Coming Out Again: Exploring GLBQ Individuals’ Communication with Their Parents After the First Coming Out
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractThe present study investigates individuals' experiences coming out to their parents as gay, lesbian, bisexual, and queer (GLBQ) and how these first coming-out experiences may relate to future parent-child communication regarding individuals' sexual orientation. Specifically, this study explores whether some individuals feel the need to come out to their parents a second time, and if so, the reasons for coming out again and the strategies used to do so. One hundred six GLBQ individuals (ages 18 to 55) completed surveys about their experiences coming out to their parents the first time and a potential second time. Approximately one-quarter of participants reported coming out to their parents a second time. An inductive analysis revealed three reasons for doing so: to reinforce their sexual orientation, to clarify aspects of their identity, and to share more information about their GLBQ lifestyle. In addition, the more individuals perceived their parents to react to their first coming out with denial and the lower their reported relationship satisfaction with their parents after their first coming out, the more likely they were to come out again. Finally, strategies used to come out both the first and second times are explored.KEYWORDS: coming outparent-child communicationinterpersonal communicationparent-child relationships
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".