitment

Couples infrequently discussed experiences introducing their partner to their family or friends (5 excerpts). Most excerpts described introducing their partner to their family; only one talked about introducing their partner to friends. FAAB couples described this milestone more often than MAAB couples (65% vs 35% of excerpts), perhaps reflecting group differences in commitment. However, both discussed this event similarly and described the introduction as stressful and marked by disapproval from one or both partners’ families:

My family accepts me, her family doesn’t accept her... And that was a big step for me to be able to be like, “Okay you have to see my world,” everybody huggin’ me and lovin’ me and lovin’ you, and then her world was like, I couldn’t come in the house. (Couple 21F, age 21, partner age 20, together 1–3 years)

Engagement and marriage (6 excerpts) was discussed more often by FAAB couples than MAAB couples (65% vs 35% of excerpts). Both groups described these milestones similarly, expressing optimism and excitement about their future. One participant described obstacles she and her partner overcame that made their engagement feel particularly special:

Our daughter can’t keep a secret… she kept saying, “Mama got a gift for ya, she got a surprise for ya!”… She got down on both her knees, and I’m like, “You supposed to get on one knee, not two.” I… can’t believe this is really happenin’ to me… She’s been in relationships that has been verbally abusive. I been in relationships that I been verbally… physically, and mentally abused… For us to meet each other… it was a gift. (Couple 27F, ages 23, partner age 20, together 1–3 years)

Participants who discussed having children (8 excerpts) described forming families through step-families, adoption, and in vitro fertilization. Again, this theme was more frequently discussed by FAAB couples than MAAB couples (71% vs 29% of excerpts) and descriptions of having children differed between groups. For example, FAAB couples had either already adopted children together, or had biological children from previous relationships with cisgender male partners. One participant alluded to how medically-assisted conception methods were an additional barrier to having children as a same-sex couple:

It has nothing to do with a guy… [it] has something to do with us having a commitment, figuring it out, paying for the eggs, paying for the eggs to hatch, all takes longer… I guess having kids is… not different from… a heterosexual relationship, it’s just there’s more [steps involved]. (Couple 20F, age 21, partner age 19, together < 1 year)

In contrast, MAAB couples described their plans to start a family. This participant described how positive experiences growing up with his nuclear family motivated him to consider adoption to create his own family and establish long-term commitment to his partner:

I want to… [adopt] a child who won’t have the opportunities I had, growing up with a great mother and three doctors in my family… The more I talk to the State about it the more it just convinces me that’s what I want to do… if I adopt, if I’m gonna be with [my partner] forever. (Couple 33M, age 46, partner age 21, together > 3 years)

Relationship Processes

Different processes accelerated or impeded transitions between relationship stages and milestones, and/or strengthened their relationships. During selective coding, these processes were organized into three conceptual categories: developmental, interpersonal, and external processes. As processes occurred throughout relationships, they are not described sequentially.

Developmental processes

Processes related to emerging adulthood (25 excerpts) included tasks like getting a job, going to college, and establishing independence from one’s family of origin. This theme was discussed more frequently by MAAB couples than FAAB couples (62% vs 38% of excerpts), though how it was discussed did not appear to differ between groups. Emerging adulthood issues tended to affect participants’ relationships negatively. This participant articulated the difficulty of establishing a relationship amidst these challenges, which was a sentiment common across several couples:

It’s a lot of crap to take in, we just moved in [together], it’s like our second year of going out, we wanna go to college, we never like worked a steady full-time job, and… all of this shit’s just like, you turn 18, adulthood is in your face, and… it was really difficult. (Couple 35M, age 21, partner age 21, together > 3 years)

Excerpts also described how emerging adulthood processes prolonged relationship initiation and delayed establishing commitment. For example, this participant began dating her partner when they were both teenagers. She describes how their age difference and her desire to establish her own adult identity led them to drift apart as they entered emerging adulthood:

There are a lot of changes more to do with… developing as a person. When we met she was 19 and I was 15 so it was a really big age gap… At first it was nice… she was at my level, she was energetic… and then as time progressed… I wanted my own identity. (Couple 25F, age 18, partner age 22, together 1–3 years)

In addition, establishing independence from one’s family while attempting to become financially stable appeared to accelerate cohabitation despite couples’ lack of readiness to do so. A minority of excerpts indicated that encountering emerging adulthood together had a positive effect on relationship initiation, such as this couple, who began dating when one partner was in high school and the other was in college: “I was still in high school so I was really excited… to see what things [my partner] was into… I associated him with a lifestyle that [I] sort of admired.” (Couple 17M, age 23, partner age 22, together > 3 years).

Interpersonal processes

Couples described serial or concurrent relationships (15 excerpts) that involved initiating a new relationship before ending another, or transitioning to one relationship immediately after ending another. Concurrent relationships appeared to slow down relationship initiation and negotiation, as some participants maintained these relationships due to a lack of readiness to commit to their current partner. For some, getting over a rocky relationship made starting a relationship with a new partner more difficult:

The first time we were dating… was sort of a trial period and a lot of what I was going through was like just getting over the past relationship I was in… A lot of my old feelings were just getting injected into the new relationship and it just wasn’t working… and I got frightened by that. (Couple 10M, age 23, partner age 31, together 1–3 years)

For others, however, the presence of a new partner who seemed substantially better than the previous one facilitated rapid transition into the new relationship.

Feelings of hesitation (32 excerpts) occurred throughout relationships. Couples described feeling hesitant or ambivalent during transitions between relationship stages and/or during times where they assessed and re-assessed the state of their relationship. These feelings tended to slow down relationship initiation and negotiation and were often a barrier to establishing commitment. In addition, excerpts referencing later relationship stages (e.g., negotiation, commitment) often reflected tensions related to emerging adulthood. For example, this participant described hesitation about being in a long-term relationship that felt too “serious”:

This was the longest relationship I’ve ever had… It’s really confusing… after that… romance kind of begins to fade. You’re [thinking], “I’m either at a point where I have to get out, because this is becoming serious,” or it had been serious the whole time, but you realize [that] this is much bigger than anything you could have imagined… It’s a huge commitment… especially when you’re young, ‘cause culture is like, “Be young! Be fun!” …I was afraid of our relationship becoming… stale. (Couple 17M, age 23, partner age 22, together > 3 years)

Couples also described processes of independence and interdependence (46 excerpts) that occurred during relationship initiation or cohabitation. Most excerpts described how the couple’s lives were intertwined (e.g., attended school together, shared friends), which tended to facilitate relationship discernment and initiation. Other excerpts described partners’ independence or dissimilarity, which had variable effects on relationship progression.

Building and breaking trust (42 excerpts) was described when couples decided to have sex or stop using condoms, during relationship negotiation, and when establishing commitment. Fidelity, honesty, and open communication were described as key components of the trust-building process. For example, this participant describes how disclosing his STI status to his partner before they had sex ultimately increased trust:

I contracted syphilis… that was really a humbling experience, and I figured if I could tell him that I could tell him pretty much anything… That was before we had sex… Knowing that he was still going to be there and still was very supportive… really built up that trust and love. (Couple 3M, age 23, partner age 19, together 1–3 years)

Several excerpts also described breaks in trust due to lying or infidelity, which led to backsliding or slowing of relationship progression, as illustrated by this participant: “In prison I cheated on her… it took so long to gain her trust back that I don’t even wanna mess up again… I’d rather leave her than to cheat on her again.” (Couple 22F, age 22, partner age 22, together 1–3 years)

Various stressors within and outside couples, including stress related to sexual and gender identity, affected relationships. The most frequently described stressors occurred within the couple (41 excerpts). These included having difficulty getting over a previous partner, which interfered with relationship discernment and initiation; or relationship rifts related to infidelity or different relationship expectations, which stalled relationship progression. Several excerpts described how one partner’s physical (e.g., HIV) or mental illness (e.g., post-traumatic stress disorder) or history of abuse slowed relationship progression. This participant described how her partner’s abuse history prevented them from becoming closer during relationship initiation:

She used to flinch a lot… I couldn’t like reach across her without her ducking… When we first got together, she… did things to see [whether] was I gonna like hit her, or like when she said she disagreed with me, she’d get scared thinking I’m ‘bout to hit her… She’s improved a lot. (Couple 22F, age 21, partner age 22, together 1–3 years)

External processes

Family stressors (16 excerpts) were discussed more often by FAAB couples (62% vs 38% of excerpts), but both groups described similar experiences with difficulty getting along with family members, being responsible for family (e.g., caretaking), or family disapproval of a participant’s LGBT identity or relationship. These stressors sometimes led couples to live together early in their relationship; other participants moved in with their partner’s families because their own parents disapproved of their sexual or gender identity. One couple described the stress of concealing their relationship from one partner’s family, whose attitudes eventually changed after the other partner transitioned genders:

P1: When he was still female… [our relationship] wasn’t as well accepted with my mom… There was a lot of fear at the beginning. But now… I don’t think they ever even think about it, they love him.

P2: [At first] we had to do all this… trickery to like hide me… and I knew… what was at stake. Had they found out we were together, [it] could’ve cost… her education… absurd, extreme things. So I was like, “Okay… we’ll do this for now.” (Couple 16F, P1 age 25, P2 age 24, together > 3 years)

External stressors (15 excerpts) from sources outside the couple were discussed more frequently by FAAB couples (63% vs 38% of excerpts). Both groups described the impact of long-distance relationships and roommate and landlord issues. Unlike FAAB participants, MAAB participants discussed the effects of social and cultural expectations regarding masculinity on their relationships. One participant, whose partner was also Hispanic, described how intersecting and conflicting cultural and sexual minority identities made it difficult to identify with non-Hispanic partners. Here, he describes having to relinquish an important part of his cultural identity to help facilitate his sexual identity and relationship development:

The machismo… of [Mexican] culture… affects who we are as gay men… [it] isn’t necessarily good for the life that we wanna live… I had to give up a lot of ideas that came from hearing my uncles talk about… manly stuff, and I couldn’t identify with that. I had to give that up, even though it was kinda precious to me. (Couple 35M, age 21, partner age 21, together > 3 years)

Finally, various factors strengthened couples’ relationships (25 excerpts). Most excerpts described how stressors like disclosing one’s HIV status or coming out ultimately improved the relationship. For example, this participant described significant stress related to his partner’s coming out, and that coping with this challenge together eventually made them closer:

P1: [My coming out] brought us closer to each other… It’s showed him how much he meant to me to bring him into my life and come out and introduce [him to my family].

P2: With him coming out it did strain the relationship… So there was some obstacles we did have to climb… we’ve always kept positive, and… I’ve always told him, “You know, the best is always yet to come…” (Couple 37M, P1 age 20, P2 age 38, together < 1 year)

Excerpts also described how friends, parents, and church helped strengthen the couple’s relationship by providing them with resources and support. This participant’s parents served as a model for how to endure change and challenges in his own relationship:

My parents have been married for, like forty years… when I was really young… they always said that they were going to get divorced but they never did… People get really hung up on like this excitement in the beginning and think that’s supposed to last… I saw [my parents] kind of evolve and I think that’s really affected [my ability] to cope with evolution and change in our relationship. (Couple 17M, age 23, partner age 22, together > 3 years)

Discussion

Although romantic relationship involvement is a significant part of emerging adult development, relatively little is known about relationship formation and progression among young LGBT couples and when they may be vulnerable to relationship distress. We extended the relationship development literature by using dyadic interviews to investigate relationship development among LGBT couples in emerging adulthood. While couples encountered relationship stages and processes consistent with research on heterosexual adults, their relationship experiences were shaped by their sexual identity, developmental stage, and gender among other factors. As such, relational development models should be expanded to account for the unique experiences faced by young LGBT couples, which can provide a framework for interventions that promote healthy relationships and families in the LGBT community.

Comparisons to Stage Models of Relational Development

Consistent with stage models of heterosexual relationship development (Levinger, 1980), couples described progressing toward more serious phases of their partnerships that involved overt gestures of commitment (e.g., engagement). Not included in these stage models, however, are factors that moderate relationship development. Our LGBT couples’ experiences of these stages were clearly impacted by their sexual or gender minority identity. For example, during relationship discernment, couples most frequently met through LGBT social networks, which necessitated being out about their LGBT status. In contrast, heterosexual, cisgender young adults typically do not have to come out, determine a potential partner’s sexual or gender identity, or seek out specifically heterosexual-identified social networks to find partners (Eyre et al., 2007); as such, starting relationships might pose additional obstacles and risks for LGBT young adults.

In comparison to previous research, differences related to LGBT identity were especially pronounced during the relationship negotiation, cohabitation, and commitment stages. While relationship agreement discussions were an important step for MAAB couples, they are not typically represented in heterosexual relationship development models. This likely reflects differing levels of HIV risk (Sullivan et al., 2009) and norms regarding monogamy between heterosexual and gay male couples (Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007). In addition, while previous research on heterosexual emerging adults indicates that cohabitation tends to occur out of necessity and when couples are not ready (Stanley, Rhoades, & Fincham, 2011), lack of family support of one’s sexual or gender identity potentiated this reason for cohabitation among LGBT couples—an issue not previously described in the relationship development literature.

Sexual identity posed certain challenges to couples’ commitment milestones. For example, while the desire to have children was similar to heterosexual couples, participants described plans to form families through adoption and medically-assisted reproductive technologies–avenues often viewed as alternatives among heterosexuals. Additionally, same-sex marriage was not legal in most of the country at the time of the interviews; while a minority of participants discussed engagement and marriage, some couples may not have thought that marriage with a same-sex partner was an option. Moreover, though seeking family support for one’s relationship can reflect increased commitment, participants described concealing their relationships from family who disapproved of their LGBT partnerships (Solomon, Rothblum, & Balsam, 2004). Low relationship visibility can make marginalized couples less likely to invest in their relationships (Lehmiller & Agnew, 2006), which may have negative implications for young LGBT couples’ long-term relationship quality and stability. It is worth noting that the infrequent discussion of commitment milestones in our sample may not indicate a lack of commitment among LGBT couples; instead, it may reflect couples’ developmental stage, as young heterosexual couples also describe these events at low rates (Baxter & Bullis, 1986).

Comparisons to Process Models of Relational Development

Interpersonal processes were also prominent in couples’ relationship development and were similar to those found in the literature on heterosexual couples (e.g., trust, interdependence; Wieselquist et al., 1999). Like in Baxter and Bullis’ (1986) “turning points” model, these interpersonal processes affected progression within and between relationship stages. For example, having concurrent or serial relationships interfered with establishing commitment for some couples. Moreover, uncertainty and hesitation about increasing relationship seriousness appeared to stall relationship progression, echoing research on ambivalence among heterosexual couples in emerging adulthood (Stanley et al., 2011). Unlike couples’ relationship stages, the interpersonal processes participants described were not specific to sexual identity.

While existing relationship models have focused largely on interpersonal processes, our findings extend the research on young LGBT couples by demonstrating the importance of developmental processes and external factors on relationship development. For instance, stress from emerging adulthood responsibilities combined with families’ disapproval of couples’ relationships negatively affected or stalled relationship progression. Although few described the impact of conflicting sexual and cultural identities on relationships, given the racial and ethnic diversity of our sample, these factors likely impacted other couples as well. Further research should examine how intersections of LGBT and racial/ethnic identity might affect young couples’ relationship quality and stability. Despite these challenges, overcoming difficulties together appeared to strengthen relationships, a finding consistent with adult same-sex couples (Frost, 2011). Results support both stage and process models of relationship development but suggest expansion of these models to account for developmental stage and LGBT identity.

Sex Differences

Several sex differences were apparent. Regarding relationship characteristics, similar to prior studies (Eyre et al., 2007; Savin-Williams, 1998) MAAB participants were more likely to be in age-discrepant partnerships. This may have driven MAAB couples’ more frequent discussions of emerging adulthood, as partners in similar developmental stages may have perceived these stressors as normative, whereas these issues may have been more salient for couples with greater age differences. MAAB participants were also less likely to be living with their partners. And, while overall, couples described commitment milestones infrequently, FAAB participants were more likely to endorse higher levels of commitment to their relationships. Together, these indicators may suggest less relationship stability among our MAAB couples, consistent with previous findings (Lau, 2012). In terms of relationship stages and processes, MAAB participants more frequently discussed safe sex, HIV testing, and relationship agreements, suggesting the relevance of these topics for HIV prevention among this group (Greene et al., 2014). FAAB participants more frequently discussed meeting family, cohabitation, engagement and marriage, and having children together, likely reflecting their higher levels of commitment rather than a lack of importance to MAAB couples.

Though excerpt frequencies often differed, their content suggested that MAAB and FAAB couples’ experiences were more similar than different. For example, while FAAB participants more often described family stressors and external stressors, the manner in which they were discussed between groups did not appear to differ. As such, relationship education programs and interventions may consider creating similar content for MAAB and FAAB couples, such as education on how LGBT identity, family, and developmental and external stressors may be impacting their relationship. Tailored modules could then address sex- or gender-specific concerns (e.g., HIV risk in MAAB couples; pregnancy in FAAB couples).

Implications for Theory and Practice

Our findings have several theoretical and practical implications. First, since existing stage models do not adequately capture young LGBT couples’ relationship experiences, new models should be created or existing ones revised to reflect where sexual and gender minority identity affects relationship development. This can signal when LGBT couples may be vulnerable to relationship distress and benefit from intervention, like during relationship commitment or negotiation. For example, relationship education programs designed for young couples in newly-committed relationships could provide guidance on disclosing their relationship to others: how to identify which family members or friends may be supportive, providing an opportunity to practice disclosing to these individuals, and teaching individual and dyadic coping skills to handle negative reactions effectively and minimize relationship stress. In addition, young MAAB couples may benefit from communication skills training to effectively negotiate, change, or disclose breaks in their relationship agreements, which can reduce their risk of HIV.

Second, relationship development models based on adults largely focus on interpersonal processes. However, our findings suggest that a model that considers sexual and gender minority identity, development, social and family environment, and culture may better capture how these complex factors influence young LGBT couples’ relationships. As such, future research could consider utilizing an ecological systems perspective (Bronfenbrenner, 1977) when interpersonal process models may be lacking. This perspective has been applied to relationship research on early and middle adolescents (Connolly & McIsaac, 2011) and can account for how the couple’s characteristics and different layers of their environment interact and change over time. Accordingly, relationship education programs designed for young LGBT couples should address these multiple levels of influence (Mustanski et al., 2014). For example, programs can help couples identify and leverage external resources that can provide them with support (e.g., friends, chosen family, LGBT community centers, LGBT-affirming places of worship). Moreover, as dealing with LGBT-related challenges together ultimately strengthened relationships among our participants, programs can teach couples to approach coping with stress as a dyadic endeavor (e.g., problem-solving together, practicing acceptance together) rather than as an individual activity. Finally, findings also highlight normative experiences that young LGBT couples share with heterosexual couples, which may help clinicians working with LGBT couples be mindful of the fact that their concerns may not always reflect their sexual or gender identity.

Limitations, Strengths, and Conclusion

Findings from this study should be considered in light of several limitations. First, our sample was recruited from a large, urban area in the Midwest. As such, findings may not generalize to young LGBT couples in rural or more socially conservative areas, whose environment likely impacts their relationship experiences and trajectories in different ways. Second, the perspectives of couples where both individuals were not out, couples who had just started or ended their relationships, and highly distressed or dissatisfied couples were not well represented in this sample, which also may limit generalizability. Third, though couples were asked to describe the history of their relationships, the interviews were cross-sectional, thus limiting our understanding of changes in LGBT couples’ relationship trajectories through different life stages. Longitudinal research may better characterize how relationships among young LGBT couples unfold over time. Fourth, our small sample of couples in age-discrepant relationships precluded us from assessing the impact of age differences on relational development, which warrants future investigation. Finally, though our sample included several transgender participants, we did not examine in depth how their gender identity impacted relationship development. As transgender persons face different challenges in their relationships over and above those experienced by sexual minority individuals (Gamarel, Reisner, Laurenceau, Nemoto, & Operario, 2014), further research on their romantic relationships is needed.

Despite these limitations, this study offers several unique contributions. Unlike past relationship development research based on individuals’ accounts of past relationships, we interviewed intact couples which allowed both partners’ experiences to be heard. In addition, our study focused on ethnically-diverse LGBT couples in emerging adulthood, who are historically underrepresented in relationship development research (Ogolsky et al., 2013). Moreover, using a mixed-methods approach allowed us to qualitatively and quantitatively compare MAAB and FAAB couples. Finally, our study is among the first to shed light on relationship stages and processes among LGBT couples in emerging adulthood, and how their relationships are both similar to and diverge from existing models based on heterosexuals. This work suggests that future research may benefit from using relationship models that consider the unique influences of development, sexual and gender identity, and the social and cultural environment on couples’ relationship trajectories. Our findings also provide a springboard for the development of relationship education programs that better suit the needs and experiences of LGBT couples, which can set the stage for healthier relationships and families in the LGBT community.