Hold my hand: Associations between minority stress,commitment,and PDA for same-gender couples

Abstract

For those who are in a same-gender relationship, there is likely a negative association between experiences of minority stress and willingness to engage in public displays of affection (PDA). One’s willingness to engage in PDA when experiencing sexual minority stress may, however, depend on perceived relationship commitment with one’s partner; wherein people who are more committed may be more willing to engage in PDA. Data from 95 same-gender couples were used to examine the association between minority stress and PDA behaviors, and possible moderating effects of relationship commitment. Results showed minority stress was negatively associated with PDA behaviors for those who reported low commitment, but not high commitment. Implications and future directions are presented.

Keywords

Commitment minority stress public displays of affection romantic partners sexual minorities

Sexual minority individuals may experience specific stressors due to their marginalized status in society (Meyer, 2003; Rostosky & Riggle, 2017). While minority stress includes both distal (e.g., daily life events such as discrimination) and proximal (e.g., concealment of one’s minority identity) stressors (Meyer, 2015), the experience of proximal stressors is likely to impact behaviors in one’s romantic relationship. For example, fear of experiencing discrimination due to one’s marginalized identity may cause those in same-gender relationships to make decisions about concealing or disclosing their sexual identity to friends, family, and healthcare providers (Beals et al., 2009). Moreover, anticipation or experience of these stressors may impact ways in which partners choose to express public displays of affection (PDA), such as holding hands or kissing in public (Muraco, 2014). Subsequently, same-gender couples may be reluctant to engage in these behaviors in light of minority stress experiences.

Engaging in (affectionate) touch behaviors such as PDA has relational benefits, such as fostering feelings of felt security and trust (for a review see Jakubiak & Feeney, 2017). Given the potential benefits PDA, it is important to identify factors that may be associated with same-gender couples’ use of PDA and whether relationship factors, such as commitment, may moderate this association. Guided by Rusbult’s Investment Model (Rusbult & Buunk, 1993), the goal of the present study was to examine whether commitment moderated the hypothesized association between minority stress and engagement in PDA behaviors.

Minority stress

Individuals with a marginalized sexual orientation, such as those who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual, often experience sexual orientation discrimination (e.g., Gurung et al., 2018; Ozturk, 2011), commonly referred to as minority stress (Meyer, 2003). For those in a romantic relationships, the experiences of such stressors create a challenging environment that partners must continually navigate (Harper & Schneider, 2003; Lehmiller & Agnew, 2006; Mohr & Fassinger, 2006). While the experience of minority stress may only impact one partner in a romantic relationship, the effects are often experienced by both partners (Totenhagen et al., 2017). Specifically, stress can spillover into one’s relationship, creating the potential for a perceived lack of commitment by one or both partners (Bodenmann et al., 2007). For instance, couples often engage in relationship maintenance behaviors, such as PDA, to show their support and commitment to their partner, however, in an attempt to conceal one’s sexual orientation identity (the result of a proximal stressor), one or both partners may refrain from PDA engagement in public (Kent & El-Alayli, 2011).

Associations with PDA

Physical affection includes any touch intended to arouse feelings of love in the giver and/or the recipient (Gulledge et al., 2003). Unlike displays of affection that occur privately, such as sex, PDA behaviors, such as handholding or hugging, occur in public settings in the presence of others (Kent & El-Alayli, 2011). Many couples engage in PDA behaviors to provide support, comfort, and to show love to their partner; however, minority stress experiences may be associated with same-gender couples’ engagement in such behaviors. For instance, imagine a same-gender couple is out shopping. As they begin to hold hands, there are others near them who begin to stare, give a disapproving look, and make snide remarks. As a result, the couple may experience distress, which could impact the couples’ future engagement in PDA behaviors. In sum, minority stress may be associated with lower reports of engaging in PDA. This proximal stressor may have implications for the couples’ relationship functioning. Although acceptance toward same-gender couples has improved over the years, many same-gender couples continue to face discrimination (Pew Research Center, 2013), which may fuel their desire to conceal their sexual minority status, thus limiting their PDA behaviors (Kent & El-Alayi, 2011). Given society’s continual disapproval of same-gender relationships, many couples may be less inclined to show affection to their partner when in public settings (i.e., proximal minority stress). In sum, experiences of minority stress are hypothesized to predict lower engagement in PDA.

Moderating effects of commitment

Conceptualized by Rusbult’s Investment Model (Rusbult & Buunk, 1993), commitment to one’s romantic partner can be understood as the intent to remain in the relationship long-term, which can be expressed by investing time, disclosing emotions, and self-disclosing. Felt commitment is associated with positive feelings, attitudes, or interactions, toward and with one’s partner (Kelley et al., 1983). Indeed, according to the investment model, commitment promotes engagement of relational maintenance behaviors, such as PDA, in couples (Rusbult & Buunk, 1993). Because commitment positively predicts maintenance behaviors such as PDA, we suggest that commitment may buffer or protect the negative associations between minority stress and PDA. Similarly, commitment has been explored as a possible moderator between relationship satisfaction and depressive symptoms, which have been shown to strengthen overall relationship quality (Van Lange et al., 1997; Whitton et al., 2007; Whitton & Kuryluk, 2012). Given this, we examine the role of commitment as a moderator of the hypothesized negative association between minority stress and PDA and expect that this association will be strongest for those who report lower commitment, compared to those who report high commitment to one’s romantic partner.

In sum, we used dyadic data from 95 same-gender couples to examine whether experiences of minority stress would be negatively associated with PDA (Hypothesis 1). Additionally, we hypothesized that commitment would moderate this association, such that higher commitment would reduce the strength of the negative association between minority stress and PDA (Hypothesis 2).

Method

Recruitment and participants

Data for this study were taken from a larger study that examined stress and coping in same-gender relationships. Participants were recruited from two areas in the United States: 1) Tuscaloosa and Birmingham, Alabama, and 2) the Phoenix, Arizona metro-area via flyers and social media platforms. Interested couples contacted the research teams via email to complete a screening survey to determine eligibility. Eligible participants included: both partners were (a) adults, (b) in a same-gender romantic relationship together for at least 2 months, and (c) willing to participate.

Participants included 95 same-gender couples (n = 64 female, 31 male dyads; n = 53 dyads from Arizona, 42 dyads from Alabama). Participants’ ages ranged from 19 to 61 years old (M = 33.80, SD = 9.91). Ninety-two (48.4%) people self-identified as lesbian, 64 (33.7%) as gay, 22 (11.6%) as bisexual, nine (4.7%) as queer, and three (1.6%) as other. Two participants reported their identity as female-to-male transgender, which were coded as male to be consistent with their gender identity. Participants were predominantly Caucasian (73.7%). Fifty-eight (30.5%) participants reported completing a graduate degree, and 53 (27.9%) an undergraduate degree. Most participants reported being in a committed relationship and living with their partner (49.5%), with 18.1% of couples married, 19.7% engaged and living together, and 11.7% in a committed relationship but not currently living together. Relationship length ranged from 2.5 months to 35 years (M = 5.33 years, SD = 5.82 years). For additional information on participant demographics please refer to Totenhagen et al. (2017).

Procedure

Eligible couples were assigned a unique ID and directed to the online baseline questionnaire. Following the completion of the baseline questionnaires, couples participated in a 14-day daily diary study (not reported in the present study). Partners were asked to complete the survey independently and were compensated up to $30 per person ($60/couple).

Measures

Minority stress

Minority stress was measured using the Measure of Gay Related Stress (MOGS; Lewis et al., 2001), consisting of 56 items that assess stress related to sexual orientation (e.g., “Loss of friends due to my sexual orientation”). Participants rated their responses on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 = no stress to 3 = severe stress. Cronbach’s alpha = .96.

PDA

PDA was measured using the Public Displays of Affection: Attitudes and Behaviors scale (Kent & El-Alayli, 2011) consisting of 5 items that assess for engagement in PDA behaviors. An example item from this scale asks participants to rate how often they generally engage in PDA behaviors such as, “Hug or embrace your partner in public.” Participants rated their behaviors on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = never to 5 = very often. Cronbach’s alpha = .88.

Commitment

Commitment was measured using the commitment subscale of the Perceived Relationship Quality Components Inventory (PRQC; Fletcher et al., 2000). The subscale consists of 3 items (e.g., “How committed are you to your relationship?”). Participants rated their responses on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = not at all to 7 = extremely. Cronbach’s alpha = .91.

Data analysis

Prior to hypothesis testing, minority stress (independent variable) and relationship commitment (moderator) were mean centered. To test our hypotheses, multilevel modeling procedures appropriate for indistinguishable dyads (Kenny et al., 2006) were run in SAS Proc Mixed version 9.4 (SAS Institute, 2016). Relationship length and satisfaction were included as controls. The fixed effects included the controls, the conditional main effects of minority stress and commitment, and the interaction of minority stress by commitment.

Results

Descriptive statistics and correlations are provided in Table 1, and full multilevel model results are in Table 2.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics and correlations of study variables.

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3
1. Minority stress	0.56	0.44	—
2. Commitment	6.71	0.63	0.13	—
3. PDA	13.23	3.88	-0.12	0.02	—

Note. PDA = public displays of affection.

Table 2.

Results of multilevel modeling analysis.

Fixed Effects	F(df)	F	b	p
Intercept			14.31	<0.001
Relationship satisfaction	(1, 154)	1.05	0.33	0.31
Relationship length	(1, 148)	17.58	-0.02	<0.001
Minority stress	(1, 152)	5.68	-1.31	0.02
Commitment	(1, 122)	1.95	0.63	0.16
Minority stress x commitment	(1, 134)	9.48	3.53	0.003

In sum, our hypotheses were supported. Results showed minority stress was negatively associated with PDA behaviors (b = -1.31, p = 0.02); however, commitment moderated this association (F(1,134) = 9.48, p = .003). The significant interaction was probed at the 10th and 90th percentiles for low and high values. For participants who reported low commitment, higher levels of minority stress were associated with less PDA behaviors (b = -3.84, p < .001). This association was not significant for those who reported high commitment (b = -0.31, p = .57). See Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Interaction of minority stress by commitment.

Discussion

Grounded in the Investment Model (Rusbult & Buunk, 1993), the goal of the present study was to examine the association between minority stress and PDA behaviors, and possible moderating effect of commitment in a dyadic sample of same-gender couples. Results supported our hypotheses; minority stress was negatively associated with PDA, and higher levels of commitment buffered this association. Specifically, higher reports of minority stress were associated with lower reports of PDA behaviors for those who reported low commitment, but not those who reported high commitment.

Results from this study support existing literature suggesting same-gender couples’ experiences of minority stress may be associated with less PDA engagement (Kent & El-Alayi, 2011). Indeed, same-gender couples may face additional challenges in engaging in key relationship maintenance behaviors, such as PDA, in the face of minority stressors. The moderating effect of commitment, however, supports the Investment Model (Rusbult & Buunk, 1993), in that individuals with higher commitment levels are likely to report greater engagement in maintenance such as PDA even while reporting minority stress, while those with lower commitment levels were less likely to engage in PDA when reporting minority stress. In our sample, those high in commitment did not report engaging in fewer PDA behaviors despite levels of minority stress. Together these results help to extend the Investment Model to the application of same-gender couples, adding to a growing body of needed research (e.g., Lehmiller & Konkel, 2013; Rodrigues et al., 2019).

Limitations

Limitations of the current study include a relatively homogenous sample, which included predominately White and highly educated participants. Additional research is needed on diverse same-gender couples, specifically those who carry multiple minority identities, to help identify strengths among couples wherein there are intersecting identities. Second, the measures for PDA and commitment have not yet been validated using same-gender couples, which may limit the validity of the results. Third, it is important to consider the potential ceiling effect that occurred in this sample (i.e., highly satisfied and committed), which, while common among research using dyadic data, limits generalizability to all couples (Park et al., 2020). Fourth, it must be noted that self-report measures rely on the perceptions of participants and are vulnerable to several types of bias (Althubaiti, 2016), which call to light the importance of observational data, where applicable. Lastly, while beyond the scope of the current study given its cross-sectional nature, we were unable to examine the temporal associations between minority stress and engagement in PDA behaviors. For example, individuals who are less comfortable with PDA in general may be more likely to perceive minority stress when with their partner. Understanding these temporal associations, and the impact for individual and relational wellbeing, is an important area for future research.

Future directions and implications

Future research on understanding the intrapersonal (e.g., minority stress) and interpersonal (e.g., PDA and commitment) experiences of same-gender couples is an important area for future research, which is inclusive of all communities. As an initial step, researchers are encouraged to validate existing scales that measure relational constructs, such as commitment, for use with sexual minority individuals, which would increase reliability and validity of future results. Limitations aside, the results of this study may be particularly interesting to relationship researchers and mental health professionals working with same-gender couples. Specifically, these results suggest helping couples foster greater levels of commitment within their relationship may alleviate any potential concern regarding displaying affection toward one’s partner in public; however, future research using longitudinal data across varying relationship stages is needed.

Footnotes

Authors’ note

The data discussed in this article was additionally presented as a poster presentation at the 2019 International Association for Relationship Research (IARR) mini conference in Brighton, UK. For any additional information relevant to this article please contact lmhocker@asu.edu.

Acknowledgment

We would like to thank the National Council on Family Relations (NCFR) for funding this project (Co-PIs: Totenhagen & Randall).

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Lauren Hocker

Ashley K. Randall

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the authors have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data used in the research are available. The data can be obtained by emailing: lmhocker@asu.edu. The materials used in the research are available. The materials can be obtained by emailing: lmhocker@asu.edu.

References

Althubaiti

(2016). Information bias in health research: Definition, pitfalls, and adjustment methods. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 9, 211–217. https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S104807

Beals

K. P.

Peplau

L. A.

Gable

S. L.

(2009). Stigma management and well-being: The role of perceived social support, emotional processing, and suppression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(7), 867–879. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209334783

Bodenmann

Ledermann

Bradbury

T. N.

(2007). Stress, sex, and satisfaction in marriage. Personal Relationships, 14, 551–569.

Fletcher

G. J.

Simpson

J. A.

Thomas

(2000). The measurement of perceived relationship quality components: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(3), 340–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200265007

Gulledge

A. K.

Gulledge

M. H.

Stahmannn

R. F.

(2003). Romantic physical affection types and relationship satisfaction. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 31(4), 233–242.

Gurung

Ventuneac

Rendina

H. J.

Savarese

Grov

Parsons

J. T.

(2018). Prevalence of military sexual trauma and sexual orientation discrimination among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender military personnel: A descriptive study. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 15(1), 74–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-017-0311-z

Harper

G. W.

Schneider

(2003). Oppression and discrimination among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people and communities: A challenge for community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31(3), 243–252. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023906620085

Jakubiak

B. K.

Feeney

B. C.

(2017). Affectionate touch to promote relational, psychological, and physical well-being in adulthood: A theoretical model and review of the research. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21(3), 228–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316650307

Kelley

H. H.

Berscheid

Christensen

Harvey

J. H.

Huston

T. L.

Levinger

McClintock

Peplau

L. A.

Peterson

D. R.

(1983). Close relationships. W. H. Freeman.

10.

Kenny

D. A.

Kashy

D. A.

Cook

W. L.

(2006). Dyadic data analysis. The Guilford Press.

11.

Kent

El-Alayli

(2011). Public and private physical affection differences between same-sex and different-sex couples: The role of perceived marginalization. Interpersonal: An International Journal on Personal Relationships, 5(2), 149–167. https://doi.org/10.5964/ijpr.vi52.62

12.

Lehmiller

J. J.

Agnew

C. R.

(2006). Marginalized relationships: The impact of social disapproval on romantic commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205278710

13.

Lehmiller

J. J.

Konkel

K. E.

(2013). Commitment to the GLBT community: An investment model analysis of its antecedents and consequences. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(6), 1301–1312. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12094

14.

Lewis

R. J.

Derlega

V. J.

Berndt

Morris

L. M.

Rose

(2001). An empirical analysis of stressors for gay men and lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality, 42, 63–88. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v42n01_04

15.

Meyer

I. H.

(2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populatio ns: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674

16.

Meyer

I. H.

(2015). Resilience in the study of minority stress and health of sexual and gender minorities. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2(3), 209–213. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000132

17.

Mohr

J. J.

Fassinger

R. E.

(2006). Sexual orientation identity and romantic relationship quality in same-sex couples. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(8), 1085–1099. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206288281

18.

Muraco

J. A.

(2014). Minority stress in the lives of gay and lesbian couples [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Arizona.

19.

Ozturk

M. B.

(2011). Sexual orientation discrimination: Exploring the experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual employees in Turkey. Human Relations, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726710396249

20.

Park

Impett

E. A.

MacDonald

(2020). Generalizability of results from dyadic data: Participation of one versus two members of a romantic couple is associated with breakup likelihood. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220920167

21.

Pew Research Center. (2013, June 13). Chapter 2: Social acceptance. Author. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/06/13/chapter-2-social-acceptance/

22.

Rodrigues

D. L.

Huic

Lopes

(2019). Relationship commitment of Portuguese lesbian and gay individuals: Examining the role of cohabitation and perceived social support. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(9), 2738–2758, https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518798051

23.

Rostosky

S. S.

Riggle

E. D. B.

(2017). Same-sex relationships and minority stress. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.04.011

24.

Rusbult

C. E.

Buunk

B. P.

(1993). Commitment processes in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 175–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/026540759301000202

25.

SAS Institute. (2016). SAS/STAT user’s guide. SAS Institute Inc.

26.

Totenhagen

C. J.

Randall

A. K.

Cooper

A. N.

Tao

Walsh

K. J.

(2017). Stress spillover and crossover in same-sex couples: Concurrent and lagged daily effects. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 13(3), 236–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/1550428X.2016.1203273

27.

Van Lange

P. A. M.

Rusbult

C. E.

Drigotas

S. M.

Arriaga

X. B.

Witcher

B. S.

Cox

C. L.

(1997). Willingness to sacrifice in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1373–1395. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.733

28.

Whitton

S. W.

Kuryluk

A. D.

(2012). Relationship satisfaction and depressive symptoms in emerging adults: Cross-sectional associations and moderating effects of relationship characteristics. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(2), 226–235.

29.

Whitton

S. W.

Stanley

S. M.

Markman

H. J.

(2007). If I help my partner, will it hurt me? Perceptions of sacrifice in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26, 64–91. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2007.26.1.64