Suchergebnisse

AbstractIndividuals in mixed‐sex (n = 248) and same‐sex (n = 159) romantic relationships completed several online questions for each member of their social network, including the member's perceived support for their romantic relationship. Those in same‐sex relationships perceived less support for their relationship, but only from family members, not from friends. Levels of relationship support were lower among subjectively more distant network members than among closer network members. As hypothesized, associations between perceived support for the relationship and relationship, mental, and physical well‐being were weaker for those in same‐sex compared to mixed‐sex relationships. Principles of social network management and attributional ambiguity were used to explain the findings.

Research has established that social support for relationships is an important predictor of well‐being. However, the underlying assumption that social support specifically for relationships is a separate construct from general social support has not been properly tested empirically, nor has the question of whether support processes vary by source (friends vs. family). The current study (N = 1,281) used confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling to address these issues. Support was found for a theoretical model in which social support specifically for relationships predicts relationship well‐being and, in turn, mental and physical health, even while controlling for general social support. Somewhat different patterns were found by source of support (family vs. friends) and by relationship type (same sex vs. mixed sex).

AbstractThe field of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) relationship science has grown significantly over the past two decades, coinciding with rapid changes in the social acceptance of LGBTQ+ people. However, it is unclear to what extent the top two journals in relationship science, the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships and Personal Relationships, have contributed to the field. In this critical review, we analyzed the 2181 manuscripts published in the journals between 2002 and 2021 for whether they included or excluded LGBTQ+ participants, the methodologies used to analyze their data, and their conclusions about LGBTQ+ lives and relationships. The overwhelming majority (85.8%) of manuscripts did not acknowledge LGBTQ+ relationships; however, there have been improvements compared to past research in retaining LGBTQ+ participants within a data set when they were present. We identified 92 manuscripts that contributed to knowledge about LGBTQ+ lives or relationships. We discuss the lack of intersectional analyses and methodological challenges of incorporating multiple forms of diversity within quantitative research. Overarching themes across manuscript content included minority stress, relationship formation, social support, and commitment. Overall, though the research in the two journals has contributed to the literature on LGBTQ+ relationships, our review suggests that scholars do not consider these two journals as a first choice for finding or publishing LGBTQ+ relationship science.

AbstractIs the perception that a social network member (SNM, i.e., friend or family member) disapproves of your romantic relationship associated with perceived changes in emotional closeness to that person? This question was investigated using an online survey (N = 703). Participants reported their current closeness to a disapproving SNM, and retrospectively rated closeness before the disapproval and at the height of disapproval. As predicted, perceiving disapproval was associated with a drop in recalled emotional closeness to the SNM, with stronger disapproval associated with a steeper drop. Closeness recovered somewhat after the point of strongest disapproval, but not nearly to its original level. Analyses on a smaller sample of matched dyads (N = 42) suggested this pattern was identical from the SNM's perspective. The recalled trajectory was moderated by SNM group (i.e., family/friend) and by relationship type (mixed‐sex/same‐sex, and age‐discrepant/similar‐age, but not mixed‐race/same‐race). We discuss implications for those in close relationships and their friends/family members.