This Internet-based study used data from a convenience sample of 176 gay men in current partnerships to examine differences in outness, cohesion, and relationship quality between three types of gay male couples: first cohabiting partnerships, repartnerships, and gay stepfamilies. Also, we tested whether relationship quality mediated the link between outness and cohesion and the moderating role of type of relationship. Results showed that those in first cohabiting partnerships had the lowest levels of relationship quality and cohesion, whereas those in gay stepfamilies reported having the highest levels of relationship quality and those in repartnerships reported the highest levels of cohesion. For all couples, the link between outness and cohesion was partially mediated by relationship quality, and this was moderated for those in repartnerships.
BalsamK.SzymanskiD. (2005). Relationship quality and domestic violence in women’s same-gender relationships: The role of minority stress. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 258-269.
2.
BaronR.KennyD. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
3.
BergerR. (2000). Gay stepfamilies: A triple-stigmatized group. Families in Society, 5, 504-516.
4.
BradburyT.FinchamF. F.BeachS. (2000). Research on the nature and determinants of marital satisfaction: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 964-981.
5.
BraithwaiteD.BaxterL. A. (2006). “You’re my parent but you’re not”: Dialectical tensions in stepchildren’s perceptions about communicating with the nonresidential parent. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 34, 30-48.
6.
BrinesJ.JoynerK. (1999). The ties that bind: Principles of cohesion in cohabitation and marriage. American Sociological Review, 64, 333-355.
7.
BrownS.BoothA. (1996). Cohabitation versus marriage: A comparison of relationship quality. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 668-678.
8.
CherlinA. (1978). Remarriage as an incomplete institution. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 634-650.
9.
ColemanM.GanongL.FineM. (2000). Reinvestigating remarriage: Another decade of progress. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1288-1307.
10.
CopelandA.WhiteK. (1991). Studying families. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
11.
CraddockA. E. (1991). Relationships between attitude similarity, couple structure, and couple satisfaction within married and de facto couples. Australian Journal of Psychology, 43, 11-16.
12.
Crosbie-BurnettM.HelmbrechtL. (1993). A descriptive empirical study of gay male stepfamilies. Family Relations, 42, 256-263.
13.
DavisM.BoldingG.HartG.SherrL.ElfordJ. (2004). Reflecting on the experiences of interviewing online: Perspectives from the Internet and HIV study in London. AIDS Care, 16, 944-952.
14.
DemoD.AquilinoW.FineM. (2005). Family composition and family transitions. In BengtsonV. L.AllenK.AcockA.Dilworth-AndersonP.KleinD. (Eds.), Sourcebook on family theory and research (pp. 119-142). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
ElizurY.MintzerA. (2003). Gay males’ intimate relationship quality: The roles of attachment security, gay identity, social support, and income. Personal Relationships, 10, 411-435.
16.
FisilogluH.LorenzettiA. F. (1994). The relation of family cohesion to marital adjustment. Contemporary Family Therapy, 16, 539-552.
17.
FletcherG.SimpsonJ.ThomasG. (2000). Ideals, perceptions, and evaluations in early relationship development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 933-940.
18.
GoldbergA. (2009). Lesbian parents and their families: Complexity and intersectionality from a feminist perspective. In LloydS.FewA.AllenK. (Eds.), Handbook of feminist family studies (pp. 108-120). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
HaasS. M.StaffordL. (1998). An initial examination of maintenance behaviors in gay and lesbian relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 846-856.
20.
KurdekL. A. (2004). Are gay and lesbian cohabiting couples really different from heterosexual married couples?Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 880-900.
21.
LaSalaM. C. (2000). Gay male couples: The importance to coming out and being out to parents. Journal of Homosexuality, 39, 47-71.
22.
LewisR.DerlegaV.BerndtA.MorrisL.RoseS. (2001). An empirical analysis of stressors for gay men and lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality, 42, 63-88.
23.
LewisR.KozacR.MilardoR.GrosnickW. (1992). Commitment in same-sex love relationships. In DynesW.DonaldsonS. (Eds.), Homosexuality and psychology, psychiatry, and counseling: Studies in homosexuality (pp. 174-194). New York, NY: Garland Press.
24.
LannuttiP. (2005). For better for worse: Exploring the meanings of same-sex marriage within the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered community. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 5-18.
25.
LaveeY.OlsonD. H. (1991). Family types and response to stress. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 786-798.
26.
LynchJ. M. (2000). Considerations of family structure and gender composition: The lesbian and gay stepfamily. Journal of Homosexuality, 40, 81-95.
27.
McQueeneyK. (2003) The new religious rite: A symbolic interactionist case study of lesbian commitment rituals. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 7, 49-70.
28.
MohrJ.FassingerR. (2003). Measuring dimensions of lesbian and gay male experience. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 33, 66-90.
29.
MohrJ.FassingerR. (2006). Sexual orientation identity and romantic relationship quality in same-sex couples. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1085-1099.
30.
MurrayD.FisherJ. (2002). The Internet: A virtually untapped tool for research. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 19(2/3), 5-18.
31.
OlsonD. (1986). Circumplex model VII: Validation studies and FACES-III. Family Process, 25, 337-351.
32.
OlsonD.GorallD. (2003). Circumplex model of marital and family systems. In WalshF. (Ed.), Normal family processes (3rd ed., pp. 514-547). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
33.
OswaldR. (2000). A member of the wedding? Heterosexism and family ritual. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 107-131.
34.
OswaldR. (2002). Inclusion and belonging in the family rituals of gay and lesbian people. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 428-436.
PinelE. (1999). Stigma consciousness: The psychological legacy of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 114-128.
37.
ReipsU. (2002). Internet-based psychological experimenting: Five dos and don’ts. Social Science Computer Review, 20, 241-249.
38.
RhodesS.DiClementeR.CecilH.HergenratherK.YeeL. (2002). Risk among men who have sex with men in the United States: A comparison of an Internet and a conventional outreach sample. AIDS Education and Prevention, 14, 41-50.
39.
RuizS. A.SilversteinM. (2007). Relationships with grandparents and the emotional well-being of late adolescent and young adult grandchildren. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 793-808.
40.
RutterV.SchwartzP. (1996). Same-sex couples: Courtship, commitment, context. In AuhagenA.von SalischM. (Eds.), The diversity of human relationship (pp. 197-226). Cambridge, England: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
41.
SabatelliR. (1984). The marital comparison level index: A measure for assessing outcomes relative to expectations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46, 651-662.
42.
Savin-WilliamsR. C. (2001). “Mom, Dad. I’m gay.” How families negotiate coming out. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
43.
SobelM. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In LeinhartS. (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982 (pp. 290-312). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
44.
SolomonS.RothblumE.BalsamK. (2004). Pioneers in partnership: Lesbian and gay male couples in civil unions compared with those not in civil unions and married heterosexual siblings. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 275-286.
45.
StetsJ. E. (1993). The link between past and present intimate relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 14, 236-260.
van Eeden-MoorefieldB. (2005). Links between the statuses of gay men in relationships and couple identity: A theoretical extension and examination (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC.
48.
van Eeden-MoorefieldB.ProulxC.PasleyK. (2008). A comparison of Internet and face-to-face qualitative methods in studying gay couples. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 2, 181-204.
