Romantic Involvement: a Protective Factor for Psychological Health in Racially-Diverse Young Sexual Minorities

Home , Committed relationship, Romance (love)

Romantic Involvement: A Protective Factor for Psychological Health in Racially-Diverse Young Sexual Minorities

Sarah W. Whitton and Christina Dyar Michael E. Newcomb and Brian Mustanski University of Cincinnati Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine

Sexual minority youth experience elevated rates of internalizing disorders; it is, therefore, important to identify protective factors that decrease risk for psychological distress in this population. In this study, we examined whether involvement in a romantic relationship, a well-established protective factor for mental health among heterosexual adults, is also protective for young sexual minorities. Using eight waves of data provided by a community sample of 248 racially diverse sexual minority youth (ages 16–20 years at baseline), we assessed within-person associations between relationship involvement and psychological distress. Results from multilevel structural equation models indicated that, overall, participants reported less psychological distress at waves when they were in a relationship than when they were not. However, findings differed as a function of race/ethnicity and sexual orientation. Specifically, although relationship involvement predicted lower psychological distress for Black and gay/lesbian participants, the association was not present for White participants and, for bisexuals, relationship involvement predicted higher distress. In addition, relationship involvement reduced the negative association between victimization based on sexual minority status and psychological distress, suggesting a stress-buffering effect that did not differ based on demographic factors. Together, these findings suggest that being in a romantic relationship may promote mental health for many, but not all, young sexual minorities, highlighting the importance of attending to differences among subgroups of sexual minorities in research, theory, and efforts to reduce mental health disparities.

General Scientific Summary Marriage is a well-established protective factor for mental health among heterosexual adults. The present study suggests that romantic involvement is also associated with psychological well-being among young sexual minorities, particularly those who are also ethnic minorities and identify as gay or lesbian.

Keywords: LGBT, psychological distress, romantic involvement, sexual minorities

A large body of research indicates that sexual minority youth buehler, 2009; Meyer, 2003). It is therefore important to identify (i.e., nonheterosexual adolescents and young adults, most of whom factors that are associated with positive mental health among identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual; LGB) experience higher rates young sexual minorities and that may buffer them from the neg- of internalizing psychopathology than do heterosexual youth (In- ative psychological effects of stressors they face because of their stitute of Medicine, 2011; Marshal et al., 2011). These mental sexual orientation (Mustanski, Newcomb, & Garofalo, 2011). health disparities are generally viewed as resulting from the Among heterosexual adults, one well-established protective factor chronic stress associated with living in a society that stigmatizes for mental health is marriage (Kamp Dush & Amato, 2005; Waite

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its alliednonheterosexual publishers. identities and same-sex attractions (Hatzen- & Gallagher, 2000). However, it is not clear whether sexual This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

This article was published Online First February 1, 2018. cide Prevention grant (PI: Brian Mustanski), the William T. Grant Foun- Sarah W. Whitton and Christina Dyar, Department of Psychology, dation Scholars Award (PI: Brian Mustanski), and the David Bohnett University of Cincinnati; Michael E. Newcomb and Brian Mustanski, Foundation (PI: Brian Mustanski). Some of the hypotheses and results in Department of Medicine Social Sciences and the Institute for Sexual and the manuscript were presented in 2017 at the Annual Meeting of the Gender Health and Wellbeing, Northwestern University Feinberg School Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies (ABCT) and the 5th of Medicine. Annual National LGBTQ Health Conference. This research was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Brian Child and Human Development (R01HD086170; PI: Sarah W. Whitton), a Mustanski, Institute for Sexual and Gender Minority Health and Wellbe- grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (U01DA036939; PI: Brian ing, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 625 North Mustanski), a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health Michigan Avenue Suite 14-061, Chicago, IL 60611. E-mail: brian@ (R21MH095413; PI: Brian Mustanski), an American Foundation for Sui- northwestern.edu

265 266 WHITTON, DYAR, NEWCOMB, AND MUSTANSKI

minorities, particularly youth, also experience a mental health provided by marriage benefits spouses’ well-being by protecting benefit from their romantic relationships. The few studies that have them from the detrimental effects of stressors (Cohen & Wills, investigated associations between romantic involvement and psy- 1985). Research has supported this model in married heterosexual chological health in youth or in sexual minorities are limited by couples, indicating that spousal support reduces the negative ef- cross-sectional designs and inconsistent findings, some of which fects of a wide range of stressors on mental health (Jackson, 1992; even suggest negative effects of relationship involvement on men- Syrotuik & D’Arcy, 1984). tal health. In the current study, we examined whether romantic relationship in- Relationship Involvement and Mental Health Among volvement may influence the psychological health of sexual mi- Adolescents and Young Adults nority adolescents and young adults. Using multiwave longitudinal data provided by a diverse sample of lesbian/gay/bisexual/trans- It remains unclear whether the well-documented “marriage ben- gender (LGBT) youth, we assessed whether relationship involve- efit” to mental health generalizes to the dating relationships of ment had direct effects on psychological distress and whether it young people; there are several theoretical reasons it may not. buffered these youth from negative psychological effects of sexual First, according to socioemotional selectivity theory (Carstensen, minority-specific victimization. Further, we assessed whether any 1992), individuals tend to have many interaction partners during direct or buffering effects of relationship involvement on psycho- adolescence and young adulthood but restrict social contact to logical distress differed by age, gender, race, or sexual orientation fewer individuals, often spouses, as they age. As a result, being (gay/lesbian vs. bisexual). single may not entail the lower levels of social interaction and support for youth that it generally does for adults. Second, young Relationship Involvement and Mental Health Among dating partners may not exert social control over each other’s Heterosexual Adults behaviors in ways that adult spouses do. Because most youth do not live with their romantic partners, they may be less able to A large body of literature on heterosexual adults has docu- monitor each other’s behavior. Also, the social norm that marriage mented the mental health benefits of marriage, which is associated entails “cleaning up your act” and doing what your spouse asks with reduced risk for a wide range of psychological problems you to do (e.g., Umberson, 1987), may not apply when dating (reviewed by Waite & Gallagher, 2000). Married adults, and to a partners are young and unmarried. Third, youth generally do not lesser extent those in nonmarital committed partnerships, have experience the legal and financial benefits of marriage, such as shown better psychological well-being than their single counter- access to each other’s health insurance (Liu, Reczek, & Brown, parts in samples from nearly two dozen countries (Vanassche, 2013). Finally, some theorists have proposed that adolescents lack Swicegood, & Matthijs, 2013); these differences tend to persist the emotional maturity and coping resources to handle the intense even when the quality of the romantic relationship is controlled for emotions and other challenges inherent in intimate relationships, (e.g., Kamp Dush & Amato, 2005; Ross, 1995). Although the so that romantic involvement may actually put them at risk for selection of psychologically healthy individuals into relationships psychological distress (Davila, 2008). On the other hand, devel- may account for some of these effects, longitudinal studies have oping romantic relationship competence represents a central de- consistently indicated that entry into marriage or another type of velopmental task of adolescence and young adulthood (Erikson, committed relationship is followed by improved emotional well- 1950; Roisman, Masten, Coatsworth, & Tellegen, 2004); therefore, being and reduced depression (Kamp Dush & Amato, 2005; Lamb, involvement in an intimate relationship may positively influence Lee, & DeMaris, 2003), which suggests that relationship involve- youth’s mental health by providing them with a sense of accom- ment actively confers benefits on mental health. Several theoretical plishment and social identity (Montgomery, 2005). Young roman- perspectives, mostly focused on marriage specifically, have been tic partners may also provide each other a quality of emotional put forth to explain these findings. connection not offered by other social partners. It is also possible First, social control theories (Umberson, 1987) emphasize how that dating partners exert some level of social control over one spouses monitor one another’s behavior, encouraging healthy be- another, reducing engagement in unhealthy behaviors associated haviors that promote emotional well-being (e.g., good eating hab- with the single “hook-up” culture (e.g., Owen, Rhoades, Stanley, its, exercise), and discouraging unhealthy ones (e.g., heavy drink- & Fincham, 2010). This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. ing; Lewis & Butterfield, 2007). The internalization of behavioral Limited research has examined the association between dating This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. norms for the social role of a spouse may also reduce unhealthy relationships and mental health among young people. A national behaviors that are more acceptable for singles (e.g., substance use, telephone survey of young adults (median age ϭ 23 years) indicated casual sex; Umberson, 1987). Second, marriage is associated with that subjective well-being (i.e., life satisfaction, happiness, distress, tangible legal and financial benefits that promote general health and self-esteem) was higher among those who were dating one person and well-being (e.g., spousal income and health insurance; Waite exclusively than among those who were single or dating multiple & Gallagher, 2000). Third, according to the social integration people (Kamp Dush & Amato, 2005). Similarly, in a community perspective, marriage may promote mental health by providing an sample of 18–23-year-olds, romantic involvement was associated intimate, emotionally fulfilling, and supportive relationship that with fewer depressive symptoms (Simon & Barrett, 2010). Two satisfies individuals’ needs for social connection (House, Umber- studies of college students aged 18–25 also found evidence that son, & Landis, 1988). Indeed, marriage increases the availability involvement in dating relationships is associated with better mental of social support, which is associated with lower psychological health: Compared with single students, those in committed relation- distress and depressive symptoms (reviewed by Turner & Brown, ships reported fewer depressive symptoms (Whitton, Weitbrecht, 2010). Finally, stress-buffering models posit that the social support Kuryluk, & Bruner, 2013) and fewer academic problems resulting ROMANTIC INVOLVEMENT IN YOUNG SEXUAL MINORITIES 267

from mental health problems (Braithwaite, Delevi, & Fincham, 2010). about sexuality and, if the partner is same-sex, may raise risk for However, another study that sampled only first-year college students discrimination and conflict with unaccepting family members by (predominantly 18 years old) found that involvement in a romantic revealing their same-sex attractions. Alternatively, it is possible relationship was not associated with current depressive symptoms, but that sexual minority youth may benefit more than heterosexual predicted increases in depression over the following year (Davila, youth from a romantic partnership, which might provide social Steinberg, Kachadourian, Cobb, & Fincham, 2004). Although the support that is lacking from their parents and peers at school reason behind these conflicting findings is unclear, it is possible that (Katz-Wise & Hyde, 2012; Ryan, Huebner, Diaz, & Sanchez, relationship involvement does not become associated with positive 2009). well-being until individuals reach young adulthood. Of the few studies that have examined associations between In fact, studies of adolescents younger than 18 years generally relationship involvement and mental health in sexual minorities, indicate that romantic involvement may have a detrimental effect most have used adult samples and, because marriage has only on mental health during this developmental period. Among girls recently become available for same-sex partnerships, have exam- aged 10–13 years, involvement in romantic activities with boys ined other forms of committed relationships. Cross-sectional stud- has been associated with higher levels of depressive symptoms ies have demonstrated that, compared with single lesbian women, (Compian, Gowen, & Hayward, 2004; Davila et al., 2004). Studies lesbians in committed relationships report fewer depressive symp- of adolescents in middle school and high school (ages 12–17 toms (Ayala & Coleman, 2000; Kornblith, Green, Casey, & Tiet, years) have found that depressive symptoms were higher among 2016; Oetjen & Rothblum, 2000) and better psychological well- frequent daters than infrequent daters (Quatman, Sampson, Rob- being (Wayment & Peplau, 1995); similar findings have been inson, & Watson, 2001) and that depressive symptoms increased observed in gay and bisexual men (Parsons, Starks, DuBois, Grov, more over time in youth who became involved in a different-sex & Golub, 2013). Further, in a large probability sample, partnered romantic relationship than in those who did not (Joyner & Udry, gay and lesbian adults reported more happiness than single adults 2000). Although these associations were present across gender, the of any sexual orientation (but less than married heterosexuals; longitudinal effect was stronger for girls than for boys (Joyner & Wienke & Hill, 2009). However, the one study that has explored Udry, 2000). Interestingly, the two studies yielded conflicting whether relationship involvement reduces risk for mental health findings regarding whether the effect of relationship involvement disorders, assessed by a structured diagnostic interview, found no on depression differed by age, Joyner and Udry (2000) found that evidence that it does (Feinstein, Latack, Bhatia, Davila, & Eaton, the effect decreased between the ages of 12 and 18 years for girls 2016). There were no differences in rates of anxiety or depressive but not for boys, whereas Quatman and colleagues (2001) found disorders by relationship status among gay men and lesbian that the association between frequent dating and depressive symp- women, and relationship involvement was associated with higher toms was equally strong in 8th, 10th, and 12th grades. It should be odds of anxiety disorders among bisexual adults. noted that links between adolescent romantic involvement and We could find only three studies on sexual minority youth poor mental health are not always observed. For example, La (Baams, Bos, & Jonas, 2014; Bauermeister et al., 2010; Russell & Greca and Harrison (2005) found that teens between the ages 14 Consolacion, 2003). One, which focused on same-sex attracted and 19 who were dating had less social anxiety and equivalent youth in 10th and 11th grades, found that those who dated same- depressive symptoms to those who were not dating. Nevertheless, most studies suggest that being involved in romantic relationships sex partners were no more anxious or depressed than nondaters, before age 19 is associated with elevated depressive symptoms, but did show higher suicidality (Russell & Consolacion, 2003). especially for girls. The other two found no consistent differences between single and partnered sexual minority youth in psychological well-being (Baams et al., 2014; Bauermeister et al., 2010). Together these Relationship Involvement and Mental Health Among findings tentatively suggest that the negative associations between Sexual Minorities relationship involvement and mental health commonly found in It also is unclear whether romantic involvement has direct or heterosexual adolescent samples may not generalize to sexual stress-buffering effects on the mental health of sexual minority minority youth. individuals, particularly youth. In general, the romantic relation- Even fewer researchers have examined the potential stress- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. ships of sexual minority and heterosexual adults are exceedingly buffering effects of romantic involvement for sexual minorities. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. similar in terms of relationship quality (e.g., Kurdek, 2005) and Among adults in same-sex relationships, social support from one’s levels of social support between partners (Graham & Barnow, romantic partner, but not from family or friends, reduced the 2013), as well as in the associations between relationship func- negative effect of stressful life events on psychological well-being tioning and partners’ psychological well-being (Whitton & Kury- (Graham & Barnow, 2013), which suggests that romantic partner- luk, 2014). This suggests that the marriage benefit observed in ships may play a unique stress-buffering role for sexual minority heterosexual adults is likely to generalize to LGB adults. To the mental health. In the only study assessing whether romantic in- extent that the romantic partnerships of sexual minority adoles- volvement per se buffered sexual minorities from minority- cents are also similar to those of their heterosexual counterparts, specific stressors, Feinstein and colleagues (2016) found that ro- we might expect relationship involvement to be associated with mantic involvement did buffer the effects of discrimination on risk higher depressive symptoms among LGB teens, as it is in hetero- of anxiety or depressive disorders, but only for bisexual adults, not sexual teens. In fact, sexual minority youth may be especially for lesbians or gay men. Clearly, more research is needed on the prone to negative mental health effects of romantic involvement, topic, with consideration of potential differences between sub- because dating may heighten the salience of any internal conflicts groups of sexual minorities. 268 WHITTON, DYAR, NEWCOMB, AND MUSTANSKI

Potential Moderators of Relationship Involvement sexually irresponsible (e.g., promiscuous, likely to cheat on part- Effects on Mental Health ners; Brewster & Moradi, 2010). Bisexuals often report experienc- ing binegativity when involved in committed relationships, includ- As we seek to understand how relationship involvement may ing invalidation of their sexual identity by individuals who assume affect the mental health of young sexual minorities, we must attend they are lesbian/gay or heterosexual based on their current part- to how its effects may not be uniform across all members of this ner’s gender (Dyar, Feinstein, & London, 2014) and pressure from population. Indeed, theory and findings from existing research their nonbisexual partners to change their sexual identity to match suggest that the association between relationship status and mental the gender pairing of the given relationship (Bostwick & Hequ- health may differ along key demographic dimensions, including embourg, 2014). The only study to date of sexual orientation as a age, gender, sexual orientation, and race. moderator of the association between relationship involvement and As described above, being involved in a marriage or committed mental health (Feinstein et al., 2016) found that, for bisexuals only, romantic relationship is consistently associated with enhanced romantic involvement increased risk for anxiety disorders but also psychological well-being among adult samples of heterosexuals buffered the negative effects of discrimination on anxiety and (e.g., Vanassche et al., 2013) and sexual minorities (e.g., Kornblith depressive disorders. These apparently conflicting findings high- et al., 2016; Parsons et al., 2013); this is generally true even among light the necessity of further investigation. young adults (aged 18–25; e.g., Simon & Barrett, 2010). In con- Finally, it is important to assess racial/ethnic differences in how trast, studies of heterosexual adolescents tend to find that relation- romantic involvement may influence sexual minority mental health. ship involvement is negatively associated with psychological well- There is increasing recognition that individuals’ co-occurring social being, particularly in early adolescence (e.g., Davila et al., 2004). identities (including those related to sexual orientation and race) Therefore, it is possible that the association between relationship intersect to influence health (Cole, 2009; IOM, 2011) and that the involvement and psychological well-being among sexual minority experiences of sexual minorities can differ by race. Faced with inter- youth might be negative in early adolescence, but might become secting minority stressors, LGBT youth of color may particularly more positive with increasing age. However, the few existing benefit from the social support of a romantic relationship. studies of LGBT adolescents suggest that they do not share heterosexual youths’ risk for reduced well-being when they are ro- The Current Study mantically involved (e.g., Baams et al., 2014; Bauermeister et al., 2010), so it is also possible that, among sexual minorities, being in In the current study, we aimed to advance our understanding of a relationship is beneficial to mental health across adolescence and how relationship involvement influences the psychological well- young adulthood. Determining whether age moderates the associ- being of young sexual minorities. We used multiwave longitudinal ation between romantic involvement and well-being among sexual data provided by a large diverse sample of sexual minority youth minority youth is an important next step for research in this area. to assess whether, within persons, relationship involvement is Regarding gender, a large body of data suggests that the psy- associated with psychological distress. That is, do sexual minority chological benefits of marriage are equal for men and women (e.g., youth tend to experience less (or more) psychological distress at Simon, 2002). Further, the limited extant research suggests that times when they are in a relationship than when they are single? In male and female young adults benefit equally from involvement in addition, we examined whether relationship involvement may buf- nonmarital different-sex committed relationships (e.g., Kamp fer LGBT youth from the negative psychological effects of sexual Dush & Amato, 2005). However, among adolescents, some lon- minority-specific victimization. The current multiwave study of- gitudinal data suggest that relationship involvement is more det- fered key advantages over the cross-sectional studies that comprise rimental to girls’ than to boys’ well-being (Joyner & Udry, 2000). most of the existing literature, which can only speak to between- Research to date on sexual minorities has not revealed gender persons differences (i.e., do currently partnered individuals have differences in the associations between relationship status and less psychological distress than those who are currently single?). mental health; however, the data are limited and many studies used Further, the diversity of the sample allowed for examination of single-sex samples, precluding tests of moderation by gender. It is potential differences in the direct and buffering effects of relation- important to explore potential gender differences, given key dif- ship involvement by age, gender, sexual orientation, and race. ferences in sexual minority men’s and women’s experiences re- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. lated to their sexual orientation. For example, compared with Method This article is intended solely for the personal use ofsexual the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. minority men, sexual minority women experience less frequent sexual-orientation victimization (e.g., Herek, 2009; Participants and Procedure Meyer, Schwartz, & Frost, 2008) but higher rates of mood and anxiety disorders (Meyer, 2003). Participants were drawn from a community sample of 248 Specific sexual orientations may also influence how romantic sexual minority youth from the Chicago area who participated in a involvement affects psychological well-being. Compared with gay longitudinal study of LGBT youth (Project Q2; Mustanski, Garo- and lesbian individuals, bisexuals may benefit less from being in a falo, & Emerson, 2010). Project Q2 employed an accelerated romantic relationship because of the unique stressors they face longitudinal design in which participants who varied in age at based on their bisexuality (referred to as binegativity; Brewster & baseline (from 16–20 years) provided eight waves of data over a Moradi, 2010) that may be heightened upon entry into a relation- 5-year period: baseline and approximately 6-, 12-, 18-, 24-, 42-, ship. Binegativity, which can be perpetrated by both heterosexuals 48-, and 60-month follow-ups. Baseline data were collected from and lesbian/gay individuals, includes stereotypes that bisexuality is 2007–2009. Retention at each wave was 85%, 90%, 80%, 82%, an unstable or illegitimate sexual identity and that bisexuals are 83%, and 82%, respectively. For these analyses, we used data from ROMANTIC INVOLVEMENT IN YOUNG SEXUAL MINORITIES 269

all time points except the 18-month follow-up, when relationship missing; analyses suggested that data were missing at random status was not assessed. Because identification checks during (MAR), though not missing completely at random (MCAR). We follow-up waves indicated that 13 participants misreported their used full information maximum likelihood estimation (FIML) to age at baseline, any data those participants provided when they handle missing data, which produces unbiased estimates with were outside the study’s age range were removed (a total of 22 MAR data (Enders & Bandalos, 2001). Level 1 consisted of re- time points). peated measures, which were nested within individuals (Level 2). The majority of participants were cisgender (43.1% cisgender Analyses were conducted using multilevel structural equation mod- male, 48.8% cisgender female, 8.1% transgender). At baseline, eling (MSEM), which treats the repeated measures of within-person most participants identified as gay (34.3%), lesbian (27.8%), or variables as indicators of individual level latent variables while ad- bisexual (28.2%); 9.7% identified as questioning or unsure. The justing for their nonindependence (Lüdtke et al., 2008). To reduce sample was racially diverse (56.0% Black, 12.1% Latino, 14.1% convergence issues from inclusion of variables with dramatically White, 1.2% Asian/Pacific Islander, 1.2% Native American, different scales in the same analysis, age was standardized prior to 11.3% multiracial, and 4.0% identifying with another racial/ethnic analyses. Effect sizes were estimated using pseudo-R2 values, which identity). represent the proportion of variance in the outcome variable explained Assessments were conducted in private rooms at an LGBT by the given predictor. These were calculated by dividing the out- community health center and a university. At each visit, partici- come’s residual variance in a model with a predictor by its residual pants provided informed consent and completed self-report mea- variance in a model excluding the predictor for models not including sures of health behaviors, mental health, and psychosocial vari- interactions (Snijders & Bosker, 1994) and, for models including ables using audio computer-assisted self-interview technology. interactions, by dividing the proportion of variance explained by each Participants were paid $25 to $50 at each time point. This study effect (main effects, interaction) by the outcome’s total variance was approved first by the Institutional Review Boards of Univer- (Maslowsky, Jager, & Hemken, 2015). sity of Illinois–Chicago (#2006–0735) and then Northwestern Table 1 includes within-person and between-person correla- University (STU00047881). tions, intraclass correlations (ICCs), and means and variances for variables with within-person variance (i.e., repeated measures). Measures ICCs estimate the proportion of variance attributable to differences between participants; differences within individuals across waves Demographics. At baseline, a demographic questionnaire as- are estimated by 1 Ϫ ICC. These indicated considerable within- sessed participant age, gender (coded cisgender male, transgender, person variability over time in key variables, including relationship and cisgender female as the reference group), race/ethnicity (coded involvement (81%), psychological distress (56%), and LGBT vic- White, Latino, other, and Black as the reference group), and timization (61%), allowing for tests of within-person associations self-reported sexual orientation (coded bisexual and questioning/ among them. unsure, with gay or lesbian as the reference group). All of the following measures were collected at each assessment wave. Tests of Direct Effects of Relationship Involvement on Current relationship involvement. Participants were asked Psychological Distress about their current and recent romantic relationships at each wave. First, to test our primary hypothesis, we ran a model in which Those who indicated that they were in a current romantic relation- psychological distress at each time point was predicted by rela- ship were coded 1; others were coded 0. tionship involvement at that time point. Age at each time point was Psychological distress. The Global Severity Index of the also included at Level 1, and age, gender, sexual orientation, and Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI-18; (Derogatis, 2001), a self-report race/ethnicity were included at Level 2 in this and all subsequent measure of psychological distress during the previous week, is a analyses. The average coefficient for the within-person effect of widely used psychiatric screening tool in epidemiological studies relationship status on psychological distress was significant and and clinical settings, with good reliability and validity (Zabora et al., 2001). Participants report how much they have been distressed or bothered in the past week by each of 18 experiences (e.g., Table 1

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its alliedfeelings publishers. of worthlessness, feeling no interest in things, nervousness Correlations Among Major Study Variables

This article is intended solely for the personal use ofor the individual user and isshakiness not to be disseminated broadly. inside; 0 ϭ Not at all,4ϭ Extremely). Scores represent the mean of all items. The BSI was internally consistent Variable 1 2 3 4 across waves (␣ϭ.91–.94). 1. Relationship involvement — Ϫ.04 Ϫ.10 Ϫ.09 04. ءء44. — ءLGBT victimization. A 10-item measure assessed frequency 2. Psychological distress Ϫ.05 ءء of 10 victimization experiences (e.g., verbal threats, physical as- 3. LGBT victimization Ϫ.04 .21 — .02 ءء Ϫ ءء Ϫ ء sault) “because you are, or were thought to be, gay, lesbian, 4. Age .06 .27 .18 — ϭ bisexual, or transgender” during the last 6 months (Never 0, ICC .19 .44 .39 .26 Three or more times ϭ 3; Newcomb, Heinz, & Mustanski, 2012). Mean .52 .67 .01 21.04 Scores represent the mean of all items (␣ϭ.77–.93). Within variance .20 .28 .03 4.16 Between variance .05 .22 .02 1.49 Results Note. LGBT ϭ lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender; ICC ϭ intraclass cor- relation. Between-person correlations are presented above the diagonal and Mplus Version 7 with robust estimation was used to conduct all correlations at the within-person level are presented below the diagonal. .p Ͻ .01 ءء .p Ͻ .05 ء analyses (Muthén & Muthén, 2012). A total of 16.2% of data was 270 WHITTON, DYAR, NEWCOMB, AND MUSTANSKI

Table 2 2.0 Within-Person Prediction of Psychological Distress 1.8 1.6 Within-person predictor bSEz p Pseudo-R2 1.4 1.2 Model 1 1.0 Relationship involvement Ϫ.11 .04 Ϫ2.93 .003 .04 LG Age Ϫ.12 .03 Ϫ4.76 Ͻ.001 .05 .8 Model 2 .6 Bisexual Relationship involvement Ϫ.06 .07 Ϫ.84 .40 .001 .4 Ϫ Ϫ Ͻ

Age .13 .04 3.66 .001 .01 Distress Psychological .2 Relationship Involvement ϫ .0 Ͻ Age .02 .07 .30 .76 .001 No Relaonship Relaonship Note. All coefficients were estimated controlling for age, gender, sexual Relaonship Status identity, and race/ethnicity at the between-persons level. 2.0 1.8 negative (b ϭϪ.11, SE ϭ .04, z ϭϪ2.93, p ϭ .003), indicating 1.6 that LGBT youth showed less psychological distress at time points 1.4 when they were involved in a relationship than at time points when 1.2 Black they were not (see Table 2, Model 1). The variance of this 1.0 White coefficient was significant (b ϭ .18, SE ϭ .03, z ϭ 5.73, p Ͻ .001; .8 not shown in table), indicating that the association differed be- .6 Lano .4 tween participants and tests of moderation were possible. Other

Next, we examined whether the within-person association between Distress Psychological .2 relationship involvement and psychological distress changed across .0 No Relaonship Relaonship development. In this model (see Table 2, Model 2), a latent variable interaction was used to model the interaction between age and Relaonship Status relationship involvement at Level 1, as recommended by Preacher, Figure 1. Simple slopes of the association between relationship status Zhang, and Zyphur (2016). Age, relationship involvement, and their and psychological distress by sexual identity (top) and race/ethnicity (bot- interaction were included as within-person (i.e., Level 1) predictors of tom). psychological distress. Results indicate that age did not moderate the association between relationship involvement and psychological distress. volvement and psychological distress, indicating that this associ- The subsequent three models tested whether the association ation did not differ between cismen and ciswomen. In analyses between relationship involvement and psychological distress dif- examining sexual identity as a moderator, the small proportion of fered based on individuals’ gender, sexual identity, or race/ethnic- the sample who identified as unsure, questioning, or heterosexual ity. Each moderator (i.e., gender, sexual identity, or race/ethnicity) (n ϭ 24) were not included. Results indicated that sexual identity was added as a Level-2 predictor of the within-person association moderated the within-person association between relationship in- between relationship involvement and psychological distress in a volvement and psychological distress. Simple-slopes analyses in- separate model. See Table 3 and Figure 1 for results. Gender was dicated that relationship involvement was associated with lower examined first. Given the small number of transgender individuals psychological distress for lesbian/gay individuals (b ϭϪ.12, SE ϭ (n ϭ 20), they were not included in these analyses. Gender did not .02, z ϭϪ4.89, p Ͻ .001), but higher psychological distress for predict the within-person association between relationship in- bisexual individuals (b ϭ .13, SE ϭ .04, z ϭ 3.45, p Ͻ .001). Race/ethnicity was examined next. Black participants, the larg- est racial-minority group (n ϭ 139; 56%) served as the reference Table 3 group. Results indicated that the association between relationship This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Tests of Potential Moderators of the Within-Person Association involvement and psychological distress for Black participants was This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Between Relationship Involvement and Psychological Distress marginally different than for White participants, but did not differ from the association for Latino participants or participants of other 2 Potential moderator bSEz p Pseudo-R racial/ethnic identities. Simple-slopes analyses revealed that being Gender Ϫ.09 .06 Ϫ1.39 .17 .001 in a relationship predicted less psychological distress for Black Sexual identity .25 .04 5.45 Ͻ.001 .01 participants (b ϭϪ.15, SE ϭ .04, z ϭϪ3.43, p ϭ .001), but was Race/ethnicity (vs. Black) not associated with psychological distress for White participants White .18 .10 1.71 .09 .002 (b ϭ .03, SE ϭ .09, z ϭ .33, p ϭ .74). The simple slopes for Latino Latino Ϫ.12 .18 Ϫ.68 .49 Ͻ.001 Other .07 .10 .76 .44 Ͻ.001 and other-race participants were negative and did not differ from the simple slope for Black participants, but were not statistically Note. Reference groups: cisgender female, lesbian/gay, and Black. Co- significant, likely due to small ns within each group: For Latino efficients represent the association between the moderator and the random ϭ ϭϪ ϭ ϭϪ ϭ coefficient for relationship status predicting psychological distress, con- participants (n 30), b .27, SE .17, z 1.54, p .12; trolling for age, gender, sexual identity, and race/ethnicity at the between- for participants from other racial/ethnic groups (n ϭ 44), persons level and age at the within-persons level. b ϭϪ.07, SE ϭ .09, z ϭϪ.80, p ϭ .42. ROMANTIC INVOLVEMENT IN YOUNG SEXUAL MINORITIES 271

Tests of Stress-Buffering Effects of Relationship 2.0 Involvement on Psychological Distress 1.8 1.6 Next, we tested whether being in a relationship reduced the asso- 1.4 ciation between LGBT victimization experiences and psychological 1.2 distress (i.e., stress-buffering effects of relationship involvement). 1.0 LGBT victimization (grand-mean centered), relationship involve- Relaonship .8 ment, and their interaction were included as within-person (i.e., Level No Relaonship .6 1) predictors of psychological distress. Results (shown in Table 4) Psychological Distress Psychological .4 indicated that relationship involvement moderated the association .2 between LGBT victimization and psychological distress. Simple- .0 slopes analyses (see Figure 2) indicated that level of victimization was .0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 positively associated with psychological distress for single partici- LGBT Vicmizaon pants (b ϭ 1.07, SE ϭ .23, z ϭ 4.63, p Ͻ .001), but not for those in ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ relationships (b .26, SE .45, z .57, p .57). Figure 2. Simple slopes of the association between LGBT victimization Finally, we examined whether the buffering effect of relation- and psychological distress by relationship status. ship involvement on the association of victimization and psychological distress was moderated by gender, sexual identity, race/ ethnicity, or age. For models testing gender, sexual identity, or lesbian adults in romantic relationships report better psychological race/ethnicity as moderators, we used a three-way interaction in well-being than those who are single (e.g., Kornblith et al., 2016; which victimization and one moderator (relationship involvement) Parsons et al., 2013; Wayment & Peplau, 1995) to provide the were at the within-person level and the second moderator (gender, strongest evidence to date that the marriage benefit to mental sexual identity, or race/ethnicity) was at the between-person level. health does indeed extend to the nonmarital romantic partnerships For the model examining whether the relationship-buffering effect of young sexual minorities. Together with similar findings for differed across development, the predictor and both moderators heterosexual young adults (e.g., Kamp Dush & Amato, 2005; were at the within-person level. None of the three-way interactions Simon & Barrett, 2010; Whitton et al., 2013), these findings Ͼ were significant (ps .30), suggesting the buffering effect of suggest that committed partnerships other than marriage may be a relationship involvement on the association between victimization protective factor for young people broadly. and psychological distress is similar across age, gender, sexual In fact, echoing findings from adult heterosexual samples identity, and race/ethnicity. (Kamp Dush & Amato, 2005; Simon, 2002), the association between relationship involvement and psychological distress was Discussion consistent across gender, suggesting that being in a romantic relationship is equally beneficial to the psychological health of The current findings extend our understanding of how romantic male and female cisgender sexual minorities. Perhaps most inter- relationship involvement influences the psychological health of estingly, the association between relationship involvement and young sexual minorities. In contrast to most previous research, psychological distress was also not moderated by age in our which has focused on heterosexual adults or used cross-sectional sample. This suggests that the observed psychological benefits of designs, these longitudinal data from a diverse sample of LGBT being in a romantic relationship for sexual minorities are consis- youth allowed examination of how relationship involvement is tent from middle adolescence into young adulthood (i.e., across associated with psychological distress within young sexual minor- ages 16–26), in contrast with the literature on heterosexual indi- ity individuals over time. Overall, the findings provide novel viduals, which generally suggests that the mental health benefits of evidence that sexual minority youth experience less psychological relationship involvement observed among adults does not extend distress at times when they are involved in a romantic relationship to adolescents. Rather, being in a relationship has been associated than at times when they are not. Further, being in a romantic with higher levels of psychological distress in samples of hetero- relationship buffered LGBT youth from the negative psychological sexual adolescents aged 10–18 years (e.g., Compian et al., 2004; This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its alliedeffects publishers. of victimization due to their sexual orientation. These Davila et al., 2004; Joyner & Udry, 2000; Quatman et al., 2001). This article is intended solely for the personal use offindings the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. build upon previous research indicating that gay and It is possible that the lack of a moderating effect of age was related to the age of our sample (i.e., Ն16 years) because the most robust Table 4 evidence of negative psychological effects of heterosexual roman- Tests of the Stress-Buffering Model: Within-Person Prediction of tic involvement has been found in younger adolescents. That said, Psychological Distress research on heterosexuals suggests negative effects of relationship involvement in samples of 18-year-olds (Davila et al., 2004), who Within-person predictor bSEz p Pseudo-R2 were well-represented in our sample. Thus, it might also be that Relationship involvement Ϫ.08 .04 Ϫ1.88 .06 Ͻ.001 romantic involvement is not generally depressogenic for sexual Victimization 1.11 .28 4.63 Ͻ.001 .02 minority teens in the way it is for their heterosexual counterparts. Relationship Involvement ϫ Perhaps, because LGBT youth generally experience more stress Victimization Ϫ.81 .42 Ϫ1.93 .05 .01 and social isolation than heterosexual youth, the social support Note. All coefficients were estimated controlling for age, gender, sexual received from a romantic partner is more powerful in promoting identity, and race/ethnicity at the between-persons level. psychological health. Consistent with this notion, the few other 272 WHITTON, DYAR, NEWCOMB, AND MUSTANSKI

studies using samples of sexual minority adolescents have not power to detect an effect that was actually present in this group), found differences in psychological distress by relationship in- the simple slope for White participants was very close to zero, volvement (Baams et al., 2014; Bauermeister et al., 2010; Russell which raises the possibility that, for White sexual minority youth, & Consolacion, 2003). romantic involvement may not provide any mental health benefits. The within-person association between romantic involvement It also suggests that the discrepancy between our overall findings and psychological distress did, however, vary based on sexual and other studies of adolescents, which have found no effect or a identity and race/ethnicity. These findings indicate that relation- negative effect of romantic involvement on mental health, are ship involvement may only be a protective factor for mental health because of differences in the racial makeup of the samples. That is, among some, but not all, sexual minority youth. Most strikingly, if the benefits of relationship involvement are present primarily for whereas being in a romantic relationship predicted lower psycho- young people of color, convenience samples that are predomi- logical distress for gay and lesbian youth, it predicted higher nantly White may miss these effects. Study of racial differences in psychological distress for bisexuals. Together with evidence that youth of all sexual orientations is needed. bisexual adults in relationships are at greater risk of having an The present findings also provide evidence that romantic in- anxiety disorder than are single bisexuals (Feinstein et al., 2016), volvement may protect young sexual minorities from the detri- these findings suggest that romantic involvement may be a risk mental psychological effects of minority stressors, consistent with factor for psychological dysfunction among bisexual individuals. It stress-buffering theories (Cohen & Wills, 1985). Specifically, the is possible that bisexuals encounter unique stressors when engaged association between sexual-orientation victimization and psycho- in romantic relationships that sexual minorities attracted to only logical distress, present when participants were single, was not one gender (i.e., lesbian and gay youth) do not experience. Spe- present when participants were romantically involved. Further, this cifically, as a result of society’s binary conceptualization of sexual buffering effect was not moderated by any demographic variables, orientation, bisexuals who become involved with a same-sex or suggesting that being in a relationship may buffer young sexual different-sex partner may face heightened denial of their sexual minorities of all ages, genders, sexual identities, and races from the identity by outsiders, along with pressure from their partner to negative effects of victimization. This finding has particular sig- identify in a way that matches their current gender pairing (Dyar et nificance for efforts to promote the health of LGBT youth, who are al., 2014). These additional stressors may counter any psycholog- frequently insulted, threatened, or attacked because of their sexual ical benefits of relationship involvement and even create more orientation (Birkett, Newcomb, & Mustanski, 2015). There is a distress than singles typically experience. Given mounting evi- clear need to identify factors that may protect sexual minority dence that bisexual individuals experience more mental health youth from the harm that such experiences inflict upon their difficulties than other sexual minorities (Bostwick, Boyd, Hughes, psychological health (Mustanski, 2015). Existing evidence does & McCabe, 2010), there is a critical need for future research to not support the notion of general social support (received from all identify the mechanisms of risk. sources; e.g., Feinstein, Wadsworth, Davila, & Goldfried, 2014)or The association between relationship involvement and psychosocial support from family and friends (Graham & Barnow, 2013; logical distress also differed by race/ethnicity: Current romantic Mustanski et al., 2011) as effective buffers against sexual minority involvement was associated with lower levels of psychological stressors. In contrast, there may be something unique about the distress among Black participants, but not among those who iden- support from a romantic partner that can help reduce sexual tified as White. For Latino participants, this association was sim- minorities’ vulnerability to psychological distress in the face of ilar (actually slightly stronger in magnitude) to that observed victimization (Graham & Barnow, 2013). among Black participants, although it was not statistically signif- Several study limitations should be noted. First, although the icant as a result of the small n and higher within-group variability. overall sample was sizable for a study of sexual minority youth, Although replication is needed before confident conclusions are numbers of specific demographic subgroups were small. There drawn, these findings suggest that romantic involvement may were too few transgender individuals to explore potential differ- serve as a protective factor for the mental health of young sexual ences from cisgender individuals, and we did not capture nonbi- minorities of color. Perhaps being in a relationship is particularly nary gender identities. Future researchers should explore how beneficial for Black (and possibly Latino) sexual minorities be- relationship involvement is associated with well-being across mul- cause a supportive romantic partner can offer emotional support to tiple gender identities, particularly considering the increasing num- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. help cope with the compounded stressors they face because of their ber of LGBT people who identify as nonbinary or transgender This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. multiple-minority statuses (e.g., Meyer et al., 2008; Szymanski & (Richards et al., 2016). Similarly, because young people today Meyer, 2008). Further, because of racism present within the LGBT identify with a wide variety of sexual identities, including pan- community, homonegativity within racial/ethnic communities, and sexual, queer, and asexual, future researchers should use measures both racism and homonegativity within the mainstream commu- that capture identities other than gay/lesbian and bisexual. The nity (e.g., Greene, 1996), sexual minorities of color may have number of participants who identified as White and Latino was fewer accepting social supports outside of their romantic relation- relatively small (ns ϭ 35 and 30, respectively), and other racial ships. groups were too small to examine separately. Future research using The lack of an association for White participants was somewhat large samples with more equal distribution across various demo- surprising because most of the research on sexual minority adults, graphic factors is needed. Second, because the tests for moderation which suggests that relationship involvement is associated with of the stress-buffering effect by demographic characteristics used less psychological distress, has been based on predominantly three-way interactions, which have lower power than main effects White samples. Although the small number of White participants (Heo & Leon, 2010), we may have missed true demographic (n ϭ 35) raises power concerns (i.e., that we did not have sufficient differences in the stress-buffering effect of relationship involve- ROMANTIC INVOLVEMENT IN YOUNG SEXUAL MINORITIES 273

ment. Third, this dataset did not include information on the gender sonal Relationships, 17, 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811 of participants’ relationship partners, despite evidence that in- .2010.01248.x volvement in same-sex versus different-sex relationships may have Brewster, M. E., & Moradi, B. (2010). Perceived experiences of anti-bisexual different implications for psychological well-being among LGBT prejudice: Instrument development and evaluation. Journal of Counseling youth (Bauermeister et al., 2010; Russell & Consolacion, 2003). Psychology, 57, 451–468. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021116 We also did not examine sexual activity with partners, though Carstensen, L. L. (1992). Social and emotional patterns in adulthood: Support for socioemotional selectivity theory. Psychology and Aging, 7, some research suggests that it is sex, not romantic involvement 331–338. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.7.3.331 itself, that is associated with adolescent depression (Mendle, Fer- Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering rero, Moore, & Harden, 2013). Finally, we did not assess sequenc- hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310–357. http://dx.doi.org/10 ing effects; future work should explore whether being single has .1037/0033-2909.98.2.310 different effects on psychological well-being as a function of past Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American relationship involvement. Psychologist, 64, 170–180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014564 Despite these limitations, the current study furthers our understand- Compian, L., Gowen, L. K., & Hayward, C. (2004). Peripubertal girls’ ing of the associations between romantic involvement and psycho- romantic and platonic involvement with boys: Associations with body logical health in sexual minority youth. The longitudinal data suggest image and depression symptoms. Journal of Research on Adolescence, that, overall, involvement in a romantic relationship may have both 14, 23047. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2004.01401002.x direct and stress-buffering effects on the psychological well-being of Davila, J. (2008). Depressive symptoms and adolescent romance: Theory, LGBT youth. Efforts to reduce the mental health disparities faced by research, and implications. Child Development Perspectives, 2, 26–31. young sexual minorities, therefore, might benefit from inclusion of http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00037.x strategies to promote involvement in healthy romantic relationships. Davila, J., Steinberg, S. J., Kachadourian, L., Cobb, R., & Fincham, F. Such strategies could include educating youth and their allies about (2004). Romantic involvement and depressive symptoms in early and late adolescence: The role of preoccupied relational style. Personal how to form and maintain healthy romantic relationships. However, Relationships, 11, 161–178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004 the present findings also suggest that the psychological benefits of .00076.x relationship involvement may not be present for all individuals; only Derogatis, L. R. (2001). Brief Symptom Inventory–18 (BSI-18): Adminis- those who identified as gay or lesbian (vs. bisexual) and as Black or tration, scoring, and procedures manual. Minneapolis, MN: NCS Pear- Latino (vs. White) experienced improvements in psychological well- son. being when romantically partnered. Most notably, bisexual youth Dyar, C., Feinstein, B. A., & London, B. (2014). Dimensions of sexual actually experienced heightened psychological distress when involved identity and minority stress among bisexual women: The role of partner in a relationship. Consequently, theoretical models and intervention gender. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1, efforts must attend to individual differences among sexual minorities 441–451. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000063 in how romantic involvement may affect psychological health. Enders, C. K., & Bandalos, D. L. (2001). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 430–457. References http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_5 Erikson, E. H. (1950). Child and society (2nd ed., rev.). New York, NY: Ayala, J., & Coleman, H. (2000). Predictors of depression among lesbian Norton. women. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 4, 71–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/ Feinstein, B. A., Latack, J. A., Bhatia, V., Davila, J., & Eaton, N. R. J155v04n03_04 (2016). romantic-relationship involvement as a minority stress buffer in Baams, L., Bos, H. M., & Jonas, K. J. (2014). How a romantic relationship gay/lesbian versus bisexual individuals. Journal of Gay & Lesbian can protect same-sex attracted youth and young adults from the impact Mental Health, 20, 237–257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19359705.2016 of expected rejection. Journal of Adolescence, 37, 1293–1302. http://dx .1147401 .doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.09.006 Feinstein, B. A., Wadsworth, L. P., Davila, J., & Goldfried, M. R. (2014). Bauermeister, J. A., Johns, M. M., Sandfort, T. G., Eisenberg, A., Gross- Do parental acceptance and family support moderate associations be- man, A. H., & D’Augelli, A. R. (2010). Relationship trajectories and tween dimensions of minority stress and depressive symptoms among psychological well-beingamong sexual minority youth. Journal of Youth lesbians and gay men? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, and Adolescence, 39, 1148–1163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964- 45, 239–246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035393

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. 010-9557-y Graham, J. M., & Barnow, Z. B. (2013). Stress and social support in gay,

This article is intended solely for the personal use ofBirkett, the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. M., Newcomb, M. E., & Mustanski, B. (2015). Does it get better? A longitudinal analysis of psychological distress and victimization in lesbian, and heterosexual couples: Direct effects and buffering models. lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning youth. Journal of Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 569–578. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ Adolescent Health, 56, 280–285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth a0033420 .2014.10.275 Greene, B. (1996). Lesbian women of color: Triple jeopardy. Journal of Bostwick, W. B., Boyd, C. J., Hughes, T. L., & McCabe, S. E. (2010). Lesbian Studies, 1, 109–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J155v01n01_09 Dimensions of sexual orientation and the prevalence of mood and Hatzenbuehler, M. L. (2009). How does sexual minority stigma “get under anxiety disorders in the United States. American Journal of Public the skin”? A psychological mediation framework. Psychological Bulle- Health, 100, 468–475. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2008.152942 tin, 135, 707–730. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016441 Bostwick, W., & Hequembourg, A. (2014). ‘Just a little hint’: Bisexual- Heo, M., & Leon, A. C. (2010). Sample sizes required to detect two-way specific microaggressions and their connection to epistemic injustices. and three-way interactions involving slope differences in mixed-effects Culture, Health & Sexuality, 16, 488–503. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ linear models. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 20, 787–802. 13691058.2014.889754 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10543401003618819 Braithwaite, S. R., Delevi, R., & Fincham, F. D. (2010). Romantic rela- Herek, G. M. (2009). Hate crimes and stigma-related experiences among tionships and the physical and mental health of college students. Per- sexual minority adults in the United States: Prevalence estimates from a 274 WHITTON, DYAR, NEWCOMB, AND MUSTANSKI

national probability sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 54– Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674–697. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033- 74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260508316477 2909.129.5.674 House, J. S., Umberson, D., & Landis, K. R. (1988). Structures and Meyer, I. H., Schwartz, S., & Frost, D. M. (2008). Social patterning of processes of social support. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 293–318. stress and coping: Does disadvantaged social statuses confer more stress http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.14.080188.001453 and fewer coping resources? Social Science & Medicine, 67, 368–379. Institute of Medicine (IOM). (2011). The health of lesbian, gay, bisexual, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.03.012 and transgender people: Building a foundation for a better understand- Montgomery, M. J. (2005). Psychosocial intimacy and identity: From early ing. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. adolescence to emerging adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Research, 20, Jackson, P. B. (1992). Specifying the buffering hypothesis: Support, strain, 346–374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0743558404273118 and depression. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 363–378. http://dx.doi Mustanski, B. (2015). Future directions in research on sexual minority .org/10.2307/2786953 adolescent mental, behavioral, and sexual health. Journal of Clinical Joyner, K., & Udry, J. R. (2000). You don’t bring me anything but down: Child and Adolescent Psychology, 44, 204–219. http://dx.doi.org/10 Adolescent romance and depression. Journal of Health and Social .1080/15374416.2014.982756 Behavior, 41, 369–391. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2676292 Mustanski, B. S., Garofalo, R., & Emerson, E. M. (2010). Mental health Kamp Dush, C. M., & Amato, P. R. (2005). Consequences of relationship disorders, psychological distress, and suicidality in a diverse sample of status and quality for subjective well-being. Journal of Social and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youths. American Journal of Personal Relationships, 22, 607–627. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ Public Health, 100, 2426–2432. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009 0265407505056438 .178319 Katz-Wise, S. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2012). Victimization experiences of lesbian, Mustanski, B., Newcomb, M., & Garofalo, R. (2011). Mental health of gay, and bisexual individuals: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sex Research, 49, lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth: A developmental resiliency perspec- 142–167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2011.637247 tive. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services: The Quarterly Journal Kornblith, E., Green, R. J., Casey, S., & Tiet, Q. (2016). Marital status, of Community & Clinical Practice, 23, 204–225. http://dx.doi.org/10 social support, and depressive symptoms among lesbian and heterosex- .1080/10538720.2011.561474 ual women. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 20, 157–173. http://dx.doi.org/ Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los 10.1080/10894160.2015.1061882 Angeles, CA: Authors. Kurdek, L. A. (2005). What do we know about gay and lesbian couples? Newcomb, M. E., Heinz, A. J., & Mustanski, B. (2012). Examining risk Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 251–254. http://dx.doi and protective factors for alcohol use in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and .org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00375.x transgender youth: A longitudinal multilevel analysis. Journal of Studies La Greca, A. M., & Harrison, H. M. (2005). Adolescent peer relations, on Alcohol and Drugs, 73, 783–793. http://dx.doi.org/10.15288/jsad friendships, and romantic relationships: Do they predict social anxiety .2012.73.783 and depression? Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, Oetjen, H., & Rothblum, E. D. (2000). When lesbians aren’t gay: Factors 34, 49–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp3401_5 affecting depression among lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality, 39, Lamb, K. A., Lee, G. R., & DeMaris, A. (2003). Union formation and 49–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J082v39n01_04 depression: Selection and relationship effects. Journal of Marriage and Owen, J. J., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Fincham, F. D. (2010). the Family, 65, 953–962. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003 “Hooking up” among college students: Demographic and psychosocial .00953.x correlates. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 653–663. http://dx.doi.org/ Lewis, M. A., & Butterfield, R. M. (2007). Social control in marital relation- 10.1007/s10508-008-9414-1 ships: Effect of one’s partner on health behaviors. Journal of Applied Social Parsons, J. T., Starks, T. J., DuBois, S., Grov, C., & Golub, S. A. (2013). Psychology, 37, 298–319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2007 Alternatives to monogamy among gay male couples in a community .00161.x survey: Implications for mental health and sexual risk. Archives of Liu, H., Reczek, C., & Brown, D. (2013). Same-sex cohabitors and health: Sexual Behavior, 42, 303–312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011- The role of race-ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status. Journal of 9885-3 Health and Social Behavior, 54, 25–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ Preacher, K. J., Zhang, Z., & Zyphur, M. J. (2016). Multilevel structural 0022146512468280 equation models for assessing moderation within and across levels of Lüdtke, O., Marsh, H. W., Robitzsch, A., Trautwein, U., Asparouhov, T., analysis. Psychological Methods, 21, 189–205. http://dx.doi.org/10 & Muthén, B. (2008). The multilevel latent covariate model: A new, .1037/met0000052 more reliable approach to group-level effects in contextual studies. Quatman, T., Sampson, K., Robinson, C., & Watson, C. M. (2001). Psychological Methods, 13, 203–229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ Academic, motivational, and emotional correlates of adolescent dating. a0012869 Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 127, 211–234. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Marshal, M. P., Dietz, L. J., Friedman, M. S., Stall, R., Smith, H. A., Richards, C., Bouman, W. P., Seal, L., Barker, M. J., Nieder, T. O., & This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. McGinley, J.,...Brent, D. A. (2011). Suicidality and depression T’Sjoen, G. (2016). Non-binary or genderqueer genders. International disparities between sexual minority and heterosexual youth: A meta- Review of Psychiatry, 28, 95–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/09540261 analytic review. Journal of Adolescent Health, 49, 115–123. http://dx .2015.1106446 .doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.02.005 Roisman, G. I., Masten, A. S., Coatsworth, J. D., & Tellegen, A. (2004). Maslowsky, J., Jager, J., & Hemken, D. (2015). Estimating and interpreting Salient and emerging developmental tasks in the transition to adulthood. latent variable interactions: A tutorial for applying the latent moderated Child Development, 75, 123–133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624 structural equations method. International Journal of Behavioral Devel- .2004.00658.x opment, 39, 87–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165025414552301 Ross, C. E. (1995). Reconceptualizing marital status as a continuum of Mendle, J., Ferrero, J., Moore, S. R., & Harden, K. P. (2013). Depression social attachment. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 129–140. and adolescent sexual activity in romantic and nonromantic relational http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353822 contexts: A genetically-informative sibling comparison. Journal of Ab- Russell, S. T., & Consolacion, T. B. (2003). Adolescent romance and normal Psychology, 122, 51–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029816 emotional health in the United States: Beyond binaries. Journal of Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32, 499–508. http://dx.doi gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. .org/10.1207/S15374424JCCP3204_2 ROMANTIC INVOLVEMENT IN YOUNG SEXUAL MINORITIES 275

Ryan, C., Huebner, D., Diaz, R. M., & Sanchez, J. (2009). Family rejection marital status and children on well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, as a predictor of negative health outcomes in white and Latino lesbian, 14, 501–524. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9340-8 gay, and bisexual young adults. Pediatrics, 123, 346–352. http://dx.doi Waite, L. J., & Gallagher, M. (2000). The case for marriage: Why married .org/10.1542/peds.2007-3524 people are happier, healthier, and better off financially (1st ed.). New Simon, R. W. (2002). Revisiting the relationships among gender, marital York, NY: Doubleday. status, and mental health. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 1065– Wayment, H. A., & Peplau, L. A. (1995). Social support and well- 1096. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/339225 beingAmong lesbian and heterosexual women: A structural modeling Simon, R. W., & Barrett, A. E. (2010). Nonmarital romantic relationships approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1189–1199. and mental health in early adulthood: Does the association differ for http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/01461672952111007 women and men? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51, 168–182. Whitton, S. W., & Kuryluk, A. D. (2014). Associations between relation- http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022146510372343 ship quality and depressive symptoms in same-sex couples. Journal of Snijders, T. A., & Bosker, R. J. (1994). Modeled variance in two-level Family Psychology, 28, 571–576. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/fam0000011 models. Sociological Methods & Research, 22, 342–363. http://dx.doi Whitton, S. W., Weitbrecht, E. M., Kuryluk, A. D., & Bruner, M. R. .org/10.1177/0049124194022003004 (2013). Committed dating relationships and mental health among col- Syrotuik, J., & D’Arcy, C. (1984). Social support and mental health: lege students. Journal of American College Health, 61, 176–183. http:// Direct, protective and compensatory effects. Social Science & Medicine, dx.doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2013.773903 18, 229–236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(84)90084-4 Wienke, C., & Hill, G. J. (2009). Does the “marriage benefit” extend to Szymanski, D. M., & Meyer, D. (2008). Racism and heterosexism as partners in gay and lesbian relationships? Evidence from a random correlates of psychological distress in African American sexual minority sample of sexually active adults. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 259–289. women. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 2, 94–108. http://dx.doi http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0192513X08324382 .org/10.1080/15538600802125423 Zabora, J., BrintzenhofeSzoc, K., Jacobsen, P., Curbow, B., Piantadosi, S., Turner, R. J., & Brown, R. L. (2010). Social support and mental health. In Hooker, C.,...Derogatis, L. (2001). A new psychosocial screening T. L. Scheid & T. N. Brown (Eds.), A handbook for the study of mental instrument for use with cancer patients. Psychosomatics: Journal of health (2nd ed., pp. 200–212). New York, NY: Cambridge University Consultation and Liaison Psychiatry, 42, 241–246. http://dx.doi.org/10 Press. .1176/appi.psy.42.3.241 Umberson, D. (1987). Family status and health behaviors: Social control as a dimension of social integration. Journal of Health and Social Behav- ior, 28, 306–319. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2136848 Received August 25, 2017 Vanassche, S., Swicegood, G., & Matthijs, K. (2013). Marriage and chil- Revision received November 3, 2017 dren as a key to happiness? Cross-national differences in the effects of Accepted November 13, 2017 Ⅲ

E-Mail Notification of Your Latest Issue Online!

Would you like to know when the next issue of your favorite APA journal will be available online? This service is now available to you. Sign up at https://my.apa.org/portal/alerts/ and you will

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. be notified by e-mail when issues of interest to you become available! This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.