Legal and social ceremonies to formalize same-sex relationships: Associations with commitment, social support, and relationship outcomes.

Whitton, Sarah W.; Kuryluk, Amanda D.; Khaddouma, Alexander

doi:10.1037/cfp0000045

Cited by 9 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The most frequently assessed outcomes are global relationship quality (e.g., Balsam et al, 2008; Roisman et al, 2008) or relationship satisfaction (e.g., Boesch et al, 2007; Kamen et al, 2011; Kurdek, 2004). Longitudinal studies in this review often focused on relationship stability (Gottman, Levenson, Gross, et al, 2003; Rosenfeld, 2014; Whitton et al, 2015) or change in global relationship quality over time (Kurdek, 2008b). One longitudinal study examined life satisfaction and parenting alliance as outcomes (Tornello et al, 2015).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a national sample of gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals, participants who had some kind of legal relationship status (i.e., civil union, domestic partnership, civil marriage) reported more meaning in life, less internalized stigma, fewer depressive symptoms, and less stress than participants who were in committed relationships that did not have legal status (Riggle, Rostosky, & Horne, 2010a, 2010b). Legal recognition for one’s relationship has also been associated with relationship stability (Whitton, Kuryluk, & Khaddouma, 2015). In analysis of a nationally representative longitudinal survey, Rosenfeld (2014) found that being in a legally recognized relationship, or even simply considering yourself “married” without any formal status, reduced the odds of relationship dissolution for both same-sex and different-sex couples.…”

Section: Internal Strengths Of Same-sex Couple Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Same-sex couple relationship strengths: A review and synthesis of the empirical literature (2000–2016).

Rostosky

Riggle

2017

Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The centrality of close relationships to optimal human functioning has motivated some theorists to suggest that positive relationships form the "fourth pillar" of the positive psychology framework (Fincham & Beach, 2010). We used this conceptualization as the basis for a review and synthesis of the empirical literature on the strengths of same-sex couple relationships. We conducted a review of 66 empirical studies of U.S. samples that were published in peer-review journals from 2000 to 2016 to determine the relationship strengths that have been studied in same-sex couple relationships and to summarize the findings from these studies. These interrelated strengths were further organized into 3 relationship processes (respect and appreciation of individual differences, positive emotions and interactions, effective communication and negotiation) and 4 positive relationship characteristics (perceived intimacy, commitment, egalitarian ideals, and outness). We also reviewed studies of environmental resources (social support and marriage equality/legal relationship recognition), which provide evidence for the contribution to well-being of positive institutions, the third pillar of positive psychology. We note the general limitations of this literature and the opportunities for future research that will contribute to building a positive psychology of same-sex couple relationships. Public Significance StatementSame-sex couples' relationship strengths include having respect and appreciation for individual differences, using positive emotions and interactions, and using effective communication and negotiation skills. Other strengths include high levels of intimacy, commitment, egalitarian ideals, and outness. Environmental support from family and friends, and marriage equality also contribute to couple well-being. These strengths may function uniquely as important sources of resilience for same-sex couples, helping them to cope with stigma, discrimination, and minority stress.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Internal Strengths Of Same-sex Couple Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Same-sex couple relationship strengths: A review and synthesis of the empirical literature (2000–2016).

Rostosky

Riggle

2017

Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nonetheless, the growing cultural acceptance of same‐sex partnerships, reinforced by the legalization of same‐sex marriages, arguably strengthens commitment and stability in the form of long‐term and monogamous relationships, much like it does for different‐sex relationships (Joyner, Manning, & Bogle, ; Lau, ; Monk, Ogolsky, & Oswald, ). Variation in institutionalization of same‐sex marriage across countries suggests one important mechanism shaping both relationship formation processes and union stability (Joyner et al, ; Potârcă et al, ), given the research that legal formalization is associated with greater relationship stability (Whitton, Kuryluk, & Khaddouma, ). There are many challenges to studying same‐sex relationships (Reczek, ).…”

Section: Research Themesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cohabitation and Marriage: Complexity and Diversity in Union‐Formation Patterns

Sassler

Lichter

2020

J of Marriage and Family

197

140

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nonmarital cohabitation and marriage are now fundamentally linked, a fact that is routinely reflected in current research on union formation. Unprecedented changes in the timing, duration, and sequencing of intimate co‐residential relationships have made the study of traditional marriage far more complex today than in the past. It is now clear that a white, middle‐class, American‐centric research template has become increasingly anachronistic. In this review article, we begin by providing an overview of contemporary theory, empirical approaches, and demographic trends in cohabitation and marriage, focusing primarily on the United States, but also distinguishing the U.S. from patterns found in other high‐income societies, including European countries, Canada, Australia, and in East Asia. We place the spotlight on the causes and consequences of union transitions. We identify the commonalities between cohabitation and marriage, but also key differences that are expressed unevenly across different populations and cultural groups. The rise in nonmarital cohabitation has upended conventional theoretical models and measurement approaches to the study of traditional marriage, complicating matters but also reinvigorating family scholarship on union formation and its implications for partners, children, and society.

show abstract

“…Nowadays, pressure to legalise same-sex relationships is growing; this is related to the greater mutual commitment of the partners, but also to greater social support for such a relationship. Adult men and women who are in legalised same-sex relationships are found to be more satisfied and their relations are more stable than those from non-legalised relationships (Andersson et al, 2006;Julien et al, 2003;Kurdek, 2004;McLanahan & Beck, 2010;Solomon et al, 2008;Whitton et al, 2015). Lack of social acceptance and adequate legislation for same-sex relationships results in same-sex couples living together in secret, without any sense of long-term security or dependence concerning inter alia financial matters, inheritance rights or mutual care, which may weaken relations between the partners.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

No licence for love versus same-sex relationships – partner relations and interpersonal commitment

Janicka¹

2021

Current Issues in Personality Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Like heterosexual ones, homosexual partners strive to fulfil their needs for belonging and love. They also build their relationships in countries where less favourable public opinion exists towards same-sex relationships, due in part to the lack of equivalent legislation between heterosexual and non-heterosexual persons and couples. As opponents of such relationships claim them to be less stable and of lower quality, the current study examines whether the sexual orientation of partners may determine the quality of their relationship and their commitment to it. participants and procedureThe study was conducted in a group of 530 cohabiting persons, aged 18-44 (230 persons with a homosexual orientation and 300 heterosexual) living in Poland. The participants were tested with three tools: a sociodemographic survey, the Polish version of the Partner Relations Ques-tionnaire by Halhweg, adapted by Janicka, and the Interpersonal Commitment Inventory (KZI) by Janicka and Szymczak: the Polish adaptation of the Commitment Inventory by Stanley and Markman. resultsThe findings indicate that sexual orientation of women and men may influence their tendencies to change partners and their interpersonal commitment, interpreted as their dedication and obligation to stay in the relationship. conclusions Some detailed analyses suggest that cohabitations between gay women portend better than those of gay men.

show abstract

Legal and social ceremonies to formalize same-sex relationships: Associations with commitment, social support, and relationship outcomes.

Cited by 9 publications

References 41 publications

Same-sex couple relationship strengths: A review and synthesis of the empirical literature (2000–2016).

Same-sex couple relationship strengths: A review and synthesis of the empirical literature (2000–2016).

Cohabitation and Marriage: Complexity and Diversity in Union‐Formation Patterns

No licence for love versus same-sex relationships – partner relations and interpersonal commitment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About