Week 11 Assignment

LGBTQ Relationally Based Positive Psychology: An Inclusive and Systemic Framework

Daniela G. Domínguez, Monte Bobele, Jacqueline Coppock, and Ezequiel Peña Our Lady of the Lake University

Positive psychologists have contributed to our understandings of how positive emotions and flexible cognition enhance resiliency. However, positive psychologists’ research has been slow to address the relational resources and interactions that help nonheterosexual families overcome adversity. Addressing overlooked lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ) and systemic factors in positive psychology, this article draws on family resilience literature and LGBTQ literature to theorize a systemic positive psychology framework for working with nonheterosexual families. We developed the LGBTQ relationally based positive psychology framework that integrates positive psychology’s strengths-based perspective with the systemic orientation of Walsh’s (1996) family resilience framework along with the cultural considerations proposed by LGBTQ family literature. We theorize that the LGBTQ relationally based positive psychology framework takes into consideration the sociopolitical adversities impacting nonheterosexual families and sensitizes positive psychologists, including those working in organized care settings, to the systemic interactions of same-sex loving relationships.

Keywords: positive psychology, family resilience, nonheterosexual, LGBTQ, Walsh, optimism, positive emotions

Whereas the vast majority of researchers have centered on understanding the role emotions play in pathology, dysfunction, and disorder (Ong, Bergeman, Bisconti & Wallace, 2006), positive psychologists have focused on how emotions and protective fac- tors contribute to the flourishing of individuals and societies (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Rejecting the deficit-based models underlining normative analyses, behavioral problems and mental illness, this relatively new branch of psychology has dem- onstrated interest in understanding how individuals respond suc- cessfully to adversity, trauma and tragedy. Through the explora- tion of “what works,” “what is right,” and “how people manage to improve their lives” (Sheldon & King, 2001, p. 216), positive psychologists contribute to our existing knowledge regarding how positive emotions help us adapt during times of stress. Within the wide range of adaptive human characteristics explored in their studies, the psychological concept of resilience has received sig- nificant attention that has translated into an impressive and exten- sive body of scholarly literature (Luthar, 2006; Masten, 2001). As a result of their strong contribution in the area of psychological resilience, positive psychologists claim that their empirical find- ings have effectively brought to light the developmental strengths and resourcefulness of their participants (Aspinwall & Staudinger, 2003; Keyes & Haidt, 2003; Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Selig- man, Reivich, Jaycox, & Gillham, 2007). Pursuing their claim further, we have found numerous positive psychology studies

reporting on the resilience of a variety of populations including trauma victims (Bonanno, 2008; White, Driver, & Warren, 2008), college students (Mak, Ng, & Wong, 2011), the military (Cornum, Matthews, & Seligman, 2011; Reivich et al., 2011), Jews and Arabs (Hobfoll et al., 2009), injury patients at rehabilitation clinics (Quale, & Schanke, 2010), men (Hammer & Good, 2010), and many more. However, some critics have pointed out that this far-reaching literature on resilience has failed to include the voices of nonheterosexual families (Meyer, 2003; Torres, 2011). Further, the focus in positive psychology has remained on individuals, not on families. Because nonheterosexual families face unique chal- lenges that heterosexual families do not (e.g., heterosexism and sexual prejudice), it would be inappropriate to assume that positive psychology literature on resilience, which has mainly focused on heterosexual individuals, helps advance our understanding regard- ing the systemic strengths that enable thriving in overlooked lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ) families.

Addressing overlooked LGBTQ and systemic factors in positive psychology, this article draws on family resilience literature and LGBTQ literature to theorize a systemic positive psychology framework for working with nonheterosexual families. Hoping to help practitioners understand, elicit, and amplify the systemic strengths that enable thriving in LGBTQ families, we developed the LGBTQ relationally based positive psychology framework. This framework integrates positive psychology’s strengths-based perspective with the systemic orientation of Walsh’s (1996) family resilience framework along with the cultural considerations pro- posed by LGBTQ family literature. We theorize that the LGBTQ relationally based positive psychology framework takes into con- sideration the sociopolitical adversities impacting nonheterosexual families and sensitizes psychologists, including those working in organized care settings, to the systemic interactions of same-sex loving relationships. Our framework proposes that understanding

This article was published Online First March 23, 2015. Daniela G. Domínguez, Monte Bobele, Jacqueline Coppock, and Eze-

quiel Peña, Department of Psychology, Our Lady of the Lake University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Daniela

G. Domínguez, 590 N. General McMullen, San Antonio, TX 78228. E-mail: [email protected]

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

Psychological Services © 2015 American Psychological Association 2015, Vol. 12, No. 2, 177–185 1541-1559/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038824

177

the systemic interactions of LGBTQ families as well as the socio- cultural and political context in which those interactions take place, can help practitioners improve the quality of health care services delivered and can help offer clients a valuable treatment experience. Practitioners working in organized care settings often need to collaborate with clients who feel unheard and misunder- stood by health professionals. According to researchers, working with the larger family system can help offer clients support and can assist practitioners in the development of a treatment plan that promotes family involvement as clients work through noncritical or critical situations (de Jong & Schout, 2011). Unlike traditional approaches used in public mental health that often center on the individual, our framework is driven by the entire family system. In this article, we hope to encourage practitioners to explore the resources and strengths that have enabled LGBTQ families to overcome stressors including heterosexism, sexual prejudice, and institutional discrimination, among others. In a post-Defense of Marriage Act (1996) world in which federal health care benefits have been extended to same-sex married couples, their children, and stepchildren, organized care settings will likely notice an increase in the demand for public mental health services from nonheterosexual families (Respect for Marriage Act, 2013). With that in mind, health professionals interested in increasing customer satisfaction and building an affirming practice for LGBTQ fami- lies, should consider incorporating the LGBTQ relationally based positive psychology framework into their clinical practice. Our resilience framework promotes an inclusive definition of “family” and encourages practitioners working in public service settings to create a warm therapeutic environment that celebrates same-sex loving relationships. Our framework utilizes a culturally sensitive approach that may help clients who have had negative experiences with organized care settings and their staff in the past, feel con- nected, valued, and supported.

Literature Review

Although lesbians and gay men report relatively high utilization rates for counseling and psychotherapy services (Liddle, 1997), research “addressing the care of LGBT populations in the public sector appears to be nonexistent” (Hellman & Drescher, 2005, p. 16). In addition, recent studies demonstrated that both rural and urban providers in the public sector lack adequate training and competency on LGBTQ issues (Warren & Smalley, 2014). Re- searchers argue that there is an absence of coordinated funding opportunities in the public sector to support research and practice on LGBTQ mental health issues (Hellman & Drescher, 2005). According to Semp (2011), the limited research on public mental health services for the LGBTQ population suggests that profes- sionals working in the public sector often ignore their clients’ sexuality. In addition, studies suggested clients receiving public mental health services reported feeling uncomfortable disclosing their sexual orientation, even when they believe their sexuality is relevant to their mental health concerns (Semp, 2011). With the former in mind, many psychologists have recognized the need for culturally sensitive psychological services to help the LGBTQ community. Maylon (1982) asserted the necessity for gay affirma- tive therapy, an approach which “represented a special range of psychological knowledge which challenges the traditional view that homosexual desire and fixed homosexual orientations are

pathological” (p. 69). His approach encouraged the development of literature highlighting gay affirmative practice (GAP) within the fields of psychology and social work (Appleby & Anastas, 1998; Crisp, 2007; Crisp, 2006; Davies & Neal, 1996, 2000; Hunter & Hickerson, 2003; Hunter, Shannon, Knox, & Martin, 1998; Neal & Davies, 2000; Tozer & McClanahan, 1999; Van Den Bergh & Crisp, 2004). Several scholars have discussed guidelines for practicing GAP such as abiding by one’s professional code of ethics, not assuming the client is heterosexual, becoming attentive and mindful to different “coming out” stories, and practicing awareness of our own heteronormative and gender normative assumptions, among others (Appleby & Anastas, 1998; Hunter et al., 1998). Likewise, Davies and Neal (1996, 2000; Neal & Davies, 2000) declared that a gay affirmative approach does not require a distinct set of skills and techniques, it simply requires treating LGBTQ individuals with respect, fairness, compassion, and as having value. Alto- gether, the premises of GAP demonstrate a commitment to coun- teracting the effects of homophobia and heterosexism by calling practitioners to surpass a neutral position by “celebrating and advocating the validity of lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons and their relationships” (Tozer & McClanahan, 1999, p.736). Although psychologists have contributed research on the positive aspects of LGBTQ identity within the past decade (Horne, Puckett, Apter, & Levitt, 2014), there is an undeniable dearth in literature highlight- ing a strengths-based framework for working with LGBTQ fami- lies seeking psychological services.

Some researchers have recognized the urgency for practitioners to sustain a strengths-based perspective when working with the LGBTQ population (Appleby & Anastas, 1998; Butler, 2004; Crisp, 2007; Van, Wells, & Boes, 2000). For example, Crisp (2007) and Butler (2004) suggest practitioners help sexual minor- ities draw upon their assets and strengths to assist them in over- coming their presenting concerns. Nevertheless, this literature is limited to the field of social work, in turn, restricting the general- izability of its implications to psychological services delivered in organized care settings. Thus, it remains that few resources are available to assist psychologists providing managed care, in their application of strengths-based approaches to help nonheterosexual families succeed. Strengths-based approaches are especially im- portant, given that LGBTQ clients are often portrayed in the literature as wounded individuals whose victimization has pro- duced deficits in their mental and physical health, academic achievement and identity development (Espelage & Swearer, 2008; Russell & Richards, 2003). Torres (2011) argued this deficit view has evolved because resiliency research is dominated by heterosexist ways of knowing that neglect “the lives, voices, and developmental successes of same-sex attracted individuals” (p. 12). Scholars argue that although earlier research in counseling psychology has explored the intersection of strengths and culture, positive psychology researchers have been slow in their contribu- tions of LGBTQ research (Lopez et al., 2002). Although positive psychologists have strong convictions to help at-risk populations overcome life’s obstacles, our review found few research studies conducted by positive psychologists looking into the protective factors that help nonheterosexual families remain hopeful, opti- mistic and confident in the midst of difficult challenges. The question, “What makes life worth living for nonheterosexual fam- ilies?” is rarely addressed by positive psychologists.

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

178 DOMÍNGUEZ, BOBELE, COPPOCK, AND PEÑA

Clearly, positive psychologists are devoted to building a social science that promotes families that allow children and communi- ties to flourish (Positive Psychology Center, 2007). Considering the invisibility of sexual minority topics in their research, what is still far from clear is whether positive psychology’s definition of “family” is inclusive of nonheterosexual families. This review points to a gap in resiliency research that rarely addresses how nonheterosexual families engage in creative behaviors and cogni- tive flexibility to facilitate their life pursuits. Practitioners working in organized care settings should be cautious not to overlook the culture-specific stressors faced by LGBTQ families as this may compromise the therapeutic process and therapeutic outcome. We encourage practitioners providing public mental health services to ask their LGBTQ clients the question, “What has helped your family succeed in the midst of difficult challenges?” We believe that the answer to this question may help LGBTQ families arrive at systemic solutions to their problems. Practitioners interested in exploring the underlying resiliencies and resources that have helped their LGBTQ clients and their families succeed in the face of hardship, may find our framework to be a helpful resource.

Positive Psychology Research on Resilience

Resilience is an adaptive and dynamic quality found among all humans that enables them to cope and thrive despite adversity (Garmezy & Rutter, 1983; Luthar & Wong, 2003; Masten, 2001). In the field of positive psychology, two camps have emerged that view human strengths differently. One camp proposes that strengths are universal and culture-free (Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), and the other proposes that strengths are manifested differently depending on the socio- cultural context (Constantine & Sue, 2006; Snyder & Lopez, 2007). The Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology (Lopez & Snyder, 2011) contains a number of research studies conducted by the first and second camps. No culture-embedded models (the second camp) presented in this handbook addressed the resilient qualities presented by LGBTQ families. In contrast, a chapter titled “Positive Psychology and LGBTQ Populations” (Horne et al., 2014) in the book Perspectives on the Intersection of Multi- culturalism and Positive Psychology by Pedrotti and Edwards (2014) offers a review of positive psychology research on the strengths of LGBTQ individuals, relationships, and families. Their review suggested that LGBTQ people have “considerable strengths in terms of self-definition, self-determination, perspective-taking, com- munity building, and creating family networks and communities” (p. 199). Our framework integrates some of the most prominent research conducted by positive psychologists on the theory of learned optimism, the broaden-and-build theory, and literature on the positive identity in LGBTQ individuals, and captures how practitioners in the public sector can help LGBT families utilize their systemic strengths, assets, and resources to boost their resil- ience. The following section reviews the theory of learned opti- mism, the broaden-and-build theory, and literature on LGBTQ positive identity.

Seligman’s Model

Seligman’s culture-free perspective on resilience suggests that there are 24 personal strengths and universal attributes that can be

found across cultures (Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Snyder & Lopez, 2007). His empirical work on resilience (2006) has led to a focus on teaching applied strategies designed to help all people from all cultures challenge adversity. He and his colleagues main- tain that psychology can “transcend particular cultures and politics and approach universality” (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000, p. 5). Seligman’s (2006) theory of learned optimism proposed that people could learn how to become optimistic if they are taught how to challenge negative self-talk. Seligman and others theorize that resilience is a protective factor that can be learned from experts in the field of positive psychology, including those pro- viding public mental health services. They contend that individuals who master these techniques are more apt to rise above debilitating pessimism and depression. Focusing on the factors identified by Masten and Reed (2002) (e.g., optimism, problem solving, self- efficacy, self-regulation, emotional awareness, flexibility, empa- thy, and strong relationships), Reivich and colleagues (2011) pro- mote the use of the Penn Resiliency Program, which trains individuals to effectively challenge their unhelpful thoughts using cognitive– behavioral principles. Contrary to Peterson and Selig- man’s (2004) understanding that strengths are universal, members of the second camp argue that cultural norms construct what is considered to be “strength,” “weakness,” “the good life,” and the “good person” (Pedrotti, Edwards, & Lopez, 2009, p. 49). They propose that overlooking culturally specific strengths is problem- atic. Even more problematic is overlooking the inner strengths of historically “overpathologized populations” (Lopez & Snyder, 2011, p. 172).

Our framework proposes that Seligman’s research appears to be culture bound in its efforts to teach individuals, including nonhet- erosexual family members, strategies that have not been signifi- cantly studied or proposed to be effective with a large LGBTQ sample. Seligman’s emphasis on “teaching” and his position on strengths-promotion suggest that positive psychologists can, through innovative strategies, inform clients about stress reduc- tion. Nevertheless, stigma, discrimination and violence against LGBTQ families create additional stresses beyond what are typi- cally experienced by heterosexual families (Herek, 2009, 2010). The cognitive– behavioral principles found in Seligman’s resil- ience model are proposed as potentially helpful to all individuals and across all cultures. Yet it remains to be demonstrated that they be useful when working with families in general and nonhetero- sexual family systems in particular.

The Broaden-and-Build Theory

Barbara Fredrickson (2000), a positive psychologist, introduced the broaden-and-build theory of resilience. Fredrickson (2001) claimed that when people are exposed to negative experiences (e.g., failure) they tend to narrow their focus onto the problem. When this narrowing of focus occurs, they are unable to access their full cognitive potential. Conversely, when people are exposed to positive emotions (e.g., joy, curiosity, hope and contentment), it strengthens their cognitive associations, broadens their attention and empowers them to implement creative and positive solutions to their problems. Her theory proposes that resilient individuals, more than the general population, possess creative and flexible problem solving skills that help them practice the benefits of positive emotions to their advantage. She suggests that discovering

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

179LGBTQ RELATIONALLY BASED POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY

positive meaning within adversity is one way that resilient indi- viduals demonstrate their strength. Given that this theory finds a relationship between discovering positive meaning within adver- sity and being resilient, we pose these questions—“Are LGBTQ individuals resilient because they somehow find positive meaning in the context of traumatic experiences such as hate crimes, bias crimes and bullying?” Or, “Are LGBTQ individuals able to bounce back because they are forced to adjust to their existing environ- ment in order to survive?” Or, “Are both valid propositions?” Fredrickson’s findings highlight the importance of building posi- tive emotional experiences into people’s everyday lives; however, her theory is unable to account for how LGBTQ families manage to move forward while simultaneously experiencing negative emo- tions within the discriminatory context in which they are situated. John Chambers Christopher (2011) argues that positive psychol- ogy models such as Fredrickson’s require a move beyond objec- tivism and relativism and a move toward a framework that under- stands that reality is socially constructed across and within cultures. A move toward a culturally embedded positive psychol- ogy framework that addresses how families with multiple salient identities (e.g.- racial minority nonheterosexual families, nonhet- erosexual binational families, lesbian-headed families) manage to experience positive emotions while coping with threatening envi- ronments. We propose that the use of a culturally embedded positive psychology is imperative in the public sector, as practi- tioners work to understand how nonheterosexual families, includ- ing LGBTQ families of color, mobilize their protective systems while navigating their multiple identities across cultures.

Research on the Positive Identity of LGBTQ Individuals

Although Fredrickson (2000) has addressed positive meaning as a sign of resilience in the broaden-and-build theory, some re- searchers are further narrowing the existing gap in positive psy- chology literature on LGBTQ mental health by investigating the lives and identities of nonheterosexuals. In 2008, a positive psy- chology online survey found that over 500 gay and lesbian partic- ipants considered the following to be positive aspects of having a nonheterosexual lifestyle: belonging to a community, creating families of choice, forging strong connections with others, serving as positive role models, developing empathy and compassion, living authentically and honestly, gaining personal insight and sense of self, being involved in social justice and activism, being free from gender-specific roles, exploring sexuality and relation- ships, and enjoying egalitarian relationships (lesbian participants only; Riggle, Whitman, Olson, Rostosky, & Strong, 2008). Other studies in which LGBTQ mental health and positive psychology converged included topics like the development of a positive self-identity and self-worth among “rural lesbian youth” (Cohn & Hastings, 2010), the positive aspects of a bisexual self- identification (Rostosky, Riggle, Pascale-Hague, & McCants, 2010), and the resiliency factors reported by LGB individuals in response to anti-LGB political campaigns and legislation (Russell & Richards, 2003). Butler (2004) posits that sexual minorities possess exceptional resiliency and specific strengths that help them overcome these obstacles. She asserts that LGBTQ individuals develop coping skills through the process of accepting their sexual identity and through the coming out process. Additionally, sexual

minorities gradually experience less stigma, greater flexibility, and are able to better manage social perception because of the diffi- culties they so often face (Butler, 2004). Although these studies did take into consideration contextual factors specific to gays, lesbians and bisexuals, they primarily focused on individuals’ perceptions of their growth-fostering connections rather than on the systemic interactions that protected their families from crisis or breakdown. Whereas the former research centered on understand- ing individuals’ perceptions of their growth-fostering connections, our family driven framework, focuses on the systemic interactions that help LGBTQ families thrive.

Christopher and Hickinbottom (2008) suggest that the current paucity of literature that takes into account systemic factors has resulted from positive psychologists’ focus on the Western concept of “self.” Hence, positive psychologists subscribe to an individu- alistic framework and “insulate themselves from reflecting criti- cally on their work” (p. 563) as it relates to systemic, cultural, and other diversity factors. We find that Walsh’s (1996) family resil- ience framework may offer a way to integrate these factors. Her resiliency framework focuses on healthy family functioning and offers a relevant and systemic alternative to research focused solely on the stressors that nonheterosexual individuals endure.

By and large, resilience as a mechanism to thrive in the face of adversity has undeniable prominence in positive psychology liter- ature. Given the problems sexual minorities contend with on a day to day basis, strengths-based approaches that emphasize resilience have the potential to be beneficial to LGBTQ individuals’ well- being. Although there is great acceptance for LGBTQ individuals and relationships in some sectors of society, considerable amounts of inequality, discrimination, heterosexism, and homophobia con- tinue to impact nonheterosexual families receiving services in organized care settings. To better serve LGBTQ families seeking psychological services in the public sector, an approach that looks at resilience within a systemic family context is imperative. One distinct attempt at highlighting the importance of resilience from a systemic perspective is found in Walsh’s (1996) relationally based family resilience framework. In the following section, we will describe Walsh’s framework in detail.

Resilience Focused on Systems: A Much Needed Source in Positive Psychology

Walsh’s (1996) relationally based family resilience framework maintains that stressful events impact the entire family and create a ripple effect on everyone’s relationships. Family resilience the- ory goes beyond current positive psychologists’ research by fo- cusing its attention on the family. Walsh’s theory proposes that family members already have the necessary tools to reduce their distress and to strengthen their relationships with others. More- over, this framework openly challenges the myth that the standard North American family (White, intact nuclear family headed by father) is healthier than any other family constellation (Smith, 1993), and openly welcomes diverse family arrangements. Walsh (2003) argues that we need to move beyond the “myth of the self-reliant nuclear family household by expanding attention to the multiple relationships and powerful connections” that exist in today’s world (p. 47). Recently Walsh (2011) conceptualized the notion of “family” as a social construction with multiple meanings, relational patterns and unique caring bonds. In short, her frame-

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

180 DOMÍNGUEZ, BOBELE, COPPOCK, AND PEÑA

work focuses on (a) family strengths under stress, (b) multiple realities for diverse families, (c) the sociocultural context in which people are situated, (d) the belief that families have the resources to recover and grow from adversity, and (e) the understanding that what helps boost resilience are the family processes that nurture caring, safe, and committed relationships.

Regardless of family configuration (e.g.-heterosexual, nonhet- erosexual, single-parent headed family, multigenerational etc.), family resilience can be defined as a collectivistic phenomenon that grows and develops with each challenge allowing families to balance stress and demands (Patterson, 2002). Research suggests that in spite of stress and demands, LGBT parents often demon- strate low rates of parenting stress and high parenting efficacy (Horne et al., 2014). According to family resiliency theorists, that is because family relationships are strengthened when participants view environmental adversity as a kind of collaborative challenge that can be met by the family system (Walsh, 1998). Researchers have found support for this theory of family resilience in studies that indicate that when families employ various capabilities and protective factors, they are best suited to meet life’s demands and successfully manage risks and stressors (Power et al., 2010; Walsh, 1998). On the other hand, if environmental stressors overwhelm the family’s capabilities and resources, crises or breakdowns may occur. In other words, family systems whose resources and capa- bilities become depleted are at risk of being overwhelmed by breakdown and hardship. In this light, family resilience theorists advise that families build collaborative support systems that en- hance family resources to successfully meet life’s inevitable chal- lenges. Above all, because family systems are uniquely different, each family system can overcome adversity by using its own set of tools and strategies.

In the following section we propose a framework that brings together (a) positive psychology literature on the theory of learned optimism, the broaden-and-build theory, as well as literature on the positive identity in LGBTQ individuals; (b) Walsh’s family resil- ience framework; (c) and nonheterosexual family resilience liter- ature. This LGBTQ relationally based positive psychology frame- work takes into consideration the sociopolitical adversities impacting nonheterosexual families and sensitizes psychologists, including those working in organized care settings, to the interac- tions of same-sex loving relationships. We propose that our frame- work captures the complexity of the psychological health needs of LGBTQ families seeking services in organized care settings.

LGBTQ Relationally Based Positive Psychology

We theorize an LGBTQ relationally based positive psychology framework that facilitates the support, motivation and empower- ment of nonheterosexual families. Our framework seeks to explore the question, “How do nonheterosexual families manage to protect their relationships and their children from hardship while simul- taneously battling stress and adversity?” We want to shed light on a population that has remained almost invisible in the positive psychology literature. LGBTQ relationally based positive psychol- ogy posits that LGBTQ families have multiple identities including ethnic, cultural, religious, political and professional identities. By challenging the heterosexist cultural standards that continue to exist in psychological research and practice today, we propose a systemic positive psychology framework for understanding resil-

ience in LGBTQ families. Specifically, we address the areas of learned optimism, emphasizing systemic interactions, and building on positive emotions as positive psychology research suggests these factors are particularly essential to enable thriving and boost- ing resilience. Additionally, we discuss the opportunities provided by shifting to a strengths-based perspective in exploring the re- sources that build resilience and help nonheterosexual families remain hopeful, optimistic and confident in the midst of difficult challenges.

Learned Optimism to Boost Resilience in LGBTQ Families

Psychologists working from our framework must move beyond traditional ideas that the definition of family is linked to a predict- able life path that involves the ability to procreate. It is unhelpful to hold heterosexual parenthood as the standard (Kitzinger & Wilkinson, 2004). Instead, psychologists should try to understand how each unique LGBTQ couple organizes, perceives and con- structs their own definition of family (Kranz & Daniluk, 2006). Although researchers propose that care, commitment, devotion, love, and the ability to provide for and nurture a child determines parent competency, some critics of same-sex headed-households continue to believe that sexual orientation is crucial in parenting (Negy & McKinney, 2006). Not surprisingly, LGBTQ couples are often confronted with insecurities about their own legitimacy as parents. Resilient nonheterosexual families who dare to challenge sexual prejudice and heterosexism must learn how to effectively dispute negative self-talk that mitigates thriving. Seligman’s (2006) theory of learned optimism proposes that people can learn how to become optimistic if they dispute negative self-talk when faced with discrimination. Alternative self-talk should promote the idea that healthy relationships and effective parenting are not determined by sexual orientation, but are rather associated with homes where family members receive love, stability, safety, care, and respect. Examples of alternative self-talk that challenge mis- informed and oppressive social attitudes include, “Sexual stigma and prejudice are the problem, not our family” or “Bullying children for having LGBTQ parents is the problem, not our fam- ily.” Practitioners must challenge LGBTQ parents’ fears and anx- ieties by exploring what it is about each family member’s character strengths and about their relational strengths as a couple that are evidence of their competency and readiness for parenting and partnership.

Emphasizing Systemic Interactions as the Key to Overcoming Adversity

Researchers indicate that building supportive relationships in different contexts and with members of the straight and LGBTQ communities (e.g., neighborhoods and schools) helps nonhetero- sexual families adapt to significant crises in a society that privi- leges heterosexual couples. Thus, we propose that practitioners should explore the following relational interactions: (a) healthy interactions within nonheterosexual couples, (b) between parents and their children, (c) between LGBTQ families and their support networks (extended families or families of choice), (d) and be- tween LGBTQ families and the larger community. These interac- tions are highlighted with the understanding that when families

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

181LGBTQ RELATIONALLY BASED POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY

overcome adversity in a multisystemic fashion, opportunities are created where families can define what it means for them to be a family strengthened by resilience and other resources. Open com- munication about present or expected crisis situations facilitates authentic family relationships in an environment of mutual sup- port. Promoting a family’s resilient qualities should revolve around the following questions: “How do the members in your family draw strength from one another considering the barriers and ob- stacles encountered along the way?” and “What are the mecha- nisms that nonheterosexual headed households employ to provide emotional support to their children during times of stress?” Prac- titioners should consider talking to clients about the large number of “community resources, public programs, community institu- tions, as well as societal norms and values” that can help build resiliency (Connolly, 2006, p. 149). For example, one researcher has indicated that lesbian mothers who are active in the gay community, who enroll their children in schools with LGBTQ curricula and increase their children’s contact with children who have similar family stories, help protect their children against sexual prejudice and help strengthen their resilience (Bos, Gartrell, Peyser, & van Balen, 2008). Thus, practitioners should emphasize the importance of understanding social networks and intimate alliances as valuable resources that offer resilient families support in times of stress.

Helping LGBT Families Build on Positive Emotions

Fredrickson’s (2001) broaden-and-build positive psychology theory does not account for how LGBTQ families manage to move forward while simultaneously experiencing negative emotions within the discriminatory context in which they are situated. Al- though many LGBTQ families constantly experience negative emotions as a result of oppression, their families continue to display resilience by using their coping arsenals and adapting to new challenges. According to Walsh (1998), resilient families are able to weather troubled times because resilience is about being able to struggle well. She contends that regular interactions with environmental stressors could, in fact, create productive and pro- tective qualities for the family system and each of its members. According to researchers Kranz and Daniluk (2006), same-sex parents enter into parenthood only when they feel that their rela- tionships are financially and emotionally secure and when both partners feel fully committed to parenting because they are aware of the oppressive context. In other words, resilient LGBTQ fam- ilies who prepare for possible stressors to come by establishing concrete goals designed to help endure troubled times, may feel empowered to continue building on their previous successes. With the former in mind, our framework subscribes to Fredrickson’s proposition that positive emotions help generate new ideas and solutions that enlarge our thought-action repertoire. However, we suggest that although nonheterosexual families are frequently ex- posed to negative experiences created by forces outside of their control, instead of narrowing their focus on problems, family members find purpose in the positive meaning of their family interactions. We propose the idea that nonheterosexual families may simultaneously experience negative emotions related to the sociopolitical forces oppressing them and positive emotions re- lated to their systemic interactions. As Connolly (2006) best put it, nonheterosexual families create a “united front” and engage in

processes of mutuality that help them survive external stressors together (p. 151). Although it is important for practitioners to validate the struggles and stressors that nonheterosexual families are constantly battling, it is imperative that they explore the pur- pose and objective behind fighting the battle. We speculate that many nonheterosexual families choose to battle sexual prejudice and discrimination because they find positive meaning and pur- pose in their everyday interactions with family members.

A Shift From Deficit Based to Strengths Based

This framework embraces a strengths-based perspective that emphasizes exploring the resources that nonheterosexual families possess as opposed to what has been absent in their lives. For instance, helping family members shift their focus from antigay comments often found in the media, to focus on the loving state- ments friends and family members share with them about their family, may help empower families to develop positive emotion, strength and resiliency. To further their understandings of resil- ience within LGBTQ families, practitioners must tap into how same-sex couples manage to mobilize resources in response to risks or threats to selves or families. Encouraging the telling of parents’ “coming out” stories or narratives of triumph may help underline the strengths and resources available to family members. For example, Short (2007) found that lesbian mothers used several strategies and shared efforts to deal with homophobia themselves, including having a deep understanding of heterosexism, studying the literature on family studies, participating in the LGBTQ com- munity, and carefully selecting the schools their children attended. Because our framework acknowledges that realities are socially constructed, practitioners are encouraged to explore the unique resources that each family uses to remain resilient. Exploring how children manage to thrive, in spite of their experience of homopho- bic stigmatization in the form of sexual prejudice against their parents, is also important. Researchers have found that in response to oppression, gay and lesbian families develop flexibility in gender roles, an appreciation for diversity, a strong sense of self, empathy about what it is like to be in the minority group, and develop egalitarian relationships that lead to increased satisfaction in family life (Martin, 1993). With these factors in mind, asking questions that explore how couples are able to engage in creative, nurturing healthy family relationships, helps LGBTQ families become aware of the coping skills and unique strategies already being employed that help them live with pride.

Conclusion

There is a dearth of research addressing the care of LGBTQ populations in organized care settings. Hoping to find a culturally sensitive and strengths-based framework that would assist practi- tioners in their practice with LGBTQ families, we turned to vast resiliency literature including the theories recently proposed by positive psychologists. We reviewed resilience research on non- heterosexual families, and found it inchoate. Although positive psychologists have contributed to our understandings of how pos- itive emotions and flexible cognition enhance resiliency, their research has failed to help practitioners understand how nonhet- erosexual families manage to remain resilient in a society ruled by heterosexist principles. In other words, positive psychologists’

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

182 DOMÍNGUEZ, BOBELE, COPPOCK, AND PEÑA

research has not addressed the relational resources and interactions that help nonheterosexual families overcome adversity. We pro- pose that positive psychology currently does not have a compre- hensive resilience framework that addresses the unique experi- ences of LGBTQ families and the complexity of their psychological needs. Because such a framework has yet to be developed, we theorized the LGBTQ relationally based positive psychology framework. This framework is mindful of the heter- onormative context that often structures organized care settings and encourages practitioners in the public sector to have conver- sations with their LGBTQ clients that revolve around the strengths, resources, and capabilities of their family support system and their same-sex loving relationships.

We would encourage positive psychology researchers to direct their research efforts toward nonheterosexual family members. In particular, we think a focus on a systemic understanding of these families’ resilience will be particularly helpful. Our LGBTQ rela- tionally based positive psychology framework may be a starting point for this research. We think our framework may be uniquely suitable for nonheterosexual families because it considers how family members collaborate together to overcome the sociocultural and political factors that impact their family system. Our frame- work will be particularly helpful in the public health sector now that the Supreme Court’s repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (1996) has extended federal health care benefits to same-sex married couples, their children, and stepchildren. With an increase in the demand for public mental health services from nonhetero- sexual families, our framework may serve as a helpful resource to access.

References

Appleby, G. A., & Anastas, J. W. (1998). Not just a passing phase: Social work with gay, lesbian, and bisexual people. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Aspinwall, L. G., & Staudinger, U. M. (Eds.). (2003). A psychology of human strengths: Fundamental questions and future directions for a positive psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Associ- ation. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10566-000

Bonanno, G. A. (2008). Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 1, 101–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1942-9681.S.1.101

Bos, H. M., Gartrell, N. K., Peyser, H., & van Balen, F. (2008). The USA National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS): Homophobia, psychological adjustment, and protective factors. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 12, 455– 471. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10894160802278630

Butler, S. (2004). Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) elders: The challenges and resilience of this marginalized group. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 9, 25– 44. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1300/J137v09n04_02

Christopher, J. C. (2011). Situating positive psychology. In C. R. Snyder, S. Lopez, & J. Teramoto-Pedrotti (Eds.), Positive psychology: The scientific and practical explorations of human strengths (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Christopher, J. C., & Hickinbottom, S. (2008). Positive psychology, eth- nocentrism, and the disguised ideology of individualism. Theory & Psychology, 18, 563–589. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0959354308093396

Cohn, T. J., & Hastings, S. L. (2010). Resilience among rural lesbian youth. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 14, 71–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 10894160903060325

Connolly, C. (2006). A feminist perspective of resilience in lesbian cou- ples. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy: An International Forum, 18, 137–162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J086v18n01_06

Constantine, M. G., & Sue, D. W. (2006). Addressing racism: Facilitating cultural competence in mental health and educational settings. Hobo- ken, NJ: Wiley.

Cornum, R., Matthews, M. D., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Comprehen- sive soldier fitness: Building resilience in a challenging institutional context. American Psychologist, 66, 4 –9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ a0021420

Crisp, C. (2007). Correlates of homophobia and use of gay affirmative practice among social workers. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 14, 119 –143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J137v14n04_06

Crisp, C. (2006). The Gay Affirmative Practice Scale (GAP): A new measure for assessing cultural competence with gay and lesbian clients. Social Work, 51, 115–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sw/51.2.115

Davies, D., & Neal, C. (1996). Pink therapy: A guide for counsellors and therapists working with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.

Davies, D., & Neal, C. (2000). Therapeutic perspectives on working with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients. Buckingham, England: Open Univer- sity Press.

Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104 –199. de Jong, G., & Schout, G. (2011). Family group conferences in public

mental health care: An exploration of opportunities. International Jour- nal of Mental Health Nursing, 20, 63–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j .1447-0349.2010.00701.x

Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2008). Sexual orientation, homophobia, bullying, and psychological adjustment during adolescence. School Psy- chology Review, 37, 202–216.

Fredrickson, B. L. (2000). Cultivating positive emotions to optimize health and well-being. Prevention & Treatment, 3, 1–24. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/1522-3736.3.1.31a

Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Amer- ican Psychologist, 56, 218 –226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X .56.3.218

Garmezy, N., & Rutter, M. (1983). Stress, coping, and development in children. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Hammer, J. H., & Good, G. E. (2010). Positive psychology: An empirical examination of beneficial aspects of endorsement of masculine norms. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 11, 303–318. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/a0019056

Hellman, R. E., & Drescher, J. (2005). Handbook of LGBT issues in community mental health. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Medical Press.

Herek, G. M. (2009). Hate crimes and stigma-related experiences among sexual minority adults in the United States: Prevalence estimates from a national probability sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 54 – 74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260508316477

Herek, G. M. (2010). Sexual orientation differences as deficits: Science and stigma in the history of American psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 693– 699. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 1745691610388770

Hobfoll, S. E., Palmieri, P. A., Johnson, R. J., Canetti-Nisim, D., Hall, B. J., & Galea, S. (2009). Trajectories of resilience, resistance, and distress during ongoing terrorism: The case of Jews and Arabs in Israel. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 138 –148. http://dx .doi.org/10.1037/a0014360

Horne, S. G., Puckett, J. A., Apter, R., & Levitt, H. M. (2014). Positive psychology and LGBTQ populations. In J. Teramoto Pedrotti & L. M. Edwards (Eds.), Perspectives on the intersection of multiculturalism and positive psychology (pp. 189 –202). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Sprin- ger. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8654-6_13

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

183LGBTQ RELATIONALLY BASED POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY

Hunter, S., & Hickerson, J. (2003). Affirmative practice: Understanding and working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons. Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Hunter, S., Shannon, C., Knox, J., & Martin, J. I. (1998). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths and adults: Knowledge for human services practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Keyes, C. L. M., & Haidt, J. (Eds.). (2003). Flourishing: Positive psychol- ogy and the life well-lived. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10594-000

Kitzinger, C., & Wilkinson, S. (2004). Social advocacy for equal marriage: The politics of “rights” and the psychology of “mental health.” Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy (ASAP), 4, 173–194. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1530-2415.2004.00040.x

Kranz, K., & Daniluk, J. (2006). Living outside of the box: Lesbian couples with children conceived through the use of anonymous donor insemi- nation. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy: An International Forum, 18, 1–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J086v18n01_01

Liddle, B. J. (1997). Gay and lesbian clients’ selection of therapists and utilization of therapy. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 34, 11–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0087742

Lopez, S. J., Prosser, E. C., Edwards, L. M., Magyar-Moe, J., Neufeld, J., & Rasmussen, H. (2002). Putting positive psychology in a multicultural context. In C. R. Syner & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), The handbook of positive psychology (pp. 700 –714). New York, NY: Oxford Press.

Lopez, S. J., & Snyder, C. R. (2011). Oxford handbook of positive psy- chology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Luthar, S. S. (2006). Resilience in development: A synthesis of research across five decades. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmen- tal psychopathology: Vol. 3. Risk, disorder, and adaptation (2nd ed., pp. 739 –795). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Luthar, S. S., & Wong, M. M. (Eds.). (2003). Resilience and vulnera- bility: Adaptation in the context of childhood adversities. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511615788

Mak, W. W. S., Ng, I. S. W., & Wong, C. C. Y. (2011). Resilience: Enhancing well-being through the positive cognitive triad. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58, 610 – 617. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ a0025195

Martin, A. (1993). The lesbian and gay parenting handbook. New York, NY: Harper-Collins.

Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic. Resilience processes in develop- ment. American Psychologist, 56, 227–238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0003-066X.56.3.227

Masten, A. S., & Reed, M. G. J. (2002). Resilience in development. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 74 – 88). New York, NY: University Press.

Maylon, A. K. (1982). Psychotherapeutic implications of internalized homophobia in gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 7, 59 – 69. http://dx .doi.org/10.1300/J082v07n02_08

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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033- 2909.129.5.674

Neal, C., & Davies, D. (2000). Issues in therapy with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender clients. Buckingham, England: Open Univer- sity Press.

Negy, C., & McKinney, C. (2006). Application of feminist therapy: Pro- moting resiliency among lesbian and gay families. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 18, 67– 83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J086v18n01_03

Ong, A. D., Bergeman, C. S., Bisconti, T. L., & Wallace, K. A. (2006). Psychological resilience, positive emotions, and successful adaptation to stress in later life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 730 –749. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.730

Patterson, J. M. (2002). Understanding family resilience. Journal of Clin- ical Psychology, 58, 233–246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jclp.10019

Pedrotti, J. P., Edwards, L. M., & Lopez, S. J. (2009). Positive psychology within a cultural Context. In S. J. Lopez (Ed.), Handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed., pp. 49 –58). New York, NY: Oxford Press.

Pedrotti, J. T., & Edwards, L. M. (Eds.). (2014). Perspectives on the intersection of multiculturalism and positive psychology. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Positive Psychology Center. (2007). Learn about positive psychology. Retrieved from http://www.ppc.sas.upenn.edu/

Power, J. J., Perlesz, A., Schofield, M. J., Pitts, M. K., Brown, R., McNair, R.., & Bickerdike, A. (2010). Understanding resilience in same-sex parented families: The work, love, play study. Bio Med Central Public Health, 10, 115.

Quale, A. J., & Schanke, A. K. (2010). Resilience in the face of coping with a severe physical injury: A study of trajectories of adjustment in a rehabilitation setting. Rehabilitation Psychology, 55, 12–22. http://dx .doi.org/10.1037/a0018415

Reivich, K. J., Seligman, M. E. P., & McBride, S. (2011). Master resilience training in the U.S. Army. American Psychologist, 66, 25–34. http://dx .doi.org/10.1037/a0021897

Respect for Marriage Act, S. 1236, 113th Cong. (2013). Retrieved from https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s1236

Riggle, E. B., Whitman, J. S., Olson, A., Rostosky, S., & Strong, S. (2008). The positive aspects of being a lesbian or gay man. Professional Psy- chology: Research and Practice, 39, 210 –217. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0735-7028.39.2.210

Rostosky, S., Riggle, E. B., Pascale-Hague, D., & McCants, L. E. (2010). The positive aspects of a bisexual self-identification. Psychology and Sexuality, 1, 131–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2010.484595

Russell, G. M., & Richards, J. A. (2003). Stressor and resilience factors for lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals confronting antigay politics. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 313–328. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1023/A:1023919022811

Seligman, M. E. P. (2006). Learned optimism: How to change your mind and your life. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology. An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5–14. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5

Seligman, M. E. P., Reivich, K., Jaycox, L., & Gillham, J. (2007). The optimistic child: A proven program to safeguard children against de- pression and build lifelong resilience. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co.

Semp, D. (2011). Questioning heteronormativity: Using queer theory to inform research and practice within public mental health services. Psy- chology and Sexuality, 2, 69 – 86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19419899 .2011.536317

Sheldon, K. M., & King, L. (2001). Why positive psychology is necessary. American Psychologist, 56, 216 –217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003- 066X.56.3.216

Short, L. (2007). Lesbian mothers living well in the context of heterosex- ism and discrimination: Resources, strategies and legislative change. Feminism & Psychology, 17, 57–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0959353507072912

Smith, D. E. (1993). The standard North American family: SNAF as an ideological code. Journal of Family Issues, 14, 50 – 65. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/0192513X93014001005

Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (2007). Positive psychology: The scientific and practical explorations of human strengths. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

184 DOMÍNGUEZ, BOBELE, COPPOCK, AND PEÑA

Torres, R. S. (2011). In their own words: A qualitative analysis of rela- tional resilience in the lives of gay, bisexual, and questioning male youth. College of Liberal Arts & Social Sciences Theses and Disserta- tions. Paper 111. http://via.library.depaul.edu/etd/111

Tozer, E. E., & McClanahan, M. K. (1999). Treating the purple menace: Ethical considerations of conversion therapy and affirmative alterna- tives. The Counseling Psychologist, 27, 722–742. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/0011000099275006

Van, W. K. S., Wells, J., & Boes, M. (2000). Social work with lesbians, gays, and bisexuals: A strengths perspective. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Van Den Bergh, N., & Crisp, C. (2004). Defining culturally competent practice with sexual minorities: Implications for social work education and practice. Journal of Social Work Education, 40, 221–238.

Walsh, F. (1996). The concept of family resilience: Crisis and challenge. Family Process, 35, 261–281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300 .1996.00261.x

Walsh, F. (1998). Strengthening family resilience. New York, NY: Guil- ford Press.

Walsh, F. (2003). Family resilience: A framework for clinical practice. Family Process, 42, 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2003 .00001.x

Walsh, F. (2011). Normal family processes, Fourth edition: Growing diversity and complexity. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Warren, J., & Smalley, K. B. (Eds.). (2014). Rural public health: Best practices and preventive models. New York, NY: Springer.

White, B., Driver, S., & Warren, A. (2008). Considering resilience in the rehabilitation of people with traumatic disabilities. Rehabilitation Psy- chology, 53, 9 –17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0090-5550.53.1.9

Received January 24, 2013 Revision received December 11, 2014

Accepted December 18, 2014 �

Correction to Fox, Meyer, and Vogt (2015)

In the article “Attitudes About the VA Health-Care Setting, Mental Illness, and Mental Health Treatment and Their Relationship With VA Mental Health Service Use Among Female and Male OEF/OIF Veterans” by Annie B. Fox, Eric C. Meyer, and Dawne Vogt (Psychological Services, 2015, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 49 –58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038269), the institutional affiliation in the byline for Annie B. Fox and Dawne Vogt did not include the National Center for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. The online version of this article has been corrected.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ser0000036

185LGBTQ RELATIONALLY BASED POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY

Th is

d oc

um en

t is

c op

yr ig

ht ed

b y

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

o r

on e

of it

s al

lie d

pu bl

is he

rs .

Th is

a rt

ic le

is in

te nd

ed s

ol el

y fo

r th

e pe

rs on

al u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r

an d

is n

ot t

o be

d is

se m

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .