Abstract
This article describes a qualitative project, utilizing a narratology approach, to explore the experiences of five participants identified as belonging to two distinct families whose son and daughter identified as gay and bisexual (GB). Respondents in this study included the GB-identified son and daughter and their parents, to explore the impact of the disclosure process within families in the Southwestern United States. Both families expressed different types of experiences following the disclosure, which provide case studies toward family interventions. Implications for counseling practice and future research will be explored.
Disclosing one’s sexual or affectional orientation and coming out as lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB) can be a difficult process (LGB; Denes & Afifi, 2014). Research shows that coming out is a sign of self-acceptance and a negotiation between the standards set forth by society (i.e., heterosexual norms) and one’s self (Corrigan & Matthews, 2003; Denes & Afifi, 2014; Goodrich & Gilbride, 2010). Self-disclosure is the process through which an individual declares their sexual orientation as LGB and can range in context from events in the past, present, and future endeavors (Denes & Afifi, 2014; Mohler, 2000). Coming out and identity formation cannot be confined to a specific occurrence as they are ongoing processes (Mohler). Thus, it is imperative one develops an understanding of that process and subsequent events following disclosure (e.g., family dynamics).
Consequently, lack of acceptance can significantly influence one’s processing and decision to disclose (D’Augelli & Hershberger, 1993; Trahan & Goodrich, 2015). According to Corrigan and Matthews (2003), various coming out models represent a significant milestone of the individual who identifies as LGB. Yet the way in which LGB individuals decide to disclose their orientation to their parents follows a different process (Goodrich, 2009; Trahan & Goodrich, 2015). Scholars have noted that coming out to one’s parents is one of the most difficult developmental milestones in sexual orientation identity development (Goodrich, 2009; Goodrich & Gilbride, 2010; Savin-Williams, 2001; Willoughby, Malik, & Lindahl, 2006). As many parents initially have a difficult time acknowledging and/or accepting their son or daughter’s orientation, the individual must negotiate the way in which they will disclose their sexual identity, if they choose to do so at all (Goldfried & Goldfried, 2001; Rossi, 2010). LGB individuals typically experience anxiety and apprehension because they fear adverse reactions and consequences as a result of their disclosure, and research has found that individuals who identify as LGB typically disclose to someone other than their parents first (D’Augelli & Hershberger, 1993; Goodrich, 2009; Goodrich & Gilbride, 2010; Savin-Williams, 2001). In fact, in one study, D’Augelli and Hershberger (1993) found that 73% of participants who identified as LGB first disclosed to a friend rather than to a parent.
Gaining parental acceptance has been viewed as a significant component of the coming out process (Needham & Austin, 2010; Ryan, Russell, Huebner, Diaz, & Sanchez, 2010), and while research has demonstrated parents are often the last to know, several scholars have pointed to the significance of this milestone (e.g., see Elizur & Ziv, 2001; Floyd & Stein, 2002; Philips, 2007; Savin-Williams, 2001). Furthermore, few theoretical models have addressed how parents come to understand their son or daughter’s disclosure as LGB (Denes & Afifi, 2014; Goodrich, 2009; Goodrich & Gilbride, 2010; Saltzburg, 2004); however, sexuality theorists have suggested that parent–child dynamics, prior to coming out, may be the best predictor of how parents will react to their son or daughter’s disclosure and subsequent adjustment (Boxer, Cook, & Herdt, 1991; Denes & Afifi, 2014; Savin-Williams, 2001). Afifi and Steuber (2009) noted that some people may adjust their disclosure (e.g., ways in which they disclose) process in order to maintain a desirable relationship with their parents; nonetheless, it remains to be unclear why some parents may initially reject or deny their son or daughter’s sexual identity, whereas others offer acceptance and support (Gallor, 2006; Saltzburg, 2004, 2007; Savin-Williams & Dube, 1998). Additionally, little is known about the effects of parental reactions on the psychological and behavioral health of the son or daughter who identifies as LGB.
Family Dynamics
Scholars have explored the experiences of parents (e.g., Goodrich, 2009; Goodrich & Gilbride, 2010; Phillips, 2007; Saltzburg, 2004) as well as those of children (e.g., Boxer et al., 1991; Floyd, Stein, Harter, Allison, & Nye, 1999; Goldfried & Goldfried, 2001; Jordan & Deluty, 1998; LaSala, 2000; Savin-Williams, 1989), separately, following the disclosure experience. These studies have found how each separate group has reacted to the disclosure experience, its cognition, emotional, and behavioral consequences, as well as the later impact on the subject’s identity (e.g., LGB identity, identity as a parent). Many of these studies have found similar patterns of responses: a rift or struggle early in the relationship between child and parent immediately postdisclosure, emotional reactions by parents and/or child followed by behavioral changes (e.g., seeking out resources, such as groups or counseling). Once resources are found and communication begins anew between parent and child, the disclosure experience appears to support the increased cohesion of the family system, which then may struggle how to figure out how to inform others in the nonimmediate family. Although this pattern is not true for all families or research, these main patterns appear routinely through the literature.
The missing gap, however, has been attention to the experiences of both groups at the same time: same parents and child in a family system, to better understand the family dynamic that may follow the disclosure experience. Boxer, Cook, and Herdt (1991) came the closest through studying children and parents following the disclosure experience; however, this study was limited in its cross-sectional data. Instead of exploring same family pairs, the researchers utilized separate groups of parents and children to understand the family dynamic experience. The findings of the study provided an interesting picture of the experience: who a child told and whether or not the child directly told the parent appeared to predict later reported quality of the relationship between child and parent. Parent prior awareness did not appear to influence parent and child later relationship, except in the case of fathers. Further work is needed to better understand the influence of family dynamics postdisclosure, specifically within child and parent pairs that come from the family system.
Further, much of the work surrounding family disclosure has taken place in White samples, with fewer studies attending to the experiences of persons of color (Trahan & Goodrich, 2015). Rosario, Schrimshaw, and Hunter (2004) explored the experiences of 145 LGB youth and found no significant differences in participants’ sexual developmental milestones, although they did find specific racial/ethnic differences in some areas of identity integration. For example, LGB Black youth were more likely than White youth to participate in gay social activities, and Latino youth were more likely to disclose their identity to fewer people. This study supported that there may be some racial/ethnic differences in how one experiences their identity and reveals it to others in different racial/ethnic communities. Similarly, Ryan, Russell, Huebner, Diaz, and Sanchez (2010) found no significant differences with disclosure in families based on gender, sexual or gender identity but did find differences in Latino, socioeconomic, and religious families. They also found that some cultural identifies can influence the disclosure process and that appeared more important than other cultural variables. More recently, Trahan and Goodrich (2015) explored the experiences of African American families and found specific cultural elements embedded in the disclosure process. How one disclosed (actively, or if someone else outed them) gender roles in the African American community, the influence of the African American Church, and the phenomenon of the Down Low, all influenced both the timing and how families responded to the disclosure. Each of these variables demonstrates that culture and race can deeply influence the family system and disclosure process, and more should be known to better understand the cultural components of this process.
Religion, Family, and Sexuality
Religion is a major cultural factor that has influenced the development and practices that one adheres to throughout human history (Conley, 2011; Etengoff & Daiute, 2015). Despite the evolution of the ways in which we operate in contemporary society, various religious dominations have changed very little, if at all, particularly as it relates to sexuality. Many LGB individuals identify religious concerns as salient to their decision to disclose. Scholars have noted that some LGB persons reject their religious identity, whereas other sexually marginalized individuals adopt a spiritual identity in place of a traditional religious affiliation (e.g., Buser, Goodrich, Luke, & Buser, 2011; Dahl & Galliher, 2009; Goodrich & Luke, 2016). Furthermore, research shows that many LGB persons struggle with their intersecting identities and even attempt to create a version of self that includes both their religious and sexual lenses (Dahl & Galliher, 2009; Halbertal & Koren, 2006; Levy, 2008; Schnoor, 2006).
New research (e.g., Etengoff & Daiute, 2014; Tan, 2005) has identified spirituality as a significant predictor of one’s self-acceptance and feelings of inclusion. Scholars (e.g., Etengoff, 2013; Fiese & Tomcho, 2001; Walsh, 2009) have noted that religion is often interconnected with one’s family system and thus plays a vital role in the coming out process. For example, research shows that numerous LGB individuals experience a sense of distress, shame, and guilt as a result of their identity being outcast by religious doctrines (Barnard, 2009; Etengoff & Daiute, 2014). In a sample of 422 LGB persons, Sherry and colleagues (2010) identified trauma and rejection as a theme that emerged among several participants. Bernard (2009) studied a sample of nine lesbians and found an increase in depression was correlated with religious concerns pertaining to sexual orientation. To this end, it is likely that family systems in the context of religion conflict with LGB identity.
Purpose Statement
There is a need for counselors to understand how disclosure can affect parent social–emotional functioning and parent–child dynamics postdisclosure in the interest of family preservation (Goodrich, 2009; Goodrich & Gilbride, 2010; Savin-Williams, 2001). To this end, the primary purpose of this study was to develop an understanding of family dynamics following a son or daughter’s disclosure as LGB from the lenses of the son or daughter and their parents. Very few authors have explored family dynamics from the standpoint of both the child and the parent, and of those studies, the child and parent participants came from different families. We hope to add to the literature looking deeply at two families with both child and parent participants. The secondary purpose of the study was to solicit participants within the Southwestern United States, thereby extending knowledge about lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) families outside of areas (see Goodrich, 2009; Savin-Williams & Dube, 1998) where this has typically been explored (e.g., large urban areas, the northeast, and the west).
Method
Participants
A total of five participants participated in this study. Of the five participants, three identified as parents, one identified as a gay son, and one identified as a bisexual daughter. All participants were from the southwest, specifically the States of New Mexico and Texas. Participants varied in ages, from 28 to 73 years old and all identified as Caucasian/White. In regard to the disclosure process, the son was outed (by someone else) to his parents when he was 15, which was 12 years before the research interview. The daughter disclosed her sexual orientation to her parents following her divorce, which was about 5 years before the research interview took place. This is important contextual information to know about the family, as well as the sociopolitical time differences around disclosure for the participants in the study.
Procedure
This study was reviewed and approved by the institutional review board at the coresearchers’ institution prior to recruitment and data collection. Participants were solicited using a two-step process. First, a list of LGBT-affirming groups and organizations within the southwest was secured. The university’s LGBT resource center, the area’s Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) chapter, and a number of the region’s religious support groups for LGBT individuals and their families were contacted via postal and electronic mail, as well as phone calls. The coresearchers explained the purpose of the study, the criteria of participation, and requested the group’s assistance in identifying potential participants for the study with each form of contact with recruitment sites.
Once the groups agreed to assist in identifying potential participants, they were mailed research invitation packets, including flyers and a letter to potential participants. Additionally, groups were asked to hang the flyers at their site and deliver research invitation letters to parents who met the participation criteria for the study. Some of the sites (e.g., the local PGLAF chapter) requested that some within the research team come and speak to their members. Therefore, coresearchers went to the organization or site to give potential participants the opportunity to (1) meet the researchers in order to gain a better understanding of who they were and what the purpose of the research was (to ensure comfort and security of vulnerable data) and (2) as the organization wished to have the coresearchers more accurately communicate with potential participants about the requirements of the research study.
In Step 2, participants who contacted the coresearchers were interviewed. Participants were divided between the first two authors, with the coresearchers responsible for an equal number of interviews; each coresearcher interviewed one child and one parent or couple. Interviews occurred either face-to-face or via telephone, based on researcher and participant’s location and availability. Within these interviews, participants were asked to discuss their personal perspectives on their experience as either an LGB person who disclosed their identity to their family or their experience as a parent since their child disclosed as LGB. Interviews were completed based on the availability of the participants.
The interviews were audiotaped and ranged from 45 to 90 min in length: Individual interviews ranged from 45 to 60 min, couple interviews ranged from 60 to 75 min, and family unit interviews ranged from 80 to 90 min. The interviews were then transcribed by an outside medical transcription company that followed appropriate Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) guidelines. All names within this article are pseudonyms that were chosen by the participants or researchers prior to beginning the interview phase of this project.
Instrument
The researchers conducted all interviews utilizing a semistructured interview protocol. The semistructured interview protocol was adopted from an interview protocol implemented in a study of White parents of LGB persons in the northeast (Goodrich, 2009) and recreated by the second author after thorough reviewing of the literature related to LGB disclosure, as well as family counseling. Given the scarcity of literature that addresses this targeted population, the coresearchers were able to use the previous protocol as a basis to develop an understanding of the disclosure process with the participants in this study. Furthermore, the use of narratology enabled the coresearchers to tell the story of the disclosure process from the lenses of the participants in this study, which positioned the researchers to develop a rich understanding of the dynamics immediately following disclosure and present day. This is important because it positioned the coresearchers to attend to more than just the content of the story but the way in which the disclosure was perceived by each individual. A copy of the semistructured interview protocol can be found in the study’s Appendices A and B.
Data Analysis
Narratology (Hays & Wood, 2011; Hoshmand, 2005) was utilized to develop an understanding of the participants’ experience postdisclosure, and it is a way to give voice to those oppressed (Steelman, 2016). According to Hays and Wood (2011), narratology is a qualitative research approach that seeks to construct a narrative about the participants’ lives. Basic tenets of narratology include but are not limited to multiple sources of data, with a specific focus on the core meaning behind the stories (Hays & Wood, 2011; Hoshmand, 2005; Riessman, 1993). Hoshmand (2005) asserted that researchers who utilize this approach work to discern deep meaning behind the narratives that are constructed by participants as they tell their stories rather than surface-level inquiries. This may require probing to gain the rich data needed in order to construct deep meaning. A critical component of narratology is the form and/or structure that the narrative takes, with a specific focus on time (e.g., time sequencing) within the participants’ stories (Hays & Wood, 2011; Hoshmand, 2005; Riessman, 1993). Hoshmand (2005) noted that context is crucial as well given that narratology focuses on the unique life experiences as told by the participants. To this end, the coresearchers were cognizant of cultural contexts (e.g., age, gender, religious belief system) that may influence the lens of the storyteller (Hays & Wood, 2011; Hoshmand, 2005).
Given that participants do not necessarily construct their stories in chronological order, through probing, the coresearchers focused on identifying the deep meaning behind various claims made by the participants, with specific attention given to the context of the meaning (Riessman, 1993) including cultivating a “person first” relationship with identity and holding their sexual identity into varying intersections (Steelman, 2016). Scholars have noted that narratology is concerned with the way participants tell their stories (Hays & Wood, 2011; Riessman, 1993; Steelman, 2016). As such, by attending to more than just the content of the stories, the coresearchers were able to dissect the underlying meaning behind the participants’ disclosure experience. Unlike other qualitative traditions, the goal of narratology is not to obtain a certain number of participants or reach saturation of data (Hays & Wood, 2011); instead, it is the researchers’ work to infer the plot and end of a story in a coherence narrative form to convey meaning. Given that researcher positionality is another major component of narratology (Hoshmand, 2005), following is a discussion of the coresearcher’s position.
Researcher Stance
The first author identifies as a White gay-identified male, whose research agenda has focused on the unique needs and concerns of LGBT persons. He has previously studied identity disclosure in families and identified his assumption that religion and traditional family values may play a role in disclosure (or nondisclosure). The second author is a heterosexual African American male who advocates for multiculturalism and social justice in contemporary society. He was interested in studying family dynamics, and how that influenced the identity development process. He identified an assumption that mothers would be more accepting than fathers. The third author identifies as a mostly heterosexual cisgender White female. She has worked as a mental health counselor since 2013 and her work revolves around advocating for social justice. Working with both individuals and families of children and parents who identify as gender or affectual minorities has given her opportunities to provide education to mental health practitioners, including the ability to offer specific trainings to state employees who work with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, and intersex youth in foster care. The first two authors discussed their biases and assumptions going into the project, and at times, discussed how their assumptions could be influencing their questions and analysis of the data. They wrote each of their findings in this process and used this as a guide for reflection when it came time to interview participants and analyze their data. This way, when an identified bias was presented in the data, the coresearchers could speak with each other, and the auditor, to ensure that the final findings came from the data and not researcher bias. Trustworthiness checks (i.e., seeking out potential bias that may have emerged during the interview/coding process through journaling, discussions, and having auditors view their data) were included to attempt to bracket and manage researchers’ assumptions. Finally, the first two authors recruited the third author, who had expertise and interest in LGB family dynamics, to join the study as an auditor and provide an outsider’s insight to the project as a further trustworthiness check.
The data for this project emerged from audiotaped interviews that were transcribed by a medical transcription company that followed appropriate HIPPA guidelines. The researchers began by open coding each interview, where transcribed data were reduced to the thought level (Fassinger, 2005), with open codes ranging from a few words to a short paragraph. During this process, the researchers focused on the context and chronological order that the participants told their disclosure stories. As coding progressed, the coresearchers constantly reviewed and modified each code, as necessary, to reflect the deep meaning of the participants’ experience. Upon reviewing/coding each individual document, the researchers processed how each story fit into a larger emerging narrative, according to participant status (i.e., parent, child). Once emergent narratives were agreed upon, the researchers sought out the clarification from participants, presenting the proposed themes of the narrative. All five interviewees participated in this process and confirmed the coresearchers claims.
Findings
Early Signs of Identity
Participants began by speaking of their early signs of identity. Some of the LGB-identified children noted that for as long as they could remember, they felt different and engaged in gender atypical play. For example, Marc noted, “I’d always been pretty effeminate. My parents said I liked to play dress up and dolls. I love dance and animals and things like that, which aren’t necessarily feminine, but the stereotype is there.” When sexuality became a construct of awareness, he noted asking questions that might lead his parents to broach the subject: I remember many times, too, asking dad about sexuality and asking sexual questions. “What is it you like about women?” and stuff like that. I guess on some level I might have even been leaving cues, like the websites and stuff like that. I wanted to come out. I wanted to be outed, in a way. That was, in essences, kind of a testing of the water, leaving that evidence behind so that I didn’t have to be the one to broach the issue.
Maggie, on the other hand, took more time to figure out her sexuality. She reported, I think I was in the seventh grade when I figured that out. I woke up from a dream where I had been kissing a classmate and I went, “Oh. That’s interesting.”…Then I didn’t really—really wasn’t saying the word, “I am bisexual,” until the ninth grade. It took me a couple years to process that, but by that time, I had this huge crush on one of my teachers and it was very clear. When she and I were talking about it, she said, “Maggie, I always wondered about you from a very, very young age.” She said that she wondered for me from five or six or seven and that she had been preparing my father for my whole childhood to— look, if one of our daughters turns out to be a lesbian, that’s gonna be okay. When she was either 11 or 12, my husband and I, just the two of us were going to a college football game. As we were walking through the parking lot, I said to him, you know, Maggie’s almost old enough for puberty. I think you had better brace yourself. She might be a lesbian.
Disclosure Experience
Not surprising, each of the participants discussed the disclosure experience and how that related to the reactions that followed in the immediate moment. Early signs of identity appeared to influence this process, with Helen who had early awareness not struggling as much with the disclosure experience, whereas Marc’s family appeared to struggle without that initial awareness. Marc noted for his disclosure experience, It started out slow and it was a series of different attempts at testing the water…. It was right around 15 when I finally…. I was outed…. My dad had found gay porn websites and websites related to Wicca. He and my brother both confronted me directly and I was outed at that point. It was probably another week before I came out to my mother and said, “Yes, this is true.” Well, my initial reaction was one of the anger…. I became aware of homosexuality…. I was really angry at all of the institutions of society that had placed negative concepts on homosexuality…. I was really angry, and I was overcome with homophobia…. When Marc came out, wham, all that negativity that was part of my whole life up to that point in time just welled up and overtook. I went into the closet big time. That’s when we started on this journey that we talked about. How I am today is nothing like I was then. I was having a conversation with my mother around the kitchen table. It was somehow an emotionally intense conversation that had nothing to do with my sexual orientation. In that intense moment, I think I shared something along the lines of, “Gosh, mom, and I don’t know if you know this about me, but I consider myself bisexual.” It was an emotional thing to reveal and we were crying…in that conversation, she actually—and I don’t even know if she remembers this—but she shared with me that she was, as well.
Relationship Immediately Following Disclosure
Both sets of families discussed the family dynamics in the period immediately following disclosure. For Maggie, where disclosure appeared to be a nonissue, family dynamics didn’t appear to change much at all. For Marc’s family, a much more difficult dynamic appeared for his family in the immediate disclosure experience. As Marc noted, Dad was always angry and my parents were always fighting…. The fighting with my parents got a lot stronger. I was standing up for myself. It just took time for me to explain, these are my values. This is who I’m growing up to be. For my parents to accept that, to trust that, it just took that time, that five years, more or less, to really let the water settle.
Marc discussed some differences between his mother’s and father’s reaction, as well as some growth and development over time. He noted, For dad, I think it started out as a just ignore it situation. Then it became a let’s try to change it. Then it became we can’t change it. Let’s just keep it quiet. Then finally, I think it’s become this is just who you are. Marc gave us permission to make further disclosure to other members of the family if we so wanted to do that, but we had to get ourselves accommodated and understand and knowledgeable before we could do that…. We had to work on that aspect, so part of our processing was to learn as much as we could…
Religion
As Maggie noted, the disclosure experience may have been influenced by religion, as that played a role in both families’ experiences. One family, Marc’s, identified as Mormon, while members of Maggie’s family identified as Roman Catholic. Although different across generations, religion held great importance for members of both families and appeared deeply connected to the family dynamics experienced surrounding their disclosure experiences.
Marc framed some of the initial concerns in his family had to deal with religion, and in some ways, this was more influential than his sexual orientation. He stated, It was fighting about religion, actually, more than anything. There was a very strong struggle between my father and I on religion because I was investigating Wicca, which—Goddess oriented, Goddess centered, and he’s Mormon. They’re not very well meshed…. Then it always, in his mind, would come back down to me being gay and that that was the reason that all of this came about. In my mind, I think that my religious choice and my sexual orientation are actually separate issues and that they support each other, but there’s no correlation between them. She’s always felt that—I mean, the Mormon Church is a very oppressive church to women. Her whole world was tied up in family and appeasing dad. For me to come out and to challenge that authority and that power structure gave her means to do the same thing.
Maggie, on the other hand, did not face that same reaction, as religion was not as strong in her immediate family. Although she reported “growing up Catholic” and identifying as Catholic when asked, she reported progressing through experiences identifying as Atheist, something she no longer identifies as, but was accepted by her family at the time. There was one exception to this experience, however, which was her grandmother. She noted, My grandmother is 90 and…she is a saint. An absolute saint. She’s also Catholic. She wouldn’t be comfortable with it. I haven’t told her. That’s not so painful for me because it’s not essential to my identity. I mean, it is. It is a part of me. It is essential to my identity, but it’s not essential for me to share with her.
Present Family Dynamics
Each of the respondents discussed current family dynamics and how that has changed or remained constant over time. Marc noted, …it was about five years before things finally got some stability…. My mom has taken on the identity of a parent of a LGBT person very strongly…. My relationship with dad is much better… The family relationship is awkward for me…. I feel myself not wanting to associate with my family more and more, just because I’m tired of the battle of trying to create a place…. I try not to even go there anymore. Brothers and sisters, just more and more. I’m just feeling less and less of a connection to these people that are my family…. There’s a very strong clash between us (oldest brother and sister)…
Similarly, Maggie noted a strong acceptance from her family. She stated, “Unconditional love. It’s one of the really nice things that I feel I have. That even if I were to bring a girlfriend home, right, my dad would still love me and I know that. That’s really incredible.” This was also reported by her mother, Helen, who noted, “Needless to say, I adore my daughter…. We are good friends, she and I, and she’s always been unbelievably kind to me…” She further noted the larger family connection, ensuring it wasn’t just a mother/daughter experience, but across their family system: My other daughter is so much a part of this. It’s always been the four of us. She’s very supportive and caring and loving of Maggie as well, but we’re all just poised waiting for Maggie to bring us a woman.
Discussion
The current article was interested in understanding the family dynamics following a son or daughters disclosure as LGB from the lenses of the son or daughter and their parents. Each sets of participants were interviewed to explore their unique and shared understandings of the disclosure experience and their family dynamics, to better understand its influence on the larger family development process. Two cases were explored, the case of Marc and Maggie, each highlighting different experiences. This project provides some increased focus on the family dynamics, as unlike previously published research, both children and parents from the same family were interviewed about their experiences postdisclosure. It appeared the influence of religion and early awareness may have influenced the family process in both families, impacting the family’s dynamics in the early disclosure period. Although each family was able to work to a place of mutual understanding, the legacy of that struggle appeared to continue for Marc and his family, whereas Maggie’s family appeared much more ready to accept her experience earlier on and throughout their relationship. The implications of these findings will be discussed below.
As with previous research, the results of this study suggested that the family dynamic process, perhaps the self-identification as a family of an LGB person, is not the result of a single, specific occurrence, but instead is an ongoing process that families undergo (Goodrich, 2009; Goodrich & Gilbride, 2010; Mohler, 2000). Additionally, acceptance or lack thereof can influence how and when a child may wish to disclose to their families (D’Augelli & Hershberger, 1993; Trahan & Goodrich, 2015). Regardless of the initial disclosure experience, the act of disclosing to one’s parents also appeared to serve as a significant milestone in both of the addressed cases (Needham & Austin, 2010; Ryan et al., 2010).
Another finding in this study that matches prior research is the influence of religion/spiritual orientation on the disclosure process. The participants in this study appeared to be influenced in how they disclosed, the feedback initially provided to them by their families, and the early family dynamic immediately postdisclosure. This finding mimics prior research conducted by the first two authors (Trahan & Goodrich, 2015) and others that discusses how identified spiritually is a significant predictor of one’s acceptance and feelings of inclusion (e.g., Etengoff & Daiute, 2014; Tan, 2005), and how religion is interconnected with the family system and plays a vital role in the coming out process (Fiese & Tomcho, 2001; Trahan & Goodrich, 2015; Walsh, 2009).
Finally, families appeared to move through experiences that involved emotional, cognitive, and behavioral responses, similar to those described by Phillips (2007), Goodrich (2009), and Goodrich and Gilbride (2010). This study again highlighted the importance of the spiritual dimension of the family, which parallel’s Phillip (2007)'s work, and challenges the previous research by Goodrich (2009) and Goodrich and Gilbride (2010), who collapsed the spiritual dimension into the categories of cognitive and behavioral responses. This, however, matches the work of Trahan and Goodrich (2015) who found that with a sample of African American families, spirituality and the experience of the Down Low played a significant effect in the disclosure process and family dynamic that immediately followed. This is an area deserving of future research.
The current study reflected that much of what previous literature has pointed to that families typically need some time following disclosure to better understand and learn how to adapt with the new information presented by their child and that gaining parental acceptance can be a significant component of the disclosure process. This appeared most relevant in Marc’s family, in which healing needed to occur between parents and child and continues to be a concern with other family members. The family dynamic did not appear to be impacted as strongly in the case of Maggie’s family, as the dynamic appeared to remain the same, and be healthy, throughout the disclosure process. For Marc, instead, the dynamic was negatively impacted by the disclosure, which was not from Marc himself, and further was influenced by the role of religion in his family’s life. This case points to the influence of religion on the family system, and how that may impact later family dynamics.
Trahan and Goodrich’s (2015) study on African American LGBT individuals identified specific factors that impact family dynamics postdisclosure, like religion, yet it echoed studies conducted previously regarding LGBT coming out among families (e.g., Goodrich, 2009; Goodrich & Gilbride, 2010) regarding other areas as well. Like the others, the authors found two areas of interest that matched (a) that prior knowledge and experience, support, and mentorship with LGBT communities impacted one’s experience of disclosure and (b) the method in which one disclosed influenced family dynamics. Nonetheless, an area of dispute that Trahan and Goodrich encountered in their study included an increase in the behavioral consequences adopted by family members when one disclosed rather than emotional and cognitive approaches recognized in other studies (e.g., Gallor, 2006; Goodrich, 2009; Goodrich & Gilbride, 2010).
Like Trahan and Goodrich (2015), the Family Acceptance Project (FAP; Ryan, 2009), which aimed to facilitate change on interpersonal and macro-levels, has identified behaviors as being a pertinent component to ones disclosing. In fact, the FAP has recognized more than 100 behavioral consequences that families and caretakers engage in when a youth discloses and they have found that approximately half show acceptance while the other half shows rejection. Furthermore, the researchers at FAP have examined these behaviors extensively and have found that family reactions have significant consequences for the LGBT youth who come out. Based on the findings in this study, the authors support Ryan’s line of argumentation that a multidimensional approach should be explored when processing family dynamics postdisclosure as the varying attitudes (e.g., societal, beliefs regarding LGBT identities) have the potential to negatively influence one’s reaction postdisclosure. The behaviors that are applied by family members or caretakers either help or hinder the youth and need to be addressed for training and practice purposes since many counselors have little knowledge or experience with LGBT disclosure within families. To this end, developing the skills to participate in and facilitate healthy dialogue regarding coming out is critical for family dynamics. The FAP can serve as a framework to improve counseling for LGBT individuals and their families, cultivating a more nondiscriminatory exchange through education.
Practice and Training Implications
The results of this study point to the need of awareness of counselors of the different experiences and struggles that families may have postdisclosure. Specifically, family dynamics appeared in this study to be related to how prepared the families are before disclosure and any early awareness that families may have about their child’s difference. The results of the study suggested that those families with early awareness were better prepared for the disclosure experience than those who did not have that same level of early awareness. Counselors must be prepared to discuss family expectations and levels of preparedness with families, and how those expectations may change when disclosure occurs in family. Counselors must be trained to screen for some of these family dynamics, as well as have the skills to engage families in these difficult conversations about differences in ideals and expectations when they are reeling from surprising news about their family members.
Additionally, religion and spirituality were many topics across both case studies. This speaks to the need for counselors to be willing to discuss religious and spiritual issues in counseling, even if they may be different than their own. Literature in counseling has suggested that many counselors may be scared to address religious or spiritual topics (Cashwell & Watts, 2010), but when considering family disclosure, these appear to be fundamentally important experiences (Phillips, 2007; Trahan & Goodrich, 2015). As such, counselors need to be willing to see the client’s perspective, understand where they are coming from, and be prepared to discuss spiritual and religious topics, even if that might feel uncomfortable for them based on their background. In other words, counselors must be trained in how to appropriately address these fundamental issues in their counseling practice. Spirituality and religion are core parts of some families’ experiences and have been found to be related to the coming out process. Not addressing religion or spirituality may actually be harmful to the family’s experience and may help to facilitate some of the other more challenging topics as part of exploring the larger family dynamic.
Overall, it appeared that communication was necessary for families throughout the process, and so facilitating appropriate family communication and naming the unnamed in the counseling room may be important for family healing. This appeared specifically important for Marc’s family, who struggled with his identified religion as Wiccan, which was hard for the Mormon family to accept, and they inadvertently mixed that with his sexual orientation. Being willing to discuss some of these issues and pick through the communication issues appear fundamental to finding new understanding within the family. Counselors must be willing to keep communication channels open and to provide the support to name topics that are hard for families to address on their own.
Future Research Implications
Overall, the results of this study provided a much deeper experience of two cases of families who experienced the disclosure process with their son or daughter. The findings from this research provide many additional areas for future study. First, the research provides a little different picture between studies that have studied family dynamics that have explored one group of children and a different group of parents. These results suggest that it would be important to continue this research looking specifically at single family cases, or groups of family cases, to better understand the diverse and varied perspectives that come from a single family following the family disclosure process. Although we know much about disclosure and family dynamics, studying specific families may provide us greater insight in the future, as well as see specific cultural or family-based values that may play a role in this process.
Further, this study challenged the findings of Goodrich (2009) and Goodrich and Gilbride (2010) that collapsed the religious experience of families with their cognitive and behavioral reactions postdisclosure but reinforced the work of Phillips (2007) and Trahan and Goodrich (2015) that reinforced the importance of religion on the disclosure and family dynamic process. Future research should attend more to the significance of family religion on the disclosure process, including how counselors can best address the potential conflict between sexual orientation and religious/spiritual identity when those attributes appear to conflict with the family. There appears to be a great deal of assumptions in this area with little empirical research.
Finally, it would be useful to find what resources or support systems are most helpful for the family system as a whole once disclosure has occurred. Much has been written about PFLAG and other support groups, but it is unclear how the family as a whole negotiates these processes, as opposed to individual members (e.g., the parents themselves or the child themselves). Future research should attend to the whole family, and how they are able to reconstruct their experience as a family once disclosure occurs in the system, especially when there is conflict following that disclosure. This is still an unknown process deserving of future research.
Conclusion
The experiences of family members post the disclosure of a child as lesbian or gay has received limited attention, especially in relationship to the changes in family dynamics of the family as a whole. It appears that early awareness and preparedness, as well as religious experiences that are more affirming, can greatly influence the family dynamic process. However, with good communication and open minds, it appears that family dynamics can be repaired within a family with conflict. Previous studies have explored family dynamics with children and parents separately; this study is one of the first to explore those relationships with the members of the same family system. The results of this study call on us to explore family dynamics within specific families more closely and pay specific attention to the cultural and family-specific values as they impact this process. It is our hope that scholars in the future continue to attend to these variables, so that counselors can better serve families for the future.
Footnotes
Appendix A
Appendix B
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
