A communication and identity process that mediates parents’ nonaccommodation and sexual minorities’ mental well-being

Abstract

This study tested sexual minorities’ (SM) surface acting with parents, identity gaps with family, and perceived stress as serial mediators of parents’ nonaccommodation and SM’s mental well-being (i.e., mental health and self-esteem). Participants included 205 sexual minorities who reported on their parents’ unwanted advice about their sexual identity and the degree to which they emphasized divergent values in conversations about LGBTQ+ issues. For both mental health and self-esteem, significant and negative indirect effects emerged for both mother’s and father’s nonaccommodation through a sequence of SM’s surface acting, to personal-enacted identity gap, to perceived stress. These indirect effects, however, were moderated by relational closeness with each parent. Consequently, unwanted advice about children’s SM identities and messages that emphasize divergent values may be harmful even if family relations do not appear overtly contentious or hostile.

Keywords

Communication nonaccommodation surface acting identity gaps sexual minorities mental health self-esteem

Families represent salient and influential in-groups that can shed light on how individuals communicatively manage difference both within and outside of the family (Colaner & Soliz, 2020). Divergent social group identifications, in particular, have important implications for the social interactions and personal and relational health of family members (Gangi & Soliz, 2016). For instance, sexual orientation is a central social identity for many people (Hajek et al., 2005), and “relationships between [family] members with different sexual identities are, by definition, intergroup in nature” (Soliz et al., 2010, p. 80). The disclosure of a child’s non-heterosexual identity adds a new dimension to family relationships in general (Mosher, 2001), and to parent-child relationships specifically (Butauski & Horstman, 2020), as sexual minorities (SMs) face multiple challenges in family relationships and communication after coming out (Dunlap, 2014; Norwood, 2012; Nuru, 2014), often taxing their mental health (Meyer, 2003).

One theory that is useful for examining intergroup dynamics is communication accommodation theory (CAT), which explains how individuals transcend or underscore group boundaries in communicative interactions (Giles & Soliz, 2015). Although many of the behaviors enacted by family members of SMs may emphasize identity differences and neglect SMs’ communication needs (Kibrik et al., 2019), few studies have made the theoretical link to communication nonaccommodation, defined as “communication behavior that is perceived or experienced as inappropriately adjusted by one or more people in a conversation” (Soliz et al., 2022, p. 133). Further, most research on SMs and family communication has focused primarily on the disclosure event of “coming out” itself (e.g., Butauski & Horstman, 2020), yet parents and children often deal with more than the initial disclosure of sexual identity (Flockhart, 2019; see also Breshears, 2010). Rather than focus on broad definitions of parental rejection or the specific “coming-out” event, this study examined how parental nonaccommodation behaviors about their adult child’s sexual identity are related to the child’s mental well-being.

A second goal of this study was to extend CAT by investigating a series of factors that may explain how parents’ nonaccommodation is associated with their SM child’s mental well-being. Parents’ nonaccommodative messages, including those that emphasize different values and offer unwanted advice related to the child’s sexual orientation, may increase the stress, discomfort, and hurt that their SM children feel. The way SMs respond to their parents’ nonaccommodation on matters of sexual orientation and other LGBTQ+ topics, in turn, may explain the inverse association that nonaccommodation is likely to have with SMs’ mental well-being, especially if those responses are emotionally taxing and invoke surface acting, a form of emotion labor that involves masking one’s true feelings to present an emotional facade (Hochschild, 1983; Schrodt, 2020). The more SM children enact surface acting in their responses to their parents’ nonaccommodative messages about their sexual orientation, the more likely they may be to experience an identity gap with the family as a whole (Hecht, 1993; Jung, 2011), one that induces stress and ultimately diminishes mental health and self-esteem.

Finally, nonaccommodation may be interpreted as a sign of relational distancing and signal a threat to the relationship between interactants (Gasiorek & Dragojevic, 2018; Gasiorek & Giles, 2015). Hence, we expected our explanatory model to vary as a function of relational closeness with each parent, such that the indirect effects of parental nonaccommodation via the surface acting to identity gap to stress sequence would increase in magnitude as closeness with each parent increased.

Theoretical perspective

Communication accommodation theory

CAT is centrally concerned with the manner in which individuals adapt—or fail to adapt—their communication to the perceived needs and desires of their conversational partners (Gasiorek & Giles, 2015; Giles & Soliz, 2015). The theory presents two ways in which interlocutors can approach interactions with out-group others: accommodation and nonaccommodation. Accommodation is indicated by behaviors that are contextually appropriate, signal camaraderie and respect, and minimize intergroup distinctions (Giles, 2008). Individuals will accommodate when they wish to elicit or signal positive face or a common social identity. Nonaccommodation, on the other hand, emphasizes group salience and identity differences, neglects the other’s identity and communication needs, and/or demonstrates an intergroup perspective of the interaction. Speakers will nonaccommodate when they wish to convey dissatisfaction and/or disrespect for their conversational partner’s traits, actions, or social identities (Giles & Soliz, 2015). Nonaccommodation results in less positive evaluations of both the interaction and the speaker when the recipient infers a negative motive for the problematic behavior (Gasiorek & Giles, 2015).

CAT offers a valuable perspective for investigating parents’ communication with their SM adult children. For some parents, cognitive dissonance may emerge between the negative images of homosexuality that are often pervasive in society and the loving relationship they have with their child (Boxer et al., 1991). The extent to which parents’ communication emphasizes this identity difference, rather than privileges the interpersonal relationship, may be explained through the lens of CAT. Among a host of nonaccommodative behaviors that parents may enact when discussing differences in identities, scholars have identified two in particular that may invalidate a child’s SM identity and ultimately undermine their mental health: emphasizing divergent values and giving unwanted advice (Butauski, 2020; Colaner et al., 2014; Rittenour & Soliz, 2009). Emphasizing divergent values accentuates differences of salient social identities (Rittenour & Soliz, 2009), and may manifest either indirectly (e.g., discussing controversial topics) or directly (e.g., openly criticizing someone’s beliefs or identity). In interfaith parent-child relationships, for example, Colaner et al. (2014) found that parents emphasized divergent values a few ways, including bringing up their own religion despite their child’s disagreement and expressing disapproval of their child’s religious choices. Nonaccommodative parents of SMs may similarly do this, for example, by bringing up queer issues in conversation—even when it is controversial—or by communicating to their child that their sexual identity is wrong (i.e., morally or otherwise; see Butauski, 2020).

Giving unwanted advice is another nonaccommodative behavior that fails to acknowledge the other’s identity needs and can come across as patronizing and controlling (Rittenour & Soliz, 2009). As MacGeorge and her colleagues (Feng & MacGeorge, 2010; MacGeorge et al., 2004, 2016) demonstrated in their development of advice response theory, content features (or qualities of the action being advised in a message) and stylistic features (or how messages are phrased) of advice messages predict how such messages are received and evaluated by recipients. To the extent that advice is perceived as disconfirming and impolite, responses will be more negative. In the present study, examples of giving unwanted advice that are likely to be perceived as disconfirming and impolite are parents suggesting that their SM child can change their orientation or trying to control how the child expresses or acts upon their sexual identity (e.g., parents telling their bisexual daughter to choose to date men, or limiting whom their child can be “out” to; see Butauski, 2020).

Parental nonaccommodation in the form of emphasizing divergent values and giving unwanted advice may have negative consequences for SMs’ mental health (see Berenson et al., 2005; Kibrik et al., 2019). For instance, Kibrik et al. (2019) found that greater parental rejection of their adult child’s sexual identity predicted higher levels of the child’s psychological symptoms. Their operationalization of parental rejection closely aligns with the nonaccommodative behaviors of interest in the present study. Specifically, parental rejection included parents implying that same-sex attraction is a wrong choice the child made or making negative comments about the LGBTQ community. Giving unwanted advice is also apparent in parents’ suggestions about religious or psychological counseling and attempts to control how open the child can be about their sexual orientation. This type of parental communication significantly predicted SMs’ reports of somatization, depression, and anxiety (Kibrik et al., 2019).

Given the similarity of these rejection behaviors to nonaccommodative messages in other divergent identity contexts (e.g., Colaner et al., 2014), and that such behaviors are positively associated with SMs’ depression and anxiety, we predicted that SMs’ reports of their parents’ nonaccommodation (i.e., giving unwanted advice and emphasizing divergent values) would be positively associated with their perceived stress (H_1a) and mental health symptoms (H_1b). Likewise, if perceived accommodation increases recipients’ self-esteem (Giles et al., 2007), then perceived nonaccommodation should be inversely associated with recipients’ self-esteem (H_1c).

Emotion labor and identity gaps in response to parents’ nonaccommodation

Although nonaccommodation from parents is likely distressing in its own right, it may become particularly harmful through SMs’ communicative responses to such invalidating messages. One possible response is emotion labor, which occurs when one “manages or regulates the experience and expression of emotion to meet the emotion display rules and expectations of a social group and/or conversational partner” (Schrodt, 2020, pp. 66–67). Hochschild (1983) described two strategies for engaging in emotion labor and meeting the emotion display rules of interactants. Surface acting involves an effort to mask one’s true feelings in order to display the required emotion, thus presenting an emotional facade. Deep acting, on the other hand, refers to the regulation of one’s genuine emotions to actually experience the desired emotion (Hochschild, 1983). The present study focused specifically on SMs’ surface acting with parents for two reasons. First, in earlier CAT research on grandparent-grandchild relationships, Harwood (2000) identified reluctant accommodation as an accommodating behavior that involves biting one’s tongue, not saying what one really thinks, and not acting like one’s true self. It bears some similarity with surface acting in that both constructs reflect an incongruence between how one truly thinks or feels about a topic of conversation and how they choose to talk about it. Second, we reasoned that in this particular context, SMs would be more likely to engage in surface acting and mask their true feelings about their parents’ behaviors than to force themselves to feel the emotions expected by their parents in conversations about their sexual identity. Given that nonaccommodative conversations about their identity are likely to provoke negative, reactive feelings of discomfort or hurt, particularly when SMs infer negative motives for their parents’ nonaccommodation (cf. Gasiorek & Giles, 2015), SMs may be more inclined to privately feel those genuine emotions yet fake the desired ones, as deep acting to feel emotions expected by their nonaccommodative parents would likely be identity-disconfirming.

Thus, we reasoned that both nonaccommodative behaviors when having sensitive conversations about what some may consider a taboo or divisive topic could create expectations for emotion displays about the topic that diverge from how SMs actually feel. This divergence may create instances where SMs respond by surface acting with their parents; thus, parents’ nonaccommodation should be positively associated with SMs’ surface acting (H₂). Given that surface acting with parents is inversely associated with young adults’ mental well-being (Schrodt, 2020), SMs’ surface acting in conversations about their sexual identity, in turn, should be positively associated with their stress (H_3a) and mental health symptoms (H_3b), but inversely associated with their self-esteem (H_3c).

Surface acting involves an incongruence between emotions felt and emotions expressed. Hence, it should be positively associated with the more general identity gaps that SMs experience with their families as a whole. According to the communication theory of identity (CTI; Hecht, 1993; Jung, 2011), an identity gap occurs when individuals experience an incongruence between the way they see themselves and the way they communicatively express themselves. Although CTI posits that identity consists of four interpenetrating layers (i.e., personal, enacted, relational, and communal), in the present study, we focused on the gap between the personal layer, or the way an individual sees oneself, including their self-image or preferred identity label, and the enacted layer, which refers to an individual’s identity as performed or expressed through communication, residing in one’s messages and behaviors (Jung & Hecht, 2004). More specifically, we focused on personal-enacted identity gaps (PEIGs), the gaps that occur when individuals feel conflict between their self-views and their communicatively expressed identity. Because this study is centrally concerned with factors that might influence the likelihood of surface acting—a form of self-suppression—in response to parents’ nonaccommodation, we hypothesized that both parents’ nonaccommodation (H₄) and SMs’ surface acting (H₅) would create perceived constraints on SMs’ ability to be their true selves in the family (i.e., a PEIG).

Researchers have also demonstrated that PEIGs are associated with increased levels of depression (Jung & Hecht, 2004), less communication and relationship satisfaction (Kam & Hecht, 2009), less likelihood of maintaining relationships in the future with family members, and less relational solidarity (Phillips et al., 2018). Thus, we expected PEIGs with the family to be stress inducing (H_6a), to positively predict mental health symptoms (H_6b), and negatively predict self-esteem (H_6c). Of course, it follows that SMs’ perceived stress should also positively predict their mental health symptoms (H_7a) and negatively predict their self-esteem (H_7b).

Surface acting, PEIGs, and stress as serial mediators

If parents’ nonaccommodative messages related to sexual identity positively predict SMs’ surface acting, if nonaccommodation and surface acting positively predict a PEIG with the family, and if this communication and identity process is stress-inducing for SMs, then the surface acting to PEIG to perceived stress sequence may function as an explanatory sequence that illuminates how parents’ nonaccommodation hinders their SM child’s mental well-being. Theoretically, preliminary support for indirect associations could advance CAT by identifying a unique sequence that moves from the proximal response of SMs’ surface acting to the distal PEIGs with family and general stress that likely result from this conversational pattern (i.e., nonaccommodative messages to surface acting). Detecting these indirect effects through PEIGs could also advance CTI by illuminating the critically important role of identity gaps with family as a meaningful outcome of disconfirming conversations between parents and their SM children. We reasoned that nonaccommodating and emotionally laborious conversations between parents and their SM children about sexual identity, specifically, may contribute to more global PEIGs that SM children experience with their family as a whole (i.e., result in greater in-group/out-group distinctions). Thus, we predicted that SMs’ surface acting with parents, their PEIG with the family, and their perceived stress function as serial mediators of parents’ nonaccommodation about their sexual identity and SMs’ mental well-being (H₈, see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

A Serial Mediation Model Depicting Sexual Minorities’ Surface Acting, Personal-Enacted Identity Gap with Family, and Perceived Stress as Mediators of Parents’ Nonaccommodation and Sexual Minorities’ Mental Well-being. Note. NonAC = nonaccommodation. PEIG = personal-enacted identity gap. MHS = mental health symptoms. This model was tested separately for reports of each parent’s nonaccommodation, as well as surface acting with each parent.

Finally, if nonaccommodation may be interpreted as a sign of relational distancing and signal a potential threat to the relationship (Gasiorek & Dragojevic, 2018; Gasiorek & Giles, 2015), then the indirect effects of parents’ nonaccommodation on SMs’ mental wellness may depend on how close the SM child is to each parent. For SMs with distant parental relationships, the surface acting-PEIG-stress sequence is likely to be less robust given less intimacy in the relationship and the fact that SMs may rely less on their parents for validation and social support. Conversely, the closer SMs are to each of their parents, the more hurtful this sequence is likely to be to their mental health and self-esteem. Thus, we predicted that relational closeness with parents would moderate the indirect effects implied by our hypothesized model (H₉).

Method

Participants

The sample included 205 SM adults ranging in age from 18 to 54 (M = 21.8, SD = 4.1). Two-thirds of the participants identified as White (68.3%, n = 140), with the remaining participants identifying as multiethnic or multiracial (12.2%, n = 25), Latinx/Hispanic (10.7%, n = 22), Asian American or Pacific Islander (3.9%, n = 8), Black or African American (2.9%, n = 6), or other (1.5%, n = 3). In terms of gender orientation, 59.5% (n = 122) identified as cisgender women, 21.0% (n = 43) identified as cisgender men, and 17.1% (n = 35) identified as non-binary, with the remaining participants identifying as genderfluid (n = 2), genderqueer (n = 1), questioning (n = 1), or man nonconforming (n = 1). Almost 41% of participants identified as bisexual (n = 83), 18.5% identified as lesbian (n = 38), 14.6% as queer (n = 30), 13.7% as gay (n = 28), 7.8% as pansexual (n = 16), 1.4% as asexual (n = 3), 1.4% as demisexual (n = 3), 0.5% as fluid (n = 1), 0.5% as polyamorous (n = 1), 0.5% as polysexual (n =1), 0.5% as biromantic asexual (n = 1), and 0.5% as panromantic (n = 1).

When asked who their primary caretakers were growing up (or who they primarily lived with), 66.8% reported living with both their mother and father (n = 137), although 19.5% lived with their mother only (n = 40), 5.4% with mother and stepfather (n = 11), 2.4% with father and stepmother (n = 5), 2.0% with their father only (n = 4), and the remaining 3.9% reported “other” caretakers (e.g., extended family, n = 8). Participants’ parents were living and nearly two-thirds were married (64.9%, n = 133), with an average length of marriage of 25.2 years (SD = 8.2). Of those whose parents were divorced (35.1%, n = 72), the average length of time since the divorce was 13.1 years (SD = 7.3). In a typical week, participants reported talking an average of 12.8 hours (SD = 23.3) per week with their mother and 6.0 hours (SD = 12.9) per week with their father.¹

Procedure

After obtaining IRB approval, participants were recruited through snowball sampling procedures. Specifically, a community-based sample of SM adult children was recruited through the first author’s Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. From these sites, survey information was then forwarded to other queer social networks (84.9%, n = 174), including gay-straight alliance groups and online support groups, as well as to students in gender and sexuality courses at a private university in the southwest United States (15.1%, n = 31). In order to participate, respondents had to be 18 years of age or older, self-identify as non-heterosexual (e.g., gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, queer, etc.), and have parents who were aware of their sexual identity. Upon providing informed consent, participants completed an anonymous survey on a using Qualtrics software. No compensation was given for completing the survey, which took approximately 30 minutes to complete on average.

Measures

We conducted confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) of all measures using maximum likelihood (ML) procedures in LISREL 8.80. The results supported the dimensional factor structure and item loadings for each measure, including those measures that involved separate assessments for each parent using the same set of items for each scale (e.g., nonaccommodation, surface acting, and closeness).²

Perceptions of parents’ nonaccommodation

Perceptions of each parent’s nonaccommodative behaviors were measured using an adapted version of Colaner et al.’s (2014) nonaccommodation scale. The original scale was adapted so that each item focused on sexual as opposed to religious identity. Six items assessed perceptions of parents emphasizing divergent values (e.g., “My mother expresses disapproval over my sexual orientation”), whereas seven items assessed parents’ unwanted advice related to participants’ sexual identities (e.g., “My father gives me unwanted advice about my sexual orientation”). Responses were solicited using a 5-point Likert scale that ranged from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. In this study, the adapted measure produced excellent internal reliability with coefficient omegas of .92 _{[95% CI: .90, .94]} and .94 _{[95% CI: .92, .95]} for mother’s and father’s emphasizing divergent values, respectively, as well as .89 _{[95% CI: .86, .91]} and .92 _{[95% CI: .89, .94]} for mother’s and father’s unwanted advice, respectively.

Surface acting

Surface acting with each parent was measured using the surface acting subscale of the Emotion Labor in Families (ELF) scale (Schrodt & O’Mara, 2019). The original subscale of the ELF contained 13 items measuring surface acting with parents in general using a 7-point frequency scale that ranged from (1) never to (7) almost always. For this study, the directions instructed participants to report how often they engaged in surface acting when discussing the participant’s sexual identity and other LGBTQ+ topics (e.g., “I resist expressing my true feelings when talking to my mother,” “When talking with my father, I fake the emotions I show”). In this study, the adapted measure produced excellent internal reliability with an identical coefficent ω of .98 _{[95% CI: .97, .98]} for reports of surface acting with both mother and father.

Personal enacted identity gaps

Participants’ reports of PEIGs with their family were measured using Jung and Hecht’s (2004) measure. Participants responded to 11 items using a 7-point Likert scale that ranged from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree (e.g., “I do not reveal important aspects of myself in communication with my family members”). The measure produced excellent internal reliability with a coefficent ω of .95 _{[95% CI: .94, .96]}.

Perceived stress

Participants’ perceived stress was operationalized using Cohen et al.’s (1983) Perceived Stress Scale (PSS). The PSS consisted of 14 items measuring respondents’ levels of stress over the past month (e.g., “In the last month, how often have you felt that you were unable to control the important things in your life?”). Responses were solicited using a 5-point frequency scale that ranged from (1) never to (5) very often. After dropping one poorly loading item, the PSS produced a coefficent ω of .88 _{[95% CI: .84, .90]}.

Mental health

Participants’ mental health was assessed using the nine-item mental health subscale of Dornbusch et al.’s (1991) measure of physical and mental health symptoms. Using a 4-point frequency scale that ranged from (0) never to (3) three or more times, participants indicated how often over the past two weeks they had felt certain symptoms (e.g., “Felt tense or irritable,” “Felt apart or alone”), with higher composite scores representing more symptoms (and thus, poorer mental health). The mental health subscale produced sufficient internal reliability with a coefficient ω of .79 _{[95% CI: .75, .83]}.

Self-esteem

Participants completed Rosenberg’s (1965) Self-Esteem Scale (SES). The SES consisted of 10 items measuring global self-worth (e.g., “I feel that I have a number of good qualities”), with responses solicited using a 7-point Likert scale that ranged from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. It produced excellent internal reliability with a coefficent ω of .93 _{[95% CI: .92, .94]}.

Relational closeness

Participants’ relational closeness with mother and father was measured using Buchanan et al.’s (1991) measure. The original scale consisted of 10 items (e.g., “How close do you feel to your father?”). Responses were obtained using a 7-point scale that ranged from (1) not at all to (7) very much, with higher scores indicating higher levels of closeness. The measure produced excellent internal reliability with a coefficent ω of .92 _{[95% CI: .90, .94]} for closeness with mother and a coefficent ω of .93 _{[95% CI: .92, .94]} for closeness with father.

Data analysis

To test our predictions and hypothesized model, two serial mediation models were estimated using structural equation modeling with ML procedures in LISREL 8.80, one for reports of each parent’s nonaccommodation. Consistent with Kline’s (2016) recommendations, CFAs of two measurement models (one for each parent) were conducted to assess the relationships among indicators and their respective latent constructs prior to testing the hypothesized mediation models. To facilitate just-identification, and with the exception of each parent’s nonaccommodation, latent constructs were formed by parceling each related measurement scale into three parcels using a balancing approach (Little et al., 2013). For parent nonaccommodation, composites of unwanted advice and emphasizing divergent values were used to identify the construct, with paths constrained to equality to maintain tau equivalence.

For both measurement and structural models, model fit was evaluated using the ML chi-squared statistic, as well as the non-normed fit index (NNFI), comparative fit index (CFI), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) (Kline, 2016). Values greater than .90 for the NNFI and CFI may indicate reasonably good fit, whereas RMSEA estimates less than .05 indicate close model fit, values between .05 and .08 suggest reasonable fit, and values for the RMSEA and the SRMR greater than .10 suggest poor fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2016).

To test for indirect effects, bootstrapping analyses were conducted separately for mother’s and father’s nonaccommodation on SMs’ mental well-being with manifest variables in two sets of serial mediation models using Model 6 in Hayes’s (2018) PROCESS (ver. 3.1) macro for SPSS. The decision to use PROCESS to test for significant (and conditional) indirect effects was guided by two factors: (1) LISREL 8.80 does not generate accelerated, bias-corrected confidence intervals; and (2) the measures produced high internal reliability estimates, thereby producing negligible differences in the magnitudes of the path estimates in the model (see Hayes et al., 2017). Given high intercorrelations between reports of each parent’s unwanted advice and emphasizing divergent values (see Table 1), these reports were averaged together to form composite scores of mother’s and father’s nonaccommodation in tests of the indirect effects. These models estimated bias-corrected confidence intervals for the indirect effects based on 10,000 bootstrapped samples. Finally, to test whether the indirect effects were conditioned by relational closeness with each parent (i.e., H₉), a second set of moderated mediation models were estimated using Model 92 in PROCESS. Model 92 tests whether all paths in the serial mediation model (including indirect effect paths) are moderated by relational closeness.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics and pearson’s product-moment correlations for all manifest variables (N = 205).

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
1. Mom: DivVa	2.13	1.20	—
2. Mom: UnAdv	2.47	1.16	.84**	—
3. Mom NonAC	2.30	1.13	.96**	.96**	—
4. Dad: DivVa	2.11	1.22	.35**	.36**	.37**	—
5. Dad: UnAdv	2.22	1.19	.30**	.41**	.37**	.87**	—
6. Dad: NonAC	2.16	1.16	.34**	.39**	.38**	.97**	.97**	—
7. SA with mom	3.28	1.68	.66**	.64**	.68**	.28**	.28**	.29**	—
8. SA with dad	3.54	1.74	.32**	.37**	.36**	.62**	.61**	.64**	.49**	—
9. PEIG	4.06	1.55	.53**	.53**	.55**	.42**	.41**	.43**	.75**	.64**	—
10. Stress	3.22	0.63	.30**	.35**	.34**	.21**	.22**	.23**	.39**	.34**	.46**	—
11. MHS	2.00	0.67	.16*	.17*	.17*	.21**	.19**	.21**	.28**	.26**	.34**	.71**	—
12. Self-esteem	4.25	1.39	−.19**	−.24**	−.22**	−.23**	−.25**	−.25**	−.36**	−.36**	−.52**	−.67**	−.56**	—
13. Close-mom	3.59	1.01	−.62**	−.58**	−.63**	−.20**	−.20**	−.23**	−.77**	−.31**	−.68**	−.35**	−.24**	.33**	—
14. Close-dad	3.11	1.09	−.14*	−.17*	−.16*	−.53**	−.53**	−.57**	−.23**	−.66**	−.46**	−.30**	−.21**	.38**	.23**	—

Note. DivVa = emphasizing divergent values. UnAdv = unwanted advice. NonAC = nonaccommodation (composite score). SA = surface acting. PEIG = personal-enacted identity gap. MHS = mental health symptoms. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Results

Preliminary analyses

Descriptive statistics and Pearson’s product-moment correlations for all manifest variables are reported in Table 1. Preliminary analyses revealed no significant differences in mental health symptoms or self-esteem based on parents’ divorce status, as well as non-significant associations between both outcomes and average talk time with father and number of siblings (as a proxy for family size). Small associations emerged between average talk time with mother and mental health symptoms (r = .16, p < .05) and self-esteem (r = −.14, p < .05). Likewise, age was positively associated with self-esteem (r = .21, p < .05) but not with mental health symptoms (r = −.09, p > .05). Given Becker et al.’s (2016) recommendations for when and when not to include statistical controls in correlational studies,³ as well as the complexity of our hypothesized models, we analyzed each of our models without the inclusion of control variables. Finally, bivariate associations among all manifest variables provided preliminary support for H₁–H₇ and for testing our hypothesized model.

Measurement models

Prior to testing our hypothesized model (see Figure 1), we tested two measurement models using CFA with ML estimation procedures to test the convergent and divergent validity of the six-factor model, one for each parent. For reports with mother, the model produced excellent model fit, χ²(105, N = 205) = 142.21, p < .01, NNFI = 0.99, CFI = 0.99, SRMR = .041, RMSEA = .040 _{(90% CI: .019-.057)}. The modification indices revealed no further modifications that were theoretically defensible and would improve model fit, and each of the indicators loaded well on their hypothesized latent constructs (ranging from .73 to .98 across all constructs). Likewise, the model produced excellent model fit for reports with father, χ²(105, N = 205) = 137.03, p < .01, NNFI = 0.99, CFI = 0.99, SRMR = .036, RMSEA = .038 _{(90% CI: .014-.055)}. Again, the modification indices revealed no further modifications that were theoretically defensible and would improve model fit, and each of the indicators loaded well on their hypothesized latent constructs (ranging from .73 to .98 across all constructs).

Structural models

Our hypothesized model was saturated and thus, both structural models produced fit indices that were identical to those reported for each measurement model. As displayed in Figure 2, reports of mother’s nonaccommodation positively predicted SMs’ surface acting with mother, which in turn, positively predicted their PEIG with family, an identity gap that positively predicted their perceived stress and inversely predicted their self-esteem. Perceived stress, in turn, positively predicted SMs’ mental health symptoms and inversely predicted their self-esteem. After controlling for SMs’ surface acting, PEIG with family, and perceived stress, mother’s nonaccommodation positively predicted SMs’ self-esteem (and approached significance as an inverse predictor of their mental health symptoms). Given that mother’s nonaccommodation is positively associated with mental health symptoms and negatively associated with self-esteem at the bivariate level of analysis (see Table 1), these findings indicate the presence of a suppression effect. Negative suppression occurs when the sign of a regression weight of a predictor variable is the opposite of what would be expected on the basis of its correlation with the criterion variable (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2019). Follow-up comparisons of the endogenous constructs for SMs’ self-esteem revealed that it was the surface acting to PEIG with the family to perceived stress sequence that suppressed the negative variance in mother’s nonaccommodation and produced a positive effect for self-esteem. The model was robust overall, accounting for no less than 25% of the shared variance in SMs’ perceived stress and for as much as 74% of the shared variance in their mental health.

Figure 2.

Structural Model of Surface Acting, Personal-Enacted Identity Gap with Family, and Perceived Stress as Mediators of Mother’s Nonaccommodation and Sexual Minorities’ Mental Well-being (N = 205). Note. NonAC = nonaccommodation. PEIG = personal-enacted identity gap. MHS = mental health symptoms. All parameters are standardized. ^†p < .07. *p < .05. **p < .01.

The structural model for reports with father produced a similar pattern of findings, save for the suppression effect noted above. As displayed in Figure 3, father’s nonaccommodation predicted SMs’ surface acting with father, which in turn predicted their PEIG with the family, an identity gap that positively predicted their perceived stress and inversely predicted their self-esteem. Again, perceived stress positively predicted SMs’ mental health symptoms and inversely predicted their self-esteem. Although the model for reports with father accounted for somewhat less shared variance in SMs’ surface acting with father and PEIG with the family, nevertheless, the model was comparably robust, accounting for no less than 25% of the shared variance in perceived stress and for as much as 73% of the shared variance in mental health.

Figure 3.

Structural model of surface acting, personal-enacted identity gap with family, and perceived stress as mediators of Father’s nonaccommodation and sexual minorities’ mental well-being (N = 205). *p < .05. **p < .01.

Tests of indirect and conditional indirect effects

To determine if there were indirect and conditional indirect effects in the model (i.e., tests of H₈ and H₉), bootstrapping analyses were conducted using two serial mediation models in PROCESS Model 6, as well as two moderated serial mediation models in PROCESS Model 92 (Hayes, 2018). For reports with mother, the results revealed significant indirect effects of mother’s nonaccommodation through surface acting with mother, to PEIG with the family, to perceived stress on both SMs’ mental health symptoms (b = .076, SE = .021, 95% CI: .032, .117) and self-esteem (b = −.123, SE = .037, 95% CI: −.198, −.053), as well as a second indirect effect on self-esteem through surface acting with mother to PEIG with the family (b = −.218, SE = .050, 95% CI: −.320, −.125). Thus, H₈ was supported for reports of mother’s nonaccommodation.

Next, we examined whether these indirect effects were conditioned by relational closeness with mother. The indirect effect of mother’s nonaccommodation on SMs’ mental health symptoms through surface acting to PEIG to perceived stress was non-significant at low levels of closeness (M = 2.50) (b = .018, SE = .010, 95% CI: −.006, .035) but became significant and grew in magnitude at moderate (M = 3.70) (b = .028, SE = .010, 95% CI: .009, .048) to high levels of closeness with mother (M = 4.60) (b = .037, SE = .019, 95% CI: .006, .079).⁴ Likewise, the same indirect effect on SMs’ self-esteem was non-significant at low levels of closeness (b = −.030, SE = .017, 95% CI: −.060, .001) but became significant and grew in magnitude at moderate (b = −.045, SE = .017, 95% CI: −.081, −.014) to high levels of closeness with mother (b = −.058, SE = .030, 95% CI: −.126, −.009). The indirect effect on SMs’ self-esteem through surface acting to PEIG grew in magnitude but remained significant at low (b = −.049, SE = .022, 95% CI: −.100, −.015), moderate (b = −.083, SE = .025, 95% CI: −.137, −.039), and high levels of closeness with mother (b = −.115, SE = .047, 95% CI: −.213, −.030).⁵ Thus, H₉ was mostly supported, indicating that relational closeness moderates the indirect effects of mother’s nonaccommodation on SMs’ mental health and self-esteem.

For closeness with father, a similar pattern of moderated mediation emerged. The indirect effect of father’s nonaccommodation on SMs’ mental health symptoms through surface acting to PEIG to perceived stress was non-significant at low levels of closeness (M = 1.80) (b = .020, SE = .013, 95% CI: −.002, .050) but became significant and grew in magnitude at moderate (M = 3.20) (b = .044, SE = .015, 95% CI: .020, .077) to high levels of closeness with father (M = 4.40) (b = .075, SE = .035, 95% CI: .025, .159). Likewise, the same indirect effect on SMs’ self-esteem was non-significant at low levels of closeness (b = −.033, SE = .023, 95% CI: −.086, .004) but became significant and grew in magnitude at moderate (b = −.066, SE = .023, 95% CI: −.118, −.029) to high levels of closeness with father (b = −.100, SE = .048, 95% CI: −.216, −.033). The indirect effect on SMs’ self-esteem through surface acting to PEIG grew in magnitude but remained significant at low (b = −.049, SE = .025, 95% CI: −.107, −.009), moderate (b = −.085, SE = .029, 95% CI: −.147, −.035), and high levels of closeness with father (b = −.128, SE = .063, 95% CI: −.270, −.025). Again, H₉ was mostly supported for fathers as relational closeness moderates the indirect effects of father’s nonaccommodation on SMs’ mental health and self-esteem.

Post hoc analysis

According to Hayes (2018), researchers can strengthen the causal ordering of a correlational model by testing the indirect effects of an alternative model, which in this case would involve reversing the order of perceived stress, PEIGs with the family, surface acting with both parents, and parents’ nonaccommodation in the hypothesized model depicted in Figure 1. If the indirect effects no longer remain significant, then further confidence can be given to the causal ordering advanced in the hypothesized model. Such was the case. Testing two sets of alternative, serial mediator models with PEIGs, surface acting, and parents’ nonaccommodation as mediators of perceived stress and both wellness outcomes revealed non-significant indirect effects for stress through the alternative sequence. Consequently, these results lend further support to H₈, specifically, and to the more general line of reasoning advanced in this report.

Discussion

The primary goals of this study were threefold: (a) document the association between perceptions of parents’ nonaccommodation and SM children’s mental well-being, (b) test a communication and identity process that may explain the association, and (c) explore the moderating effect of relational closeness on this explanatory process. Overall, the results largely supported the theoretical line of reasoning advanced in this report. Parents’ nonaccommodation was positively associated with SMs’ surface acting and PEIG with the family, and inversely associated with both proximal and distal indicators of mental wellness. The indirect effects of parents’ nonaccommodation on SMs’ mental health and self-esteem emerged through the surface acting to PEIG to perceived stress sequence, and the strength of the indirect effects grew in magnitude as SMs reported higher levels of closeness with each parent. Consequently, the findings advance CAT and CTI by offering at least three implications worth noting.

First, the results extend CAT and SM research (e.g., Butauski & Horstman, 2020; Kibrik et al., 2019) by establishing negative associations between perceptions of both mother’s and father’s nonaccommodative messages and SMs’ mental well-being. When parents engage in nonaccommodation within their SM children, such as singling them out for their identity, emphasizing distinctions in their beliefs related to sexual orientation, or trying to control how they express it, such behaviors are likely to undermine the child’s mental health and diminish self-esteem. This is meaningful given that ongoing communication about children’s SM identities may be harmful even if family relations do not appear overtly contentious or hostile. Whereas one could easily point to the consequences of more extreme, hostile parental rejection behaviors (such as kicking the SM child out, using slurs, engaging in aggressive or abusive behavior, etc.), our findings suggest that parents’ communication need not necessarily be overtly hostile to harm children’s well-being, both in terms of feeling well mentally and in terms of their sense of self-worth.

Although awkward and tense conversations about sexual identity can be more subtle than outright rejection, such conversations constitute a profound source of stress that may undermine the mental and emotional health of SMs. Emphasizing divergent values and giving unwanted advice may portray “incomplete acceptance” (Flockhart, 2019), a tension which, although many SMs might argue is better than the worst-case scenario (e.g., abuse), may nonetheless erode their well-being. In fact, in the case of giving unwanted advice, the potential harm of nonaccommodative messages may be heightened because parents believe their messages are well-intentioned and “loving,” thus reflecting greater inattentiveness to the potential harm of their messages. For example, parents may offer advice about how open children should be with their identity, suggest they can change their sexuality with the intention of protecting them from discrimination, or convey hope for what they believe would be a happier, easier life for their child. However, such advice may communicate that acceptance is conditional or based upon their children’s adherence to preconceived (and more acceptable) forms of identity. In turn, children may feel that parents’ messages overemphasize their differing identities as opposed to privileging their interpersonal relationship and communication needs. Thus, future research is needed to compare and contrast accommodative with nonaccommodative messages to see if the former are as health enhancing as the latter are health inhibiting.

The second implication stems from the indirect effect of parents’ nonaccommodation on SMs’ mental well-being through the surface acting to PEIG to perceived stress sequence. Surface acting likely calls greater attention to an emotional and ideological divide between parents and children, as it involves an added, implicit expectation that the child must go along with their parents’ prescriptions for their identity and emotional expressions. As a result of that expectation, the inauthenticity and emotional exhaustion of feigning emotions in response to nonaccommodation is negatively associated with mental health, an association that may be explained by an enlarged PEIG with the family and the stress that comes from being unable to express one’s true emotions and self. In other words, communication that targets differences in sexual identity and attempts to control some aspect of one’s identity may imply that parents expect a certain behavior, expression, or adoption of identity that is different from the child’s true nature or disposition. When the expectation to meet a certain identity standard extends to rules for children’s expressions of emotion, particularly in conversations about sexual identity and other LGBTQ+ issues, children’s attempts to fake the required emotions may help explain the adverse effects of nonaccommodation, as surface acting demands more cognitive resources and may push children to a point of emotional exhaustion (Schrodt, 2020). Of course, nonaccommodative messages are not the only predictors of surface acting in children, as the degree to which SM children enact emotion labor with their parents is likely to depend upon a variety of factors unaccounted for in the present research, such as family communication patterns (cf. Schrodt, 2020), cultural upbringing, and risk-reward assessments, to name a few.

A third implication to come from this research involves the degree to which relational closeness with parents moderates our explanatory model. Consistent with our theoretic logic, the findings indicated that the indirect effects become more robust as closeness with both parents increases. In fact, the indirect effect of nonaccommodation on mental health through surface acting to PEIG to stress was only significant at moderate to high levels of closeness, suggesting that for SMs who feel distanced and/or estranged in their relationships with their parents (and perhaps with the family as a whole), nonaccommodative messages related to their sexual identity and any subsequent responses of emotion labor or incongruences in the enactment of their true selves may hold less sway over their mental health and self-esteem. One explanation for this moderating effect of closeness comes from Scharp’s (2019) grounded theory of family distancing. Specifically, she identified eight components of an estrangement continuum, two of which included diminishing communication quality as adult children reported less depth of conversation over a fewer numbers of topics, as well as the presence/absence of an emotional connection to their parents. Consistent with her theory, SMs who perceive that their parents have largely rejected their sexual identity may engage in fewer conversations that possess increasingly less depth and encourage less emotional connection to their parents, specifically, and to the family as a whole. Engaging in fewer conversations with family, in turn, may help SM children, as marginalized family members, renegotiate healthier boundaries as a form of resilience. As Scharp and Dorrance Hall (2019) noted, family distancing and marginalization are related but distinct phenomena, with the latter often occurring when one member experiences disapproval and exclusion by the family, often in addition to feeling different from other members of the family. When coupled with our findings, their work suggests that some SMs may voluntarily distance themselves from nonaccommodative parents to reduce the stress of enacting emotional facades and to protect themselves from further harm to their self-esteem and mental well-being.

Despite these implications, our results should be interpreted with caution given certain limitations. First, the cross-sectional research design and correlational nature of the data preclude statements of causality. Without experimental or longitudinal data, we cannot conclude that parents’ nonaccommodative messages cause SM children to enact emotion labor, to experience PEIGs with the family, or heightened stress. In fact, when it comes to parents’ unwanted advice about their child’s sexual orientation, we do not know the specific advice messages (beyond the fact that they are “unwanted”) that parents gave or the manner in which they were given. As advice response theory suggests (Feng & MacGeorge, 2010), further examining differences in the content and stylistic features of advice messages is critical to understanding how sexual minorities evaluate advice messages and experience inhibited (or enhanced) mental health. By combining a focus on the content and stylistic features of parents’ nonaccommodative messages (including unwanted advice) with longitudinal data that tracks changes in SMs’ mental health and self-esteem over time, researchers can advance an understanding of how intergroup dynamics in parent-SM child relationships function to inhibit (or enhance) SMs’ adjustment.

A second limitation involves our reliance upon the perspectives of SM children, to the exclusion of parents’ perspectives. Using dyadic data could reveal potential insights into the actor and partner effects that both parents and children have on each other’s mental health as they engage in (non)accommodation during conversations about sexual identity and other LGBTQ+ topics. Likewise, our findings reflect, to some degree, the experiences of White cisgender female bisexuals. In fact, the larger proportion of SM daughters relative to SM sons may explain the suppression effect we observed for mother’s nonaccommodation. After controlling for surface acting, PEIGs with family, and perceived stress, there may be something unique about mother-daughter relationships that allows a mother’s nonaccommodative messages to be self-enhancing to daughters rather than self-inhibiting. Of course, future research is needed to replicate this suppression effect and determine whether it is merely a statistical artifact or reflective of something more meaningful for mothers and SM daughters.

The lack of ethnic and cultural diversity in our sample also fails to illuminate the interplay of mutually constituting social identities in our results. Most queer research focuses on the communication experiences of White participants in Western contexts, yet several scholars (e.g., Aiello et al., 2013) have called for more intersectional approaches (Collins, 1990; Crenshaw, 1989, 1991) which consider how race, class, age, and other identity markers interrelate with SM experiences. Indeed, SMs with such intersecting identities and cultural differences may experience qualitatively different interactions and outcomes than their White SM counterparts. Nonaccommodative messages may manifest differently for those families with culturally-specific views on sexual orientation. For example, Latinx gay men’s parents are more likely to openly derogate gay men and view their child’s identity as changeable (Li et al., 2017), whereas Bie and Tang (2016) found that Chinese parents tolerate gay sons’ sexuality under the condition that they still meet cultural norms of marrying and having children with the opposite sex. Future research would benefit from using an intersectional lens to examine the associations reported here.

These limitations notwithstanding, the results of this study suggest that parents’ nonaccommodation is likely to have an adverse association with their SM child’s mental health, particularly via the child’s tendency to engage in surface acting when having conversations about sexual identity and other LGBTQ+ topics. The findings also advance an understanding of how interaction underscored by intergroup dynamics and PEIGs may heighten stress and hinder SMs’ mental health. Given the struggles SMs face after coming out to family (Dunlap, 2014; Norwood, 2012; Nuru, 2014) and the increasing number of Americans who identify as LGBTQ (Jones, 2021), future research that examines the mental, emotional, and physical health outcomes of ongoing parent-child interactions about children’s SM identities is needed. This project is one of hopefully many future steps in that direction.

Footnotes

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Paul Schrodt

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the author(s) have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered.

The data used in the research are not available. The materials used in the research are available. The materials can be obtained by emailing Paul Schrodt at p.schrodt@tcu.edu.

Notes

References

Aiello

Bakshi

Bilge

Hall

Johnston

Pérez

Chávez

(2013). Here, and not yet here: A dialogue at the intersection of queer, trans, and culture. Journal of International & Intercultural Communication, 6(1), 96–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/17513057.2013.778155

Becker

T. E.

Atinc

Breaugh

J. A.

Carlson

K. D.

Edwards

J. R.

Spector

P. E.

(2016). Statistical control in correlational studies: 10 essential recommendations for organizational researchers. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 37(2), 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2053

Berenson

K. R.

Crawford

T. N.

Cohen

Brook

(2005). Implications of identification with parents and parents’ acceptance for adolescent and young adult self-esteem. Self and Identity, 4(3), 289–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/13576500444000272

Bie

Tang

(2016). Chinese gay men’s coming out narratives: Connecting social relationship to co-cultural theory. Journal of International & Intercultural Communication, 9(4), 351–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/17513057.2016.1142602

Boxer

A. M.

Cook

J. A.

Herdt

(1991). Double jeopardy: Identity transitions and parent–child relations among gay and lesbian youth. In Pillemer

McCartney

(Eds.), Parent–child relations throughout life (pp. 59–91). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Breshears

(2010). Coming out with our children: Turning points facilitating lesbian parent discourse with their children about family identity. Communication Reports, 23(2), 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2010.511398

Buchanan

C. M.

Maccoby

E. E.

Dornbusch

S. M.

(1991). Caught between parents: Adolescents’ experience in divorced homes. Child Development, 62(5), 1008–1029. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131149

Butauski

(2020). “Surface level” maintenance and (non-)accommodative communication in sexual and gender minorities’ intergroup family interactions. Department of Communication Studies, University of Georgia. [Manuscript submitted for publication].

Butauski

Horstman

H. K.

(2020). Parents’ retrospective storytelling of their child’s coming out: Investigating contributions of communicated perspective-taking in relation to well-being. Journal of Family Communication, 20(4), 345–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2020.1794872

10.

Cohen

Kamarck

Mermelstein

(1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24(4), 385–396. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136404

11.

Colaner

C. W.

Soliz

(2020). Preface. In Soliz

Colaner

C. W.

(Eds.), Navigating relationships in the modern family (pp. ix–xx). Peter Lang.

12.

Colaner

C. W.

Soliz

Nelson

L. R.

(2014). Communicatively managing religious identity difference in parent-child relationships: The role of accommodative and nonaccommodative communication. Journal of Family Communication, 14(4), 310–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2014.945700

13.

Collins

P. H.

(1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Routledge.

14.

Crenshaw

(1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics (Vol. 140, pp. 139–167). University of Chicago Legal Forum.

15.

Crenshaw

(1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.2307/1229039

16.

Dornbusch

S. M.

Mont-Reynaud

Ritter

P. L.

Chen

Steinberg

(1991). Stressful events and their correlates among adolescents of diverse backgrounds. In Colten

M. E.

Gore

(Eds.), Adolescent stress: Causes and consequences (pp. 111–130). Aldine De Gruyter.

17.

Dunlap

(2014). Coming-out narratives across generations. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 26(3), 318–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538720.2014.924460

18.

Feng

MacGeorge

E. L.

(2010). The influences of message and source factors on advice outcomes. Communication Research, 37(4), 576–598. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0093650210368258

19.

Flockhart

T. R.

(2019). Emotion work in an age of incomplete acceptance: How parents and LGBs manage and maintain familial relationships. [Doctoral dissertation]. North Carolina State University, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

20.

Gangi

Soliz

(2016). De-dichotomizing intergroup and interpersonal dynamics: Perspectives on communication, identity and relationships. In Giles

Maass

(Eds.), Advances in intergroup communication (pp. 35–50). Peter Lang.

21.

Gasiorek

Dragojevic

(2018). Effects of instrumental success and failure on perceptions of underaccommodative messages and sources. Communication Reports, 31(1), 14–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2017.1335760

22.

Gasiorek

Giles

(2015). Effects of inferred motives on evaluations of nonaccommodative communication. Human Communication Research, 38(4), 309–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2012.01426.x

23.

Giles

(2008). Accommodating translational research. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36(2), 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909880801922870

24.

Giles

Soliz

(2015). Communication accommodation theory: A situated framework for relational, family, and intergroup dynamics. In Braithwaite

D. O.

Schrodt’s

(Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 161–173). Sage.

25.

Giles

Willemyns

Gallois

Anderson

M. C.

(2007). Accommodating a new frontier: The context of law enforcement. In Fiedler

(Ed.), Social communication (pp. 129–162). Psychology Press.

26.

Hajek

Abrams

J. R.

Murachver

(2005). Female, straight, male, gay and worlds betwixt and between: An intergroup approach to sexual and gender identities. In Harwood

Giles

(Eds.), Intergroup communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 43–64). Peter Lang.

27.

Harwood

(2000). Communicative predictors of solidarity in the grandparent–grandchild relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(6), 743–766. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407500176003

28.

Hayes

A. F.

(2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

29.

Hayes

A. F.

Montoya

A. K.

Rockwood

N. J.

(2017). The analysis of mechanisms and their contingencies: PROCESS versus structural equation modeling. Australasian Marketing Journal, 25(1), 76–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2017.02.001

30.

Hecht

M. L.

(1993). A research odyssey: Towards the development of a communication theory of identity. Communication Monographs, 60(1), 76–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759309376297

31.

Hochschild

(1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. University of California Press.

32.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

33.

Jones

J. B. M.

(2021, April 3). LGBT identification rises to 5.6% in latest U.S. estimate. Gallup.Com. https://news.gallup.com/poll/329708/lgbt-identification-rises-latest-estimate.aspx

34.

Jung

(2011). Identity gap: Mediator between communication input and outcome variables. Communication Quarterly, 59(3), 315–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2011.583501

35.

Jung

Hecht

M. L.

(2004). Elaborating the communication theory of identity: Identity gaps and communication outcomes. Communication Quarterly, 52(3), 265–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370409370197

36.

Kam

J. A.

Hecht

M. L.

(2009). Investigating the role of identity gaps among communicative and relational outcomes within the grandparent–grandchild relationship: The young-adult grandchildren’s perspective. Western Journal of Communication, 73(4), 456–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570310903279067

37.

Kibrik

E. L.

Cohen

Stolowicz-Melman

Levy

Boruchovitz-Zamir

Diamond

G. M.

(2019). Measuring adult children’s perceptions of their parents’ acceptance and rejection of their sexual orientation: Initial development of the parental acceptance and rejection of sexual orientation scale (PARSOS). Journal of Homosexuality, 66(11), 1513–1534. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2018.1503460

38.

Kline

R. B.

(2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford.

39.

M. J.

Thing

J. P.

Galvan

F. H.

Gonzalez

K. D.

Bluthenthal

R. N.

(2017). Contextualizing family microaggressions and strategies of resilience among young gay and bisexual men of Latino heritage. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 19(1), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2016.1208273

40.

Little

T. D.

Rhemtulla

Gibson

Shoemann

A. M.

(2013). Why the items versus parcels controversy needn’t be one. Psychological Methods, 18(3), 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033266

41.

MacGeorge

E. L.

Feng

Butler

G. L.

Budarz

S. K.

(2004). Understanding advice in supportive interactions: Beyond the facework and message evaluation paradigm. Human Communication Research, 30(1), 42–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00724.x

42.

MacGeorge

E. L.

Guntzviller

L. M.

Hanasono

L. K.

Feng

(2016). Testing advice response theory in interactions with friends. Communication Research, 43(2), 211–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650213510938

43.

Meyer

I. H.

(2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5

44.

Mosher

C. M

(2001). The social implications of sexual identity formation and the coming-out process: A review of the theoretical and empirical literature. The Family Journal, 9(2), 164–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480701092011

45.

Norwood

(2012). Transitioning meanings? Family members' communicative struggles surrounding transgender identity. Journal of Family Communication, 12(1), 75–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431/2010.509283

46.

Nuru

A. K.

(2014). Between layers: Understanding the communicative negotiation of conflicting identities by transgender individuals. Communication Studies, 65(3), 281–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2013.833527

47.

Phillips

K. E.

Ledbetter

A. M.

Soliz

Bergquist

(2018). Investigating the interplay between identity gaps and communication patterns in predicting relational intentions in families in the United States. Journal of Communication, 68(3), 590–611. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy016

48.

Rittenour

C. E.

Soliz

(2009). Communicative and relational dimensions of shared family identity and relational intentions in mother-in-law/daughter-in-law relationships: Developing a conceptual model for mother-in-law/daughter-in-law research. Western Journal of Communication, 73(1), 67–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570310802636334

49.

Rosenberg

(1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press.

50.

Scharp

K. M.

(2019). “You’re not welcome here”: A grounded theory of family distancing. Communication Research, 46(4), 427–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650217715542

51.

Scharp

K. M.

Dorrance Hall

(2019). Reconsidering family closeness: A review and call for research on family distancing. Journal of Family Communication, 19(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2018.1544563

52.

Schrodt

(2020). Emotion labor with parents as a mediator of family communication patterns and young adult children’s mental well-being. Journal of Family Communication, 20(1), 66–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2019.1661250

53.

Schrodt

O’Mara

(2019). The development and validation of the emotion labor in families scale: Associations with emotion regulation, feeling caught, and relational satisfaction in parent-child relationships. Communication Quarterly, 67(4), 383–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2019.1596143

54.

Soliz

Giles

Gasiorek

(2022). Communication accommodation theory: Converging toward an understanding of communication adaptation in interpersonal relationships. In Braithwaite

D. O.

Schrodt’s

(Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (3rd ed., pp. 130–142). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003195511-12

55.

Soliz

Ribarsky

Harrigan

M. M.

Tye-Williams

(2010). Perceptions of communication with gay and lesbian family members: Predictors of relational satisfaction and implications for outgroup attitudes. Communication Quarterly, 58(1), 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370903538622

56.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.