Week 7 Discussion

salel.rgpl3

Week7ArticlebyDamico.pdf

Home >Psychology homework help >Week 7 Discussion

Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Youths Coming Out to Their Parents: Parental Reactions

and Youths’ Outcomes

EMILIE D’AMICO, DANIELLE JULIEN, NICOLE TREMBLAY, and ELISE CHARTRAND

Department of Psychology, University of Quebec in Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

This study examines the contribution of parental reactions to their child’s identity development and psychological adjustment follow- ing their child’s coming out as gay, lesbian, or bisexual (GLB). Interviews on parental reactions were administered to 53 parents, and questionnaires on identity and adjustment were administered to their 53 GLB youths. Parental interviews were coded using 10 positive and negative dimensions of parental reactions. There were no gender differences in levels of positive and negative parental reactions and in levels of GLB youths’ outcomes. However, as ex- pected, parents’ support of their child’s sexual orientation, parents’ attempts to control their child’s sexual orientation, and parents’ struggles with their child’s sexual orientation were significantly associated with dimensions of youths’ identity and psychological adjustment. Parents’ gender also moderated the strength of the as- sociations between parental reactions and youths’ outcomes. This study is of clinical relevance for intervention regarding sexually diverse populations.

KEYWORDS sexual orientation, homosexuality, coming out, par- ents, youths

Emilie D’Amico is now at the Institut universitaire en santé mentale de Montréal. Nicole Tremblay is now at the Centre de recherche Fernand Séguin (SRFS). Elise Chartrand is now at the Institut national de santé publique du Québec (INSPQ).

Address correspondence to Danielle Julien, PhD, Département de psychologie, Université du Québec à Montréal, C. P. 8888, Succ. Centre-Ville, Montréal, P. Québec, Canada H3C 3P8. E-mail: [email protected]

411

412 E. D’Amico et al.

INTRODUCTION

This study examines the contribution of parental reactions to their child’s identity development and psychological adjustment following the youths’ coming out as gay, lesbian, or bisexual (GLB) to their parents. In recent years, many young men and women from diverse backgrounds identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual (GLB) at an earlier age, often in adolescence, than older cohorts of GLB people (e.g., Svab & Kuhar, 2014). Youths from younger cohorts often disclosed their identity (coming out) at a time when they still lived with their parents and were financially dependent on their parents (D’Amico, Julien, & Chartrand, 2008; D’Augelli, 2006; D’Augelli, Grossman, Starks, & Sinclair, 2010; Rosario, Schrimshaw, & Hunter, 2004; Savin-Williams & Ream, 2003). We know that most youths come out to a friend or other per- son close to them before coming out to their parents and family (e.g., Beals & Peplau, 2006; D’Augelli, Hershberger, & Pilkington, 1998). Motivations for coming out to parents vary from child to child and by ethno-cultural back- ground, and many youths long to be close to their families so that they can lead authentic lives (e.g., Savin-Williams, 2001; Svab & Kuhar, 2014). Yet, when youths disclose their sexual orientation to parents, they know they must deal with the immediate and long-term reactions of their parents. Man- aging the transition into the awareness of a sexual-minority status is stressful for youths because it may change the significant family relationships that structure their lives, in addition to their relationships with friends and other caring adults (e.g., Russell, 2003).

Our understanding of the family processes subsequent to youths’ com- ing out to parents is based on youths’ self-reports of perceived parental reactions. Parental reactions, as perceived by youths, may be biased by the context in which the youths’ perceptions were formed and by factors specific to the youths (e.g., expectations, depressive moods) (e.g., Heatherington & Lavner, 2008). It is known that common method variance may produce in- flated and even spurious correlations between variables (e.g., Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Conversely, studies of parental reac- tions that directly questioned the parents used either a sample of parents only (e.g., Grafsky, 2014; Robinson, Walters, & Skeen, 1989; Saltzburg, 2004) or groups of parents and groups of GLB youths who were not members of the same family (Ben-Ari, 1995; Boxer, Cook, & Herdt, 1991). Those studies did not address the associations between parental reactions to the youths’ outcomes. In this study, we sampled family units composed of one GLB youth and one of his or her parents, and we collected independent data from the youths and their parents. We were able to assess the contribution of parents’ reactions to GLB youths’ identity and well-being, controlling for the problems associated with shared method variance between the two sets of measures.

Coming Out: Parental Reactions and Youth Outcomes 413

Theoretical Background: Sexual Identity Development Model

According to Savin-Williams and Diamond (1999), sexual identity develop- ment is composed of two interrelated processes. In the first process, youths question internalized social norms and interpret the characteristics of expe- riences that are contrary to heterosexual norms. In a second process, youths disclose homosexual orientation or experiences to members of their social network. In return, the valence of the reactions might affect the youth’s sexual identity development and adjustment. Positive reactions from impor- tant people allow youths to put a name to and normalize what they are experiencing. In this respect, parents’ acceptance is a critical determinant for sexual-minority youths’ positive self-concept (e.g., Beaty, 1999; Savin- Williams, 2001; Svab & Kuhar, 2014). In contrast, negative reactions intensify the questioning and anxiety experienced by youths. Because of the unique nature of the relationship between a child and its family of origin, the ap- prehension about disclosure to parents may add to sexual-minority stress (Meyer, 2003) and have negative effects on the psychosocial adjustment of GLB youths (e.g., D’Augelli, 2002). It is, first and foremost, through the di- alectic relationship between questioning and disclosure to the social network that youths define and consolidate their sexual identity. Davies (1992, p. 75) says, “Coming out to others constantly redefines one’s notion of self, and the development of a self-identity drives the process of disclosure.” Yet, there are few studies of parental reactions to the coming out of their child, from the parental perspective, as well as on the associations between parental re- actions and GLB youths’ identity development and psychological adjustment.

Parental Reactions to a Child’s Coming Out

This study took place in Quebec where the society is characterised by a strong consensus regarding the civil rights of sexual minorities. In 2002, the Quebec Parliament unanimously passed the Family Law 84, which gave same-sex couples the right to a civil union and to adopt children. In 2006, the federal Parliament adopted a new definition of marriage including same-sex couples. This marked the end of all the legal inequalities against gays and lesbians in Canada. Yet, beyond legal equality, a report of the Quebec human rights commission documented considerable barriers to social equality for people from sexual minorities (Audet, 2007), notably the persistence of a strong negative climate regarding sexual diversity in the schools attended by Quebec adolescents (e.g., Chamberland, Richard, & Bernier, 2013). This report motivated the Quebec Parliament to adopt a Quebec policy and plan of action against homophobia (Ministère de la justice du Québec, 2011).

Therefore, in a cultural context where negative societal attitudes toward sexual minorities still persist (Herek, 2004) and where the psychological, social, and occupational success of young adults provides their parents with

414 E. D’Amico et al.

validation of their parenting skills (e.g., Fingerman, Cheng, Birditt, & Zarit, 2012), parents learning that their child belongs to a sexual minority may develop strong concerns about the safety of their child or may perceive their child’s nonheterosexual orientation as a failure in their parental role (e.g., Pallotta-Chiarolli, 2005a). Parents may still feel alienated from their child, and mourn the heterosexual expectations regarding their child forming a family (e.g., Saltzburg, 2004). Past studies (e.g., Robinson, et al., 1989) have suggested that parents work through a series of stages that are similar to those of mourning the death of close family members (Kübler-Ross, 1969), whereas other studies have suggested that parental reactions take a variety of alternative sequences in reactions (Ben-Ari, 1995; Robinson et al., 1989).

Studies on parents of GLB youths have shown that parental reactions cover a wide range from feelings of cognitive dissonance due to the conflict between, on the one hand, the negative views of homosexuality that they and members of their social network have and, on the other hand, the love that they have for their child (e.g., Conley, 2011). This cognitive-emotional dis- sonance causes many parents to disengage from routine parenting functions and to withdraw socially (e.g., Pallotta-Chiarolli, 2005b; Saltzburg, 2004). As a child comes out of the closet, parents have a tendency to “go into the closet” (e.g., Goldfried & Goldfried, 2001; Svab & Kuhar, 2014). They must adapt to a new identity, that of being a parent of a child who belongs to a stigmatized minority (e.g., Boxer et al., 1991; Grafsky, 2014; Saltzburg, 2004). Moreover, because a romantic relationship with people of the same sex often triggers coming out to family members, parents must assimilate their child’s sexual-minority identity as well as the child’s romantic relationships (e.g., D’Amico, Julien, Tremblay, & Chartrand, 2012). GLB youths’ commitments to stable romantic relationships force parents to confront their own coming out to members of their network during social gatherings, as well as potential rejection from loved ones.

Studies among GLB people or among parents of GLB people have shown that some parents initially experience negative emotions: pain, de- nial, guilt, shame, anger, and fear that their child might suffer from preju- dice associated with a sexual-minority status (e.g., Beeler & DiProva, 1999; Ben-Ari, 1995; Cramer & Roach, 1988; Pallotta-Chiarolli, 2005a,b; Robinson et al., 1989; Savin-Williams & Dubé, 1998). A population-based study of GLB young adults and their peers showed lower support among the GLB youths than their heterosexual peers (Needham & Austin, 2010). In some families, the disclosure exacerbates an already problematic parent-child relationship, but in others, the disclosure strengthens the relationship (Boxer et al., 1991; Savin-Williams & Ream, 2003). In many cases, initial negative reactions di- minish as parents slowly identify as parents of a GLB child and successfully integrate this new reality at the cognitive and social levels (e.g., D’Augelli, Hershberger, & Pilkington, 2001; Goodrich, 2009; Robinson et al., 1989). Thus, this study takes into account the amount of time that has passed since the youths came out to their parents.

Coming Out: Parental Reactions and Youth Outcomes 415

The Association Between Parental Reactions and GLB Youths’ Identity Development and Adjustment

Beyond the support provided by the peer group, parental support has been found to be strongly associated with GLB youths’ positive outcomes (e.g., D’Augelli, 2002). Among GLB adolescents, perceived parental attitudes toward homosexuality were found to account for significant variance in emotional adjustment (Darby-Mullins & Murdock, 2007). Youths’ perceived acceptance and support from parents have been associated with better self-acceptance/consolidation of their sexual identity (e.g., Bregman, Malik, Page, Makynen, & Lindahl, 2013; Elizur & Ziv, 2001; Floyd, Stein, Harter, Allison, & Nye, 1999), better mental health (e.g., D’Augelli, 2003; Floyd et al., 1999; Otis, Girard, Ryan, & Bourgon, 2002), higher self-esteem and general health status, as well as lower levels of depression, substance abuse, and sui- cidal thoughts and behaviors (e.g., Ryan, Russell, Huebner, Diaz, & Sanchez, 2010). Among GLB adults, fathers’ support of sexual orientation has been associated with public outness and self-acceptance (Mohr & Fassinger, 2003).

Conversely, GLB youths’ perceived negative parental reactions have been associated with increased psychological symptoms, depression, sui- cide attempts, illegal drug use, and sexual risk behaviors (D’Augelli, 2002; D’Augelli et al., 2001; Floyd et al., 1999; Ryan, Huebner, Diaz, & Sanchez, 2009; Willoughby, Doty, & Malik, 2010). All of the previous studies failed to include sexual-minority offspring and parents from the same family unit. In our study, we examined the quantitative associations between, on the one side, parents’ measures of their reactions to their child coming out and, on the other side, their GLB child’s measures of sexual identity and psychologi- cal adjustment. We expected that higher levels of parental positive reactions would be associated with higher levels of youths’ positive outcomes, and that higher levels of parental negative reactions would be associated with higher levels of youths’ negative outcomes.

Gender Differences

As a reflection of the larger proportion of youths in the general population who report having an excellent or very good relationship with their mother, we know that GLB youths reported a greater investment in the maternal than in the paternal relationship and greater disclosure of sexual orientation to the mothers before the fathers (e.g., Savin-Williams & Ream, 2003). This raises the issues of gender differences among GLB youths as the object of parents’ reactions, as well as gender differences between parents in their reactions to the youths. Regarding baseline differences, parents have been found to report higher levels of concerns for the well-being of a gay son than a lesbian daughter (Conley, 2011), and lower levels of acceptance of a homosexual daughter than a gay son (Ben-Ari, 1995). Yet, none of the other studies found differences in parental reactions as a function of their child’s

416 E. D’Amico et al.

gender. As for parents’ gender, mothers have been found to express greater concerns than fathers for a GLB child’s physical and psychological well- being (Conley, 2011), and higher levels of acceptance and support following disclosure (e.g., Ben-Ari, 1995; D’Augelli, 2002; D’Augelli et al., 1998).

Regarding the impact of parental reactions based on youths’ reports, no study reported that the impact of parents’ reactions on youths’ outcomes was stronger for either male or female youths. Yet, there is strong empirical evidence that mothers’ reactions compared to fathers’ reactions are more strongly associated with youths’ affirmation of sexual identity and youths’ psychological well-being (e.g., D’Augelli, 2003; Elizur & Ziv, 2001; Floyd et al., 1999). This study examined these associations using distinct reports by youths and their parents. Based on the previous findings, we did not expect that parental reactions would impact gay youths and lesbian youths differently. However, we expected higher levels of reactions among mothers than among fathers, and we predicted that mothers’ reactions, compared to fathers’ reactions, would be more strongly associated with the GLB youths’ outcomes.

Besides the absence of studies sampling family units, past research has some methodological limitations that we tried to address in our study. Most research included only one question on the valence of parental reactions using a Likert-type scale ranging from “very negative/does not provide any support” to “very positive/very supportive” (e.g., D’Augelli, 2002; Floyd et al., 1999). Results on the reactions’ valence raise the issue of specific forms of parental reactions. Willoughby, Malik, and Lindahl (2006) created a scale of 32 statements tapping into 8 theoretical dimensions of parental reactions. The scale showed good construct validity, yet these theoretical dimensions were not empirically rooted (content validity) (Carmines & Zeller, 1979). In this study, we coded the parental interview content using dimensional measures of parental reactions that were extracted from the content analysis of semi-structured interviews with parents of GLB youths (D’Amico et al., 2012).

METHOD

Participants

Participants were 53 parent-GLB child dyads: 13 mother-son dyads, 14 mother-daughter dyads, 11 father-son dyads, and 15 father-daughter dyads. All the dyads were from distinct families. Participants were French-speaking from the province of Quebec. We first recruited 165 youths through GLB sup- port organizations (30%), newspapers (19%), or by the “snowball” method (51%) to participate in a larger study on sexual identity. The questionnaires and consent forms were given directly to the GLB youths by facilitators from support organizations or were mailed out. Questionnaire completion took

Coming Out: Parental Reactions and Youth Outcomes 417

less than 30 minutes. Then, the youths in the larger study were asked to give one of their parents a letter inviting them to participate in a one-on-one interview. Parents and youths decided together, depending on their pref- erences and availability, which parent would participate. For nine families, both parents participated, and we randomly selected either the mother’s or the father’s interview for analysis. Only the data with the 53 dyads are in- cluded in this study. The 53 youths who participated in the second phase of the study were similar to the youths of the larger study on sociodemographic variables.

The 53 youths self-identified as GLB individuals or had engaged in same- sex sexual behaviors. They were between 15 and 25 years of age (M = 20.29, SD = 2.81). Youths’ age was not significantly associated with key variables in this study, so we did not control for age in our analyses. They identified primarily as Caucasian, with 12% of them specifying other ethnic background (e.g., Asian-Canadian, Latino, African-Canadian). Half were students (53%), 24% held a full-time job, and 10% held a part-time job. Annual income, in Canadian dollars, was less than $10,000 (56%), $10,000 to $20,000 (30%), or more than $20,000 (14%). They lived in a large city (53%), in the suburbs (28%), and in a small city/town (19%). Most lived with their parents (43%), with a roommate (27%), or with their romantic partner (13%). Half (47%) had a stable romantic partner and the average duration of the relationship was 14 months (SD = 12.05). The majority of the youths defined themselves as homosexual/gay/lesbian (77%), bisexual (17%), or not knowing how to identify themselves (6%). They had disclosed their sexual orientation to at least one of their parents within the past year (19%), 1 to 3 years ago (43%), or more than 3 years ago (33%). There were no significant gender differences on the sociodemographic variables.

Participating parents were between the ages of 40 and 67 years (M = 50.10, SD = 5.45) and 92% were Caucasian. Most were married/in a common-law marriage (60%) or separated (31%). Most of them (62%) com- pleted college education and 65% were employed full-time. Family income was less than $20,000 (15%), $20,000 to $39,000 (26%), $40,000 to $59,000 (15%), and more than $60,000 (44%). They lived in a large city (31%), in the suburbs (48%), or in a small city/town (21%). There were no significant gender differences for these variables, except marital status: more fathers were married or in a common-law marriage, χ2(1) = 15.25, p = .01.

Parents’ Reactions Measures

INTERVIEW WITH PARENTS

Two self-identified heterosexual female psychologists and a gay male social worker, all professionally trained in the realities of sexual minorities, admin- istered the parental interviews. The interview protocol was developed on the

418 E. D’Amico et al.

basis of a review of the literature on sexual-minority youths, coming out, and family relationships. Using open-ended questions, the interview covered 20 themes and subthemes: predisclosure contextual elements, perceived marital and family effects following the coming-out, perceived effects on relation- ships within the social network, perceived long-term impact of coming out on the youths’ identity and well-being, etc. The interviews were conducted in a one-on-one format at home or in our laboratory and audio-taped. The 53 interviews lasted an average of 80.10 minutes (SD = 22.57). There were no gender differences for the length of the interviews. This study used only the portions of the interview that concerned parental reactions to coming out, which was the largest part of the interview. Given that the interview process was often iterative, the actual duration of the parts that were analyzed is difficult to assess across interviews.

CODING THE INTERVIEW CONTENT OF PARENTAL REACTIONS

To enable the coding of the 53 parents’ interviews, we developed the Parental Reactions Coding System (PRCS). We started with the 10 dimensions of parental reactions that were found in D’Amico and colleagues’ (2012) qual- itative study on parental reactions to learning their child is GLB. Figure 1 shows the list of these dimensions, their definition, and examples of parents’ statements for each of them.

The parents’ interviews in D’Amico and colleagues’ (2012) study were used by two raters (one self-identified bisexual female graduate student and one self-identified heterosexual female graduate student) to establish the anchor points of a rating scale for each of the 10 dimensions, using a 6- point Likert-type scale ranging from low presence of the dimension (1–2) to medium presence (3–4) to strong presence (5–6) of the dimension within a given interview. As suggested by Cairns and Green (1979), the assignment of scores on the scale took into account the quality, intensity (e.g., affect), and frequency of statements that defined each dimension. When a dimension did not show sufficient variability, it was dichotomized using absence/presence of statements.

For the current sample of interviews in this study, two new raters (self- identified heterosexual female graduate students) received a 30-hour training period with the PRCS based on the 12 interviews in D’Amico and colleagues’ 2012 study. Then, the two raters coded the 53 parents’ interviews using the following procedure: the coder listened to a parent’s interview a first time to gain an overall impression of the interview and to identify temporal locations for pertinent moments. The coder then listened to the interview again, made notes on the statements and affects that corresponded to each dimension in order to support the choice of score, and assigned a score to each of the 10 dimensions. Approximately five to six hours were necessary to code one interview. Blind inter-coder agreements were calculated on 25%

Coming Out: Parental Reactions and Youth Outcomes 419

FIGURE 1 Dimensions of parental reactions to GLB child coming out, description, and spe- cific interview content examples (D’Amico et al., 2012).

420 E. D’Amico et al.

of the interviews using intraclass correlations (Bartko, 1966) for the contin- uous dimensions, and Cohen’s kappa (Landis & Koch, 1977) for dimensions that were dichotomized. Support for the romantic relationship was excluded from subsequent analyses due to low levels of inter-coder agreement. For the other dimensions, intraclass correlations and Cohen’s kappas for the specific dimensions varied from .55 to .96 and from .65 to 1, respectively, for the continuous and dichotomized dimensions. The overall continuous dimen- sions and overall dichotomous dimensions yielded an intraclass correlation of .79 and a kappa of .89, respectively. An intraclass correlation coefficient is considered weak if it is less than .40; acceptable if it falls between .40 and .59; good if it falls between .60 and .75; and excellent if it is greater than .75 (Garb, 1998). A kappa value is acceptable if it lies between .40 and .60; good if it falls between .60 and .80; and excellent if greater than .80 (Landis & Koch, 1977).

Youths’ Outcomes Measures

FEAR OF DISCLOSURE OF ONE’S SEXUAL ORIENTATION

This measure (Otis, Ryan, Chouinard, & Fournier, 2001; Otis et al., 2002) was developed in French and validated using a sample of 258 French-speaking youths from the province of Quebec. The scale includes 13 items that focus on difficulties associated with expressing one’s sexual orientation to other people, such as, “I’m afraid of being discovered” or “I am comfortable being seen in public with a person who identifies as gay or bisexual.” Responses were indicated using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The authors reported excellent internal consistency (α = .87) (Otis et al., 2002). Cronbach’s alpha for the current study was also .87.

NEGATIVE ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALITY

We used the French version of the Leitner and Cado (1982) measure of atti- tudes toward homosexuality, which was translated and validated by Otis and colleagues (2001) with a sample of Quebec youths. The scale includes seven items that focus on negative attitudes toward homosexuality, such as “Gay men and lesbian women think only about sex.” Responses were indicated using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The French validation study of the scale showed satisfactory internal consistency (α = .77) (Otis et al., 2001). In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha was .73.

PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS

This construct was measured by the Psychological Distress Index of the 1998 Quebec Health Survey (IDPSQ-14; Daveluy et al., 2000), adapted from the

Coming Out: Parental Reactions and Youth Outcomes 421

Psychiatric Symptom Index (Ilfeld, 1976). Youths reported the frequency of symptoms associated with depressive states, anxiety states, cognitive disorders, and irritability in the past month using a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 4 (very often). We used the mean of the 14 items. The French version showed good construct validity, factorial stability, and internal consistency (α = .89) (Préville, Potvin, & Boyer, 1995). The psy- chometric properties and the factor structure of the French version have also been documented in a sample of Quebec adolescents between 12 and 18 years of age and were excellent (Deschesnes, 1998). In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha was .93.

SUICIDAL IDEATION

The measure of suicidal ideation comes from the 1998 Quebec Social and Health Survey questionnaire (Daveluy et al., 2000). The measure corresponds to whether or not a person has seriously considered suicide during the past 12 months.

RESULTS

Data Reduction

PARENTS’ REACTIONS

In order to know whether core parental dimensions emerged from the inter- view coding data sets, a principal components analysis with varimax rotation was conducted on the parental reaction coding scores using the coding of the 53 parental interviews. Table 1 presents the findings. The analysis yielded a three-factor solution whose saturation coefficients on the dimensions were greater than .50 and accounted for 60% of the variance. The dimension Steps for getting help did not load on any of the three factors and was therefore treated separately. The three factors, or core dimensions, were respectively named Parental Support, Parental Struggles, and Parental Attempts to Change Their Child’s Sexual Orientation. The means and the standard deviations of the parents’ scores for each of the three core-dimensions factors are pre- sented in Table 1. The means of the previously standardized scores of the dimensions contributing to the factor were used in subsequent analyses.

YOUTHS’ OUTCOMES

Logarithmic transformations were performed on the youths’ Fears of disclo- sure of one’s sexual orientation and Negative attitudes about homosexual- ity because of skewed distributions (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations among the youths’ outcomes.

422 E. D’Amico et al.

TABLE 1 Factor Loadings for Exploratory Factor Analysis with Varimax Rotation of Parental Reaction Dimensions

Factor Parental Support Parental Struggles Parental Attempt to Change SO

Indirect support .86 −.06 −.10 Social unease −.72 .25 −.04 Family support .72 −.08 .14 Direct support for

the child .68 .25 −.39

Parental distress −.09 .88 .00 Restructuring and

progress −.07 .68 .16

Acceptance issues −.10 .68 .40 Denial about SO

stability .00 .14 .77

Attempts to change SO

−.03 .27 .74

Steps for getting help

.02 .30 −.14

Eigenvalue 2.74 2.03 1.41 Variance explained 27.42% 18.82% 14.17% M (SD)

Fathers (N = 26) −.09 (.68) .11 (.73) −.09 (.78) Mothers (N = 27) .09 (.82) −.11 (.88) .09 (.94)

Notes. SO = sexual orientation. Factor loadings larger than .50 are in boldface. The dimensions were reordered based on their factor contribution.

FINDINGS

Baseline Gender Differences

In order to examine gender differences in parental reactions, we conducted univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) on each of the three parental

TABLE 2 Means (or Percentages), Standard Deviations, and Pearson’s Correlations for the GLB Youths’ Outcomes Measures

Variables Males (N = 24) Females (N = 29) 2 3 4 Identity development

1. Fear of disclosure of one’s sexual orientation

.42 (.09) .45 (.10) .33∗ −.06 .24

2. Negative attitudes toward homosexuality

.16 (.08) .12 (.09) — .15 .00

Psychological adjustment 3. Suicidal ideation 25.0% 24.1% — .13 4. Psychological

distress 1.07 (.64) 1.34 (.73) —

∗p < .05.

Coming Out: Parental Reactions and Youth Outcomes 423

reaction factors using a 2 parents (father or mother) × 2 children (male or female) factorial design. The ANOVAs showed no significant main effects for parents’ or children’s gender, and no interaction effects of parents’ and children’s gender on levels of the parental reactions. Differences between GLB sons’ and daughters’ levels of outcome variables were assessed using t-tests on the youths’ continuous variables and a chi-square test on the youths’ suicidal ideation categorical variable. There were no significant gender dif- ferences on the outcomes. The means and standard deviations of the parents’ and youths’ variables are presented in Table 1 and 2, respectively.

Analytical Strategy for the Associations Between Parents’ Reactions and Youths’ Outcomes

First, we examined the bivariate associations between the parental reactions as predictors and the youths’ outcome variables. Given the potential of par- ents’ and youths’ gender to moderate the associations between reactions and outcomes, we also examined the bivariate associations between the inter- action terms parental reactions by gender and outcomes, both for parents’ gender and for youths’ gender. In order to assess the variance in youths’ out- comes accounted for by parental reactions, we used hierarchical regression models, one for each of the four youths’ outcome variables. This decision was based on the fact that the youths’ variables were poorly correlated, sug- gesting independence between the outcome variables. Elizur and Mintzer (2001) used a similar rationale for conducting independent analyses on out- comes variables that were poorly associated. In order to reduce type 1 error, the first step of the regression for any given outcome controlled for any of the three other outcomes that were significantly correlated with that outcome. The second step entered the parental predictors that were significantly cor- related with the outcomes. Then, the final steps entered the interaction terms (Parents’ reaction × Parents’ sex) that were significantly correlated with the youths’ outcomes, after controlling for parental reactions and parents’ sex. As expected, the partial correlations between Parent’s reactions × Youths’ gender and Youths’ outcomes varied between –.18 and .12 and they were not significant. In order to test our prediction that parents’ gender would moderate the associations between parental reactions and youths’ outcomes, only the significant interactions Parents’ reactions × Parents’ gender were used in the final steps. Given the small sample size, when more than one interaction term was significantly associated with a youth’s outcome, each significant interaction term in the final steps was entered individually, remov- ing the previous interaction term before entering the next. Table 3 presents the correlations between the parental reactions and youths’ outcomes, and the partial correlations between the interactions terms and youths’ outcomes.

424 E. D’Amico et al.

TABLE 3 Pearson’s Correlations Between Parental Reactions and GLB Youths’ Outcomes by Gender of Parents and Gender of Youths

Youths’ Outcomes

Parents’ Reactions Fear of Disclosure of

One’s Sexual Orientation

Negative Attitudes Toward

Homosexuality Psychological

Distress Suicidal Ideation

Support −.27∗ −.01 .12 −.27∗ Attempts to

change SO .16 .17 .29∗ .02

Struggles .18 .40∗∗ .19 .16 Parents’ reactions

× Parents’ gendera

Support x Parents’ gender

−.22 .00 −.09 −.21

Attempts x Parents’ gender

−.12 .08 −.16 −.31∗

Struggles x Parents’ gender

.11 −.15 .33∗ −.24†

Note. SO = sexual orientation aPartial correlations after controlling for main effects of parent’s reaction and parents’ gender. †p = .09. ∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01.

Regression Findings

Table 4 shows a summary of the final regressions assessing the contribution of parental reactions to youths’ fear of disclosure, negative attitude toward homosexuality, psychological distress, and suicidal ideation.

PREDICTING YOUTHS’ FEAR OF DISCLOSURE

In the regression for fear of disclosure, the first step entered the attitudes toward homosexuality as a control variable. The R2 was significant, F(1, 51) = 6.23, p = .02, and attitudes accounted for 10.89% of the variance of youths’ fear of disclosure. In the second step, entering parental support yielded a significant change in R2, F(1, 50) = 4.27, p = .04. Parents’ support accounted for 7.02% of unique variance in youths’ fear of disclosure. As predicted, the higher the fathers’ and the mothers’ support was, the lower the youths’ fear of disclosure was. The adjusted R2 for the whole model was .15.

PREDICTING YOUTHS’ NEGATIVE ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALITY

In the regression for youths’ negative attitudes toward homosexuality, step 1 controlled for fear of disclosure, F(1, 51) = 6.23, p = .02. In the second step, we entered parental struggles. Change in R2 was significant, F(1, 50) = 7.78, p = .01. As expected, higher levels of fathers’ and mothers’ struggles in

Coming Out: Parental Reactions and Youth Outcomes 425

TABLE 4 Hierarchical Regression Analyses Summary for Parental Reactions Predicting GLB Youths’ Outcomes (N = 53) Youths’ Outcomes, Steps, and Parental Predictors R2 �R2a Sr2 β

Fear of disclosure of one’s sexual orientation Step 1. Negative attitudes toward SO

.11 .11∗ .11 .33∗

Step 2.Parents’ support .18 .07∗ .07 −.27∗ Negative attitudes toward

homosexuality Step 1. Fear of disclosure .11 .11∗ .11 .33∗

Step 2. Parents’ struggles .23 .12∗∗ .12 .35∗∗

Psychological distress Step 1. Parents’ attempts to change youths’ SO

.08 .08∗ .08 .29∗

Step 2. Parents’ struggles x Parents’ sex

.16 .07† .07 .28†

Suicidal ideation Step 1. Parents’ support .07 .07† .07 .27†

Step 2.aParents’ attempts to change SO x Parents’ sex

.14 .06† .06 −.27†

Step 2bParents’ struggles x Parents’ sex

.16 .07† .07 −.27†

Note. SO = sexual orientation a,bGiven the small sample size, each interaction term in the second step was entered individually, removing the previous interaction term before entering the next. †p = .05. ∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01.

dealing with youths’ sexual orientation were associated with higher levels of youths’ negative attitudes toward homosexuality. Parental struggles ac- counted for 12% of unique variance in youths’ negative attitudes toward homosexuality and the adjusted R2 for the model was .20.

PREDICTING YOUTHS’ PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS

In the regression model for youths’ psychological distress, we first entered parents’ attempts to change their child’s sexual orientation. Change in R2 was significant, F(1, 50) = 4.40, p = .04, and the variable accounted for 8.12% of unique variance in youths’ psychological distress. As expected, the more the fathers and the mothers wanted to control their child’s sexual orientation, the higher was the youths’ level of psychological distress. After controlling for main effects of parents’ sex and parents’ struggles on youths’ distress, we tested the moderating effect of parents’ sex on the association between parents’ struggles and youths’ distress. R2 was marginally significant, F(1, 47) = 3.85, p = .05. The effect accounted for 7% of unique variance in youths’ psychological distress. As expected, the higher were the levels of mothers’

426 E. D’Amico et al.

struggles with their child’s sexual orientation, the higher was their child’s psychological distress (r = .49, p = .01), whereas the association for fathers’ support was smaller and not significant (r = .17, p = .21). The adjusted R2 for the whole model was .09.

PREDICTING YOUTHS’ SUICIDAL IDEATION

In the model predicting youths’ suicidal ideation, we first entered parents’ support. Change in R2 was marginally significant, F(1, 51) = 3.88, p = .05. As expected, youths’ with high support from fathers and mothers were less likely to report suicidal ideations than youths with low parental support. In the following steps, we tested the moderation effect of parents’ gender on the association between parents’ attempts to change their child’s sex- ual orientation and youths’ suicidal ideation. Change in R2 was marginally significant, F(1, 48) = 3.65 p = .06, and the variable accounted for 6% of unique variance of youths’ suicidal ideation. The examination of the parents’ scores among the suicidal and non-suicidal youths showed that the fathers of suicidal youths were more likely to try to exert some level of control over their child’s sexual orientation than the mothers of suicidal youths (59% and 17%, respectively), whereas the fathers of non-suicidal youths were less likely to exert some control than the mothers of non-suicidal youths (32% versus 47%). The adjusted R2 for the whole model was .07.

Again in the second step for predicting youths’ suicidal ideation, we tested the moderation effect of parents’ gender on the association between parents’ struggles and youths’ suicidal ideations. Change in R2 was marginally significant, F(1, 48) = 3.89, p = .05, and the variable explained 7% of unique variance of youths’ suicidal ideation. The higher were the levels of fathers’ struggles with their child’s sexual orientation, the more likely their child had suicidal ideations (r = .42, p = .04), whereas the association for mothers’ struggles was smaller and not significant (r = –.04, p = .55). The adjusted R2 for the whole model was .09.

Timing of Coming Out, Parents’ Reactions, and Youths’ Outcomes

We ran correlations among the following variables: time that elapsed since coming out to parents, the parental reactions, and the youths’ outcomes. All the correlations proved non-significant. However, the Time elapsed mod- erated the association between parents’ Support given to the child and the youths’ Negative attitudes toward homosexuality: the Time elapsed x Sup- port interaction contributed significantly to the variance of youths’ negative attitudes, F(1, 49) = 4.63, p = .04. For youths who came out within the past three years, parents’ Support given to the child was not significantly asso- ciated with the child’s Negative attitudes toward homosexuality (r = –.21,

Coming Out: Parental Reactions and Youth Outcomes 427

p = .22), whereas for youths who came out beyond this period, parents’ Support given to the child was significantly positively associated with youths’ Negative attitudes toward homosexuality (r = .43, p = .04).

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, this study was the first to use the parent-child unit in order to link parental reactions to their GLB child’s coming out and the children’s sexual identity and psychological outcomes. Regarding youths’ identity and adaptation, we found that, regardless of parents’ gender, youths with supportive parents were more likely to be confident in disclosing their sexual orientation and less likely to develop suicidal thoughts. Conversely, the more the parents had difficulties with their child’s sexual orientation, at least at the time of the interview, the more the youth expressed negative attitudes toward GLB people. The struggles expressed by the parents were echoed by the child who internalized prejudice toward same-sex attraction or relationships. As said, the valence of the parental reactions to coming out might affect youths’ sexual identity development and emotional adjust- ment (Savin-Williams & Diamond, 1999). Savin-Williams (1998) found that young gay males’ disclosure of sexual orientation to their social network enabled these men to integrate a positive image of their sexuality, whereas negative reactions by social networks intensified the questioning and anxiety experienced by youths. Yet, our study suggests that parents’ struggles with their child’s sexual orientation exacerbate the child’s difficulties in moving away from internalized homophobia. It is also possible that a child’s negative perception of his or her own sexuality increases the parents’ struggles with their child’s sexuality. Future studies should examine the causal processes linking family and GLB youths in the maintenance of negative or positive at- titudes toward homosexuality. For instance, given that parental support and parental struggles were two orthogonal dimensions, suggesting they were taking place together in the parents’ emotional realm, it would be impor- tant to examine how in some families parents succeed in keeping their GLB child unaware of their difficulties and manage these difficulties with outside support in order to keep their full parental focus, whereas in other families, parents keep their child informed of their difficulties, therefore eliciting in their child the feeling he has to parent his own parents.

Gender Differences

Consistent with most studies on parents of GLB children (e.g., Robinson et al., 1989; Saltzburg, 2004), parental reactions did not differ by the parents’ gender or the youths’ gender. That means the fathers and mothers expressed

428 E. D’Amico et al.

similar degrees of support, similar degrees of attempts to control their child’s sexual orientation, and similar amounts of difficulties after their child’s com- ing out. It seems that the high prevalence of heterosexism in the general population, particularly among the heterosexual males (e.g., Herek, 2002), did not affect the fathers’ reactions differently from the mothers’ reactions to youths’ coming out. As many parents in this study reported that their very first reaction to their child’ coming out was to remember all the times in the past they had displayed homophobic attitudes in front of their child (e.g., jokes and other negative comments), it is likely that the heterosexist attitudes of a parent take another level when directed toward a loved child than toward a group or an unknown person.

Yet, gender differences emerged when we examined the impact of fa- thers and mothers’ reactions on their GLB child. In mother-child dyads, mothers’ struggles with the sexual orientation of their child were linked to the child’s psychological distress, whereas fathers’ distress did not affect the child’s outcome. These findings are consistent with those of earlier studies (e.g., D’Augelli, 2002; Floyd et al., 1999). Conversely, fathers’ struggles and fathers’ attempts to change their child’s sexual orientation were more likely to incite suicidal thoughts in the youths than mothers’ struggles and attempts to control. This is consistent with D’Augelli and colleagues’ (2001) findings that youths with fathers who were intolerant of their child’s atypical gender behavior were twice as likely to have attempted suicide, whereas the associ- ation was not significant for the mothers. Also, past research on adolescents in the general population has shown that parents with high levels of control were associated with youths’ suicidal ideation (e.g., Baiocco, Ioverno, Loni- gro, Baumgartner, & Laghi, 2014; Fotti, Katz, Afifi, & Cox, 2006). Our results on GLB youths are in line with these findings.

Given that GLB youths generally report being less close to their fathers than their mothers (e.g., Savin-Williams & Ream, 2003), maybe similar re- actions by parents, in terms of struggles and denial, could be interpreted differently by youths. Fathers’ and mothers’ respective ways to express their reactions may also account for their different impact on the child. For in- stance, using the sexuality-gender paradigm as the focus of current social construction of homosexuality, Herek (2002) suggested that “cultural norms of masculinity continually require heterosexual men to prove that are not homosexual” (p. 59) in order to keep the advantaged status of being male. In that respect, fathers having a homosexual child may develop doubts about their own sexuality, and their negative attitudes toward their child may re- flect their anxiety of being themselves perceived as homosexual. In such a context, we can expect that GLB youths experience particularly strong guilt and unbearable burden because they have not only to deal with their own identity but also to secure their own father’s identity. Conversely, be- cause homosexuality does not threaten privileged status among heterosexual women, heterosexual mothers’ negative attitudes might rather reflect feelings

Coming Out: Parental Reactions and Youth Outcomes 429

of threat for valued traditional family norms. Assuming there are gender dif- ferences in the nature of parental struggles, we can understand that if moth- ers’ struggles can weaken youths’ psychological well-being, fathers’ struggles can elicit stronger negative feelings, a sense of powerlessness, and suicidal ideation.

In order to better understand the different impacts of mothers’ and fathers’ reactions on their child, we need to re-examine the qualitative ele- ments of the parents’ interviews and identify specific ways in which parents’ reactions are expressed in fathers’ discourse compared to the mothers’ dis- course. Qualitative analyses of the youths’ interviews would considerably help to shed light on the youths’ perception of their fathers’ and mothers’ struggles. It would also be important for future studies to include parents’ measure for gender and sexual orientation attitudes (e.g., Conley, 2011). Finally, future studies should not only broaden the scope of variables to in- clude health risk factors in GLB youths but also take into account the quality of the parent-child relationship pre-existent to coming out (D’Amico, Julien, & Chartrand, 2012; Willoughby et al., 2006).

Our findings about gender differences should be interpreted with cau- tion because, in our study, the paternal and maternal data did not come from the same family unit. We could not compare maternal and paternal reactions for each youth, nor could we disentangle differences between mothers and fathers from differences that could have emerged from characteristics of fam- ilies in which the mothers participated compared to families in which the fathers participated. Listening to the separate interviews of the members of two families, for which we had the father, the mother, and the son, sug- gested that co-parental collaboration in processing the coming out event facilitates parents’ capacity to support their child, whereas parents’ conjugal conflicts lessen parents’ ability to meet the needs of their adolescent child. Future studies need to examine gender effects in the context of the triadic relationship (mother, father, and child), and the role of the parents’ marital dynamic in GLB youths’ adjustment.

For the youths who came out more than three years prior to the parental interview, parental support was associated with increased negative attitudes toward homosexuality, whereas for the youths who came out within the past three years, there was no association. It may be that the subgroup of youths who came out a long time before and who currently maintain negative attitudes regarding homosexuality elicit particularly strong concerns in their parents, especially among the subgroup of parents who accepted to par- ticipate in the study. Furthermore, the method of parents’ recruitment may have affected the variability of parental responses because the parents who participated in the study were those who, despite the difficulties reported, supported their child. Because coming out creates cognitive and emotional turmoil in many parents, leading to a period of social withdrawal for many of them (Saltzburg, 2004), parents who were most affected might have

430 E. D’Amico et al.

refused to share their experience, but the failure of some of them in seeing improvement in their child’s difficulties may have motivated their par- ticipation. This finding needs to be replicated before considering further implications.

Overall, our study has enabled us to identify the associations between parental reactions to a child coming out and the identity development and psychological adjustment of GLB youths. As a result, health care profession- als can provide more targeted interventions as well as services adapted to parents of GLB youths. These interventions could, among other things, fo- cus on restructuring parental expectations with regard to the new reality in order to come to terms with acceptance difficulties, and to reduce the desire to change their GLB child’s sexual orientation. Professionals could facilitate parents maintaining their parental role, as sexual-minority youths need their parents for optimal resolution of their developmental tasks. Parents of both sexes should be included in interventions as it seems that their reactions are linked to different components of their GLB child’s well-being. Because some GLB youths are at risk of being ejected from the house, being phys- ically harmed, losing financial support, or being isolated (Savin-Williams, 2001), professionals should help youths who have not yet come out to carefully assess the family history before a decision is made. Youths could also be helped to find sources of social and emotional support outside the family.

This study has limitations. First, regarding the sample’s small size, using a larger sample of parental interviews and parent-GLB youth dyads should enable the extraction of a more solid core factorial structure of parental re- actions. There is often a trade-off between, on the one hand, the use of a rich but time-consuming method of data collection—not counting the dif- ficulties of recruiting sexual-minority youths and their parents—that forces researchers to reduce sample sizes, and, on the other hand, the use of ques- tionnaires that facilitate large sample sizes and multivariate statistical anal- yses. Yet, overall, we found a coherent pattern of findings quite consistent with the more general findings of past research. The fathers and the mothers in our study were selected from independent family units, and the significant differences between their respective correlation sizes were appreciable.

Second, having controlled for the shared variance between parents’ and child’s report, our analyses yielded effects that were smaller than the effects usually found in large samples of youths reporting for themselves and their parents. It may reasonably be argued that the youths’ perceived behaviors are more important for the youths’ outcomes than the actual parental behaviors. It is true that the actual behavior (e.g., parental support) will be effective (e.g., positive impact) only to the extent it is perceived as supportive by the child (e.g., Haber, Cohen, Lucas, & Baltes, 2007). Future research can examine the association between the parents’ report of parental reactions and the youths’ perceptions of parental reactions, as well as their shared and unique contribution to the variance of youths’ outcomes. Other questions

Coming Out: Parental Reactions and Youth Outcomes 431

may relate to the identification of the conditions that explained variability in the youths’ interpretations of similar parental reactions.

Third, regarding the composition of the sample, close to one-third of our youths attended GLB-focused community groups. Having access to various resources, these youths may differ from other youths in terms of identity de- velopment and psychological adjustment. Similar limitations applied to our use of the snowball sampling technique. This technique is appropriate to explore sensitive and private issues on people characterized by low visibil- ity, but it leads to sampling bias (e.g., the sampled individuals tend to share similar traits), and it raises questions about the representativeness of our sample relative to the larger population of GLB youths and their parents in Quebec (e.g., Satin & Shastry, 1993). For instance, our families showed very little diversity in terms of ethno-cultural background. Studies in the United States and Canada have shown ethnic/racial differences in the coming-out process to parents. For example, in a recent qualitative study, ethnic sexual- minority youths reported that the fear of losing social support, a source of self-identification and connection with their community, was a concern when coming out to immediate and extended family members (Potoczniak, Crosbie-Burnett, & Saltzburg, 2009). Still there are very few empirical studies of the ethno-culturally diverse contexts of youths’ sexual identity develop- ment and the parental reactions to coming out and these contexts (e.g., Roth- blum, 2014; D’Amico et al., 2008; Rosario et al., 2004). Future research should target a more diversified group of sexual-minority youths and their parents.

Fourth, the youths in this study had come out to their family between one and three years previously, so memory distortions may have affected the findings (Diamond, 1998; Friedman, 1993).

Fifth, the lack of distinction between homosexual and bisexual youths limits the scope of our study because bisexual individuals experience dif- ferent concerns regarding identity. Bisexual individuals form a more het- erogeneous population and they are more likely to be discriminated against than homosexual individuals (Jorm, Korten, Rodgers, Jacomb, & Christensen, 2002).

Sixth, our quantitative findings were correlational and did not provide information about the causal pathways between disclosure and youths’ well- being. As Savin-Williams (2001) noted,

If one assumes that disclosure and psychological health are related, one could just as cogently argue that those who are functioning in a healthy manner are most likely to risk disclosing to family members as to content that by outing oneself to parents one gains a measure of psychological health. Which comes first—high self-esteem or disclosure to parent—if indeed the two are related? (p. 32)

Overall, future research should consider parental reactions to a child coming out as being complex and well beyond the positive-negative

432 E. D’Amico et al.

polarity. Longitudinal studies should be conducted to examine the evolu- tion of fathers’ and mothers’ reactions over time and the pre-coming-out factors that can predict the parental reactions identified in this study. Such information would help professionals assisting GLB youths as well as their parents’ coping with the negative impact subsequent to coming out. This in- formation would inform ways to conduct family therapy aimed at reinforcing family resources and cohesion.

FUNDING

This research was supported in part by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (410-2005-0748), the Cana- dian Institutes of Health Research (R2-060931), and the Fonds Québécois de Recherche sur la Société et la Culture (2007-SE-111796) afforded to Danielle Julien and collaborators.

REFERENCES

Audet, M. (2007). De l’égalité juridique à l’égalité sociale: Vers une stratégie na- tionale de lutte contre l’homophobie [From legal equality to social equality: To- ward a national strategy for reducing homophobia]. Report of the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse (CDPDJ). Québec, Canada: Ministère de la justice, Gouvernement du Québec. Retrieved from http://www.cdpdj.qc.ca/publications/rapport_homophobie.pdf

Baiocco, R., Ioverno, S., Lonigro, A., Baumgartner, E., & Laghi, F. (2014). Sui- cidal ideation among Italian and Spanish young adults: The role of sexual orientation. Archives of Suicide Research. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/13811118.2013.833150

Bartko, J. J. (1966). The intraclass correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability. Psychological Reports, 19, 3–11. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1966.19.1.3

Beals, K. P., & Peplau, L. A. (2006). Disclosure patterns within social net- works of gay men and lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality, 51, 101–120. doi: 10.1300/J082v51n02_06

Beaty, L. A. (1999). Identity development of homosexual youth and parental and familial influences on the coming out process. Adolescence, 34, 597–601.

Beeler, J., & DiProva, V. (1999). Family adjustment following disclosure of homosex- uality by a member: Themes discerned in narrative accounts. Journal of Marital Therapy, 25, 443–459. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.1999.tb00261.x

Ben-Ari, A. (1995). The discovery that an offspring is gay: Parents’, gay men’s and lesbians’ perspectives. Journal of Homosexuality, 30, 89–112. doi: 10.1300/J082v30n04_01

Boxer, A. M., Cook, J. A., & Herdt, G. (1991). Double jeopardy: Identity transition and parent-child relations among gay and lesbian youth. In K. Pillemer & K. McCartney (Eds.), Parent-child relations throughout life (pp. 59–91). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Coming Out: Parental Reactions and Youth Outcomes 433

Bregman, H. R., Malik, N. M., Page, M. J. L., Makynen, E., & Lindahl, K. M. (2013). Identity profiles in lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth: The role of family influ- ences. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 417–430. doi: 10.1007/s10964-012- 9798-z

Cairns, R. B., & Green, J. A. (1979). How to assess personality and social patterns: Observations or ratings? In R. B. Cairns (Ed.), The analysis of social interac- tions: Methods, issues, and illustrations (pp. 209–226). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Chamberland, L., Richard, G., & Bernier, M. (2013). Les violences homo- phobes et leurs impacts sur la persévérance scolaire des adolescents au Québec [Homophobic violence and its impact on school perseverance of Quebec adolescents]. Recherches et Éducations, 8, 99–114. Retrieved from http://rechercheseducations.revues.org/1567

Conley, C. (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. doi: 10.1080/00918369.2011.598409

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. doi: 10.1300/J082v15n03_04

D’Amico, E., & Julien, D. (2012). Disclosure of sexual orientation and gay, lesbian, and bisexual youths’ adjustment: Associations with past and current parental acceptance and rejection. Journal of LGBT Family Studies, 8, 215–242. doi: 10.1080/1550428X.2012.677232

D’Amico, E., Julien, D., & Chartrand, E. (2008). Développement de l’identité sex- uelle chez les jeunes hommes issus des minorités culturelles et socioculturelles au Québec [Sexual identity development among ethnic sexual-minority male youths in the province of Quebec]. In S. Brotman & J. J. Lévy (Eds.), Intersec- tions (pp. 133–157). Québec, Canada: Presses de l’Université du Québec.

D’Amico, E., Julien, D., Tremblay, N., & Chartrand, E. (2012). Réactions des parents suite au dévoilement de l’orientation sexuelle de leur enfant gai, lesbienne ou bisexuel-le [Parents’ reactions to their gay, lesbian, and bisexual child coming out]. Nouvelles pratiques sociales, 24, 120–139. doi: 10.7202/1016351ar

Darby-Mullins, P., & Murdock, T. B. (2007). The influence of family environ- ment factors on self-acceptance and emotional adjustment among gay, les- bian, and bisexual adolescents. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 3, 75–91. doi: 10.1300/J461v03n01_04

D’Augelli, A. R. (2002). Mental health problems among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths ages 14 to 21. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 7, 433–456. doi: 10.1177/1359104502007003010

D’Augelli, A. R. (2003). Lesbian and bisexual female youths aged 14 to 21: Develop- mental challenges and victimization experiences. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 7, 9–29. doi: 10.1300/J155v07n04_02

D’Augelli, A. R. (2006). Developmental and contextual factors and mental health among lesbian, gay and bisexual youths. In A. Omoto & H. Kurtzman (Eds.), Recent research on sexual orientation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

434 E. D’Amico et al.

D’Augelli, A. R., Grossman, A. H., Starks, M. T., & Sinclair, K. O. (2010). Factors associated with parents’ knowledge of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths’ sexual orientation. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 6, 1–21. doi: 10.1080/15504281003705410

D’Augelli, A. R., Hershberger, S. L., & Pilkington, N. W. (1998). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and their families: Disclosure of sexual orientation and its consequences. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68, 361–371. doi: org/10.1037/h0080345

D’Augelli, A. R., Hershberger, S. L., & Pilkington, N. W. (2001). Suicidality pat- terns and sexual orientation-related factors among lesbian, gay, and bi- sexual youths. Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior, 31, 250–264. doi: 10.1521/suli.31.3.250.24246

Daveluy, C., Pica, L., Audet, N., Courtemanche, R., Lapointe, F., Côté, L., & Baulne, J. (2000). Enquête sociale et de santé 1998 [Social and Health Survey 1998]. Québec, Canada: Institut de la Statistique du Québec. (Legal deposit: Bib- liothèque et Archives Nationales du Québec, Library and Archives Canada, ISBN: 2-551-20458-5).

Davies, P. (1992). The role of disclosure in coming out among gay men. In K. Plum- mer (Ed.), Modern homosexualities: Fragments of lesbian and gay experience (pp.75–83). London, England: Routledge.

Deschesnes, M. (1998). Étude de la validité et de la fidélité de l’Indice de détresse psychologique de Santé Québec (IDPSQ-14) chez une population adolescente [Study of the validity and reliability of the Quebec Health Department’s Psycho- logical Distress Index in an adolescent population]. Canadian Psychology, 39, 288–298. doi: 10.1037/h0086820

Diamond, L. M. (1998). Development of sexual orientation among adolescent and young adult women. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1085–1095. doi: org/10.1037/0012-1649.34.5.1085

Elizur, Y., & Mintzer, A. (2001). A framework for the formation of gay male identity: Processes associated with adult attachment style and support from family and friends. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 30, 143–167. doi: 10.1023/A:1002725217345

Elizur, Y., & Ziv, M. (2001). Family support and acceptance, gay male identity, and psychological adjustment: A path model. Family Process, 40, 125–140. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2001.4020100125.x

Fingerman, K. L., Cheng, Y. P., Birditt, K. S., & Zarit, S. (2012). Only as happy as the least happy child: Multiple grown children’s problems and successes and middle-aged parents’ well-being. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 67, 184–193. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbr086

Floyd, F. J., Stein, T. S., Harter, K. S. M., Allison, A., & Nye, C. L. (1999). Gay, les- bian, and bisexual youths: Separation-individuation, parental attitudes, identity consolidation, and well-being. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 719–739. doi: 10.1023/A:1021691601737

Fotti, S. A., Katz, L. Y., Afifi, T. O., & Cox, B. J. (2006). The association between peer and parental relationships and suicidal behavior in early adolescents. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 51, 698–703.

Friedman, W. J. (1993). Memory for the time of past events. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 44–46. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.113.1.44

Coming Out: Parental Reactions and Youth Outcomes 435

Garb, H. N. (1998). Studying the clinician: Judgment research and psycholog- ical assessment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/10299-003

Goldfried, M. R., & Goldfried, A. P. (2001). The importance of parental support in the lives of gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 57, 681–693. doi: 10.1002/jclp.1037

Goodrich, K. (2009). Mom and dad come out: The process of identifying as a heterosexual parent with a lesbian, gay, or bisexual child. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 3, 37–61. doi: 10.1080/15538600902754478

Grafsky, E. L. (2014). Becoming the parent of a GLB son or daughter. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 10, 36–57. doi: 10.1080/1550428X.2014.857240

Haber, M. G., Cohen, J. L., Lucas, T., & Baltes, B. B. (2007). The relationship between self-reported received and perceived social support: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 39, 133–144. doi: 10.1007/s10464- 007-9100-9

Heatherington, L., & Lavner, J. A. (2008). Coming to terms with coming out: Review and recommendations for family-systems focused research. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 329–343. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.22.3.329

Herek, G. M. (2002). Gender gaps in public opinion about lesbians and gay men. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66, 40–66. doi: 10.1086/338409

Herek, G. M. (2004). Beyond “homophobia”: Thinking about sexual stigma and prejudice in the twenty-first century. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 1(2), 6–24. doi: 10.1525/srsp.2004.1.2.6

Ilfeld, F. W. (1976). Further validation of a psychiatric symptom in- dex in a normal population. Psychological Reports, 39, 1215–1228. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1976.39.3f.1215

Jorm, A. F., Korten, A. E., Rodgers, B., Jacomb, P. A., & Christensen, H. (2002). Sexual orientation and mental health: Results from a community survey of young and middle-aged adults. British Journal of Psychiatry, 180, 423–427. doi: 10.1192/bjp.180.5.423

Kübler-Ross, E. (1969). On death and dying. New York, NY: Macmillan. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for

categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174. doi: 10.2307/2529310 Leitner, L. M., & Cado, S. (1982). Personal constructs and homosexual stress.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 869–872. doi: 10.1037/0022- 3514.43.4.869

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. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674

Ministère de la justice du Québec. (2011). Plan d’action gouvernemental de lutte contre l’homophobie 2011–2016 [Government Plan of Action Against Homopho- bia 2011–2016 ]. Québec, Canada: Gouvernement du Québec. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/francais/ministere/dossiers/homophobie/plan _action_homo_FR.pdf

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 Counseling Psychology, 50, 482–495. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.50.4.482

436 E. D’Amico et al.

Needham, B. L., & Austin, E. L. (2010). Sexual orientation, parental support, and health during the transition to young adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adoles- cence, 39, 1189–1198. doi: 10.1007/s10964-010-9533-6

Otis, J., Girard, M. E., Ryan, B., & Bourgon, M. (2002). Adaptation psychologique et sociale et relations parents-adolescents, chez les gais, lesbiennes, bisexuelles et bisexuels (GLB) [Psychosocial well being and parent-child relations among gay, lesbian and bisexual (GLB) youths]. Paper presented at the 70th Annual Meeting of the Association Francophone pour le Savoir, Quebec City, Canada.

Otis, J., Girard, M. E., Ryan, B., Bourgon, M., Engler, K., & Fugère, A. (2002). Em- powerment des jeunes gais, lesbiennes et bisexuels: Analyse d’implantation et évaluation des effets du projet « Safe Spaces » implanté dans quatre villes cana- diennes [Empowerment of gay, lesbian and bisexual youths: Safe Spaces project implementation and impact in four Canadian cities. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Sexology, University of Quebec in Montreal, Montreal, Canada.

Otis, J., Ryan, B., Chouinard, N., & Fournier, K. (2001). Effets du Projet 10 sur le mieux-être sexuel de jeunes gais et bisexuels [Impact of Project 10 on gay and bisexual youths’ well-being]. Research report. Montreal, Canada: Régie Régionale de la Santé et des Services Sociaux Montréal-Centre. (Legal deposit: Bibliothèque et Archives Nationales du Québec, Library and Archives Canada, ISBN: 2-922432-09-2).

Pallotta-Chiarolli, M. (2005a). Parents’ responses to homosexuality. In J. T. Sears (Ed.), Youth, education and sexualities: An international encyclopedia (pp. 605–608). Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Pallotta-Chiarolli, M. (2005b). When our children come out: How to support gay, les- bian, bisexual and transgendered young people. Sidney, Australia: Finch Pub- lishing.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method variance in behavioural research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 88, 879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Potoczniak, D., Crosbie-Burnett, M., & Saltzburg, N. (2009). Experiences regard- ing coming out to parents among African American, Hispanic, and White gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and questioning adolescents. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 21, 189–205. doi: 10.1080/1053872090277- 2063

Préville, M., Potvin, L., & Boyer, R. (1995). The structure of psychological distress. Psychological Reports, 77, 275–293.

Robinson, B. E., Walters, L. H., & Skeen, P. (1989). Response of parents learning that their child is homosexual and concern over AIDS: A national study. Journal of Homosexuality, 18, 59–80. doi: 10.1300/J082v18n01_03

Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., & Hunter, J. (2004). Ethnic/racial differences in the coming-out process of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths: A comparison of sexual identity over time. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 10, 215–228. doi: 10.1037/1099-9809.10.3.215

Rothblum, E. (2014). Mars to Venus or Earth to Earth: How do families of ori- gin fit into LGBTQ lives? Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 10, 231–241. doi: 10.1080/1550428X.2014.857235

Coming Out: Parental Reactions and Youth Outcomes 437

Russell, S. T. (2003). Minority youth and suicide risk. American Behavioral Scientist, 46, 1241–1257. doi: 10.1177/0002764202250667

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, 346–352.

Ryan, C., Russell, S. T., Huebner, D., Diaz, R. M., & Sanchez, J. (2010). Family acceptance in adolescence and the health of LGBT young adults. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 23, 205–213. doi: 10.1542/peds.2007- 3524

Saltzburg, S. (2004). Learning that an adolescent child is gay or lesbian: The parent experience. Social Work, 49, 109–118. doi: 10.1093/sw/49.1.109

Satin, A., & Shastry, W. (1993). L’échantillonnage: Un guide non mathématique [Sur- vey sampling: A non-mathematical guide]. Ottawa, Canada: Statistics Canada.

Savin-Williams, R. C. (1998). “. . . and then I became gay”: Young men’s stories. New York, NY: Routledge.

Savin-Williams, R. C. (2001). Mom, Dad. I’m gay: How families negotiate coming out. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Savin-Williams, R. C., & Diamond, L. M. (1999). Sexual orientation. In W. K. Silverman & T. H. Ollendick (Eds.), Developmental issues in the clinical treatment of children (pp. 241–258). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Savin-Williams, R. C., & Dubé, E. M. (1998). Parental reactions to their child’s disclo- sure of a gay/lesbian identity. Family Relations, 1, 7–13. doi: 10.2307/584845

Savin-Williams, R. C., & Ream, G. L. (2003). Sex variation in the disclosure to par- ents of same-sex attractions. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 429–438. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.17.3.429

Svab, A., & Kuhar, R. (2014). The transparent and family closets: Gay men and lesbians and their families of origins. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 10, 15–35. doi: 10.1080/1550428X.2014.857553

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Willoughby, B. L., Doty, N. D., & Malik, N. M. (2010). Victimization, family re- jection, and outcomes of gay, lesbian, and bisexual young people: The role of negative GLB identity. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 6, 403–424. doi: 10.1080/1550428X.2010.511085

Willoughby, B. L., Malik, N. M., & Lindahl, K. M. (2006). Parental reactions to their sons’ sexual orientation disclosures: The roles of family cohesion, adapt- ability, and parenting style. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 7, 14–26. doi: 10.1037/1524-9220.7.1.14

Copyright of Journal of GLBT Family Studies is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd 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.