When "In Your Face" Is Not Out of Place: The Effect of Timing of Disclosure of a Same-Sex Dating Partner under Conditions of Contact
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a series of experiments we examined heterosexuals' reactions to the timing of disclosure of a gender-matched confederate's same-sex dating partner. Disclosure occurred in a naturalistic context-that is, it occurred when meeting, or expecting to soon meet, a same-sex attracted individual, who voluntarily shared this information with the participant as a natural part of a broader topic of discussion. The confederate, when disclosing early rather than later, was approached more closely (Prestudy) and liked more (Studies 1-2). Those experiencing early disclosure, compared with later, were less drawn to topics of lower intimacy (Study 1), were happier and more excited about meeting the confederate, and more likely to choose to be alone with the confederate for a one-on-one discussion (Study 2). Further, women experiencing early disclosure were more willing to introduce the same-gender confederate to their friends (Study 2). The benefits of knowing sooner, rather than later, continued to apply even when participants were given further time to process the disclosure. To explore the underlying reasons for the more favorable experiences of upfront disclosure, we examined participants' memory of the information shared by the confederate (Study 3). Results revealed that those who experienced delayed disclosure were more likely to incorrectly recall and negatively embellish information related to the confederate's sexual orientation, suggesting that early disclosure resulted in a reduced tendency to focus on the confederate's sexuality as a defining feature. These positive findings for early timing are discussed in light of previous studies that have found benefits for delayed disclosure and those that have failed to investigate the effects of timing of 'coming out' under conditions of contact.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".