Attractions and constraints as determinants of relationship commitment: Longitudinal evidence from gay,lesbian, and heterosexual couples

The proposition that commitment to a relationship is uniquely determined by forces that draw one to the relationship (attractions) and forces that prevent one from leaving the relationship (constraints) was tested with five annual waves of longitudinal data from two samples: both partners from 155 married couples and both partners from 57 gay couples and 50 lesbian couples. Growth curve analyses that controlled for the interdependence of partners' scores indicated that, for both heterosexual and gay/lesbian couples, variability in one's own commitment was uniquely predicted by one's own attractions and one's own constraints, interactions involving one's own attractions and one's own constraints, and one's partner's attractions. It is concluded that attractions and constraints exert unique dynamic effects on maintaining a close relationship.     

Relationship quality of partners in heterosexual married, heterosexual cohabiting, and gay and lesbian relationships

The relationship quality of partners in 44 married, 35 heterosexual cohabiting, 50 gay, and 56 lesbian monogamous couples was studied. Each couple lived together and did not have children living with them. Relationship quality was dimensionalized as love for partner, liking of partner, and relationship satisfaction. Cohabiting partners had the lowest Love for Partner and Relationship Satisfaction scores. Differences were also found among partner types on: barriers to leaving the relationship, alternatives to the relationship, a belief that mindreading is expected in the relationship, masculinity, femininity, androgyny, dyadic attachment, shared decision making, and perceived social support from family. The four partner groups did not differ in psychological adjustment. For each type of partner, love for partner was related to many barriers to leaving the relationship and high dyadic attachment; liking of partner was related to few alternatives to the relationship, high dyadic attachment, and high shared decision making; and relationship satisfaction was related to many attractions, few alternatives, few beliefs regarding disagreement is destructive to the relationship, high dyadic attachment, and high shared decision making. Stepwise multiple regression procedures were used to identify the best set of predictors for each partner type. Results are discussed in the context of existing models of relationship quality.     

What Do We Know About Gay and Lesbian Couples?

Abstract— Research on gay and lesbian couples is highlighted with regard to household labor, conflict, satisfaction, perceived social support, stability, and the variables that predict relationship quality. Relative to partners from married heterosexual couples, partners from gay and lesbian couples tend to assign household labor more fairly, resolve conflict more constructively, experience similar levels of satisfaction, and perceive less support from family members but more support from friends. The limited data available indicate that gay and lesbian couples may be less stable than married heterosexual couples. The factors that predict relationship quality tend to be the same for gay, lesbian, and heterosexual married couples. Overall, research paints a positive picture of gay and lesbian couples and indicates that they tend to be more similar to than different from heterosexual couples.     

Avoidance motivation and relationship commitment in heterosexual,gay male,and lesbian partners

This study examined whether avoidance motivation is distinct from the satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size components of C. E. Rusbult, J. M. Martz, and C. R. Agnew’s (1998) investment model. Data from 3 samples (392 heterosexual dating partners, 225 heterosexual dating partners, and 351 gay male or lesbian cohabiting partners, respectively) indicated that items tapping satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, investment size, and avoidance motivation defined separate factors and that avoidance motivation accounted for unique variance in commitment. Satisfaction level moderated the link between investment size and commitment for dating partners and moderated the link between quality of alternatives and commitment, investment size and commitment, and avoidance motivation and commitment for gay male or lesbian partners.     

The link between sociotropy/autonomy and dimensions of relationship commitment: Evidence from gay and lesbian couples

The tendency to be excessively concerned about either interpersonal relationships (sociotropy) or self‐reliance (autonomy) has been regarded as increasing one's susceptibility to experience symptoms of depression. In this study, both one's own and one's partner's scores for each tendency were linked to two dimensions of one's own appraisal of relationship commitment (attractions to the relationship and constraints against leaving the relationship) in a sample of both partners from 29 gay and 35 lesbian cohabiting couples. One's own high autonomy was linked to perceiving few attractions to the relationship, whereas one's own high sociotropy was linked to perceiving many constraints to leaving the relationship under two conditions: when one's partner's sociotropy was low or when one regarded the partner as highly dependable. Findings support the view that individual differences variables may serve as either risk factors for or protective factors against difficulties in maintaining a close relationship and underscore the need to examine cross‐partner effects and moderating effects in identifying the individual differences variables linked to relationship functioning.     

Assessing the health of a dyadic relationship in heterosexual and same‐sex partners

The purpose of this study was to assess characteristics of a measure of monitoring the health of a dyadic relationship based on data from self‐report surveys completed by both partners from dating heterosexual, married heterosexual, cohabiting gay male, and cohabiting lesbian couples from the United States (Ns = 127, 46, 81, and 224, respectively). Covariation among the measure’s 7 items conformed to 1 latent factor. Intraclass correlations between partners from the same couple were positive. Gender effects occurred only for married couples, with wives having higher scores than husbands. One’s own and one’s partner’s monitoring accounted for unique variance in one’s own commitment, even with controls for other variables. Monitoring buffered the negative effects of neuroticism on commitment.     

Adjustment to relationship dissolution in gay,lesbian, and heterosexual partners

Twenty-six gay, 24 lesbian, and 49 heterosexual (19 male and 30 female) individuals who were separated from their relationship partner for about 6 months provided reasons why their relationship ended and rated their current separation distress. Relative to partners in heterosexual couples, those in gay or lesbian couples did not differ in reasons for the separation or in level of separation distress. Aspects of relationship quality assessed shortly before the separation occurred did not predict later separation distress. However, individuals who indicated that problems with intimacy were the cause of the separation were unlikely to be distressed by the separation, whereas individuals who indicated that problems with communication were the cause of the separation were likely to be distressed by the separation. Separation distress was positively related to the severity of neurotic symptoms reported when the relationship was intact and was negatively related to the extent to which the separation was expected. It is concluded that separation distress is more strongly related to personal strategies for coping with stress than to relationship-related events leading to separation.     

Is it Really Just About Being More Like a Fag? Confronting the Gay Male Model Mantra

Although the debate between feminism and queer is by now a fairly old and some might argue, trite and overwrought one, in this paper I direct my attention to a specific feminist assessment of queer that I find to be especially unhelpful and pernicious: the automatic linkage of queer with the exaltation of a gay male subjectivity. This article is informed by my own ethnographic research on lesbian/queer public sexual cultures; specifically, two Canadian lesbian/queer bathhouses, where public sex and sexual exploration are encouraged. I argue that this contention, that lesbians who espouse queer are aping (gay) male sexuality and subjectivity—due to the privileging of non-normative sexual practices found within the gay male community—does two things: (re)essentializes genders and sexualities, and, more importantly, robs non-gay male subjects (e.g., women, lesbians, butches, trans identified individuals) of their own agency. In sum, I believe that this linkage to a supposed gay male imitation, and concomitantly, viewing lesbian/queer sexual cultures, behaviors, configurations, and signifying sexual economies as mere derivatives of gay male culture, reinforces lesbian/queer invisibility and (re)centers the heterosexual matrix. For the sake of lesbian/queer subjects’ own viability, lesbian/queer sexualities must thus be pulled out of this discursive trap.     

The importance of feeling sexually attractive: Can it predict an individual's experience of their sexuality and sexual relationships across gender and sexual orientation?

Limited research exists on the implications of feeling sexually attractive for various aspects of sexuality and sexual relationships. This article examined associations between self‐perceived sexual attractiveness and sexual esteem, sexual satisfaction and amount of sexual experience, among both men and women who identified as heterosexual (n = 1017), gay or lesbian (n = 1225) or bisexual (n = 651). Results of the study demonstrated that positive self‐perceptions of sexual attractiveness predicted greater sexual esteem, greater sexual satisfaction, a higher frequency of sexual activity with others and a larger number of sexual partners among both men and women who identified as heterosexual, gay, lesbian or bisexual. The findings suggest that feeling sexually attractive may have implications for how an individual experiences their sexuality and sexual relationships regardless of their gender or sexual orientation. The importance of considering an individual's self‐perceptions of sexual attractiveness when they present with concerns related to their sexual experiences or relationships, and the potential benefits of educational and therapeutic interventions designed to enhance self‐perceptions of sexual attractiveness are discussed.     

Was it a phase? Young women's relinquishment of lesbian/bisexual identities over a 5-year period

There have been many anecdotal accounts of individuals who self-identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual only to relinquish these identities later. The current study examines this phenomenon among a sample of young nonheterosexual women who underwent 3 interviews over a 5-year period. Over a quarter of these women relinquished their lesbian/bisexual identities during this period: half reclaimed heterosexual identities and half gave up all identity labels. These women did not differ from those who maintained lesbian/bisexual identities regarding the age at which they underwent sexual identity milestones, the factors that precipitated their sexual questioning, or their recollection of childhood "indicators" of same-sex sexuality. Women who relinquished their identities for heterosexual identities had smaller ratios of same-sex to other-sex attractions across the 5-year assessment period, but their attractions did not significantly change. Only 1 woman described her previous same-sex identification as a phase; the rest emphasized changes in how they interpreted or acted on their attractions.     

Evidence from a homosexual sample for a sex‐specific rival‐oriented mechanism: Jealousy as a function of a rival's physical attractiveness and dominance

Among heterosexual women in particular, a rival's physical attractiveness evokes jealousy, whereas among heterosexual men in particular, a rival's dominance evokes feelings of jealousy. The present study conducted with gay men and lesbian women examined whether these sex‐differentiated responses reflect an evolved sex‐specific rival‐oriented mechanism according to which males and females pay attention to different rival characteristics or an evolved general partner‐oriented mechanism, according to which males and females pay attention to those characteristics that their actual and potential partners find important. In an experiment, using a 2 (Participant Sex) × 2 (Rival Physical Attractiveness) × 2 (Rival Dominance) mixed factor design, homosexual participants were presented with a scenario in which their partners were flirting with an individual of the same sex. Lesbian women, but not gay men, reported more jealousy when they were exposed to a physically attractive rival as compared with a physically unattractive rival. Gay males, but not lesbian women, reported more jealousy when they were exposed to a rival high in dominance as compared with a rival low in dominance, especially when exposed to a physically unattractive rival. In addition, among women high in dominance, a dominant rival evoked relatively less jealousy, and among women high in social comparison orientation, an unattractive rival evoked relatively more jealousy. It is concluded that males and females posses an evolved sex‐specific rival‐oriented mechanism through which they respond more or less automatically to those rival characteristics that have been important in sexual selection in our evolutionary past.     

IS SEXUAL ORIENTATION A MATTER OF CHOICE?

Ninety women in lesbian and heterosexual couples were compared on relationship values, views of same-gender and cross-gender intimate relationships, and perceived choice of sexual orientation. Both groups reported similar values, levels of self-esteem, and capacity for intimacy. The majority in both groups described their relationships with women as more emotionally and intellectually intimate than those with men. A majority of women in lesbian couples (58%) and a third of women in heterosexual couples reported choosing the orientation of their current sexual relationship. Women with male partners did not perceive major differences between homosexual and heterosexual relationships, citing sexual attraction as the primary reason they chose a male partner. In contrast, many women with female partners characterized lesbian relationships as more intimate and equal, and less gender-role stereotyped, frequently citing these characteristics, along with sexual attraction, as reasons for their relationship preference.     

How Sexuality Information Impacts Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Gay Service Members

The repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy raises several questions and this article examines two of these: (1) Do gay/lesbian service members elicit personal discomfort in coworkers? and (2) Do gay/lesbian service members receive equitable administrative actions? Active duty Air Force office personnel (N?=?181) reported their attitudes toward open service and responded to hypothetical scenarios depicting gay/lesbian or heterosexual male/female subordinates. Gays/lesbians elicited more personal comfort than heterosexuals, and no differences existed between gays/lesbians and heterosexuals in administrative actions. Attitudes toward open service predicted personal comfort but not administrative action ratings.     

Friendship trumps ethnicity (but not sexual orientation): comfort and discomfort in inter-group interactions

An experience sampling study tested the degree to which interactions with out-group members evoked negative affect and behavioural inhibition after controlling for level of friendship between partners. When friendship level was statistically controlled, neither White nor Black participants reported feeling more discomfort interacting with ethnic out-group members compared to ethnic in-group members. When partners differed in sexual orientation, friendship level had a less palliating effect. Controlling for friendship, both gay and straight men - but not women - felt more behaviourally inhibited when interacting with someone who differed in sexual orientation, and heterosexual participants of both genders continued to report more negative affect with gay and lesbian interaction partners. However, gay and lesbian participants reported similar levels of negative affect interacting with in-group (homosexual) and out-group (heterosexual) members after friendship level was controlled. Results suggest that much of the discomfort observed in inter-ethnic interactions may be attributable to lower levels of friendship with out-group partners. The discomfort generated by differences in sexual orientation, however, remains a more stubborn barrier to comfortable inter-group interactions.     

Antecedents and Potential Moderators of the Relationship Between Attitudes and Hiring Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation

A sample of 236 undergraduates (most of whom were White women) rated resumes in which gender, masculinity/femininity, and sexual orientation were manipulated while qualifications were kept constant. Overall, participants rated lesbian and gay male applicants less positively than heterosexual male applicants, but more positively than heterosexual women. Religiosity, beliefs in traditional gender roles, beliefs in the controllability of homosexuality, and previous contact with lesbians and gay men were related to attitudes toward lesbians and gay men, which was in turn related to beliefs about employing them. Several factors were hypothesized to moderate the relationship between beliefs about employing lesbians and gay men and discrimination, although the expected relationships were not found. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.     

Gay Stereotypes: The Use of Sexual Orientation as a Cue for Gender-Related Attributes

This study investigated whether gay men and lesbians are assumed to have attributes stereotypically associated with the other gender. Participants were 110 male and female undergraduates from a private, Midwestern, U.S. university. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions (i.e., gay male, lesbian, heterosexual female, heterosexual male) and rated their given target on possession of traditionally masculine and feminine occupational interests, activities, and traits. Results revealed that, despite some changes in the status of gay men and lesbians in society, stereotypes regarding sexual orientation were similar to those seen in studies conducted 20 years ago. Specifically, gay males were viewed as less masculine/more feminine than heterosexual males, and lesbians were viewed as more masculine/less feminine than heterosexual females.     

Daily stress,closeness, and satisfaction in gay and lesbian couples

A daily diary analysis of the associations among stress, closeness, and relationship and sexual satisfaction was conducted with a sample of 40 gay male and 55 lesbian couples. Using interdependence theory as a guide, both actor and partner effects of stress, closeness, and their interaction were investigated. As predicted, it was found that participants' own feelings of closeness toward their partners buffered the negative association between stress and satisfaction but that when participants' partners felt particularly close on a stressful day their closeness exacerbated associations between stress and reduced satisfaction. These contrasting effects of closeness underscore the importance of considering the daily processes of both partners contributing to relationship quality.     

Beyond Similarities: Cross-Gender and Cross-Orientation Best Friendship in a Sample of Sexual Minority and Heterosexual Young Adults

The research investigates differences between heterosexual (n?=?714) and lesbian and gay men (n?=?386) young adults regarding best friendship patterns, well-being, and social anxiety. Based on data from a paper-pencil survey of 1,100 Italian young adults aged 18 to 26, this study underlines the importance of the best friend in young adults’ psychological adjustment, highlighting patterns of friendship in heterosexual and lesbian and gay men young adults. Overall, the majority of participants declared that they had best friends; in the total sample, significant differences were found between women and men, and between lesbian/gay men participants and heterosexual young adults. Lesbian and gay men participants reported more cross-gender best friendships than heterosexual participants did, as well as more cross-orientation best friendships. Gender differences were found only with regards to cross-gender friendships: gay men reported more cross-gender friendships than lesbians did, while heterosexual females reported a higher percentage of cross-gender best friendship than heterosexual males did. MANOVA analysis, only in the gay and lesbian sample, showed the effect of gender, cross-gender, and cross-orientation on well-being and social anxiety. For the well-being dimension, gay men participants with female best friends reported higher scores. In terms of social anxiety, lesbian and gay young adults with cross-gender and cross-orientation best friends reported lower levels of social anxiety.     

Facial resemblances between heterosexual, gay, and lesbian couples

Researchers have noted a physical resemblance (homophily) between human sex partners. To date, these studies and their related interpretations have been based on heterosexual couples. The present study compared physical resemblances between gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples, using 40 photographs of each from national newspapers, which were rated by 34 men and 56 women (M age = 53 yr., SD = 12.1). Half the photographs were of actual couples and half were randomly mixed within each group. Actual couples were rated as significantly more similar in appearance than random pairings of people. Ratings of similarity were significantly higher (indicating greater perceived homophily) for gay couples than heterosexual couples, while there was no statistically significant difference in similarity ratings between lesbian couples versus gay and heterosexual couples. The results were interpreted in terms of evolutionary and parental imprinting hypotheses.     

Countertransference issues in psychotherapy with lesbian and gay clients

This article briefly reviews literature on responses towards same-sex (lesbian and gay) sexualities from psychoanalytic and ‘lesbian and gay affirmative’ psychotherapeutic perspectives. An analysis is presented of reports of countertransferential reactions to lesbian and gay clients, obtained from interviews with fourteen psychotherapists who work in a lesbian and gay affirmative manner and eighteen clients who had received affirmative psychotherapy. Data were subjected to grounded analysis. Participants consistently attended to the thoughts, feelings and values that therapists held in relation to lesbian and gay clients and how these affected the meanings and practices available to them. These were linked with the therapist's sexual identity among other factors. Negative countertransferential reactions were regarded as potentially occurring among heterosexual and lesbian and gay therapists and were seen as arising from therapists’ conscious and unconscious fears about same-sex sexualities. These findings indicate a need to continue debating these issues more widely in the professional arena.