Psychology of Men & Masculinity 2006, Vol. 7, No.

1, 14 26

Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association 1524-9220/06/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1524-9220.7.1.14

Parental Reactions to Their Sons Sexual Orientation Disclosures: The Roles of Family Cohesion, Adaptability, and Parenting Style
Brian L. B. Willoughby, Neena M. Malik, and Kristin M. Lindahl
University of Miami The factors associated with parental reactions to their childs sexual orientation disclosure are poorly understood and require further empirical investigation. The current study investigated whether family dynamics before disclosure were associated with parental reactions to their sons coming out episodes. Participants included 72 gay men recruited from organizations for gay young adults. Results indicated that men reporting to be from cohesive, adaptable, and authoritative families prior to coming out perceived their parents reactions as less negative compared with men reporting to be from disconnected, rigid, and authoritarian families. These results are consistent with family stress theory, which suggests that having family level resources in place prior to the onset of a stressor may buffer the effects of a crisis event. Keywords: gay men, cohesion, adaptability, parenting style, coming out

Disclosing sexual orientation to parents has been noted as one of the most difcult developmental milestones for gay youth (Savin-Williams, 2001). Coming out to parents is a time often fraught with anxiety and anticipation. It is common for sexual minority youth to fear adverse responses and negative repercussions from parents. There is a lack of systematic research, however, investigating the factors predictive of parental reactions to their childs sexual orientation disclosure. Sexuality theorists have suggested that parent child relations, prior to coming out, may be the best predictor of parents initial reactions and subsequent adjustment to their childs sexual orientation disclosure (Savin-Williams, 2001). In particular, a family that is warm, connected, and exible may have more positive responses to a family members sexual orientation disclosure compared with a family that is cold, disconnected,

and rigid. The notion that family climate may relate to reactions from family members has yet to be empirically tested. The current study investigates how family climate, prior to coming out, may be associated with parental reactions to their sons sexual orientation.

The Coming Out Experience

In identity development theory, coming out has been suggested as an essential component in homosexual identity formation (Cass, 1979, 1996; Rivers, 2002). Young gay adolescents are hypothesized to progress through a series of unique developmental stages, beginning with the realization that there is something different about oneself and culminating with the successful integration of ones gay identity into other aspects of the self (Cass, 1979, 1996). This process of identity development is facilitated by disclosing ones sexual orientation to parents and peers, gauging their responses to the disclosure, and internalizing these reactions. Receiving favorable reactions from persons deemed important in a gay youths life (e.g., parents) may aid the development of a positive gay identity. When gay youth do not receive supportive reactions from parents and peers, they may experience adverse psychological and behavioral outcomes, such as internalized homophobia, low self-esteem, and high-risk sexual behaviors (Nungesser, 1983; Rosario,
14

Brian L. B. Willoughby, Neena M. Malik, and Kristin M. Lindahl, Department of Psychology, University of Miami. This study was made possible in part through the assistance of a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Doctoral Fellowship. We acknowledge the assistance of Heather Henderson and Margaret CrosbieBurnett. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Brian L. B. Willoughby, Department of Psychology, University of Miami, P.O. Box 249229, Coral Gables, FL 33124. E-mail: b.willoughby@umiami.edu

PARENTAL REACTIONS

15

Hunter, Maguen, Gwadz, & Smith, 2001; Savin-Williams, 1989; Vincke, Bolton, Mak, & Blank, 1993). Parents are often the last to know about their childs sexual orientation. In a study of 194 gay, lesbian, and bisexual adolescents, 73% of participants rst disclosed to a friend, followed by teachers, counselors, and clergy (8%), mothers (7%), siblings (3%), and fathers (1%; DAugelli & Hershberger, 1993). However, although parents may not be the rst to know about their childs sexual orientation, the majority of gay youth sampled in psychological research are out to their parents. For example, 65% of gay men recruited from various gay community centers in the Midwest were somewhat open to at least one of their parents, with disclosure more likely to mothers than to fathers (Schope, 2002). Only a handful of studies have examined parents initial reactions to their childs sexual orientation disclosures. Robinson, Walters, and Skeen (1989) surveyed 402 parents of gays and lesbians recruited through national gay organizations and found that almost two thirds of parents reported that their initial response was negative, consisting of grief-like reactions. In DAugelli and Hershbergers (1993) study, youth reported that, of the mothers disclosed to, 55% were accepting, 25% were tolerant, 8% were intolerant but not rejecting, and 12% were rejecting. For fathers, 37% were accepting, 36% were tolerant, 10% were intolerant but not rejecting, and 18% were rejecting. Although these ndings suggest mothers may respond with more acceptance than fathers, more recent studies have challenged these results. Ben-Ari (1995) found that although fathers were more likely to initially deny their childs homosexuality, they were less likely to respond with anger and guilt compared with mothers.

Factors Predicting Parental Reactions to Coming Out

Researchers have attempted to identify the reasons why parents initially react in different ways to their childs sexual orientation disclosure. One speculation is that parental responses to their childs coming out depend on contextual factors. In particular, it may be that older parents are less likely to be inuenced by modern conceptions and visibilities of sexual minorities, leading them to be more discriminatory

toward their own gay youth (Savin-Williams, 2001). In addition, some investigations have suggested that ethnic minority families may regard homosexuality more negatively than do Anglo European families (Morales, 1989; Tremble, Schneider, & Appathurai, 1989), although a clear and well-supported explanation for these ndings has yet to be fully described. Other parental factors, such as education, attitudes regarding sex roles, religious orthodoxy, and authoritarianism, have been proposed as variables that may predict parental reactions to their sons coming out (Cramer & Roach, 1988). Although the above studies provide some insight into factors associated with parental responses to their sons sexual orientation disclosures, further empirical research is necessary. The current study, therefore, attempted to extend the research on factors associated with parental reactions. The family, as a unit, may be an important predictor of parental reactions to their sons sexual orientation disclosure. This notion stems from family stress theory, which suggests that a family may be able to cope with stressful life events if family level resources are in place prior to the stressors onset. Since the 1960s, psychologists and sociologists have attempted to elucidate the coping strategies that family members use in successfully managing stress (McCubbin, 1979; McKenry & Price, 2000; Moos, 1976). Family stress theory is a conceptual framework that aims to delineate and organize factors inuencing a familys reaction to a crisis event or stressor. Developed primarily from Hills (1949) classic research on war-induced separation and reunion, family stress theory draws on a social systems approach to conceptualize families under stress. This approach views families as living organisms consisting of real and symbolic structures. As with any social structure, families theoretically attempt to establish a state of equilibrium. Thus, the family is seen as more than a sum of its collection of members; it is viewed as a system of its own that is an aggregate of relationships, shared memories, failures, goals, and successes (McKenry & Price, 2000). Family stress theory can be used as a theoretical framework to understand parental reactions to their sons sexual orientation disclosure. The disclosure of sexual orientation by a family member clearly ts the description of a stressor.

16

WILLOUGHBY, MALIK, AND LINDAHL

A childs coming out is a salient event that often shifts several aspects of the family system (Crosbie-Burnett, Foster, Murray, & Bowen, 1996; Strommen, 1989). Previous family values may be called into question, such as beliefs about sex, sexuality, and religion. Family roles and expectations also invariably shift during disclosure. A parents dream for a son who was expected to marry a woman, have children, and carry on the family name may be shattered. Furthermore, a coming out episode may prompt a shift in relationship boundaries wherein, for example, a gay son may develop a closer bond with an understanding parent and shun a rejecting parent. A sons sexual orientation disclosure, therefore, can be dened as a stressor event. Family stress theory suggests that family resources in place prior to a stressors onset may buffer the effects of the stressor event (McKenry & Price, 2000). This tenet of family stress theory serves as the theoretical basis for the present study. With regard to families containing sexual-minority youth, it may be that families with adequate resources in place prior to coming out may be better able to respond to a family members sexual orientation disclosure. There is initial empirical support for this notion. For instance, in an unpublished manuscript by Leaveck (1994), families reporting to have the ability to solve conicts and communicate were also reported to initially react positively to coming out episodes, compared with families described by their children as lacking these skills. Applying these results to populations other than Anglo European youth involved in a structured gay organization, however, may be premature.

(McKenry & Price, 2000). Cohesion refers to the overall connectedness within the family system and the emotional bonding that family members have toward one another, whereas adaptability is the extent to which a family is able to change when confronted with novel situations (Olson, 1996; Olson & Gorall, 2003). Those families with high levels of cohesion and adaptability are dened as balanced, whereas families low on these resources are dened as unbalanced (Olson, 1996). This study investigated whether family cohesion and adaptability were associated with parental reactions to their sons sexual orientation disclosure.

Parenting Styles and Coming Out

Another factor relevant to family resources is the way in which parents express warmth and support of their children, as well as the degree to which they adequately supervise them. Maccoby and Martin (1983) conceptualized these parenting behaviors as parenting style. In particular, four parenting styles were outlined on the basis of two dimensions: responsiveness and control. On the basis of levels of these two dimensions, parents are classied into four parenting style quadrants, known as authoritarian, authoritative, indulgent, or neglectful. According to Maccoby and Martin, the parenting style of a mother and father guide their responses to their childs behavior. Depending on the parenting style of a mother or father, reactions to their childs sexual orientation disclosure may vary. For instance, a strict father who exerts behavioral control over his son may react very differently than an indulgent father who exerts little control over his son. According to Maccoby and Martins (1983) theory, parents who are authoritarian characterize the low responsiveness high control quadrant. Authoritarian parents place strict limits on the allowable expression of their childs desires and create rules of appropriate behavior, largely without discussing these rules with the child. Furthermore, parents who demonstrate an authoritarian pattern of parenting behavior are theorized to value the maintenance of power and are likely to suppress efforts made by the child to challenge this authority. In general, these parents may be unresponsive to their childs needs, highly punitive, and lack warmth for their child (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). It is

Family Cohesion, Adaptability, and Coming Out

Although the above research suggests that family factors may be associated with parental reactions to coming out, this notion warrants further empirical support. In particular, the literature has failed to examine important family resources suggested to dene the overall functioning of a family, namely cohesion and adaptability (Mupinga, Garrison, & Pierce, 2002; Olson, Sprenkle, & Russell, 1979). These family level resources have been noted in the literature to protect the family from a variety of stressors

PARENTAL REACTIONS

17

notable that an authoritarian pattern of parenting has commonly been linked to social and emotional maladjustment in children and adolescents, such as a lack of morality, low selfesteem, and demonstration of aggressive acts (Feshbach, 1975; Steinberg, Lamborn, Darling, Mounts, & Dornbusch, 1994). An indulgent (or permissive) style of parenting characterizes parents who are highly responsive to their child yet lack behavioral control. These parents, therefore, represent the high responsivenesslow control quadrant, as dened by Maccoby and Martin (1983). Indulgent parents use little punishment, avoid asserting authority, and impose few rules or restrictions. Furthermore, indulgent parents are likely to be tolerant of their childrens aggressive impulses and may allow their children to govern their own time schedules (i.e., mealtime, bedtime, TV watching). In comparison with more restrictive patterns of parenting, indulgent parenting styles have been associated with a childs high level of creativity, spontaneity, and social competence (Baldwin, 1955). However, other researchers have emphasized the price to be paid for parental failure to exercise control and make maturity demands. Studies have shown that children from indulgent homes may lack impulse control, self-reliance, social responsibility, and independence (Baumrind, 1967; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Slicker, 1998). A third parenting style identied by Maccoby and Martin (1983) is referred to as neglectful (or uninvolved) parenting. Neglectful parents are best characterized by the low responsiveness low control quadrant. In particular, neglectful parents are hypothesized to have a limited commitment to the well-being and development of their child. This may include a parents failure to respond to a childs needs, avoidance of the child, and viewing the child as an inconvenience. Similarly, parents who are dened as neglectful may fail to establish and maintain household rules and regulations. The neglectful style of parenting has been associated with maladaptive child and adolescent behaviors, such as drinking and drug abuse (Steinberg et al., 1994). Parents who are responsive and create guidelines for appropriate behavior are described as authoritative and are best characterized by the high responsiveness high control quadrant dened by Maccoby and Martin (1983). Authoritative parents tend to include the child in deci-

sions of discipline and are responsive to reasonable demands made by their children. It is of note that this parenting style has been related to positive outcomes in child development, including higher self-esteem in children (Litovsky & Dusek, 1985) and school achievement (Grolnick & Ryan, 1989).

The Current Study

The current study had two main goals. First, this study examined how variations in family functioning, dened in terms of family cohesion and adaptability, were associated with parental responses to their sons coming out episode. Second, the current study investigated how variations in parenting styles related to parental responses to their sons sexual orientation disclosure. The following research hypotheses were addressed by the current investigation. Hypothesis 1: Gay men reporting that they came from families with balanced cohesion prior to coming out would report experiencing less negative initial reactions from parents than would men from unbalanced families. Hypothesis 2: Gay men reporting that they came from families with balanced adaptability prior to coming out would report experiencing less negative initial reactions from parents than would men from unbalanced families. Hypothesis 3: Gay men who reported that they came from families with parents who were perceived to have authoritative parenting styles would experience less negative initial reactions from parents than would men with parents who are authoritarian. Exploratory analyses were also conducted examining potential associations between neglectful and indulgent parenting styles and coming out experiences.

Method Participants
Seventy-four young men participated in this study. All participants had to meet three criteria. First, participants had to be self-identied gay,

18

WILLOUGHBY, MALIK, AND LINDAHL

meaning a score of 6 or higher on a one-item scale assessing sexuality, with 1 being completely heterosexual, 5 being bisexual, and 10 being completely homosexual. Second, participants must have disclosed their sexual orientation to one or both of their parents. Last, to obtain a sample that was young enough to recall aspects of their youth, participants had to be between the ages of 18 and 26 years. One participant was excluded because he was 27 years old, and another was excluded because he assessed his sisters, rather than his parents, reaction to his coming out. Of the nal sample of 72 self-identied gay men, 70 had disclosed their sexual orientation to their mothers and 47 had disclosed to their fathers. Participants were recruited from organizations for gay youth, including three universitybased lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender (LGBT) groups and three community-based social groups in a Southeastern urban setting. Consistent with project criteria, participants ranged in age from 18 to 26 years, with a mean age of 21.54 years. The mean age of coming out to both mothers and fathers was 18 years, with all participants coming out after age 14. The sample was ethnically diverse, including Hispanic (39%), WhiteAnglo American (39%), and Caribbean American or African American (10%) men, with 12% of the participants specifying other ethnic backgrounds. The majority of the participants had completed some college or a bachelors degree (83%), whereas others reported high school (15%) or elementary school (1%) as their highest level of education. With regard to current religion, 31% of the men were Catholic, 10% Protestant, 8% Jewish, and 1% Muslim. The remaining 31% of participants reported having no religious afliation. Participants also reported on their parents combined annual income, with 15% of parents making $120,000 or above, 23% making between $119,000 and $80,000, 34% making between $79,000 and $40,000, and 28% making $39,000 or below. Information regarding parents current marital status was also obtained (54% married, 34% divorced, 8% separated, 3% never married, and 1% widowed).

Measures
A battery of self-report measures were used in this study to assess demographic information,

perceived family climate, and perceived parental reactions to coming out episodes. Because this study asked participants to think about different time points in their lives, a series of prompts were provided throughout the questionnaire package to help individuals retrospect to age 14 and the time they came out to their parents. These prompts required participants to recall salient information (such as age, grade, place of residence, major life events, and so forth) to aid individuals recollections of these time points. Background information. To collect relevant demographic information, we asked participants to complete a background information questionnaire. This questionnaire assessed age, education, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, parents income, step or biological family status, disclosure status, and current relationship status. Furthermore, the background information questionnaire posed questions about coming out experiences, such as how parents were told and how long parents have known about the participants sexuality. Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES III). To assess family cohesion and family adaptability, we gave all participants the FACES III (Olson, Portner, & Lavee, 1985). The scale is divided into two subscales. The Cohesion subscale measures dimensions such as emotional bonding, boundaries, coalitions, and decision making in family relationships, whereas the Adaptability subscale measures family leadership, negotiation styles, and relationship rules. This questionnaire includes 20 short statements (10 cohesion and 10 adaptability), and, using a 5-point Likert scale, participants must indicate the degree to which each statement describes their family. To obtain a measure of family cohesion and adaptability before disclosure, participants were asked to think retrospectively and use the statements to describe their family at age 14, before coming out. Using retrospective measures of family functioning, such as the Family Environment Scale (FES; Moos & Moos, 1994), is common practice among researchers attempting to assess adults perceptions of their childhood family environment (e.g., Cooke, Young, Mohri, Blake, & Joffe, 1999). Although the FES contains a subscale for cohesion, it does not measure family adaptability. Thus, we chose the FACES III rather than the FES to be used ret-

PARENTAL REACTIONS

19

rospectively in the current study. Olson et al. (1985) reported high levels of internal consistency (Cohesion .84, Adaptability .79) and testretest reliability (Cohesion r .83, Adaptability r .80). The internal consistencies of the Cohesion and Adaptability scales in the current study were .89 and .63, respectively. The relatively low internal consistency of the Adaptability subscale is consistent with more recent studies and critiques regarding the ambiguous wording of some adaptability items (Ben-David & Sprenkle, 1993). Given the paucity of research on family factors related to parental reactions to coming out and the limited measures available for studying family adaptability, we used the FACES III Adaptability subscale in the current study despite its low reliability. Because of its low reliability, however, results are interpreted with caution. Total scores for both the Cohesion and Adaptability subscales range from 10 to 50, with higher scores indicating more balanced types of families. A median for the Cohesion subscale was calculated, and those participants with cohesion scores at or above the median were classied as having balanced cohesion, whereas those who fell below the median were classied as unbalanced. The same procedure was used for the Adaptability subscale to classify balanced and unbalanced adaptability in families. Authoritative Parenting Measure. Participants completed a measure of perceived parenting style for both mothers and fathers, known as the Authoritative Parenting Measure (L. Steinberg, personal communication, September 19, 2002), which assessed parental acceptanceinvolvement and strictnesssupervision. The AcceptanceInvolvement subscale examines the extent to which an adolescent perceives his or her parents as loving, responsive, and involved, whereas the StrictnessSupervision subscale assesses parental monitoring and supervision of adolescents. The AcceptanceInvolvement subscale includes nine items. Participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement using a 4-point Likert scale. Scores on the AcceptanceInvolvement scale can range from 9 to 36, with higher scores indicating higher levels of involvement. The StrictnessSupervision scale includes eight items. The rst two items are scored from 1 (not strict) to 6 (highly strict), whereas the last six

items are scored from 1 (low supervision) to 3 (high supervision). Thus, scores on the StrictnessSupervision subscale can range from 8 to 30, with higher scores indicating parents who strictly monitored their child. Again, to obtain a measure of mothers and fathers parenting styles before disclosure, participants were asked to retrospect and use the statements to describe their parents at age 14, before coming out. Earlier versions of the Authoritative Parenting Measure have demonstrated adequate reliability (AcceptanceInvolvement .72, Strictness Supervision .76; Steinberg et al., 1994). Similar internal consistencies were found in the current study, with AcceptanceInvolvement alphas of .84 (mother version) and .90 (father version) and StrictnessSupervision alphas of .72 (mother version) and .74 (father version). Steinberg and colleagues (1994) have outlined a categorical approach to scoring this measure. For each participant, mothers and fathers were classied as authoritarian, authoritative, indulgent, or neglectful on the basis of total scores from the StrictnessSupervision and AcceptanceInvolvement subscales. A median score was calculated for each of the two subscales to differentiate between high and low levels. Those parents who were rated high on both StrictnessSupervision and Acceptance Involvement were labeled authoritative (17% of mothers, 26% of fathers). Parents who were rated high on StrictnessSupervision but low on AcceptanceInvolvement were classied as authoritarian (29% of mothers, 20% of fathers). Parents rated low on StrictnessSupervision but high on AcceptanceInvolvement were labeled indulgent (19% of mothers, 22% of fathers) and parents rated low on both dimensions were classied as neglectful (36% of mothers, 33% of fathers). Perceived Parental Reactions Scale (PPRS). The PPRS was developed for the current study to assess participants perceptions of their parents reactions to their sexual orientation disclosures. On the basis of Weinbergs (1972) love versus conventionality theory and Savin-Williamss (2001) initial reactions model, the PPRS included 36 statements assessing participants overall perception of their parents reactions to their coming out. More specically, the scale was created to examine nine theoretical dimensions, including parents perceived level of general homophobia, parent (or self) focus, child

20

WILLOUGHBY, MALIK, AND LINDAHL

focus, shock, denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. Mother and father versions of the PPRS were created. These versions of the scales were identical, with the exception of the gender used in the statements. Item analysis results revealed that four items on the original 36-item version of the PPRS correlated negatively with the scales totals, suggesting these particular items were assessing constructs different from the overall scales. A closer examination of these items revealed that each was tapping into the child-focused response dimension outlined by Weinberg. These four items were written to address parental responses of concern for their child (e.g., My mom was concerned about my chances of nding a relationship partner) and were theorized to be perceived as positive responses from parents. Because these four items correlated opposite to their theorized direction in both mother and father versions and decreased the scales overall alpha levels, they were removed from the nal scale. Copies of the mother and father versions of the PPRS are available on request from Brian L. B. Willoughby. In the resulting 32-item scale, participants were asked to think back to the time when disclosure occurred and, using a 5-point Likert scale, indicate agreement or disagreement with several statements. Higher scores indicate more negative perceptions of their parents reactions, with scores ranging from 32 to 160. The PPRS showed item-total correlations of .40 and above and demonstrated good internal consistencies (mother version [n 70], .97; father version [n 45], .97). Using a subset of participants, both versions also showed good testretest reliability after a 2-week interval (mother version [n 19], r .97; father version [n 12], r .95). Because of the small number of participants (n 72), exploratory factor analyses were not conducted.

who were approached and eligible for the study agreed to participate. Participants were provided with a questionnaire packet containing the background information form, the FACES III, the Authoritative Parenting Measure (both mother and father versions), and the PPRS (both mother and father versions). If the participant was not out to his father, he was instructed to leave any father-specic questionnaires blank. Similarly, if the participant was not out to his mother, he was asked to leave the mother-specic questionnaires blank. On completion of the questionnaires, participants were given a debrieng statement outlining the studys goal in more detail and $10 as compensation for their time.

Results
Study means and standard deviations are presented in Table 1. Preliminary analyses were conducted to assess for differences in primary demographic variables across the measures of perceived parental reactions, family functioning, and parenting style. Mothers and fathers perceived reactions to their sons coming out episodes, as measured by the PPRS, did not differ across recruitment sites, age groups, education, ethnicity, or parents annual income. Furthermore, perceived cohesion, adaptability, and parenting style also did not differ among these primary demographic variables. Because these variables of interest did not differ across primary demographic variables, the sample was examined as a whole, across all demographic groups. The rst hypothesis was that gay men who reported balanced family cohesion prior to coming out would report experiencing less negative reactions from parents than would men from unbalanced families. This hypothesis was addressed by rst categorizing participants as having balanced or unbalanced cohesion on the basis of a median split. Next, results were analyzed using 2 one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedures, one for the perceptions of mothers reactions and one for the perceptions of fathers reactions (see Table 2 for means and standard deviations). Men who reported balanced family cohesion in their families prior to coming out perceived their mothers initial responses to their coming out as less negative compared with men reporting unbal-

Procedure
After obtaining approval from the University of Miamis Institutional Review Board, we contacted community and university-based GLBT groups. During evenings when organized group activities were to take place, researchers visited the sites to ask for volunteers. Group members were verbally informed about the nature of the study and participation criteria. All participants

PARENTAL REACTIONS

21

Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges of Study Variables

Variable FACES III Family Cohesion Family Adaptability PPRS Mother Father APM AcceptanceInvolvement Mother Father APM StrictnessSupervision Mother Father M 31.52 23.52 90.16 86.87 27.91 22.96 21.07 18.39 SD 9.93 5.91 35.21 31.73 6.27 8.09 5.05 6.40 Range 1049 1039 34153 32148 936 938 830 830 n 72 72 70 45 70 46 70 46

Note. FACES III Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales; PPRS Perceived Parental Reactions Scale; APM Authoritative Parenting Measure.

anced family cohesion prior to coming out, F(1, 68) 4.76, p .001. Young gay men reporting balanced cohesion in their families prior to coming out also perceived their fathers initial reactions to their coming out as less negative than men reporting unbalanced cohesion in their families prior to coming out, F(1, 43) 8.54, p .01. It was also hypothesized that gay men who reported balanced family adaptability prior to coming out would report experiencing more positive reactions from parents than would men from unbalanced families. Similar to cohesion, participants were categorized as having balanced or unbalanced adaptability on the basis of a median split, and results were analyzed using 2 one-way ANOVAs, one for perceptions of mothers reactions and one for perceptions of fathers reactions (see Table 2 for means and standard deviations). Men who reported having balanced family adaptability prior to coming

out perceived their mothers initial responses to coming out as less negative compared with men reporting to come from families with unbalanced adaptability, F(1, 68) 5.33, p .05. For fathers, men reporting to have balanced family adaptability in their families prior to coming out perceived their fathers initial responses to their coming out as less negative compared with men reporting unbalanced family adaptability prior to coming out, F(1, 43) 5.33, p .05. With regard to parenting style, it was hypothesized that gay men reporting that they came from families with parents who were perceived to have authoritative parenting styles would experience less negative reactions from parents than would men whose parents were reported to be authoritarian. No specic hypotheses were made regarding neglectful and indulgent parenting styles and coming out experiences. Parents were classied into one of four parenting cate-

Table 2 Perceived Parental Reactions Scale (PPRS) Means (and Standard Deviations) for Balanced and Unbalanced Cohesive and Adaptable Families
Cohesion PPRS Mother Father Unbalanced 99.10** (33.39) 100.52** (30.53) Balanced 81.22 (35.17) 74.92 (27.86) Adaptability Unbalanced 99.31* (34.28) 99.05* (32.96) Balanced 80.46 (34.02) 77.96 (28.20)

Note. For mothers, n 70; for fathers, n 45. Unbalanced means marked with one asterisk are signicantly different from their corresponding balanced means at p .05; unbalanced means marked with two asterisks are signicantly different from their corresponding balanced means at p .01.

22

WILLOUGHBY, MALIK, AND LINDAHL

gories on the basis of a median split of both the AcceptanceInvolvement and StrictnessSupervision subscales of the Authoritative Parenting Measure. On the basis of the median split, we classied parents into four quadrants: authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful (see Table 3). Participants perceptions of their mothers initial reactions to their sexual orientation disclosures signicantly differed across mothers parenting styles, F(3, 66) 4.86, p .01. Post hoc analyses using DunnBonferroni corrected t tests revealed that mothers reported to be authoritative and indulgent, prior to coming out, were perceived to initially respond to their sons coming out signicantly less negatively compared with mothers reported to be authoritarian ( p .05). The perceived reactions from neglectful mothers did not signicantly differ from the other parenting styles. Mens perceptions of their fathers initial responses to their coming out also signicantly differed across fathers parenting styles, F(3, 41) 3.32, p .05. Post hoc analyses using DunnBonferroni corrected t tests revealed that fathers reported to be authoritative, prior to coming out, were perceived to initially respond to their sons coming out signicantly ( p .05) less negatively compared with fathers reported to be authoritarian. The perceived reactions from indulgent and neglectful fathers did not signicantly differ from other parenting styles.

Discussion
Family stress theory suggests that family level resources in place prior to a stressors onset may buffer the effects of a crisis event. The disclosure of sexual orientation by a family member clearly ts the description of a stressor because coming out often shifts several aspects of the family system, such as family values,

roles, expectations, and boundaries. Thus, having family resources in place prior to a family members coming out may aid in reducing the stress associated with this revelation. Furthermore, the way in which the family reacts to and copes with a family members sexual orientation disclosure will likely inuence the way that family member will view oneself as gay. According to identity development theory, disclosure is an important milestone for gay youth where individuals seek validation from signicant others (e.g., family and peers) and internalize this feedback. If disclosure of sexual orientation is not met with acceptance, then a gay youth may begin to develop a negative sense of self. It is important, therefore, to better understand parental responses to their childs coming out and elucidate variables that may be associated with positive and negative reactions. The current study extended the ndings on factors associated with parental reactions to their sons sexual orientation disclosures. According to theory, family resources in place before the onset of a stressor may buffer the effects of the stressor event (McKenry & Price, 2000). On the basis of this theoretical tenet, it was hypothesized that gay men existing in families perceived to have balanced cohesion and adaptability, prior to coming out, would perceive their parents to react less negatively to their sexual orientation disclosures compared with gay men from unbalanced families. The ndings in the present study supported this notion. It was also hypothesized that gay men with parents perceived to have authoritative parenting styles, prior to coming out, would experience less negative reactions from parents compared with gay men with parents perceived to be authoritarian. Again, results of the current study supported this hypothesis. Although no specic hypotheses were made about indulgent and neglectful parents, results revealed that mothers

Table 3 Perceived Parental Reactions Scale (PPRS) Means (and Standard Deviations) for Parenting Styles
PPRS Mother Father Authoritarian 79.09a (30.99) 73.24a (29.04) Authoritative 113.62b (36.03) 110.30b (38.46) Indulgent 70.91a (23.43) 87.71 (22.82) Neglectful 96.43 (35.58) 86.09 (23.91)

Note. For mothers, n 70; for fathers, n 45. Means with different subscripts are signicantly different from one another at p .05.

PARENTAL REACTIONS

23

reported to be indulgent prior to coming out were perceived to initially respond to their sons coming out less negatively compared with mothers reported to be authoritarian. The above results can be interpreted at a societal, dyadic, or individual level. At the societal level, parents discovering their childs sexual orientation may react in accord with the general publics views of homosexuality and reject their child or react against societal notions of homosexuality and embrace their childs differences (Weinberg, 1972). It may be that family resources in place prior to the discovery of a family members sexuality create a bond stronger than the forces of society. Thus, families with high cohesion, adaptability, and warmth in place prior to disclosure may give precedence to the family and reject societys condemnation of homosexuality. In contrast, families lacking family level resources may have little reason to embrace their child and may choose to follow the notions of the general public. It may also be the case that family resources moderate the relationship between more conservative family values and condemnation of a homosexual child. Furthermore, the current state of attitudes toward homosexuality is also noteworthy in that attitudes toward gays and lesbians appear to be changing in a positive direction (Herek, 1998). As this trend continues, if it continues, societal acceptance of homosexuality may attenuate the degree to which a childs coming out is perceived as a family crisis. At the dyadic level, attachment theory and symbolic interactionism provide general frameworks for the interpretation of the current studys results. According to an attachment perspective, close emotional bonding, exibility, and warmth within the family may create secure attachments deep enough to withstand perturbations and changes in family relationships (Bowlby, 1989). Thus, even when family values, boundaries, roles, and beliefs are violated during a family members sexual orientation disclosure, the secure attachments between parent and child remain. This attachment perspective may partly explain why family resources in place prior to the disclosure of a family members sexuality may buffer the adverse effects of the disclosure. Similar to attachment theory, a symbolic interactionist perspective provides a broad framework for conceptualizing the studys ndings.

The family system carries with it a series of roles, expectations, shared memories, and values (Burr, Leigh, Day, & Constantine, 1979), which may become implicit rules for communication and interaction among family members. In a family that functions in a cohesive, adaptable, and warm way, those implicit rules may include condence in the bond among family members, even in the face of a challenge such as a childs coming out. To reject a family member because of their sexual orientation may be, therefore, a violation of the rules of a cohesive, adaptable, and warm family. Thus, families with these resources in place prior to a family members sexual orientation disclosure may react in accordance with the rules of the family and, in turn, respond with unconditional acceptance. At the individual level, results of the present study may be interpreted using exchange theory. According to exchange theory, individuals make choices based on the costs and rewards of potential outcomes (Gelles, 1983). When family level resources are in place, the family is likely in a period of balance and harmony. The costs of disrupting the family system by rejecting a gay family member may be high for individuals in cohesive, adaptable, and warm families. Therefore, families with resources in place prior to coming out may choose to accept a gay family member to reduce costs associated with rejection. Alternatively, there may be few costs of rejecting a gay family member for families that do not have family resources in place prior to a disclosure, leading to more negative reactions from parents.

Study Limitations
Although the results of the current investigation are strong and generally consistent with existing theories, several limitations of the study must be addressed. First, this investigation relied on participants retrospective reports of their families prior to coming out, and one of the subscales, Family Adaptability on the FACES III, had low reliability. On the basis of ndings suggesting individuals often make inaccurate reports of past events, the use of retrospective data in empirical research has been criticized. In the current study, it may have been that the quality of participants coming out episodes and subsequent relationships with their

24

WILLOUGHBY, MALIK, AND LINDAHL

parents altered their perceptions of what their families were like prior to coming out. For instance, if a gay man received an extremely negative reaction from his father during his coming out and their relationship diminished, then he might be likely to think about their relationship as always being negative in retrospect. Thus, because of the retrospective nature of the current study and the low reliability of the Adaptability subscale, results must be interpreted with caution. A second limitation of the present study is that results may not generalize to gay men who are not involved in organized GLBT groups. All participants in this study were connected to a community- or university-based organization. Research suggests that young gay men involved in community organizations may represent a subgroup of gay youth that are highly adaptive (Savin-Williams, 2001). The ndings in the current study, therefore, may not generalize to gay men outside community- or university-based groups. To address this limitation, future research should attempt to recruit a more varied sample of gay youth. A third limitation of the present study is the small sample size. This study only included 70 reports of mothers reactions and 45 reports of fathers reactions. Although the sample size is sufcient to detect a medium effect size (at power .80; Cohen, 1992), a larger sample would have helped to increase condence in the results. It is difcult to comment on the generalizability and robustness of results based on such a small sample. This is especially true for fathers. That being said, this study was the rst of its kind and largely exploratory. The small number of participants from each of the ethnic minority groups included in the study did not allow for statistical evaluation of the ethnic differences in the constructs assessed. Although there were no signicant mean differences on the basis of ethnicity across measures of parental reactions, family functioning, parenting styles, and psychological and behavioral outcomes, it is possible that the pattern of association among the variables differs by ethnicity. A larger sample size would help to further investigation ethnic differences and similarities among variables.

Future Directions and Implications

The current study answered several questions regarding young gay men and the factors asso-

ciated with parental reactions to their sexual orientation disclosure. This study provides initial evidence suggesting that the climate of a family (i.e., family cohesiveness, adaptability, and parenting style) prior to coming out may be associated with parental reactions to their sexual orientation disclosure. The results of the current study need to be supported by further research in this area. It would be ideal to examine these results using a longitudinal, rather than retrospective, design. That is, a sample of young gay men could assess their families prior to coming out at Time 1, describe their parents reactions at Time 2, and complete questionnaires regarding current functioning at Time 3. Furthermore, it may be important for researchers to collect more qualitative data on the process of coming out and whether family reactions speed up or slow down this process. It would also be ideal to collect collateral information from parents to assess the validity of gay youths perception of their coming out episodes. Future research in this area should include young lesbian women to determine whether family factors, prior to coming out, are associated with parental reactions to their sexual orientation disclosures. This line of research would involve revising the current versions of the PPRS to capture perceived parental reactions to their daughters disclosures of sexuality and investigate the scales psychometric properties with a female sample. The results of the current investigation may have signicant implications for clinical work with young gay men and their families. Results of this study indicated that men who, prior to coming out, perceive their families as close and exible, with authoritative or indulgent parents, may be more likely to perceive their parents reactions less negatively than men perceiving their families as disengaged, rigid, and authoritarian. A clinician seeing a gay male client who is contemplating disclosing their sexual orientation may want to query the family climate of the gay youth. The description of the family and parenting practices may be used as a gauge for the clinician (and youth) to determine potential reactions from parents. If parental reactions can be somewhat predicted, a clinician can help a gay youth understand how to prepare for and cope with potential negative reactions. In addition, the clinician may consider focusing therapy on bolstering the familys resources (such

PARENTAL REACTIONS

25

as promoting greater cohesion and adaptability) to potentially reduce the impact of the clients sexual orientation disclosure.

References
Baldwin, A. L. (1955). Behavior and development in childhood. New York: Dreyden Press. Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding 3 patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75, 43 88. Ben-Ari, A. (1995). The discovery that an offspring is gay: Parents, gay mens, and lesbians perspectives. Journal of Homosexuality, 30, 89 112. Ben-David, A., & Sprenkle, D. H. (1993). How do they (participants) understand our (researchers) intentions? A qualitative test of the curvilinear assumptions of the adaptability items of the FACES III. American Journal of Family Therapy, 21, 17 26. Bowlby, J. (1989). Secure and insecure attachments. New York: Basic Books. Burr, W., Leigh, G. K., Day, R. D., & Constantine, J. (1979). Symbolic interaction and the family. In W. R. Burr, R. Hill, F. I. Nye, & I. L. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family (Vol. 2, pp. 42111). New York: Free Press. Cass, V. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of Homosexuality, 4, 219 235. Cass, V. (1996). Sexual orientation identity formation: A Western phenomenon. In T. S. Stein & R. P. Cabaj (Eds.), Textbook of homosexuality and mental health (pp. 227251). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155159. Cooke, R. G., Young, L. T., Mohri, L., Blake, P., & Joffe, R. T. (1999). Family-of-origin characteristics in bipolar disorder: A controlled study. Journal of Canadian Psychiatry, 44, 379 381. Cramer, D. W., & Roach, A. J. (1988). Coming out to mom and dad: A study of gay males and their relationships with their parents. Journal of Homosexuality, 15, 79 91. Crosbie-Burnett, M., Foster, T. L., Murray, C. I., & Bowen, G. L. (1996). Gays and lesbians familiesof-origin: A social cognitive behavioral model of adjustment. Family Relations: Journal of Applied Family and Child Studies, 45, 397 403. DAugelli, A. R., & Hershberger, S. L. (1993). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth in community settings: Personal challenges and mental health problems. American Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 421 448. Feshbach, N. D. (1975). The relationship of childrearing factors to childrens aggression, empathy,

and related positive and negative social behaviors. In J. de Wit & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), Determinants and origins of aggressive behavior (pp. 427 436). The Hague, the Netherlands: Mouton. Gelles, R. J. (1983). An exchange/social control theory. In D. Finkelhor, R. Gelles, M. Straus, & G. Hotaling (Eds.), The dark side of families: Current family violence research (pp. 151165). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with childrens self-regulation and competence in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 143154. Herek, G. M. (Ed.). (1998). Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hill, R. (1949). Families under stress. Westport, CT: Greenwood. Leaveck, A. (1994). Perceived parental reactions to same-sex sexual orientation disclosure: A search for predictors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, MI. Litovsky, V. G., & Dusek, J. B. (1985). Perceptions of child rearing and self-concept development during the early adolescent years. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 14, 373387. Maccoby, E., & Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent child interaction. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (4th ed., pp. 1101). New York: Wiley. McCubbin, H. I. (1979). Integrating coping behavior in family stress theory. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 237244. McKenry, P. C., & Price, S. J. (2000). Families coping with problems and change: A conceptual overview. In P. C. McKenry & S. J. Price (Eds.), Families and change: Coping with stressful events and transitions (2nd ed., pp. 121). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Moos, R. H. (1976). Human adaptation: Coping with life crisis. Lexington, MA: D. C. Health. Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (1994). Family Environment Scale. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Morales, E. S. (1989). Ethnic minority families and minority gays and lesbians. Marriage and Family Review, 14, 217239. Mupinga, E. E., Garrison, M. B., & Pierce, S. H. (2002). An exploratory study of the relationships between family functioning and parenting styles: The perceptions of mothers of young grade school children. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 31, 112129. Nungesser, L. G. (1983). Homosexual acts, actors, and identities. New York: Praeger. Olson, D. H. (1996). Clinical assessment and treatment interventions using the family circumplex

26

WILLOUGHBY, MALIK, AND LINDAHL

model. In F. Kaslow (Ed.), Handbook of relational and diagnosis and dysfunctional family patterns (pp. 59 80). New York: Wiley. Olson, D. H., & Gorall, D. M. (2003). Circumplex model of marital and family systems. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes: Growing diversity and complexity (3rd ed., pp. 514 548). New York: Guilford Press. Olson, D. H., Portner, J., & Lavee, Y. (1985). FACES III. St. Paul: Family Social Science, University of Minnesota. Olson, D. H., Sprenkle, D. H., & Russell, C. S. (1979). Circumplex model of marital and family systems: I. Cohesion and adaptability dimensions, family types, and clinical applications. Family Process, 18, 328. Rivers, I. (2002). Developmental issues for lesbian and gay youth. In A. Coyle & C. Kitzinger (Eds.), Lesbian and gay psychology: New perspectives (pp. 30 44). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Robinson, B. E., Walters, L. H., & Skeen, P. (1989). Response of parents to learning that their child is homosexual and concern over AIDS: A national study. Journal of Homosexuality, 18, 59 80. Rosario, M., Hunter, J., Maguen, S., Gwadz, M., & Smith, R. (2001). The coming out process and its adaptational and health-related associations among gay, lesbian, and bisexual youths: Stipulation and exploration of a model. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 133160. Savin-Williams, R. (1989). Coming out to parents and self-esteem among gay and lesbian youths. Journal of Homosexuality, 18, 135.

Savin-Williams, R. (2001). Mom. Dad. Im gay. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Schope, R. D. (2002). The decision to tell: Factors inuencing the disclosure of sexual orientation by gay men. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services: Issues in Practice, Policy, and Research, 14, 122. Slicker, E. K. (1998). Relationship of parenting style to behavioral adjustment in graduating high school seniors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 27, 345372. Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S., Darling, N., Mounts, N., & Dornbusch, S. (1994). Over-time changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 65, 754 770. Strommen, E. F. (1989). Youre a what?: Family member reactions to the disclosure of homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality, 18, 3758. Tremble, B., Schneider, M., & Appathurai, C. (1989). Growing up gay or lesbian in a multicultural context. Journal of Homosexuality, 17, 253 267. Vincke, J., Bolton, R., Mak, R., & Blank, S. (1993). Coming out and AIDS-related high-risk sexual behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 22, 559 586. Weinberg, G. (1972). Society and the healthy homosexual. New York: Doubleday. Received October 18, 2004 Revision received April 18, 2005 Accepted April 20, 2005