Minority stress and emotional intimacy among individuals in lesbian and gay couples: Implications for relationship satisfaction and health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lesbian and gay (LG) couples face a particular stress that is unique from their heterosexual counterparts: minority stress, the increased stress experienced as a result of living in an environment that is stigmatizing of their sexual orientation and identity. Research demonstrates that minority stress has far-reaching health implications for LG individuals. However, the literature examining the effects of minority stress on health at the couple level is limited. This study examined the impact of minority stress on emotional intimacy, relationship satisfaction, and psychological and physical health outcomes, as well as the moderating role of gender and marital status. A total of 181 LG-identified adults in same-sex relationships completed an online self-report survey. Results indicated that internalized homonegativity and sexual orientation concealment were negatively related to emotional intimacy and that emotional intimacy was positively related to relationship satisfaction. Emotional intimacy mediated the link between internalized homonegativity and relationship satisfaction for married—but not unmarried—individuals. Sexual orientation concealment mediated the link between sexual orientation concealment and relationship satisfaction for married men but not for any other group. Findings from the current study highlight the importance of emotional intimacy among individuals in LG couples. Areas for future research are explored, and implications for research, clinical practice, and policy are explicated.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".