Available online at www.sciencedirect.
com
ScienceDirect
Same-sex relationships and minority stress
Sharon Scales Rostosky1 and Ellen DB Riggle
Same-sex relationships are stigmatized in a culture that
privileges heterosexual relationships. This stigma creates
minority stress in the lives of same-sex couples. We review
current research on minority stress and same-sex relationships
using an ecological framework to conceptualize the sources of
minority stress that impact couples. Findings from this review
suggest a need for research that moves conceptually and
methodologically beyond a focus on the individual to a focus on
the dyad and the interpersonal, institutional, and cultural
sources of minority stress that affect couple relationships.
Focusing on the strengths and resiliencies of same-sex couples
will also extend the research. Creating effective dyadic
interventions will promote the health and well-being of same-
sex couples and their families.
Address
University of Kentucky, United States
Corresponding author: Rostosky, Sharon Scales (s.rostosky@uky.edu)
1 ences.
Address: Educational, School, and Counseling Psychology, 231 Dickey
Hall, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506-0017, United States.
Current Opinion in Psychology 2016, 13:29–38
This review comes from a themed issue on Relationships and stress
Edited by Gery C Karantzas, Marita P McCabe and Jeffry A
Simpson
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.04.011
2352-250/# 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) identified people
form and maintain their intimate partnered relationships
in a culture that privileges heterosexual identities and
relationships and stigmatizes same-sex relationships.
Heteronormativity, and the resulting prejudice and dis-
crimination against same-sex relationships, is enacted at
all levels of the socio-ecological system and negatively
affects the health and well-being of same-sex couples and
their families through the creation of minority stress [1,2].
In this system, prejudice and discrimination at one level
affects actions in all other levels of the system (Figure 1).
In U.S. culture the stigmatizing narrative about same-sex
relationships (and LGB or non-heterosexual identities
more generally) is based on negative beliefs and stereo-
types that support and reinforce discriminatory laws and
policies, prejudicial treatment by religious and commu-
nity organizations, and rejection by family members.
www.sciencedirect.com
These negative beliefs may be internalized by LGB-
identified individuals and impact their feelings and inter-
actions within their couple relationship. Minority stress-
ors, their sources in the ecological system, and their
impact on same-sex couple relationships are the subject
of this review.
Minority stress and dyadic relationships
Minority stress is the chronic psychological stress that
results from belonging to a stigmatized social category
[3,4]. Minority stress is linked to psychological [4] and
physical health disparities in the LGB population [5–7].
Minority stress includes five factors: experiences of dis-
crimination and prejudice, expectations of rejection, mak-
ing decisions about disclosure or concealment, internalized
stigma or negative views of one’s own identity as LGB or
same-sex partnered, and coping with these stress experi-
Each minority stress factor can trigger others. For exam-
ple, experiences of discrimination and prejudice can lead
to expectations of rejection. Experiences of discrimina-
tion or expectations of rejection impact decisions about
whether, when, and to whom to disclose or conceal a
same-sex relationship. Rejection or identity concealment
may reinforce internalized stigma about LGB identity or
having a same-sex partner. Finding ways to cope with
prejudice and its effects is a stressor in itself, especially
when negative coping strategies exacerbate stress.
Couples experience and respond to minority stressors as a
dyad. Minority stress that affects one couple member will
also affect the partner [8]. For example, if a family member
is rejecting, it affects both members of the couple and they
must cope with this rejection as a couple [9]. This
minority stress can affect the quality of the couple’s
relationship. Despite this known interdependency, dy-
adic-level minority stressors have received much less
conceptual and empirical attention than individual level
minority stress [10,11]. However, findings from our
research and other research studies have consistently
demonstrated the negative (and sometimes positive)
impact of contextual sources of minority stress on
same-sex relationships.
Systemic sources of minority stress
The socio-ecological system we refer to is a set of nested
intrapersonal, interpersonal, institutional, and cultural
levels (Figure 1). It is essential to understand that minor-
ity stress is the result of the stigma that manifests within
and between each of these levels, and this stress impacts
the well-being of couples [11]. We have conducted
Current Opinion in Psychology 2017, 13:29–38
30 Relationships and stress

Figure 1

Culture (e.g., laws, heterosexist

norms)

Institutions (e.g., workplace,

churches, schools)

Interpersonal (e.g., family,

co-workers)

Couple-dyad

Individuals

Current Opinion in Psychology

Same-sex couples live in a socio-ecological system composed of nested levels. Interactions at any level of the system affect all of the other levels
of the system. All levels of the system impact the couple relationship.

research focused on identifying the sources of stress at the
different levels of the socio-ecological system.
At the macro-level, governmental and political processes
directly impact couples through laws and policies that
reflect the cultural stigmatization of same-sex couples
and LGB identities. For example, the lack of legal rights,
including relationship recognition and protection, are
sources of feelings of vulnerability and instability in
same-sex relationships [2,12]. During state-level cam-
paigns for marriage restriction amendments in 2006,
LGB adults reported increased exposure to stigmatizing
conversations and negative media messages about
LGBT people and same-sex couples, increasing their
psychological distress [13]. Qualitative analyses revealed
that LGB adults felt alienated by the pervasive negative
rhetoric, the ultimate passage of marriage restriction
amendments in their state, and the lack of legal protec-
tions for their relationships and their children [14].
LGB adults in same-sex relationships who lived in states
with no legal recognition of their relationship reported
higher levels of internalized homophobia, more psycho-
logical distress, and less meaning in life compared to
those who lived in states that did provide legal recogni-
tion (i.e., civil marriage, civil union, or domestic part-
nership) [15].
Couples also experience stigma in their interactions with
organizations and communities. For example, same-sex
couple members are less likely to be ‘out’ in their own
workplace if their partner’s workplace does not have an
inclusive nondiscrimination policy [8]. Prejudice within
some religious communities is a source of minority stress
[16] affecting couples’ decisions about their religious and
spiritual practices [17]. Interracial same-sex couples de-
scribed negative experiences of being ‘invisible’ to others
as a couple. For example, people in their neighborhood,
churches, or other social networks failed to recognize or
acknowledge their couple relationship. These couples
noted that in some social situations they concealed their
relationship because of fear of race-related or sexual
identity-related discrimination [18].

Current Opinion in Psychology 2017, 13:29–38 www.sciencedirect.com

 Same-sex relationships and minority stress Rostosky and Riggle 31
While research on couples in the general population
shows the importance of family support, same-sex couples
often encounter prejudice or a lack of support for their
relationship in interactions with members of their family
of origin and extended family [2,9,12,16]. Couples de-
scribe the dyadic-level stress that results from these
interpersonal interactions and the stress of developing
coping strategies. For example, when family members do
not treat the same-sex couple with the same level of
respect and inclusion that different-sex couples in the
family receive, it is stressful for both members of the
couple. Dyadic coping strategies may include generating
positive, assertive statements to use in response and
making decisions about how to maintain healthy bound-
aries with unsupportive family members.
At the intrapersonal level, internalized stigma, also called
internalized homophobia or internalized homonegativity,
is associated with higher levels of psychological distress in
individual couple members [13] and lower levels of
relationship quality in the dyad [19,20]. Internalized
homophobia is also associated with couples’ decisions
to conceal their relationship from others [2,8].
In the following sections, we review empirical findings on
minority stress and same-sex relationships published in
2014–2016 in peer-reviewed psychology-related journals.
This review extends Doyle and Molix’s [10] meta-
analytic review of studies published prior to 2014. We
argue for the importance of considering the dyadic effects
of minority stress and the need for systemic-level inter-
ventions to eliminate stigma and associated stressors.
Individual-level minority stress and
relationship quality
We reviewed 13 empirical studies that examined associa-
tions between individual level minority stressors and
relationship-related variables (see Table 1). Five studies
surveyed women, six surveyed men, and three included
both men and women in same-sex relationships. Eleven
studies focused on positive or desirable relationship qual-
ities (e.g., satisfaction) and three studies focused on
relationship aggression as the outcome. The most fre-
quently assessed minority stressor was internalized ho-
mophobia (internalized heterosexism or internalized
stigma; 11 studies).
Most studies reported negative associations between
internalized homophobia and relationship qualities. Five
studies found significant negative associations between
internalized homophobia and relationship satisfaction
[21–25]. Higher levels of internalized homophobia were
associated with lower levels of relational commitment
[25], lower perceived support for the relationship [22],
and more destructive conflict and relationship instability
in women’s, but not men’s, current same-sex relation-
ship [22].
www.sciencedirect.com
One study of men in same-sex relationships failed to find
a significant association between internalized homopho-
bia and relationship satisfaction; however, higher levels of
internalized homophobia were significantly associated
with lower levels of investment and commitment [26].
Other studies of men in same-sex relationships reported
that higher levels of internalized homophobia were asso-
ciated with lower global relationship quality [27] and
lower levels of emotional intimacy [28]. Men in same-
sex relationships who reported higher levels of internal-
ized homophobia also reported lower levels of dyadic
coping (i.e., participant’s confidence that he and his
partner can communicate effectively and make joint
health-related decisions) [29]. For women in same-sex
relationships, internalized homophobia was not signifi-
cantly associated with reported sexual satisfaction, desire,
or frequency of sex in the relationship [21].
Relationship aggression and internalized homophobia
were assessed in three studies. In a convenience sample
of 40 young women currently or previously in a same-sex
relationship, one internalized homophobia subscale score
(Moral and Religious Attitudes Toward Lesbianism) was
significantly positively associated with one aspect of
relationship aggression (sexual coercion) [30]. Two on-
line surveys of women in same-sex relationships found
that higher levels of internalized homophobia were asso-
ciated with self-reports of more psychological aggression,
exacerbated by rumination [23], and more physical ag-
gression in highly dependent relationships [31].
Four studies assessed associations between perceptions of
discrimination and relationship qualities. Doyle and
Molix [32] reported a significant negative association
between perceived discrimination and levels of relation-
ship commitment, mediated by self-esteem, in a sample
of 47 men. However, perceived discrimination was not
associated with levels of dyadic coping in a sample of
447 men in same-sex relationships [29]. In a sample of
540 women, experiences of heterosexist discrimination
and harassment were associated with self-silencing, which
was negatively associated with relationship satisfaction
[24]. Frost [33] collected written narratives about impor-
tant relationship events and found that individuals who
gave positive meanings to their stigma-related relation-
ship experiences also reported more closeness in their
relationship.
Cohen and Byers [21] failed to find a significant associa-
tion between criminal victimization and relationship fac-
tors in a sample of 596 women. Likewise, neither
victimization nor outness was associated with emotional
intimacy in a sample of 250 Croatian men [28]. Dispenza
[27] found that outness was not associated with global
relationship quality in men; however, controlling for out-
ness, higher expectations of rejection were associated
with higher global relationship quality.
Current Opinion in Psychology 2017, 13:29–38
32 Relationships and stress
Table 1
Individual minority stress and same-sex relationship quality (2014–2016) (N = 13).
Author/Year Participants
Lewis et al. (2014) 220 lesbian women in a
current same-sex
relationship (mean age 54,
mean relationship length
15 yrs, 95% White) recruited
from LGBT panel with Harris
Interactive
Doyle and Molix 47 gay men (mean age
(2014) 34 yrs, 70% White) in current
same-sex relationship (mean
length approximately 5 yrs)
recruited from a gay
community festival.
Milletich et al. 209 women (14% identified
(2014) as heterosexual) currently or
previously in a ss dating
relationship in the past year
(mean age 29, 66% White,
mean relationship length
3 yrs).
Whitton and 571 U.S. adults (62%
Kuryluk (2014) women; 86% White) in
same-sex relationships
(median relationship length
7–8 yrs).
Dispenza (2014) 170 men in same-sex
relationship (mean age
39 yrs; 78% White; 53% in
relationship 1–7 yrs.)
Frost (2014) 99 LGB individuals in same-
sex relationships (mean age
34 yrs; mean length of
relationship 7 yrs; 75%
White)
Khaddouma et al. 595 individuals in same-sex
(2015) relationships (mean age 41;
mean relationship length
7 yrs; 87%White)
Current Opinion in Psychology 2017, 13:29–38
Method Minority Stress and
Relationship Measures
On-line survey Internalized Homophobia,
Relationship Satisfaction,
Psychological Aggression
(Conflict Tactics Scales)
Paper survey Perceived discrimination,
Commitment
On-line survey Lesbian Internalized
homophobia Scale,
Dependency in relationship,
Accommodating Behavior,
Frequency of psychological
aggression victimization in
relationship,
Frequency of physical
violence perpetration against
partner
On-line survey Sexual Identity Distress,
Relationship satisfaction,
Commitment,
Interdependence
On-line survey Internalized Homophobia,
Expectations of stigma,
Outness Inventory,
Dyadic Adjustment Scale
(Relationship quality)
Mixed method Content analysis of
analysis of discrimination/stigma-
narratives related events that occurred
collected on-line. in the context of the
relationship.
Inclusion of Other in Self
Scale
On-line survey Sexual Identity Distress (IH),
Support for the relationship,
Relationship Instability
Index,
Couple Satisfaction Index,
Quality of Alternatives,
Commitment Inventory-
Dedication,
Destructive Couple Conflict
Findings related to minority stress
variables
Internalized homophobia was
associated with lower relationships
satisfaction and more frequent
psychological aggression in the
relationship in the last year. Higher
levels of IH were associated with more
rumination, which was associated with
less relationship satisfaction and more
psychological aggression.
Perceived discrimination was
associated with lower levels of
commitment. This relationship was
partially mediated by self-esteem.
Internalized homophobia (IH) was
associated with higher accommodating
behaviors, higher dependency, and
more frequent psychological and
physical aggression in the current or
past relationship. In regression models,
IH was not directly associated with
more physical violence perpetration. IH
was associated with higher levels of
dependency, which was associated
with more frequent physical violence
perpetration.
At the bivariate level, sexual identity
distress (IH) was significantly negatively
associated with relationship satisfaction
and commitment, but not
interdependence.
At the bivariate level, relationship quality
was not associated with outness, was
negatively associated with IH and was
positively associated with expectations
of rejection. Controlling for outness, IH
was associated with lower relationship
quality and expectations of rejection
was associated with higher relationship
quality.
Nineteen of the participants made
positive meaning out of minority stress
experiences. This group, compared to
the rest of the sample, reported
significantly more closeness in the
relationship.
For both men and women, higher sexual
identity distress (IH) was associated
with lower relationship satisfaction and
perceived relationship support. In
addition, for women, higher sexual
identity distress was associated with
more frequent destructive conflict and
higher relationship instability. In
regression models, females’ but not
males’ relationship stability was
predicted by sexual identity distress.
www.sciencedirect.com
 Same-sex relationships and minority stress Rostosky and Riggle 33

Table 1 (Continued )
Author/Year Participants
Cohen and Byers 596 women in a ss
(2015) relationship at least
12 months (mean age 34;
mean relationship length
5 yrs). 87% White.
Greene and 232 men in co-habiting
Britton (2015) same-sex relationships
(mean age 42; 44% in
relationship a minimum
of 1–7 yrs; 74% White)
Pepper and Sand 40 young women (18–24) in
(2015) current or past same-sex
relationship. Relationship
length not reported. Majority
White.
Sevic et al. (2015) Croatian sample of
250 same-sex partnered
men (mean age 29;
relationship length 50%
under 2 yrs) compared to
860 men in heterosexual
relationships (mean age 36;
mean relationship length
more than 3 yrs)
Stachowski and 447 men in same-sex
Stephenson relationship (mean age 36;
(2015) relationship length not
reported; 55% White)
Szymanski et al. 540 sexual minority women
(2015) in a romantic relationship
(mean age 33; mean
relationship length 5 yrs)
82% White.
Method Minority Stress and
Relationship Measures
On-line survey Victimization (1 item),
Lesbian Internalized
Homophobia Scale: short
form (bisexual inclusive),
Global relationship
satisfaction,
Global sexual satisfaction,
Dyadic desire,
Frequency of sexual
activities
On-line survey Short Internalized
Homonegativity Scale,
Global Investment Model
Paper Lesbian Internalized
questionnaires Homophobia Scale (LIHS),
Conflict Tactics Scale-
Revised
On-line survey Internalized Homonegativity,
Outness (1 item),
Victimization due to sexual
orientation,
Emotional intimacy,
Sexual satisfaction,
Frequency of sex
On-line survey Internalized Homophobia,
Homophobic Discrimination,
Couples Coping Scales
On-line survey Internalized Homophobia,
Heterosexist, Harassment,
Rejection and Discrimination
Scale,
Silencing the Self,
Couples Satisfaction Index
Findings related to minority stress
variables
Internalized homophobia was
associated with lower relationship
satisfaction, but not lower sexual
satisfaction, dyadic desire, or frequency
of sex.
Internalized homonegativity was
associated with lower relationship
investment, but was not significantly
associated with other relationship
subscales. In regression models, higher
internalized homophobia was
associated with lower levels of
commitment.
One subscale of the LIHS (Moral and
Religious Attitudes Toward Lesbianism)
was associated with higher scores on
the sexual coercion subscale of the
Conflict Tactics Scale. No other
significant associations between LIHS
and reports of relationship aggression
and violence were found.
Men in same-sex relationships reported
higher levels of intimacy and higher
sexual satisfaction than heterosexual
men. Higher internalized
homonegativity, but not outness or
victimization, was associated with lower
emotional intimacy scores in regression
models.
Higher levels of Internalized
homophobia, but not homophobic
discrimination, were associated with
lower levels of dyadic coping (outcome
efficacy, couples’ efficacy, communal
coping).
At the bivariate level, relationship
satisfaction was associated with lower
levels of internalized heterosexism, was
not associated with external
heterosexism. In multiple mediation
analyses, silencing the self fully
mediated the relationship between
Internal and external heterosexism and
relationship satisfaction.

Institutional and interpersonal minority stress
and relationships
We reviewed nine studies of minority stress that
resulted from stigma-related interactions at the institu-
tional and interpersonal levels of the system (see
Table 2). Three studies focused on the effects of state
and federal-level marriage policy [34–36]. In a study
using Census data from 2008 to 2013, co-habiting
couples (same-sex and different-sex) living in a state
that banned recognition of the marriages of same-sex
couples were more likely to dissolve their relationship
[34]. Nakamura et al. [35] interviewed 17 same-sex
partnered individuals who immigrated to Canada be-
cause they could not obtain a spousal visa under U.S. law
at the time of the study. While these couples described
experiences of relationship strain resulting from the

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Psychology 2017, 13:29–38

34 Relationships and stress
Table 2
Interpersonal and institutional minority stress and same-sex relationships quality (2014–2016) (N = 9).
Author/Year Participants
Manning et al. 126 Same-sex cohabiting
(2014) couples (mean age 41; 72%
White) compared to 2157 co-
habiting heterosexual
couples and 6144 married
heterosexual couples
Thomas 18 British couples (13 male),
(2014) 11 Canadian couples
(7 male), 16 California
couples (9 male). Age range
early 20s to mid-70s;
relationship length <1 year to
>40 yrs)
Frost and 239 LGB (61% female; mean
LeBlanc age 32; 54% in a
(2014) relationship; 76% White) and
comparison sample of
192 heterosexual.
Reczek (2015) 15 male couples (mean age
49; mean relationship length
21 yrs) and 15 female
couples (mean age 43; mean
length of relationship 14 yrs);
62% White.
Clark et al. 273 same-sex partnered
(2015) individuals (64% female) and
98 heterosexual partners
(51% female) from sibling
comparison sample. Mean
age 56; 81% White.
Haas and 526 same-sex partnered
Whitton individuals (63% female,
(2015) mean age 41, 51% in
relationship 1–8 yrs; 87%
White)
Current Opinion in Psychology 2017, 13:29–38
Method Minority Stress and
Relationship Instruments
Longitudinal Census State-level marriage policy,
Bureau (2008 SIPP Relationship stability
panel) collected in (2008–2013)
14 waves between
2008 and 2013.
Interviews with Analyses of interviews
same-sex couples focused on the impact of
legal recognition
On-line survey Personal Projects Inventory
used to rate barriers to
achieving relationship goals
imposed by family, friends,
peers, co-workers, others,
and by community and laws/
policies,
Psychological well-being,
Depressive symptoms
Individual interviews Interview protocol inquiring
with each partner about perceptions of
conducted in 2006/ relationship with parents and
2007. partner’s parents.
On-line survey Thematic analysis of open-
ended response to question
about reactions to U.S. v
Windsor and Hollingsworth v
Perry on behalf of marriage
equality.
Two Open-ended Thematic analyses of
questions on on-line responses to question about
survey collected in significance of living together
2012. and the perceived
importance of legal
marriage.
Findings related to minority stress
variables
Co-habiting couples (same-sex
and heterosexual) living in a state
with a law restricting marriage to
one man and one woman were
more likely than heterosexual
married couples to dissolve their
relationship than couples living in
states without a ban.
Couples experienced new
opportunities for legal and social
recognition and also continued to
experience discrimination and
prejudice in their social networks
(family relationships, friendship
circles, workplace, service
providers) which resulted in
couples feeling angry and
powerless. Asserting their new
status as a couple was at times
met with resistance and
disrespect.
The association between being
LGB and having lower
psychological well-being was
accounted for by perceptions of
more barriers to achieving
romantic relationship goals that
are erected by family, friends, co-
workers and others.
Disapproval or feared rejection
from parents or partner’s parents
led to stress and chronic
relationship strain that negatively
affected relationship quality. For
some couples, dealing with
disapproval was perceived to
strengthen the couple relationship.
Some couples dealt with parental
disapproval by isolating
themselves or distancing
(emotionally and/or
geographically).
One of five themes revealed the
reactions of same-sex partnered
individuals included anticipation of
future prejudice or discrimination
in the form of a backlash to the
legal decisions (minority stress
factor). Themes revealed in the
sibling comparison sample
included support, but also
indifference and disapproval/
disagreement with the decisions.
Participants perceived that
marriage was important because
of the legal benefits and
protections; and that relationship
legitimacy would put them on par
with heterosexual couples.
www.sciencedirect.com
 Same-sex relationships and minority stress Rostosky and Riggle 35

Table 2 (Continued )
Author/Year Participants
Nakamura 17 same-sex partnered
et al. (2015) individuals (9 female; mean
age 44) who immigrated to
Canada to maintain their
relationship. Relationship
length not reported.
Frost and 99 same-sex partnered
Gola (2015) individuals (52% female);
51 heterosexual partnered
individuals (55% female).
(Mean age 34 yrs mean
length of relationship 8 yrs.)
72% White.
Rostosky 14 female, 7 male couples.
et al. (2016, Mean age 56 yrs; mean
in press) length of relationship 24 yrs.
Mean length of legal
marriage 5 yrs. Four couples
were interracial; 17 couples
White.
Method Minority Stress and
Relationship Instruments
In-depth face-to-face Phenomenological analysis
interviews of immigration experiences
On-line questionnaire; Quantitative and qualitative
Mixed methods analysis of intimacy-related
and stigma-related content
in participants’ relationship
stories.
Couples’ interviews Thematic analysis of long-
term couples’ reasons for
getting legally married and
their experiences of being
married.
Findings related to minority stress
variables
Participants described
perceptions of being unwelcomed
and pushed out of the U.S. as
result of the discriminatory
marriage laws that prevented them
from obtaining a spousal visa for
their partner. They also perceived
that immigrating stressed the
relationship and yet made the
relationship stronger as well.
There were no differences in the
number of or the quality/type of
intimacy-related stories (physical,
emotional, communicative, trust,
commitment, support/caregiving);
however, same-sex partnered
participants were more likely to tell
relationship stories that included
stigma-related content. Stigma-
related content in same-sex
partnered stories was most
frequently about discrimination
from institutional and
interpersonal sources (e.g., laws,
policies, and resources as well as
the people in their lives such as
family and co-workers)
Histories of discrimination and
prejudice against their relationship
from their families and in the form
of marriage restriction formed the
context for couples’ decisions to
marry and their hopes for full social
inclusion. Couples related
experiences of social inclusion
and also experiences of
continuing prejudice and
discrimination. Some couples
described continuing
hypervigilance and anticipation of
rejection following their civil
marriage.

stress of the decision to leave the U.S. because of legal
discrimination, they also perceived that their relation-
ship had been strengthened as a result of their experi-
ences. In a content-analysis of responses (n = 526) to two
open-ended survey questions about the perceived im-
portance of legal marriage, participants discussed the
legal benefits and protections and social legitimacy they
would gain with marriage equality [36].
and powerless. Reczek [38] interviewed 30 long-term
couples (in separate individual interviews) and found that
parent or parent-in-law disapproval and rejection caused
relationship stress. Couples reported dealing with these
issues by distancing themselves from their parents geo-
graphically and/or emotionally, and some couples also
noted that these continuing challenges had strengthened
their relationship with each other.

Two qualitative interview studies with same-sex couples
focused on minority stress in relationships with other
people. Thomas [37] interviewed 45 same-sex couples,
who described positive effects of relationship recognition
as well as the negative experiences of continuing dis-
crimination and prejudice in their family relationships,
workplaces, and communities that left them feeling angry
Findings from four studies highlight how institutional
sources of minority stress relate to interpersonal-level
experiences of same-sex couples. One interview study
revealed that legally married long-term same-sex couples
simultaneously experienced legal and social benefits and
minority stress in their daily lives [39]. The relationship
stories of 99 same-sex partnered individuals’ revealed

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Psychology 2017, 13:29–38

36 Relationships and stress
inter-related institutional-level (laws, policies, access to
resources) and interpersonal (family, co-worker) experi-
ences of discrimination [40].
A comparison of LGB and heterosexual individuals
found that LGB individuals’ lower psychological well-
being scores were related to their perceptions of barriers
to their romantic relationship goals created by family,
friends, co-workers and others [41]. The lack of inter-
personal support for same-sex couple relationships also
emerged in a study comparing long-term same-sex
partnered individuals and their siblings’ reactions to
the U.S. Supreme Court decision in U.S. v Windsor
(2013) supporting marriage equality. Same-sex part-
nered individuals expressed a fear of backlash to the
legal decisions and anticipation of future discrimination
against their relationship. Some siblings expressed sup-
port for the decision, while others expressed disagree-
ment and disapproval of marriage equality, likely
contributing to the minority stress of their same-sex
partnered sibling [42].
Conclusion
Much remains to be understood about how minority stress
affects couple relationships [11]. Minority stress con-
tributes to relationship strain, creating risks to the quality
and stability of same-sex relationships. Yet, being in a
same-sex relationship may provide support for couple
members that buffers the negative effects of minority
stress [43].
The majority of empirical attention in recent years has
focused on assessing individuals’ levels of internalized
homophobia and its effect on individual perceptions of
relationship quality. Potential mediators and moderators
of this relationship need more research. Further research
is also needed on the dyadic processes and outcomes of
minority stress and coping. For example, few studies have
examined couple level decisions about disclosure and
concealment, including how couples interact and cope
with the chronic stress inherent in this type of on-going
decision-making. Research on minority stress and couple
relationships is also limited by the lack of diversity in
samples. Future research that assesses the effects of other
intersecting social identities (e.g., race, ethnicity, gender,
religion, geographic location, and age) will provide more
nuanced understandings of minority stress and its effects
on same-sex relationships.
Many couples do cope effectively with minority stress
and perceive that their relationships are stronger as a
result of their efforts. While couple members share
minority stress, they also share strengths and strategies
that promote couple and family health and well-being
[44]. Understanding these strengths and resiliencies will
change stigmatizing stereotypes and cultural beliefs
about same-sex couples and their lives and inform
Current Opinion in Psychology 2017, 13:29–38
new, positive cultural narratives [45,46]. As the social
and political environment continues to change, new
studies that document the effects of these changes on
minority stress and relational well-being are needed
[47]. Ultimately, the stigma that leads to minority stress
must be eliminated from the ecological system in order to
promote the health, well-being, and flourishing of same-
sex couples.
Conflict of interest statement
Nothing declared.
References and recommended reading
Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review,
have been highlighted as:
 of special interest
 of outstanding interest
1. Rostosky SS, Riggle EDB: Marriage equality for same-sex
couples: counseling psychologists as social change agents.
Couns Psychol 2011, 39:956-972.
2. Rostosky SS, Riggle EDB, Gray BE, Hatton RL: Minority stress
experiences in committed same-sex couple relationships. Prof
Psychol Res Pr 2007, 38:392-400.
3. Brooks VR: Minority Stress and Lesbian Women. Lexington Books;
1981.
4. Meyer IH: Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian,
gay, and bisexual populations: conceptual issues and
research evidence. Psychol Bull 2003, 129:674-697.
5. Denton FN, Rostosky SS, Danner F: Stigma-related stressors,
coping self-efficacy, and physical health in lesbian, gay, and
bisexual individuals. J Couns Psychol 2014, 61:383-391.
6. Frost DM, Lehavot K, Meyer IH: Minority stress and physical
health among sexual minority individuals. J Behav Med 2015,
38:1-8.
7. Lick DJ, Durso LE, Johnson KL: Minority stress and physical
health among sexual minorities. Perspect Psychol Sci 2013,
8:521-548.
8. Rostosky SS, Riggle EDB: ‘Out’ at work: The relation of actor
and partner workplace policy and internalized homophobia to
disclosure status. J Couns Psychol 2002, 49:411-419.
9. Rostosky SS, Korfhage BA, Duhigg JM, Stern AJ, Bennett L,
Riggle EDB: Same-sex couple perceptions of family support: a
consensual qualitative study. Fam Process 2004, 43:43-57.
10. Doyle DM, Molix L: Social stigma and sexual minorities’
 romantic relationship functioning: a meta-analytic review.
Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2015, 41:1363-1381.
This article reports the results of a meta-analysis of 35 empirical studies
that tested associations between minority stress and relationship qua-
lities. Across the sample of studies, there was a small negative associa-
tion between minority stressors (internalized stigma and perceived
stigma) and relationship qualities (passion, intimacy, and relationship
strain). Samples were predominately White, which precluded examina-
tions of race and ethnicity as potential moderators. Age moderated the
associations between minority stress and relationship quality such that
stronger effects were found among younger participants.
11. LeBlanc AJ, Frost DM, Wight RG: Minority stress and stress
 proliferation among same-sex and other marginalized
couples. J Marriage Fam 2015, 77:40-59.
The authors propose a conceptual framework that integrates minority
stress theory and stress-proliferation approaches that may help explain
relational stress in same-sex couples and mental health disparities in
same-sex partnered individuals. The framework accounts for stressors
related to both identity status and relationship status and focuses on the
unique couple-level minority stressors that result from social stigma
directed at the relationship itself.
www.sciencedirect.com
 Same-sex relationships and minority stress Rostosky and Riggle 37
12. Rostosky SS, Riggle EDB, Dudley MG, Wright MLC: Commitment
in same-sex relationships: a qualitative analysis of couples’
conversations. J Homosex 2006, 51:199-222.
13. Rostosky SS, Riggle EDB, Horne SG, Miller AD: Marriage
amendments and psychological distress in lesbian, gay, and
bisexual (LGB) adults. J Couns Psychol 2009, 56:56-66.
14. Rostosky SS, Riggle EDB, Horne SG, Denton FN, Huellemeier JD:
Lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals’ psychological
reactions to amendments denying access to civil marriage.
Am J Orthopsychiatry 2010, 80:302-310.
15. Riggle EDB, Rostosky SS, Horne SG: Psychological distress,
well-being, and legal recognition in same-sex couple
relationships. J Fam Psychol 2010, 24:82-86.
16. Rostosky SS, Riggle EDB, Brodnicki C, Olson A: An exploration of
lived religion in same-sex couples from Judeo-Christian
traditions. Fam Process 2008, 47:389-403.
17. Rostosky SS, Otis MD, Riggle EDB, Kelly S, Brodnicki C: An
exploratory study of religiosity and same-sex couple
relationships. J GLBT Fam Stud 2008, 4:17-36.
18. Rostosky SS, Riggle EDB, Savage TA, Roberts SD, Singletary G:
Interracial same-sex couples’ perceptions of stress and
coping: an exploratory study. J GLBT Fam Stud 2008,
4:277-299.
19. Otis MD, Riggle EDB, Rostosky SS: Impact of mental health on
perceptions of relationship satisfaction and quality among
female same-sex couples. J Lesbian Stud 2006, 10:267-283.
20. Otis MD, Rostosky SS, Riggle EDB, Hamrin R: Stress and
relationship quality in same-sex couples. J Soc Pers Relat 2006,
23:81-99.
21. Cohen JN, Byers ES: Minority stress, protective factors, and
sexual functioning of women in a same-sex relationship.
Psychol Sex Orientat Gend Divers 2015, 2:391-403.
22. Khaddouma A, Norona JC, Whitton SW: Individual, couple, and
contextual factors associated with same-sex relationship
instability. Couple Family Psychol 2015, 4:106-125.
23. Lewis RJ, Milletich RJ, Derlega VJ, Padilla MA: Sexual minority
stressors and psychological aggression in lesbian women’s
intimate relationships: the mediating roles of rumination and
relationship satisfaction. Psychol Women Q 2014, 38:535-550.
24. Szymanski DM, Ikizler AS, Dunn TL: Sexual minority women’s
relationship quality: examining the roles of multiple
oppressions and silencing the self. Psychol Sex Orientat Gend
Divers 2015.
25. Whitton SW, Kuryluk AD: Associations between relationship
quality and depressive symptoms in same-sex couples. J Fam
Psychol 2014, 28:571-576.
26. Greene DC, Britton PJ: Predicting relationship commitment in
gay men: contributions of vicarious shame and internalized
homophobia to the investment model. Psychol Men Masc 2015,
16:78-87.
27. Dispenza F: An exploratory model of proximal minority stress
and the work–life interface for men in same-sex, dual-earner
relationships. J Couns Dev 2015, 93:321-332.
28. Šević S, Ivanković I, Štulhofer A: Emotional intimacy among
coupled heterosexual and gay/bisexual Croatian men:
assessing the role of minority stress. Arch Sex Behav 2015.
29. Stachowski C, Stephenson R: Homophobia and communal
coping for HIV risk management among gay men in
relationships. Arch Sex Behav 2015, 44:467-474.
30. Pepper BI, Sand S: Internalized homophobia and intimate
partner violence in young adult women’s same-sex
relationships. J Aggress Maltreat Trauma 2015, 24:656-673.
31. Milletich RJ, Gumienny LA, Kelley ML, D’Lima GM: Predictors of
women’s same-sex partner violence perpetration. J Family
Violence 2014, 29:653-664.
32. Doyle DM, Molix L: How does stigma spoil relationships?
Evidence that perceived discrimination harms romantic
www.sciencedirect.com
relationship quality through impaired self-image. J Appl Soc
Psychol 2014, 44:600-610.
33. Frost DM: Redemptive framings of minority stress and their
association with closeness in same-sex relationships. J
Couple Relatsh Ther 2014, 13:219-239.
34. Manning WD, Brown SL, Stykes JB: Same-sex and different sex
cohabiting couple relationship stability. The Center for Family and
Demographic Research, Bowling Green State University, vol.
2014. Working Paper Series; 2014.
35. Nakamura N, Kassan A, Suehn M: Immigrants in same-sex
binational relationships under the defense of marriage act.
Psychol Sex Orientat Gend Divers 2015, 2:12-21.
36. Haas SM, Whitton SW: The significance of living together and
importance of marriage in same-sex couples. J Homosex 2015,
62:1241-1263.
37. Thomas M: Atrocity stories and triumph stories: using couple
narratives to evaluate same-sex marriage and civil
partnership. Narrat Inq 2014, 24:200-217.
38. Reczek C: Parental disapproval and gay and lesbian
relationship quality. J Fam Issues 2015.
39. Rostosky SS, Riggle EDB, Rothblum ED, Balsam KF: Same-sex
couples’ decisions and experiences of marriage in the context
of minority stress: interviews from a population-based
longitudinal study. J Homosex 2016.
40. Frost DM, Gola KA: Meanings of intimacy: a comparison of
members of heterosexual and same-sex couples. Anal Soc
Issues Public Polic 2015, 15:382-400.
41. Frost DM, LeBlanc AJ: Nonevent stress contributes to mental
health disparities based on sexual orientation: evidence from
a personal projects analysis. Am J Orthopsychiatry 2014,
84:557-566.
42. Clark JB, Riggle EDB, Rostosky SS, Rothblum ED, Balsam KF:
Windsor and Perry: reactions of siblings in same-sex and
heterosexual couples. J Homosex 2015, 62:993-1008.
43. Baams L, Bos HMW, Jonas KJ: How a romantic relationship can
protect same-sex attracted youth and young adults from the
impact of expected rejection. J Adolesc 2014, 37:1293-1302.
44. Rostosky SS, Riggle EDB, Ryser-Oatman JT: Same-sex couple
 relationship strengths: a research synthesis and
recommendations for moving forward. In Positive Psychology
of Relationships. Edited by Donaldson S, Rao M. Praeger Press;
2017. in press.
This chapter reviews empirical research published from 2000 to 2015 doc-
umenting the positive strengths and skills of same-sex couple relation-
ships. The summary includes 22 studies comparing same-sex and
heterosexual relationships and 22 studies exploring the strengths and
positive qualities and associated outcomes within same-sex relation-
ships. Findings suggest that there are more similarities than differences in
the relationship quality of same-sex and heterosexual couple relation-
ships. Differences in positive qualities and strengths tend to favor same-
sex couples, and specifically female same-sex couples. Strengths
include higher levels of perceived intimacy and positive communication
skills, shared decision-making, and more egalitarian values and division
of labor.
45. Riggle EDB, Rostosky SS: A Positive View of LGBTQ: Embracing
 Identity and Cultivating Well-Being. Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers; 2012.
This book is written for a general audience and summarizes research
findings on the positive aspects of having an LGBTQ identity, including
authenticity, self-awareness and insight, freedom to create new rules,
strong emotional connections to others, freedom to explore relationships
and sexuality, compassion and empathy, being a mentor, role model or
activist, and belonging to a supportive community. Each chapter focuses
on one positive strength or skill, and includes suggested exercises and
activities for reflection and practice.
46. Rostosky SS, Riggle EDB: Happy Together: Thriving as a Same-
 Sex Couple in Your Family, Workplace, and Community. American
Psychological Association; 2015.
This empirically based book is written for same-sex partnered individuals
and couples. The book illustrates how same-sex couples may experience
different types of minority stress based in their interactions with their
families, religious institutions, workplaces, communities, and laws and
Current Opinion in Psychology 2017, 13:29–38
38 Relationships and stress
policies. Stories and guided activities offer insights and practical ideas
that will empower same-sex couples and strengthen their relationship
through positive coping strategies.
47. Frost DM, Meyer IH, Hammack PL: Health and well-being in
 emerging adults’ same-sex relationships: critical questions
and directions for research in developmental science.
Emerging Adulthood 2015, 3:3-13.
Current Opinion in Psychology 2017, 13:29–38
The authors focus on the developmental period of emerging
adulthood and note that contemporary young adults form and maintain
their same-sex relationships in a different historical and social
context that likely shapes relational well-being. They propose new
research directions that take into account the changing social
climate for same-sex relationships and how the role of minority stress
in relational well-being may be different for emerging adults than in
past cohorts.
www.sciencedirect.com