Week 7 Assignment

O R I G I N A L P A P E R

Negative Parental Responses to Coming Out and Family Functioning in a Sample of Lesbian and Gay Young Adults

Roberto Baiocco • Lilybeth Fontanesi • Federica Santamaria • Salvatore Ioverno •

Barbara Marasco • Emma Baumgartner • Brian L. B. Willoughby •

Fiorenzo Laghi

Published online: 27 March 2014

� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Abstract Parental responses to youths’ coming out (CO)

are crucial to the subsequent adjustment of children and

family. The present study investigated the negative

parental reaction to the disclosure of same-sex attraction

and the differences between maternal and paternal

responses, as reported by their homosexual daughters and

sons. Participants’ perceptions of their parents’ reactions

(evaluated through the Perceived Parental Reactions Scale,

PPRS), age at CO, gender, parental political orientation,

and religiosity involvement, the family functioning

(assessed through the Family Adaptability and Cohesion

Evaluation Scales), were assessed in 164 Italian gay and

lesbian young adults. Pearson correlation coefficients were

calculated to assess the relation between family functioning

and parental reaction to CO. The paired sample t test was

used to compare mothers and fathers’ scores on the PPRS.

Hierarchical multiple regression was conducted to analyze

the relevance of each variable. No differences were found

between mothers and fathers in their reaction to the dis-

closure. The analysis showed that a negative reaction to

CO was predicted by parents’ right-wing political conser-

vatism, strong religious beliefs, and higher scores in the

scales Rigid and Enmeshed. Findings confirm that a neg-

ative parental reaction is the result of poor family resources

to face a stressful situation and a strong belief in traditional

values. These results have important implications in both

clinical and social fields.

Keywords Coming out � Disclosure � Lesbian and gay young adults � Parental reactions � Family functioning

Introduction

The coming-out (CO) process, defined as the sharing of

one’s sexual orientation with others, has been described as

an essential component in lesbian and gay (LG) identity

formation and integration (Cass 1979; Legate et al. 2012).

Identity integration includes acceptance of one’s gay, les-

bian, or bisexual identity, and sharing this aspect of the self

with other individuals. Previous researches have indicated

that CO process may have positive effects on relationships

with others (e.g., improving authenticity of a friendship),

the construction of self-identity, and mental health (e.g.,

decreased hypervigilance/anxiety) (Baiocco et al. 2012;

Shilo and Savaya 2011; Vaughan and Waehler 2010).

Erikson’s model of sexual identity development (1959,

1982) posits that certain stages and ‘‘tasks’’ must be nav-

igated successfully to form a healthy personality. These

eight steps go through the implementation of tasks con-

cerning trust, differentiation, autonomy and the manage-

ment of doubts, fear and conflict, inside the family and the

society (Erikson 1982). According to this point of view,

CO can be assimilated into a developmental task. For LG

adolescents, this process may be growth-enhancing event

and is highly important to developing an integrated identity

and for strengthening self-esteem (Henry 2013). Such

R. Baiocco (&) � L. Fontanesi � S. Ioverno � B. Marasco � E. Baumgartner � F. Laghi Department of Developmental and Social Psychology, Faculty of

Medicine and Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome,

Italy

e-mail: roberto.baiocco@uniroma1.it

F. Santamaria

Department of Psychology, Faculty of Education, University of

Messina, Messina, Italy

B. L. B. Willoughby

Department of Psychology, University of Miami, Coral Gables,

FL, USA

123

J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:1490–1500

DOI 10.1007/s10826-014-9954-z

experiences of growth may provide sexual minorities with

important strengths that can be used to effectively manage

stress related to their minority status (Lingiardi et al. 2012;

Meyer 1995, 2003). However, despite the potential benefits

of CO, there are also associated stressors, which can have a

deleterious impact on physical and psychological health

(Frost et al. 2013). These stressors can include family

rejection, bullying, discrimination and prejudices (Frost

et al. 2013; Guzzo et al. 2014). The CO process may also

place significant strain on family relationships, cause inter-

parental conflict, and exacerbate parent mental health

issues (e.g., Willoughby et al. 2008). Given this, a strong

and cohesive family, displaying adequate resources to

manage stressful situations, may provide a supportive

environment for the LG adolescent who decides to come

out. The majority of LG young people often do not have

access to positive models (i.e., parents often do not share

the same sexual orientation) and their families may reject

their sexual orientation (Bos et al. 2004). In the American

context, research indicate that as many as 52 % of parents

may initially react negatively to their child’s disclosure of

same sex attractions (D’augelli et al. 2008). The negative

consequences of rejecting reactions from parents range

from depression (Legate et al. 2012), negative LG identity

(Willoughby et al. 2010), and substance abuse (Baiocco

et al. 2010) to, in some extreme cases, suicide (Ryan et al.

2009). On the other hand, a supportive and positive family

environment is associated with positive young adult health

outcomes, such as low level of internalized sexual stigma,

depression and suicidal idealization, and high level of

social support and self-esteem (Baiocco et al. 2012;

D’Augelli and Grossman 2001; Hoffman et al. 2009; Lo

Cascio et al. 2013; Pace et al. 2012; Resnick et al. 1997;

Russell 2003; Ryan et al. 2010).

Italy, where the present study was conducted, is a

family-oriented society in which adolescents and young

adults are more extensively involved with their extended

families than members of other Western societies (Baiocco

et al. 2013; Pallini and Laghi 2012). LG men in Italy fre-

quently confront a roster of biases and prejudices and a

greater level of gender segregation in their daily lives

(Lingiardi et al. 2012). Previous studies in Italy, in fact,

have found high levels of internalized sexual stigma in gay

and lesbian adolescents and young adults (Baiocco et al.

2010, 2012; Lingiardi et al. 2012). Thus, a supportive

family environment becomes extremely significant, since

Italian culture is characterized by a great level of gender

segregation. Widespread heterosexism in society estab-

lishes that the only normatively acceptable sexual behav-

iors are heterosexual (Herek and Garnets 2007). In Italy,

LG adolescents and young adults encounter many diffi-

culties and may be afraid of disclosing their sexual orien-

tation because of unfavorable outcomes such as social

rejection and discrimination, which are realistic

possibilities.

Parental rejection at the time of disclosure is a strong,

negative event that can affect all aspects of an adolescent’s

life, and it is crucial to understand how this reaction is

elicited and how to support parent, child, and family

adjustment following the disclosure. This process is well

described by the Family Stress Theory (Patterson 2002),

developed with the purpose of explaining how and why

stressful events negatively affect the wellbeing of the

family and, as already underlined, the disclosure could be

one of these events.

According to this theory, within which the present

research is developed, parental reactions to CO is the result

of three main elements: a family’s relational capabilities

and competences, family members’ beliefs about meanings

of stressful events, and the amount of stressors that

undermine family stability (Willoughby et al. 2008).

Family-based resources, such as cohesion, adaptability, and

flexibility, may represent valuable predictors to understand

how the family will react to their child’s CO (Carnelley

et al. 2011). The literature underlines how families, with

adequate relational capacities, coping abilities, and a higher

level of resilience, often face difficult events in supportive

ways, such as displaying a more positive reaction to their

sons and daughters’ sexual orientation disclosures (Lavee

and Olson 1991; Willoughby et al. 2006).

As mentioned above, CO to family, especially to par-

ents, is often the biggest challenge for same-sex attracted

young people (Savin-Williams 2005; Savin-Williams and

Ream 2003; Savin-Williams and Dube 1998). However,

despite the risk of disapproval and victimization, the

majority of gay and lesbian adolescents decide to come out

to their parents (LaSala 2000). A handful of studies (Ben-

Ari 1995; D’Augelli et al. 2002; LaSala 2000; Saltzburg

2004; Savin-Williams 2001; Willoughby et al. 2006) have

examined parents’ initial reactions to their youth’s CO.

Literature underlines the relevance of the following vari-

ables for predicting parents’ negative reactions to CO:

parental age (i.e., older parents react more negatively;

Baiocco et al. 2013; Savin-Williams 2001), lower levels of

parental education (Conley 2011), involvement in tradi-

tional religious associations (Baiocco et al. 2013b; Schope

2002), traditional values about family and marriage

(Newman and Muzzonigro 1993), and more traditional

attitudes regarding sex roles (Cramer and Roach 1988).

Concerning those factors, parental reaction is affected by

the meaning each member of the family gives to the dis-

closure. This process involves not only religious beliefs,

political ideology, but also cultural and educational back-

grounds. If one or both parents hold preexisting negative

beliefs and values about homosexuality, then they may be

repulsed by the disclosure (Cramer and Roach 1988). More

J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:1490–1500 1491

123

specifically, these beliefs affect their personal beliefs about

the causes of homosexuality: believing that homosexuality

is learned rather than, for example, genetic; holding gay

and lesbian individuals responsible for their lifestyle; and

supposing they have some control over their sexual ori-

entation (Sakalli 2002).

Findings indicate fathers’ and mothers’ may react dif-

ferently to their child’s CO. Several studies reveal that

mothers were likely to respond more positively to disclo-

sure than fathers (Armesto and Weisman 2001; Ben-Ari

1995; Boxer et al. 1991; D’Augelli and Hershberger 1993;

D’Augelli et al. 2002; Maguen et al. 2002; Savin-Williams

and Dube 1998). Some studies, however, have found that

mothers may be perceived to react more negatively than

fathers (Willoughby et al. 2006), show greater concerns/

worries (Conley 2011), and a display a greater amount of

anger and guilt than fathers.

Regarding differences in reactions to the CO of lesbian

daughters versus gay sons, Conley (2011) found that par-

ents’ overall concern was higher for gay sons. In addition,

referring to youth characteristics that are predictive of

parental reactions, some studies found that reaction was

more negative when the child was of the same gender as

the parent (D’Augelli 2006), and more negative for

younger adolescents than older adolescents and young

adults (LaSala 2000). However, others studies did not

confirm these findings (D’Augelli et al. 2005; Heathe-

rington and Lavner 2008).

From a systemic point of view, disclosure has been

defined a ‘‘whole family experience’’ (Baptist and Allen

2008) and a phenomenon that is ‘‘interpersonal in nature’’

(Mohr and Fassinger 2003), pointing out that it is a salient

event involving all family members. The family, as a

system, may be an important predictor of parental reactions

to sexual orientation disclosure (LaSala 2000). According

to the Family Stress Theory, parent–child relationships and

pre-existing resources can buffer the effects of an event

that shifts several aspects of the family system, such as

expectations and desires, and can lead to adopting new

roles inside the family. Additional variables related to the

outcome within the family include: pre-existing level of

closeness and conflict in the parent–child dyad, the time

spent together, importance of parents as a source of social

support (Heatherington and Lavner 2008), economic

independence (Gardner et al. 2014), availability of other

sources of support (Chaudoir and Fisher 2010), and indi-

viduals’ assessment of the cost/benefit for themselves and

for their parents (Green 2000).

Understanding the CO process and the variables related to a

negative family response is an important aspect for the design

and delivery of LG youth services. The present research

examines the different parental responses to the CO of youths,

and the elements associated with parents’ reactions, from the

perspective of their daughters and sons. The current study

aims to identify the differences between mothers’ and fathers’

responses, and the individual factors that can affect, positively

or negatively, how parents are perceived to react to their

child’s disclosure. The specific research questions addressed

in this study are as follows: (a) do perceptions of reactions to

CO differ for mothers versus fathers and (b) are perceived

parental reactions related to the gender and the age of the son/

daughter. We expected that a more negative parental response

is related to younger ages of the children and, when the child’s

sex is the same of his/her parent (D’Augelli 2006; LaSala

2000; Saltzburg 2004; Savin-Williams 2001). The current

study also addresses these additional questions: (c) does

parental religious beliefs and political conservatism predict

perceived parental reactions (Cramer and Roach 1988;

Newman and Muzzonigro 1993; Schope 2002) and (d) is

problematic family functioning predictive of more negative

perceived parental reactions to CO (De Vine 1984; Wil-

loughby et al. 2006).

Method

Participants

Data were collected for 164 participants: 71 women

(43.3 %) and 93 men (56.7 %), who self-identified as gay

or lesbian, based on the Kinsey Scale (Kinsey et al. 1948).

Nearly half, or 46.1 %, of the young adults came from the

center of Italy, 30.4 % from the south, and the 24.5 % from

the north of Italy. In this study, we did not include bisexual

(3.7 %) and transgender participants (1.2 %), due to the

low number of respondents in these categories. Partici-

pants’ ages ranged from 18 to 26 (Mwoman = 23.21,

SD = 1.97; Mmen = 23.41, SD = 2.15). Participants

averaged 15 years of education, which means they reported

completing the second year of college (Mwoman = 14.72,

SD = 3.11; Mmen = 15.25, SD = 2.64).

Procedures

Participants were recruited from lesbian, gay, bisexual, and

transgender (LGBT) organizations (31 %) and three LGBT

college student organizations (69 %) in Rome, Italy. The

prerequisites for inclusion were: Respond to the Kinsey

Scale at level 5 and 6 (where 5 meaning almost completely

and 6 meaning completely homosexual); be between 18

and 26 years old; have already revealed their sexual ori-

entation to both parents; be Italian; and, finally, the parents

had to be a couple and to living together (not divorced or

separated) at the time of CO. All participants responded

individually to the same questionnaire packet, which was

administered face-to-face by trained psychologists.

1492 J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:1490–1500

123

Participation in the study was voluntary and anonymous,

and participants were encouraged to answer as truthfully as

possible. The participants took about 20–25 min to com-

plete the questionnaires. A total of 98.1 % of question-

naires were completed. Before the data collection was

started, the protocol was approved by the Ethics Com-

mission of the Department of Developmental and Social

Psychology of the Sapienza University of Rome.

Measures

A Background Information Questionnaire was completed by

participants. Demographic information, like age, education,

religion, and disclosure status was collected. Sexual orien-

tation was evaluated using the Kinsey Scale (Kinsey et al.

1948). This scale offers six possibilities, ranging from 0

(people who defined themselves as completely heterosexual,

without any experience or desire for homosexual activity) to

6 (those who declared themselves as exclusively homosex-

ual). Data about parents’ level of education and religious

affiliation were collected as well. Moreover, we asked par-

ticipants to report the age at which they came out to parents

and to describe the way in which their parents knew/dis-

covered their sexual orientation (‘‘How did your mother/

father discover your sexual orientation?’’; 1 = I personally

told it to my mother/father; 2 = My mother/father asked me

about my sexual orientation; 3 = My mother/father dis-

covered it; 4 = Other persons revealed my sexual orienta-

tion to my mother/father).

Parents Religiosity Involvement was measured by two

items, asking participants to report the frequency of their

parents’ attendance of religious service (‘‘How often does

your mother/father usually attend religious services?’’;

0 = never, 10 = several times per week), as well as the

importance of religion in their parents’ lives (‘‘How

important is religion in your father life/mother life?’’;

0 = not important, 10 = extremely Important). Since the

correlation between these two items was high (r = .72), a

total score was obtained by summing the responses to each

item, which we considered as a general measure of parents’

religiosity involvement (Roth et al. 2012).

Political orientation was measured by asking partici-

pants to report the political orientation of the parents on a

5-point Likert Scale ranging from 1 = completely left to

5 = completely right, so that higher scores indicated

greater right-wing conservatism.

The Perceived Parental Reactions Scale (PPRS; Wil-

loughby et al. 2006) assessed participants’ perceptions of

their parents’ reactions to sexual orientation disclosure.

Participants were asked to think back to the time when

disclosure occurred and, using a 5-point Likert scale,

indicate agreement or disagreement with several

statements. PPRS included 64 statements, 32 related to the

mother and 32 to the father. Higher scores indicated more

negative perceptions of their parents’ reactions (‘‘My mom

yelled and screamed’’), with scores ranging from 32 to 160.

In a previous study (Willoughby et al. 2006), the PPRS

showed item-total correlations of .40 and above and dem-

onstrated good internal consistencies. Test–retest reliability

has also been established. In the present study, the internal

consistency reliability was .95 for the mother version and

.86 for the father version.

Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales

(FACES IV; Olson 2011) was used to evaluate family

functioning of participants. The FACES IV is composed by

42 items (as ‘‘Family members are involved in each others

lives’’ or ‘‘There is no leadership in this family’’). On a

Likert-type scale divided into six scales: two balanced

scales (Cohesion and Flexibility) assessing central-moder-

ate areas and four unbalanced scales (Rigid, Chaotic,

Enmeshed, and Disengaged) assessing the lower and upper

ends of Cohesion and Flexibility; family global functioning

score was obtained by dividing the sum of the Cohesion

and Flexibility scores by 2 (Olson and Gorall 2006). While

the two balanced scales are similar to previous FACES III

scales, the four Unbalanced Scales—Enmeshed, Disen-

gaged, Chaotic, and Rigid—represent an original

improvement (Olson 2011). These scales proved to be

valid, reliable, and discriminatory among both problematic

and no problematic families (Baiocco et al. 2012; Olson

2011), the original FACES IV internal consistency reli-

ability ranged from .77 to .89 (Olson 2011), in the Italian

version range from .63 to .73 (Baiocco et al. 2012). In the

present study, the internal consistency reliability range was

between .71 and .76.

Data Analysis

To conduct bivariate and multivariate analyses relating to

independent variables, we used the Statistical Package for

the Social Sciences (SPSS 19.0). Pearson correlation

coefficients were calculated to assess the relation between

family functioning and parental reactions to CO. A paired

sample t test was used to compare means scores of mothers

and fathers on the Perceived Parental Reaction Scale.

Univariate analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to

assess differences in gender of the son/daughter and gender

of the parents regarding parental reactions using family

functioning and age as covariate. Post hoc analyses fol-

lowing ANCOVAs were carried out with Duncan’s test to

detect group differences (p \ .05). Next, hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted to investigate the

relevance of family functioning and individual variables to

predict parental reactions to CO.

J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:1490–1500 1493

123

Results

Maternal and Paternal Reactions to Coming Out

Paired sample t test was used to compare means scores of

mothers and fathers on Perceived Parental Reactions

Scale. No differences were found between mothers

(M = 80.93; SD = 27.86) and fathers (M = 75.50;

SD = 30.42) in their reaction to the CO of their son/

daughter (t163 = 1.54, p = .13). The correlation between

mothers and fathers was high (r = .52), and the intra-class

correlation was significant (Z = 6.66; p \ .001). In addi- tion, no differences were found between the age of the CO

with the mothers (M = 19.15; SD = 2.81) and fathers

(M = 19.45; SD = 3.11) (t163 = 1.59, p = .11). Differ-

ences were found between the way in which, according to

the participants, the parents discovered the sexual orien-

tation of their daughters/sons (Chi 2

= 10.32; df = 3;

p \ .05). The sons/daughters were more likely to reveal their sexual orientation directly to their mothers (mothers:

65.2 %; fathers: 55.5 %) while the fathers discovered the

sexual orientation of their sons/daughters on their own

(mothers: 17.7 %; fathers: 32.3 %). Mothers were more

likely to ask the sexual orientation of their sons/daughters

directly than were fathers (mothers: 9.8 %; fathers: 5.5 %).

Table 1 shows the frequencies of the answers. Moreover,

no differences were found in the frequencies of the answers

given by the sons and the daughters about how parents

knew/discovered their sexual orientation (Chi 2

= 6.95;

df = 3; p = .07).

Parental Reaction to Coming Out, Religiosity, Political

Involvement, and Family Functioning

No differences were found between mothers (M = 2.46;

SD = .87) and fathers (M = 2.57; SD = 1.67). The

majority of the mothers were positioned on the left side of

the scale (74.4 %), while only 3.7 % were identified as

centrist, and 21.9 % were identified as right-wing conser-

vative. Again, the majority of the fathers were positioned

on the left side of the scale (53.0 %), while 12.2 % were

identified as centrist, and 24.8 % were identified as right-

wing conservative. Pearson’s correlation was performed to

examine the relation between PPRS dimensions and

FACES IV dimensions, religiosity, political conservatism,

and age at the time of CO (Table 2).

The correlations were found to be as expected, even if

the strength of these correlations was weak to moderate.

The strongest correlations have been found to be between

the rigid (rmaternal = .47; rpaternal = .55, p \ .01) and enmeshed dimensions on FACES IV and the maternal and

paternal reactions to CO (rmaternal = .30; rpaternal = .60,

p \ .01). Also, a strong parents’ political conservatism (rpaternal = .61, p \ .01; rmaternal = .34, p \ .01) and higher parents’ religiosity involvement (rmaternal = .42,

p \ .01) were correlated to a more negative reaction to CO. We conducted Pearson regression analysis in order to

understand the reasons behind parental negative reaction.

Item 2 ‘‘Was worried about what her friends and other

parents would think of her/him’’; item 7 ‘‘was concerned

about the potential that she wouldn’t get grandchildren

from me’’ and item 12 ‘‘was concerned about having to

answer other peoples’ questions about my sexuality’’ were

valued with the highest scores, both in paternal and

maternal questionnaires. Table 3 shows the correlation

between the highest items scores of PPRS and the FACES

IV dimensions.

Effect of Gender and Age of Child on Parental

Reactions

The average age of CO in the sample was M = 19.26,

DS = 2.64, ranged from 12 to 26, Univariate Anova ana-

lysis shows no significative differences between women

and men (Mwoman = 18.9, SD = 2.35; Mmen = 19.56,

SD = 2.83). From the CO to the present survey have

passed, on average, 4.6 years (M = 4.6, DS = 2.90) with

no significative differences between women and male

(Mwoman = 4.8, SD = 2.71; Mmen = 4.42, SD = 3.03).

Univariate analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was

used to examine the effects of gender of the son/daughter

and the gender of the parent on parental reaction, using

family global functioning and age of CO as covariate.

Family functioning as a covariate was significant, with

F(1, 322) = 10.79, p \ .001, g2 = .03, as was the age at which the son/daughter did the CO: F(1, 322) = 9.36,

p \ .01, g2 = .03. A negative family functioning and a lower age of the son/daughter at the time of CO was

Table 1 Frequencies of the way in which parents knew/discovered the sexual orientation of the daughter/son

PPRS Mother Father Total

I personally told it to my

mother/father

65.2 %

(n = 107)

55.5 %

(n = 91)

60.4 %

(n = 198)

My mother/father asked me

about my sexual

orientation

9.8 %

(n = 16)

5.5 %

(n = 9)

7.6 %

(n = 25)

My mother/father

discovered it

17.7 %

(n = 29)

32.3 %

(n = 53)

25.0 %

(n = 82)

Other persons revealed my

sexual orientation to my

mother/father

7.3 %

(n = 12)

6.7 %

(n = 11)

7.0 %

(n = 23)

SD in parenthesis

1494 J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:1490–1500

123

positively related to a more negative parental reaction to

CO.

We did not find a significant effect for gender of the

son/daughter, F(1,322) = 1.13, p = .29, g2 = .003, or the gender of the parents F(1, 322) = 2.94, p = .09,

g2 = .01. The interaction of gender of the son/daugh- ter 9 the gender of the parents was significant, F(1,

322) = 26.12, p \ .001, g2 = .08. Mothers with a les- bian daughter (M = 92.46; SD = 25.77) reported a more

negative reaction to the CO than did fathers with a gay

son (M = 84.50; SD = 25.68). The parents of the other

two groups (mothers with gay sons and father with les-

bian daughters), which do not differ from each other,

reported the most positive reactions (Duncan Test;

p \ .05). The magnitude of the effect size was medium for the interaction effect, and low for the covariates.

Table 4 shows the adjusted means, which are the means

that we would get after removing all differences that can

be accounted for by the covariates.

Predictors of Negative Parental Reactions

Next, using hierarchical multiple regression, we further

examined the associations between demographic variables,

religiosity, political involvement, family variables, and

parents reactions to CO. In the regression, we entered in the

first step the gender of the son/daughter and the age of his/

her CO. Religious involvement and political orientation

were entered in the second step, and the family variables,

measured with the FACES-IV, in the third step(Table 5).

Table 2 Pearson correlation between variables

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 Maternal reaction 1

2 Paternal reaction .52** 1

3 Religiosity mother .42** .31** 1

4 Religiosity father -.11 .06 -.13 1

5 Conservatism mother .20** .03 .21** -.23** 1

6 Conservatism father .34** .61** .21** -.05 .32** 1

7 Cohesion -.09 -.14 -.08 -.12 -.05 -.16* 1

8 Flexibility -.20* -.15 -.12 -.08 -.08 -.19* .72** 1

9 Disengaged family .02 .20** -.01 .08 .07 .27** -.50** -.25** 1

10 Enmeshed family .30** .60** .21** -.09 .10 .44** -.03 -.09 .19* 1

11 Rigid family .47** .55** .24** .06 -.06 .31** -.07 -.14 .11 .60** 1

12 Chaotic family -.01 .07 -.16* -.06 .07 .18* -.18* -.05 .48** .21** .02 1

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01

Table 3 Pearson correlations between PPRS highest scored

items and FACES IV

dimensions

** p \ .001; * p \ .05

PPRS

items

M (DS) Item-total

score

correlation

Cohesion Flexibility Disengaged Enmeshed Rigid Chaotic

Was worried about what her friends and other parents would think of her (item 2)

Mother 3.14 (1.39) .62** .00 -.06 .010 .24** .39** -.02

Father 2.93 (1.52) .64** -.04 -.01 .24** .32** .32** .08

Was concerned about the potential that she/he wouldn’t get grandchildren from me (item 7)

Mother 3.55 (1.17) .57** .04 -.08 -.08 .26** .38** -.05

Father 3.14 (1.33) .54** .05 .04 .00 .27** .42** .01

Was concerned about having to answer other peoples’ questions about my sexuality (item 12)

Mother 3.28 (1.28) .56** -.02 -.10 .12 .17* .33** -.01

Father 3.12 (1.30) .75** -.04 -.06 .18* .46** .43** .07

Table 4 Mean score on the Perceived Parental Reactions Scale: the interaction effect of gender of the son/daughter 9 gender of the

parents

PPRS Female Malee Total

Mother 92.46 (25.78) 74.78 (25.66) 83.62 (25.89)

Father 72.91 (25.67) 84.50 (25.68) 78.71 (25.87)

SD in parenthesis

J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:1490–1500 1495

123

The analysis of the mother sample showed that a neg-

ative reaction to CO was predicted by the gender of the

adolescent (having a lesbian daughter) (b = .33, t = 5.36, p \ .001), lower age at time of CO (b = .15, t = -2.43, p \ .05), a greater parents’ religious involvement (b = .33, t = 5.20, p \ .001), a parents’ right-wing polit- ical conservatism (b = .19, t = 3.41, p \ .01), and higher score in the scale Rigid of the FACES-IV (b = .38, t = 4.92, p \ .001). In the father sample, a worse reaction to the CO of the son/daughter, was predicted by a lower

age of the adolescent at the CO (b = .25, t = 4.09, p \ .001), a parents’ right-wing political conservatism (b = .37, t = 6.90, p \ .001), and higher score in the scale Enmeshed (b = .28, t = 3.93, \ .001) and Rigid (b = .16, t = 2.35, p \ .05).

Discussion

The present research aimed to analyze the variables con-

nected with perceived parental reactions to their child’s

CO. To assess participants’ perceptions of their parents’

reactions, we administered the Perceived Parental Reac-

tions Scale, from which no significant differences were

found in maternal and paternal reactions in the same

family. This result is inconsistent with the literature, which

suggests that mothers’ reactions are more negative than

fathers’, as has been seen in Willoughby and colleagues’

work (Willoughby et al. 2006); both scores suggesting the

tendency for Italian parents to react more positively to the

CO of their children, then parents in Willoughby and

colleagues’ sample (Willoughby et al. 2006). Future stud-

ies should verify these findings, especially in Italy;

according to cross-cultural studies, Italian mothers are

more warm and protective towards their children than are

women from other countries (Putnick et al. 2012), which

may have some bearing on an Italian mother’s reaction to

her child’s CO.

However, despite not finding significant differences

between perceived maternal and paternal reactions to CO,

differences were found in the ways parents discovered the

sexual orientation of their sons/daughters (Table 1).

Daughters and sons were more inclined to directly come

out to their mothers versus their fathers, who appear to find

out more indirectly. According to the literature, disclosure

is a process that occurs in different stages, and CO to

parents (D’Augelli 1994) is one of them. Revealing sexual

orientation to parents, according to Eriksson model (1982),

could bean important task to develop a healthy personality,

to differentiate from parents and to win fears. However, the

female parent seems to be the ‘‘chosen one’’ in the light of

the trustful relationship that daughters and sons feel they

have with their mothers (Miller and Boon 1999). That

being so, a maternal negative reaction could strongly affect

the adolescent’s self-esteem and force him/her to assume a

negative self-image, in addition to undermines the mother–

child relationship (Waldner and Magrader 1999).

Nonetheless, as shown in Table 1, it appears frequently

that parents discovered their daughter’s and son’s sexual

identity by themselves, maybe this could lead to a more

negative reaction, as parents can read the lack of honesty as

a lack of trust, or again they can have doubts, worries and

Table 5 Hierarchical regression analyses for family

functioning predicting father

and mother reaction to CO

The tabled values for beta

reflect Bs after step 3

* p \ .05; ** p \ .001

Mother DR2 Father DR2

B SE

B

b R2 B SE B

b R2

Step 1: Gender and age .10 .10 .22 .22

Gender (0 = female;

1 = male)

-18.42 3.44 -.33** -1.64 3.25 -.02

Age at coming out -1.48 .61 -.15* -2.39 .59 -.25**

Step 2: Religiosity and

political ideology

.34 .24 .48 .24

Religiosity 2.84 .55 .33** .28 .60 .03

Political ideology 6.03 1.96 .19** 6.79 1.09 .37**

Step 3: FACES IV subscales .48 .24 .61 .36

Cohesion .36 .40 .09 -.21 .38 -.05

Flexibility -.65 .43 -.13 -.02 .42 -.00

Disengaged family .12 .42 .02 .41 .41 .07

Enmeshed family -.12 .44 -.02 1.7 .44 .28**

Rigid family 1.9 .38 .38** .87 .37 .16**

Chaotic family -.38 .40 -.07 -.81 .38 -.14

Total R .70 .78

1496 J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:1490–1500

123

being ashamed to talk about that with their sons and

daughters.

Results reported in Table 2 show a correlation between

a negative perceived maternal and paternal response and a

parents’ perceived right-wing conservative political view;

the same correlation has been found between maternal

negative reaction and parents’ strong religious involve-

ment. These data, in line with the literature (Newman and

Muzzonigro 1993; Schope 2002), suggest that believing in

conservative traditional values can be a predictor of sexual

prejudice. In countries such as Italy, where religious feel-

ings are ingrained in the culture, it is not unusual for LGBT

people to experienced religion-based homophobia (Baiocco

and Laghi 2013; Cartabia 2008; Herek 2000; Lingiardi

et al. 2005, 2012); these experiences can prevent or delay

the disclosure for fear of rejection. This result deserves to

be analyzed more deeply. As has been seen, mothers with

higher levels of religious belief and fathers with strong

conservatism and right-wing political views are more likely

to react in a negative way. In Italy, it is a cultural given that

mothers are the ones who take care of the house, which can

be seen as the ‘‘private-family thing,’’ while fathers have

the tendency to be concerned with the ‘‘public-social

thing,’’ e.g., politics. Women, in the past, were not sup-

posed to participate in political debates or go into politics,

but they were responsible for the religious education of

their daughters and sons. It is likely that in the more con-

servative families, aspects of this legacy remain, and this

cultural phenomenon can explain current findings (Jurado

Guerrero and Naldini 1996).

Concerning the relationship between a negative parental

reaction and FACES IV dimensions, the data in Table 2

show a strong correlation with enmeshed dimensions for

both parents. These results, along with the literature (Bai-

occo et al. 2013a; De Vine 1984; Willoughby et al. 2006),

support the hypothesis that poor family functioning (lack of

adaptability, no coping ability, poor resilience resources,

lack of communication) is predictive of a negative parental

reaction to the adolescent/young adult’s CO. The disclo-

sure about sexual orientation in an enmeshed family could

be difficult for several reasons: the strong bonds between

the family’s members can limit the individual growth and

choices, so much so that almost any expression of inde-

pendence or separateness is seen as disloyalty to the fam-

ily. Highly enmeshed families are likely to have highly

emotional interactions and the revelation can generate

strong feeling of delusion in overly dependent parents and,

as a consequence, feelings of guilty in their daughters and

sons (Baiocco et al. 2013a). Or, again, the parent’s identity

could be so wrapped up in their child’s identity that makes

the acceptance of the disclosure really complicated.

Table 3 shows the correlations between the highest PPRS’

items scores and the family functioning. Three Item 2, item

7 and item 12 have been valued with the highest scores

both for fathers and mothers. These data suggest that both

parents are worried about what other people, friends and

relatives could think about their sons and daughters sexu-

ality (item 2 and 7): These items could reflect deep feelings

of shame about having a homosexual daughter or son;

parents can fear the judgment of others people, maybe

about their parental skills and they are afraid to speak about

that. These items shows higher correlations with Enmeshed

and Rigid family functioning, along with the results already

presented: In these family it seems fundamental to keep the

appearance from the outside, and it is possible that they

prefer to keep the disclosure inside the family, and not

mention about it to friends or others relatives (as it has been

seen in Rivers and Gordon 2010). Item 12 is more cultural

related, and reflect the belief that only a couple formed by a

men and woman can have children and, as a consequence,

it opens a narcissistic wound in the parents who see their

desire to become grandparents fading away.

According to our results, the age of the son/daughter at

the time of CO is an important predictor of parental reac-

tion. The lower the age of the participants at the time of

CO, the worse the reaction of both parents, which confirms

our hypothesis (D’Augelli 2006; LaSala 2000; Saltzburg

2004; Savin-Williams 2001). ANCOVA analysis reveals

that both parents react worst to same-gender adolescents’

disclosure. From a paternal point of view, the CO of a male

son can be seen as a failure to successfully pass on mas-

culinity, and fathers can feel deepening feelings of shame,

which make them unwilling to discuss the disclosure and

participate emotionally in the event (LaSala 2010). Fur-

thermore, the analysis of the interaction between son/

daughter and parental gender shows that mothers with a

lesbian daughter display a more negative reaction to the

disclosure than do fathers with a gay son. According to

Pearlman (2012), who has collected 24 stories of mothers

with lesbian and transgender daughters, the maternal

reaction seems to be so negative because of the hurt and

disappointment as they see all their dreams for their

daughter’s future unravel; this is followed by feelings of

loss of the mother–daughter bond, which they now feel

more as a mother–son relationship (Pearlman 2012). Or, as

already said, mothers where also responsible for the emo-

tional socialization of their daughters and sons, homosex-

uality could be seen as a failure in this task and they

‘‘blame’’ themselves for that. Nevertheless, as the present

research is focus on the participants perception of their

parents reaction, there is an interesting explanation for this

phenomena given by Chiari. According to her data, lesbian

daughter tend to ascribe feeling of disapproval to their

mother and feelings of worry to their fathers, more than

male sons: This could be an effect of interpersonal

dynamics of identification and projection with their

J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:1490–1500 1497

123

reference parental figure. The young lesbian daughter

perceives a more negative maternal reaction due to the gap

between herself and the object of identification, and, as a

consequence of this process, she overestimates the disap-

proval reaction (Chiari 2006).

The association between sex, age, religiosity, political

involvement, and family dimensions has been examined

through step-wise hierarchical multiple regression in order

to identify the predictors of parental negative reaction

(Table 5). Maternal negative response is mostly predicted

by: having a lesbian daughter, the age at the time CO,

religious association, and a right-wing conservative polit-

ical view. On the other hand, paternal negative response is

mostly predicted by a lower age of the son at the time of

CO and right-wing political conservatism.

Both maternal and paternal negative reaction are con-

nected to a higher score in the Rigid scale of the FACES IV

(mother b = .38, t = 4.92, p \ .001; father b = .16, t = 2.35, p \ .05). According to the literature, rigid families are characterized by overly low levels of flexibility and

adaptability, which are the family’s main resources to face

stressful and unexpected situations and keep the internal

cohesion (Mathis and Tanner 1991; James and Hunsley

1995). Our results reveal, moreover, that a negative parental

reaction is also predicted by a higher score on the FACES IV

enmeshed scale (b = .28, t = 3.93, p \ .001), which is characterized by higher levels of cohesion, an extreme

amount of emotional closeness, and strong demands on

loyalty. In this situation, the disclosure can be seen as an

unexpected betrayal of the expectation and values of the

family. These results suggest that when the family is dys-

functional and displays strong boundaries-related problems,

the parental reaction to CO can be extremely negative.

The inability to reframe perceptions, ideas, and infor-

mation about their son/daughter, can damage the family’s

bonds, leading to, on one hand, losing marital stability and,

on the other hand, make the child feel guilt and rejection

(Olson and Lavee 2013; Willoughby et al. 2008). For an

adolescent/young adult who decides to reveal his or her

same-sex attraction under these conditions, internalizing

the minority sexual stigma could be a concrete possibility,

the negative consequences of which are well known in the

literature (Frost et al. 2013; Willoughby et al. 2008).

In conclusion, our findings confirm that a negative parental

reaction results from poor family resources to face a stressful

situation, a strong belief in traditional values, a lower age at

time of CO, and—for mothers—having a lesbian daughter.

These results have important implications in both clinical and

social fields. First of all, in therapeutic and counseling

assessment, it is fundamental to understand these variables

when focusing the intervention, in order to prevent a negative

parental reaction to CO on one hand, and on the other hand to

help the family to accept the disclosure and readjust the

family’s boundaries. Also, when the social group and the

family have strong religious affiliations and particularly

conservative political views, a message of homophobia has

been internalized, and this can jeopardize the process of

acceptance of the disclosure. Due to their social importance,

these results can be tested also in other southern Europe

regions, where the cultural values are similar to Italian’s one.

Nevertheless, disclosing to family about sexual identity is an

important step for every young LG, and these findings could

be helpful for social and clinical workers in every Country.

Homophobia and social marginalization of adolescents and

young adults is still a reality in Italy, and we hope that our

findings can help family therapists, counselors, and educators

create a supportive and welcoming environment to daughters

and sons who decide to take the difficult choice of CO.

Limitations

There were a few limitations to our study. First the sample was

relatively small; a larger and more representative sample

should be studied to obtain more stable results. The study was

conducted in Italy, and these findings may not apply to LG

males living in other countries, since our data appear to be

strongly related to our culture. Also, the use of a convenience

sample can never truly access a representative sample of LG

individuals. The sample was composed by young adults, it

would be interesting to investigate the experience of adults

and older people, in different times of life. Moreover there

could have been some bias regarding the perception of neg-

ative parental reaction, maybe perceived as more negative

than it actually was. In this regard it would be interesting to

take a longitudinal study, in order to analyze whether the time

elapsed since the CO, has a particular influence on parental

reaction’s perception. Finally, the study did not consider

bisexual participants, once again due to the low number in our

sample; likewise, it is necessary to explore how the CO of

bisexual adolescents is perceived by their parents, and to

verify if the differences between maternal and paternal reac-

tions are the same as for the homosexual sample.

References

Armesto, J. C., & Weisman, A. G. (2001). Attributions and emotional

reactions to the identity disclosure (‘‘coming out’’) of a

homosexual child. Family Process, 40, 145–161.

Baiocco, R., Cacioppo, M., Laghi, F., & Tafà, M. (2013a). Factorial

and construct validity of FACES IV among Italian adolescents.

Journal of Child and Family Studies, 22, 962–970.

Baiocco, R., D’Alessio, M., & Laghi, F. (2010). Binge drinking

among gay, and lesbian youths: The role of internalized sexual

stigma, self-disclosure, and individuals’ sense of connectedness

to the gay community. Addictive Behaviors, 35, 896–899.

1498 J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:1490–1500

123

Baiocco, R., & Laghi, F. (2013). Sexual orientation and the desires

and intentions to become parents. Journal of Family Studies,

19(1), 90–98.

Baiocco, R., Laghi, F., Di Pomponio, I., & Nigito, C. S. (2012). Self-

disclosure to the best friend: Friendship quality and internalized

sexual stigma in Italian lesbian and gay adolescents. Journal of

adolescence, 35(2), 381–387.

Baiocco, R., Nardelli, N., Pezzuti, L., & Lingiardi, V. (2013b).

Attitudes of Italian heterosexual older adults towards lesbian and

gay parents. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 10, 285–292.

Baptist, J. A., & Allen, K. R. (2008). A family’s coming out process:

Systemic change, and multiple realities. Contemporary Family

Therapy, 30, 92–110.

Ben-Ari, A. (1995). The discovery that an offspring is gay: Parents’,

gay men’s, and lesbians’ perspectives. Journal of Homosexual-

ity, 30, 89–112.

Bos, H. M. W., Van Balen, F., & Van Den Boom, D. C. (2004).

Experience of parenthood, couple relationship, social support,

and child-rearing goals in planned lesbian mother families.

Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 755–764.

Boxer, A. M., Cook, J. A., & Herdt, G. (1991). Double jeopardy:

Identity transitions and parent–child relations among gay and

lesbian youth. In K. Pillemer & K. McCartney (Eds.), Parent–

child relations throughout life (pp. 59–92). Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Carnelley, K. B., Hepper, E. G., Hichs, C., & Turner, W. (2011).

Perceived parental reactions to coming out, attachment, and

romantic relationship views. Attachment and human develop-

ment, 13, 217–236.

Cartabia, M. (2008). Legal study on homophobia and discrimination

on grounds of sexual orientation in Italy. Vienna: European

Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.

Cass, V. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model.

The Journal of Homosexuality, 4, 219–235.

Chaudoir, S. R., & Fisher, J. D. (2010). The disclosure processes

model: Understanding disclosure decision making and post

disclosure outcomes among people living with a concealable

stigmatized identity. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 236–256.

Chiari, C. (2006). La famiglia attraverso lo svelamento. In D. Rizzo

(Ed.), Omosapiens (pp. 10–21). Roma: Carocci Editore.

Conley, C. L. (2011). Learning about a child’s gay or lesbian sexual

orientation: Parental concerns about societal rejection, loss of

loved ones, and child well being. Journal of Homosexuality, 58,

1022–1040.

Cramer, D. W., & Roach, A. J. (1988). Coming out to mom and dad:

A study of gay males and their relationships with their parents.

Journal of Homosexuality, 15, 79–91.

D’Augelli, A. R. (2006). Developmental and contextual factors and

mental health among lesbian gay and bisexual youths. In A.

E. Omoto & H. M. Kurtzman (Eds.), Sexual orientation and

mental health: Examining identity and development in lesbian,

gay, and bisexual people (pp. 37–53). Washington, DC: APA

Books.

D’Augelli, A. R., & Grossman, A. H. (2001). Disclosure of sexual

orientation, victimization and mental health among lesbian, gay

and bisexual older adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16,

1008–1027.

D’Augelli, A. R., & Hershberger, S. L. (1993). Lesbian, gay, and

bisexual youth in community settings: Personal challenges and

mental health problems. American Journal of Community

Psychology, 21, 421–448.

D’Augelli, A. R., Pilkington, N. W., & Hershberger, S. L. (2002).

Incidence and mental health impact of sexual orientation

victimization of lesbian, gay and bisexual youths in high school.

School Psychology Quarterly, 17, 148–167.

D’Augelli, A. R. (1994). Identity development and sexual orientation:

Toward a model of lesbian, gay, and bisexual development. In E.

J. Trickett, R. J. Watts & D. Birman (Eds.), Human diversity:

Perspectives on people in context. The Jossey-Bass social and

behavioral science series (pp. 312–333). San Francisco, CA, US.

D’Augelli, R., Grossman, A. H., & Starks, M. T. (2005). Parents’

awareness of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths’ sexual orienta-

tion. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 474–482.

D’augelli, A. R., Grossman, A. H., & Starks, M. T. (2008). Families

of gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth: What do parents and siblings

know and how do they react? Journal of GLBT Family Studies,

4(1), 95–115.

De Vine, J. L. (1984). A systemic inspection of affectional preference

orientation and the family of origin. Journal of Social Work and

Human Sexuality, 2, 9–17.

Erikson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. New York:

International Universities Press.

Erikson, E. H. (1982). The cycle life completed. New York: Norton.

Frost, D. M., Lehavot, K., & Meyer, I. H. (2013). Minority stress and

physical health among sexual minority individuals. Journal of

behavioral medicine, 36(6), 1–8.

Gardner, A. T., de Vries, B., & Mockus, D. S. (2014). Aging out in

the desert: Disclosure, acceptance, and service use among

midlife and older lesbians and gay men. Journal of Homosex-

uality, 61(1), 129–144.

Green, R. J. (2000). ‘‘Lesbians, gay men, and their parents’’: A

critique of La Sala and the prevailing clinical ‘‘wisdom’’. Family

Process, 39, 257–266.

Guzzo, G., Lo Cascio, V., & Pace, U., et al. (2014). Bullying

victimization, post-traumatic symptoms, and the mediating role

of alexithymia. Child Indicator Research, 7, 141–153.

Heatherington, L., & Lavner, J. A. (2008). Coming to term with

coming out: Review and recommendation for family system-

focused research. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 329–343.

Henry, M. M. (2013). Coming out: Implications for self-esteem and

depression in gay and lesbian individuals (Doctoral dissertation,

Humboldt State University).

Herek, G. M. (2000). Sexual prejudice and gender: Do heterosexuals’

attitudes toward lesbian and gay men differ? Journal of Social

Issues, 56, 251–266.

Herek, G. M., & Garnets, L. D. (2007). Sexual orientation and mental

health. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 3, 353–375.

Hoffman, N. D., Freeman, K., & Swann, S. (2009). Healthcare

preferences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and question-

ing youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45(3), 222–229.

James, S., & Hunsley, J. (1995). The Marital Adaptability and Cohesion

Evaluation Scale III: Is the relation with marital adjustment linear

or curvilinear? Journal of Family Psychology, 9, 458–462.

Jurado Guerrero, T., & Naldini, M. (1996). Is the South so different?

Italian and Spanish families in comparative perspective. South

European Society and Politics, 1(3), 42–66.

Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual

behaviour in the human male. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders.

LaSala, M. C. (2000). Lesbian, gay men, and their parents: Family

therapy for the coming-out crisis. Family Process, 39, 67–81.

LaSala, M. C. (2010). Coming out, coming home: Helping families

adjust to a gay or lesbian child. New York: Columbia University

Press.

Lavee, Y., & Olson, D. H. (1991). Family types and response to

stress. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53(3), 786–798.

Legate, N., Ryan, R. M., & Weinstein, N. (2012). Is coming out

always a ‘‘good thing’’? Exploring the relations of autonomy

support, outness, and wellness for lesbian, gay, and bisexual

individuals. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(2),

145–152.

J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:1490–1500 1499

123

Lingiardi, V., Baiocco, R., & Nardelli, N. (2012). Measure of

internalized sexual stigma for lesbians and gay men: A new

scale. Journal of Homosexuality, 59, 1191–1210.

Lingiardi, V., Falanga, S., & D’Augelli, A. (2005). The evaluation of

homophobia in a Italian sample. Archives of Sexual Behavior,

34, 81–93.

Lo Cascio, V., Guzzo, G., Pace, F., & Pace, U. (2013). Anxiety and

self-esteem as mediators of the relation between family

communication and indecisiveness in adolescence. International

Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 13(2),

135–149. doi:10.1007/s10775-013-9243-1.

Maguen, S., Floyd, F. G., Bakeman, R., & Armistead, L. (2002).

Developmental milestones and disclosure of sexual orientation

among gay, lesbian, and bisexual youths. Applied Developmental

Psychology, 23, 219–233.

Mathis, R. D., & Tanner, Z. (1991). Cohesion, adaptability, and

satisfaction of family systems in later life. Family Therapy, 18,

47–60.

Meyer, I. H. (1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men.

Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36, 38–56.

Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in

lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and

research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674–697.

Miller, R. J., & Boon, S. D. (1999). Trust and disclosure of sexual

orientation in gay males’ mother-son relationships. Journal of

Homosexuality, 38(3), 41–63.

Mohr, J. J., & Fassinger, R. E. (2003). Self-acceptance and self-

disclosure of sexual orientation in lesbian, gay and bisexual

adults: An attachment perspective. Journal of Counselling

Psychology, 50, 482–495.

Newman, B. S., & Muzzonigro, P. G. (1993). The effects of

traditional family values on the coming out process of gay male

adolescents. Adolescence, 28, 213–226.

Olson, D. H. (2011). FACES IV and the circumplex model:

Validation study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 3,

64–80.

Olson, D. H., & Gorall, D. M. (2006). Faces IV and the circumplex

model. Minneapolis, MN: Life Innovations.

Olson, D. H., & Lavee, Y. (2013). Family systems and family stress:

A family life cycle. In K. Kreppner & R. M. Lerner (Eds.),

Family Systems and Life-span Development (pp. 165–196). New

York, NY: Psychology Press.

Pace, U., Cacioppo, M., & Schimmenti, A. (2012). The moderating

role of father’s care on the onset of binge eating symptoms

among female late adolescents with insecure attachment. Child

Psychiatry and Human Development, 43, 282–292.

Pallini, S., & Laghi, F. (2012). Attention and attachment related

behaviour toward professional caregivers in child care centers: A

new measure for toddlers. The Journal of Genetic Psychology,

173(2), 158–174.

Patterson, J. M. (2002). Integrating family resilience and family stress

theory. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(2), 349–360.

Pearlman, Sarah. F. (2012). Mother-talk: Conversations with mothers

of lesbian daughters and FTM transgender children. Toronto,

ON: Demeter Press.

Putnick, D. L., Bornstein, M. H., Lansford, J. E., Chang, L., Deater-

Deckard, K., Di Giunta, L., et al. (2012). Agreement in mother

and father acceptance–rejection, warmth, and hostility/rejection/

neglect of children across nine countries. Cross-Cultural

Research, 46(3), 191–223.

Resnick, M. D., Bearman, P. S., Blum, R. W., Bauman, K. E., Harris, K.

M., Jones, J., et al. (1997). Protecting adolescents from harm.

Findings from the national longitudinal study on adolescent health.

Journal of the American Medical Association, 278(10), 823–832.

Rivers, I., & Gordon, K. (2010). ‘Coming out’, context and reason:

First disclosure of sexual orientation and its consequences.

Psychology & Sexuality, 1(1), 21–33.

Roth, D. L., Mwase, I., Holt, C. L., Clark, E. M., Lukwago, S., &

Kreuter, M. W. (2012). Religious involvement measurement

model in a national sample of African Americans. Journal of

Religion and Health, 51, 567–578.

Russell, S. T. (2003). Sexual minority youth and suicide risk.

American Behavioral Scientist, 46, 1241–1257.

Ryan, C., Huebner, D., Diaz, R. M., & Sanchez, J. (2009). Family

rejection as a predictor of negative health outcomes in white and

Latino lesbian, gay, and bisexual young adults. Pediatrics,

123(1), 346–352.

Ryan, C., Russell, S. T., Huebner, D., Diaz, R., & Sanchez, J. (2010).

Family acceptance in adolescence and the health of LGBT young

adults. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 23,

205–213.

Sakalli, N. (2002). Application of the attribution-value model of

prejudice to homosexuality. The Journal of Social Psychology,

142(2), 264–271.

Saltzburg, S. (2004). Learning that an adolescent child is gay or

lesbian: The parent experience. Social Work, 49, 109–118.

Savin-Williams, R. C. (2001). Mom, dad. I’m gay: How families

negotiate coming out. Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

Savin-Williams, R. C. (2005). The new gay teenager. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Savin-Williams, R. C., & Dube, E. M. (1998). Parental reaction to their

child’s disclosure of a gay/lesbian identity. Family Relations, 47, 7–13.

Savin-Williams, R. C., & Ream, G. L. (2003). Sex variations in the

disclosure to parents of same-sex attractions. Journal of Family

Psychology, 17, 429–438.

Schope, R. D. (2002). The decision to tell: Factors influencing the

disclosure of sexual orientation by gay men. Journal of Gay and

Lesbian Social Services: Issues in Practice, Policy, and

Research, 14, 1–22.

Shilo, G., & Savaya, R. (2011). Effects of family and friend support

on LGB youths mental health and sexual orientation milestones.

Family Relations, 60, 318–330.

Vaughan, M. D., & Waehler, C. A. (2010). Coming out growth:

Conceptualizing and measuring stress-related growth associated

with coming out to others as a sexual minority. Journal of Adult

Development, 17, 94–109.

Waldner, L. K., & Magrader, B. (1999). Coming out to parents.

Journal of Homosexuality, 37, 83–100.

Willoughby, B. L., Doty, N. D., & Malik, N. M. (2008). Parental

reactions to their child’s sexual orientation disclosure: A family

stress perspective. Parenting: Science and Practice, 8(1), 70–91.

Willoughby, B. L., Doty, N. D., & Malik, N. M. (2010). Victimiza-

tion, family rejection, and outcomes of gay, lesbian, and bisexual

young people: The role of negative GLB identity. Journal of

GLBT Family Studies, 6(4), 403–424.

Willoughby, B. L. B., Malik, N. M., & Lindahl, K. M. (2006).

Parental reactions to their sons’ sexual orientation disclosures:

The roles of family cohesion, adaptability and parenting style.

Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 7, 14–26.

1500 J Child Fam Stud (2015) 24:1490–1500

123

Copyright of Journal of Child & Family Studies is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.