J Child Fam Stud

DOI 10.1007/s10826-014-9954-z

ORIGINAL PAPER

Negative Parental Responses to Coming Out and Family

Functioning in a Sample of Lesbian and Gay Young Adults
Roberto Baiocco • Lilybeth Fontanesi • Federica Santamaria • Salvatore Ioverno •

Barbara Marasco • Emma Baumgartner • Brian L. B. Willoughby •

Fiorenzo Laghi

Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Abstract Parental responses to youths’ coming out (CO) scales Rigid and Enmeshed. Findings confirm that a neg-
are crucial to the subsequent adjustment of children and ative parental reaction is the result of poor family resources
family. The present study investigated the negative to face a stressful situation and a strong belief in traditional
parental reaction to the disclosure of same-sex attraction values. These results have important implications in both
and the differences between maternal and paternal clinical and social fields.
responses, as reported by their homosexual daughters and
sons. Participants’ perceptions of their parents’ reactions Keywords Coming out
Disclosure
Lesbian and gay
(evaluated through the Perceived Parental Reactions Scale, young adults
Parental reactions
Family functioning
PPRS), age at CO, gender, parental political orientation,
and religiosity involvement, the family functioning
(assessed through the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Introduction
Evaluation Scales), were assessed in 164 Italian gay and
lesbian young adults. Pearson correlation coefficients were The coming-out (CO) process, defined as the sharing of
calculated to assess the relation between family functioning one’s sexual orientation with others, has been described as
and parental reaction to CO. The paired sample t test was an essential component in lesbian and gay (LG) identity
used to compare mothers and fathers’ scores on the PPRS. formation and integration (Cass 1979; Legate et al. 2012).
Hierarchical multiple regression was conducted to analyze Identity integration includes acceptance of one’s gay, les-
the relevance of each variable. No differences were found bian, or bisexual identity, and sharing this aspect of the self
between mothers and fathers in their reaction to the dis- with other individuals. Previous researches have indicated
closure. The analysis showed that a negative reaction to that CO process may have positive effects on relationships
CO was predicted by parents’ right-wing political conser- with others (e.g., improving authenticity of a friendship),
vatism, strong religious beliefs, and higher scores in the the construction of self-identity, and mental health (e.g.,
decreased hypervigilance/anxiety) (Baiocco et al. 2012;
Shilo and Savaya 2011; Vaughan and Waehler 2010).
R. Baiocco (&)
L. Fontanesi
S. Ioverno
B. Marasco

Erikson’s model of sexual identity development (1959,
E. Baumgartner
F. Laghi
Department of Developmental and Social Psychology, Faculty of 1982) posits that certain stages and ‘‘tasks’’ must be nav-
Medicine and Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, igated successfully to form a healthy personality. These
Italy eight steps go through the implementation of tasks con-
e-mail: roberto.baiocco@uniroma1.it
cerning trust, differentiation, autonomy and the manage-
F. Santamaria ment of doubts, fear and conflict, inside the family and the
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Education, University of society (Erikson 1982). According to this point of view,
Messina, Messina, Italy CO can be assimilated into a developmental task. For LG
adolescents, this process may be growth-enhancing event
B. L. B. Willoughby
Department of Psychology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, and is highly important to developing an integrated identity
FL, USA and for strengthening self-esteem (Henry 2013). Such

123
 J Child Fam Stud

experiences of growth may provide sexual minorities with rejection and discrimination, which are realistic
important strengths that can be used to effectively manage possibilities.
stress related to their minority status (Lingiardi et al. 2012; Parental rejection at the time of disclosure is a strong,
Meyer 1995, 2003). However, despite the potential benefits negative event that can affect all aspects of an adolescent’s
of CO, there are also associated stressors, which can have a life, and it is crucial to understand how this reaction is
deleterious impact on physical and psychological health elicited and how to support parent, child, and family
(Frost et al. 2013). These stressors can include family adjustment following the disclosure. This process is well
rejection, bullying, discrimination and prejudices (Frost described by the Family Stress Theory (Patterson 2002),
et al. 2013; Guzzo et al. 2014). The CO process may also developed with the purpose of explaining how and why
place significant strain on family relationships, cause inter- stressful events negatively affect the wellbeing of the
parental conflict, and exacerbate parent mental health family and, as already underlined, the disclosure could be
issues (e.g., Willoughby et al. 2008). Given this, a strong one of these events.
and cohesive family, displaying adequate resources to According to this theory, within which the present
manage stressful situations, may provide a supportive research is developed, parental reactions to CO is the result
environment for the LG adolescent who decides to come of three main elements: a family’s relational capabilities
out. The majority of LG young people often do not have and competences, family members’ beliefs about meanings
access to positive models (i.e., parents often do not share of stressful events, and the amount of stressors that
the same sexual orientation) and their families may reject undermine family stability (Willoughby et al. 2008).
their sexual orientation (Bos et al. 2004). In the American Family-based resources, such as cohesion, adaptability, and
context, research indicate that as many as 52 % of parents flexibility, may represent valuable predictors to understand
may initially react negatively to their child’s disclosure of how the family will react to their child’s CO (Carnelley
same sex attractions (D’augelli et al. 2008). The negative et al. 2011). The literature underlines how families, with
consequences of rejecting reactions from parents range adequate relational capacities, coping abilities, and a higher
from depression (Legate et al. 2012), negative LG identity level of resilience, often face difficult events in supportive
(Willoughby et al. 2010), and substance abuse (Baiocco ways, such as displaying a more positive reaction to their
et al. 2010) to, in some extreme cases, suicide (Ryan et al. sons and daughters’ sexual orientation disclosures (Lavee
2009). On the other hand, a supportive and positive family and Olson 1991; Willoughby et al. 2006).
environment is associated with positive young adult health As mentioned above, CO to family, especially to par-
outcomes, such as low level of internalized sexual stigma, ents, is often the biggest challenge for same-sex attracted
depression and suicidal idealization, and high level of young people (Savin-Williams 2005; Savin-Williams and
social support and self-esteem (Baiocco et al. 2012; Ream 2003; Savin-Williams and Dube 1998). However,
D’Augelli and Grossman 2001; Hoffman et al. 2009; Lo despite the risk of disapproval and victimization, the
Cascio et al. 2013; Pace et al. 2012; Resnick et al. 1997; majority of gay and lesbian adolescents decide to come out
Russell 2003; Ryan et al. 2010). to their parents (LaSala 2000). A handful of studies (Ben-
Italy, where the present study was conducted, is a Ari 1995; D’Augelli et al. 2002; LaSala 2000; Saltzburg
family-oriented society in which adolescents and young 2004; Savin-Williams 2001; Willoughby et al. 2006) have
adults are more extensively involved with their extended examined parents’ initial reactions to their youth’s CO.
families than members of other Western societies (Baiocco Literature underlines the relevance of the following vari-
et al. 2013; Pallini and Laghi 2012). LG men in Italy fre- ables for predicting parents’ negative reactions to CO:
quently confront a roster of biases and prejudices and a parental age (i.e., older parents react more negatively;
greater level of gender segregation in their daily lives Baiocco et al. 2013; Savin-Williams 2001), lower levels of
(Lingiardi et al. 2012). Previous studies in Italy, in fact, parental education (Conley 2011), involvement in tradi-
have found high levels of internalized sexual stigma in gay tional religious associations (Baiocco et al. 2013b; Schope
and lesbian adolescents and young adults (Baiocco et al. 2002), traditional values about family and marriage
2010, 2012; Lingiardi et al. 2012). Thus, a supportive (Newman and Muzzonigro 1993), and more traditional
family environment becomes extremely significant, since attitudes regarding sex roles (Cramer and Roach 1988).
Italian culture is characterized by a great level of gender Concerning those factors, parental reaction is affected by
segregation. Widespread heterosexism in society estab- the meaning each member of the family gives to the dis-
lishes that the only normatively acceptable sexual behav- closure. This process involves not only religious beliefs,
iors are heterosexual (Herek and Garnets 2007). In Italy, political ideology, but also cultural and educational back-
LG adolescents and young adults encounter many diffi- grounds. If one or both parents hold preexisting negative
culties and may be afraid of disclosing their sexual orien- beliefs and values about homosexuality, then they may be
tation because of unfavorable outcomes such as social repulsed by the disclosure (Cramer and Roach 1988). More

123
J Child Fam Stud

specifically, these beliefs affect their personal beliefs about perspective of their daughters and sons. The current study
the causes of homosexuality: believing that homosexuality aims to identify the differences between mothers’ and fathers’
is learned rather than, for example, genetic; holding gay responses, and the individual factors that can affect, positively
and lesbian individuals responsible for their lifestyle; and or negatively, how parents are perceived to react to their
supposing they have some control over their sexual ori- child’s disclosure. The specific research questions addressed
entation (Sakalli 2002). in this study are as follows: (a) do perceptions of reactions to
Findings indicate fathers’ and mothers’ may react dif- CO differ for mothers versus fathers and (b) are perceived
ferently to their child’s CO. Several studies reveal that parental reactions related to the gender and the age of the son/
mothers were likely to respond more positively to disclo- daughter. We expected that a more negative parental response
sure than fathers (Armesto and Weisman 2001; Ben-Ari is related to younger ages of the children and, when the child’s
1995; Boxer et al. 1991; D’Augelli and Hershberger 1993; sex is the same of his/her parent (D’Augelli 2006; LaSala
D’Augelli et al. 2002; Maguen et al. 2002; Savin-Williams 2000; Saltzburg 2004; Savin-Williams 2001). The current
and Dube 1998). Some studies, however, have found that study also addresses these additional questions: (c) does
mothers may be perceived to react more negatively than parental religious beliefs and political conservatism predict
fathers (Willoughby et al. 2006), show greater concerns/ perceived parental reactions (Cramer and Roach 1988;
worries (Conley 2011), and a display a greater amount of Newman and Muzzonigro 1993; Schope 2002) and (d) is
anger and guilt than fathers. problematic family functioning predictive of more negative
Regarding differences in reactions to the CO of lesbian perceived parental reactions to CO (De Vine 1984; Wil-
daughters versus gay sons, Conley (2011) found that par- loughby et al. 2006).
ents’ overall concern was higher for gay sons. In addition,
referring to youth characteristics that are predictive of
parental reactions, some studies found that reaction was Method
more negative when the child was of the same gender as
the parent (D’Augelli 2006), and more negative for Participants
younger adolescents than older adolescents and young
adults (LaSala 2000). However, others studies did not Data were collected for 164 participants: 71 women
confirm these findings (D’Augelli et al. 2005; Heathe- (43.3 %) and 93 men (56.7 %), who self-identified as gay
rington and Lavner 2008). or lesbian, based on the Kinsey Scale (Kinsey et al. 1948).
From a systemic point of view, disclosure has been Nearly half, or 46.1 %, of the young adults came from the
defined a ‘‘whole family experience’’ (Baptist and Allen center of Italy, 30.4 % from the south, and the 24.5 % from
2008) and a phenomenon that is ‘‘interpersonal in nature’’ the north of Italy. In this study, we did not include bisexual
(Mohr and Fassinger 2003), pointing out that it is a salient (3.7 %) and transgender participants (1.2 %), due to the
event involving all family members. The family, as a low number of respondents in these categories. Partici-
system, may be an important predictor of parental reactions pants’ ages ranged from 18 to 26 (Mwoman = 23.21,
to sexual orientation disclosure (LaSala 2000). According SD = 1.97; Mmen = 23.41, SD = 2.15). Participants
to the Family Stress Theory, parent–child relationships and averaged 15 years of education, which means they reported
pre-existing resources can buffer the effects of an event completing the second year of college (Mwoman = 14.72,
that shifts several aspects of the family system, such as SD = 3.11; Mmen = 15.25, SD = 2.64).
expectations and desires, and can lead to adopting new
roles inside the family. Additional variables related to the Procedures
outcome within the family include: pre-existing level of
closeness and conflict in the parent–child dyad, the time Participants were recruited from lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
spent together, importance of parents as a source of social transgender (LGBT) organizations (31 %) and three LGBT
support (Heatherington and Lavner 2008), economic college student organizations (69 %) in Rome, Italy. The
independence (Gardner et al. 2014), availability of other prerequisites for inclusion were: Respond to the Kinsey
sources of support (Chaudoir and Fisher 2010), and indi- Scale at level 5 and 6 (where 5 meaning almost completely
viduals’ assessment of the cost/benefit for themselves and and 6 meaning completely homosexual); be between 18
for their parents (Green 2000). and 26 years old; have already revealed their sexual ori-
Understanding the CO process and the variables related to a entation to both parents; be Italian; and, finally, the parents
negative family response is an important aspect for the design had to be a couple and to living together (not divorced or
and delivery of LG youth services. The present research separated) at the time of CO. All participants responded
examines the different parental responses to the CO of youths, individually to the same questionnaire packet, which was
and the elements associated with parents’ reactions, from the administered face-to-face by trained psychologists.

123
 J Child Fam Stud

Participation in the study was voluntary and anonymous, statements. PPRS included 64 statements, 32 related to the
and participants were encouraged to answer as truthfully as mother and 32 to the father. Higher scores indicated more
possible. The participants took about 20–25 min to com- negative perceptions of their parents’ reactions (‘‘My mom
plete the questionnaires. A total of 98.1 % of question- yelled and screamed’’), with scores ranging from 32 to 160.
naires were completed. Before the data collection was In a previous study (Willoughby et al. 2006), the PPRS
started, the protocol was approved by the Ethics Com- showed item-total correlations of .40 and above and dem-
mission of the Department of Developmental and Social onstrated good internal consistencies. Test–retest reliability
Psychology of the Sapienza University of Rome. has also been established. In the present study, the internal
consistency reliability was .95 for the mother version and
.86 for the father version.
Measures Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales
(FACES IV; Olson 2011) was used to evaluate family
A Background Information Questionnaire was completed by functioning of participants. The FACES IV is composed by
participants. Demographic information, like age, education, 42 items (as ‘‘Family members are involved in each others
religion, and disclosure status was collected. Sexual orien- lives’’ or ‘‘There is no leadership in this family’’). On a
tation was evaluated using the Kinsey Scale (Kinsey et al. Likert-type scale divided into six scales: two balanced
1948). This scale offers six possibilities, ranging from 0 scales (Cohesion and Flexibility) assessing central-moder-
(people who defined themselves as completely heterosexual, ate areas and four unbalanced scales (Rigid, Chaotic,
without any experience or desire for homosexual activity) to Enmeshed, and Disengaged) assessing the lower and upper
6 (those who declared themselves as exclusively homosex- ends of Cohesion and Flexibility; family global functioning
ual). Data about parents’ level of education and religious score was obtained by dividing the sum of the Cohesion
affiliation were collected as well. Moreover, we asked par- and Flexibility scores by 2 (Olson and Gorall 2006). While
ticipants to report the age at which they came out to parents the two balanced scales are similar to previous FACES III
and to describe the way in which their parents knew/dis- scales, the four Unbalanced Scales—Enmeshed, Disen-
covered their sexual orientation (‘‘How did your mother/ gaged, Chaotic, and Rigid—represent an original
father discover your sexual orientation?’’; 1 = I personally improvement (Olson 2011). These scales proved to be
told it to my mother/father; 2 = My mother/father asked me valid, reliable, and discriminatory among both problematic
about my sexual orientation; 3 = My mother/father dis- and no problematic families (Baiocco et al. 2012; Olson
covered it; 4 = Other persons revealed my sexual orienta- 2011), the original FACES IV internal consistency reli-
tion to my mother/father). ability ranged from .77 to .89 (Olson 2011), in the Italian
Parents Religiosity Involvement was measured by two version range from .63 to .73 (Baiocco et al. 2012). In the
items, asking participants to report the frequency of their present study, the internal consistency reliability range was
parents’ attendance of religious service (‘‘How often does between .71 and .76.
your mother/father usually attend religious services?’’;
0 = never, 10 = several times per week), as well as the
importance of religion in their parents’ lives (‘‘How Data Analysis
important is religion in your father life/mother life?’’;
0 = not important, 10 = extremely Important). Since the To conduct bivariate and multivariate analyses relating to
correlation between these two items was high (r = .72), a independent variables, we used the Statistical Package for
total score was obtained by summing the responses to each the Social Sciences (SPSS 19.0). Pearson correlation
item, which we considered as a general measure of parents’ coefficients were calculated to assess the relation between
religiosity involvement (Roth et al. 2012). family functioning and parental reactions to CO. A paired
Political orientation was measured by asking partici- sample t test was used to compare means scores of mothers
pants to report the political orientation of the parents on a and fathers on the Perceived Parental Reaction Scale.
5-point Likert Scale ranging from 1 = completely left to Univariate analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to
5 = completely right, so that higher scores indicated assess differences in gender of the son/daughter and gender
greater right-wing conservatism. of the parents regarding parental reactions using family
The Perceived Parental Reactions Scale (PPRS; Wil- functioning and age as covariate. Post hoc analyses fol-
loughby et al. 2006) assessed participants’ perceptions of lowing ANCOVAs were carried out with Duncan’s test to
their parents’ reactions to sexual orientation disclosure. detect group differences (p \ .05). Next, hierarchical
Participants were asked to think back to the time when multiple regressions were conducted to investigate the
disclosure occurred and, using a 5-point Likert scale, relevance of family functioning and individual variables to
indicate agreement or disagreement with several predict parental reactions to CO.

123
J Child Fam Stud

Results majority of the mothers were positioned on the left side of

the scale (74.4 %), while only 3.7 % were identified as
Maternal and Paternal Reactions to Coming Out centrist, and 21.9 % were identified as right-wing conser-
vative. Again, the majority of the fathers were positioned
Paired sample t test was used to compare means scores of on the left side of the scale (53.0 %), while 12.2 % were
mothers and fathers on Perceived Parental Reactions identified as centrist, and 24.8 % were identified as right-
Scale. No differences were found between mothers wing conservative. Pearson’s correlation was performed to
(M = 80.93; SD = 27.86) and fathers (M = 75.50; examine the relation between PPRS dimensions and
SD = 30.42) in their reaction to the CO of their son/ FACES IV dimensions, religiosity, political conservatism,
daughter (t163 = 1.54, p = .13). The correlation between and age at the time of CO (Table 2).
mothers and fathers was high (r = .52), and the intra-class The correlations were found to be as expected, even if
correlation was significant (Z = 6.66; p \ .001). In addi- the strength of these correlations was weak to moderate.
tion, no differences were found between the age of the CO The strongest correlations have been found to be between
with the mothers (M = 19.15; SD = 2.81) and fathers the rigid (rmaternal = .47; rpaternal = .55, p \ .01) and
(M = 19.45; SD = 3.11) (t163 = 1.59, p = .11). Differ- enmeshed dimensions on FACES IV and the maternal and
ences were found between the way in which, according to paternal reactions to CO (rmaternal = .30; rpaternal = .60,
the participants, the parents discovered the sexual orien- p \ .01). Also, a strong parents’ political conservatism
tation of their daughters/sons (Chi2 = 10.32; df = 3; (rpaternal = .61, p \ .01; rmaternal = .34, p \ .01) and
p \ .05). The sons/daughters were more likely to reveal higher parents’ religiosity involvement (rmaternal = .42,
their sexual orientation directly to their mothers (mothers: p \ .01) were correlated to a more negative reaction to CO.
65.2 %; fathers: 55.5 %) while the fathers discovered the We conducted Pearson regression analysis in order to
sexual orientation of their sons/daughters on their own understand the reasons behind parental negative reaction.
(mothers: 17.7 %; fathers: 32.3 %). Mothers were more Item 2 ‘‘Was worried about what her friends and other
likely to ask the sexual orientation of their sons/daughters parents would think of her/him’’; item 7 ‘‘was concerned
directly than were fathers (mothers: 9.8 %; fathers: 5.5 %). about the potential that she wouldn’t get grandchildren
Table 1 shows the frequencies of the answers. Moreover, from me’’ and item 12 ‘‘was concerned about having to
no differences were found in the frequencies of the answers answer other peoples’ questions about my sexuality’’ were
given by the sons and the daughters about how parents valued with the highest scores, both in paternal and
knew/discovered their sexual orientation (Chi2 = 6.95; maternal questionnaires. Table 3 shows the correlation
df = 3; p = .07). between the highest items scores of PPRS and the FACES
IV dimensions.
Parental Reaction to Coming Out, Religiosity, Political
Involvement, and Family Functioning
Effect of Gender and Age of Child on Parental
No differences were found between mothers (M = 2.46; Reactions
SD = .87) and fathers (M = 2.57; SD = 1.67). The
The average age of CO in the sample was M = 19.26,
DS = 2.64, ranged from 12 to 26, Univariate Anova ana-
lysis shows no significative differences between women
Table 1 Frequencies of the way in which parents knew/discovered and men (Mwoman = 18.9, SD = 2.35; Mmen = 19.56,
the sexual orientation of the daughter/son SD = 2.83). From the CO to the present survey have
PPRS Mother Father Total passed, on average, 4.6 years (M = 4.6, DS = 2.90) with
no significative differences between women and male
I personally told it to my 65.2 % 55.5 % 60.4 %
(Mwoman = 4.8, SD = 2.71; Mmen = 4.42, SD = 3.03).
mother/father (n = 107) (n = 91) (n = 198)
Univariate analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was
My mother/father asked me 9.8 % 5.5 % 7.6 %
about my sexual (n = 16) (n = 9) (n = 25) used to examine the effects of gender of the son/daughter
orientation and the gender of the parent on parental reaction, using
My mother/father 17.7 % 32.3 % 25.0 % family global functioning and age of CO as covariate.
discovered it (n = 29) (n = 53) (n = 82) Family functioning as a covariate was significant, with
Other persons revealed my 7.3 % 6.7 % 7.0 % F(1, 322) = 10.79, p \ .001, g2 = .03, as was the age at
sexual orientation to my (n = 12) (n = 11) (n = 23) which the son/daughter did the CO: F(1, 322) = 9.36,
mother/father
p \ .01, g2 = .03. A negative family functioning and a
SD in parenthesis lower age of the son/daughter at the time of CO was

123
 J Child Fam Stud

positively related to a more negative parental reaction to Table 4 Mean score on the Perceived Parental Reactions Scale: the
CO. interaction effect of gender of the son/daughter 9 gender of the
parents
We did not find a significant effect for gender of the
son/daughter, F(1,322) = 1.13, p = .29, g2 = .003, or PPRS Female Malee Total
the gender of the parents F(1, 322) = 2.94, p = .09,
Mother 92.46 (25.78) 74.78 (25.66) 83.62 (25.89)
g2 = .01. The interaction of gender of the son/daugh-
Father 72.91 (25.67) 84.50 (25.68) 78.71 (25.87)
ter 9 the gender of the parents was significant, F(1,
322) = 26.12, p \ .001, g2 = .08. Mothers with a les- SD in parenthesis
bian daughter (M = 92.46; SD = 25.77) reported a more
negative reaction to the CO than did fathers with a gay Predictors of Negative Parental Reactions
son (M = 84.50; SD = 25.68). The parents of the other
two groups (mothers with gay sons and father with les- Next, using hierarchical multiple regression, we further
bian daughters), which do not differ from each other, examined the associations between demographic variables,
reported the most positive reactions (Duncan Test; religiosity, political involvement, family variables, and
p \ .05). The magnitude of the effect size was medium parents reactions to CO. In the regression, we entered in the
for the interaction effect, and low for the covariates. first step the gender of the son/daughter and the age of his/
Table 4 shows the adjusted means, which are the means her CO. Religious involvement and political orientation
that we would get after removing all differences that can were entered in the second step, and the family variables,
be accounted for by the covariates. measured with the FACES-IV, in the third step(Table 5).

Table 2 Pearson correlation between variables

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 Maternal reaction 1
2 Paternal reaction .52** 1
3 Religiosity mother .42** .31** 1
4 Religiosity father -.11 .06 -.13 1
5 Conservatism mother .20** .03 .21** -.23** 1
6 Conservatism father .34** .61** .21** -.05 .32** 1
7 Cohesion -.09 -.14 -.08 -.12 -.05 -.16* 1
8 Flexibility -.20* -.15 -.12 -.08 -.08 -.19* .72** 1
9 Disengaged family .02 .20** -.01 .08 .07 .27** -.50** -.25** 1
10 Enmeshed family .30** .60** .21** -.09 .10 .44** -.03 -.09 .19* 1
11 Rigid family .47** .55** .24** .06 -.06 .31** -.07 -.14 .11 .60** 1
12 Chaotic family -.01 .07 -.16* -.06 .07 .18* -.18* -.05 .48** .21** .02 1
* p \ .05; ** p \ .01

Table 3 Pearson correlations PPRS M (DS) Item-total Cohesion Flexibility Disengaged Enmeshed Rigid Chaotic
between PPRS highest scored items score
items and FACES IV correlation
dimensions
Was worried about what her friends and other parents would think of her (item 2)
Mother 3.14 (1.39) .62** .00 -.06 .010 .24** .39** -.02
Father 2.93 (1.52) .64** -.04 -.01 .24** .32** .32** .08
Was concerned about the potential that she/he wouldn’t get grandchildren from me (item 7)
Mother 3.55 (1.17) .57** .04 -.08 -.08 .26** .38** -.05
Father 3.14 (1.33) .54** .05 .04 .00 .27** .42** .01
Was concerned about having to answer other peoples’ questions about my sexuality (item 12)
Mother 3.28 (1.28) .56** -.02 -.10 .12 .17* .33** -.01
Father 3.12 (1.30) .75** -.04 -.06 .18* .46** .43** .07
** p \ .001; * p \ .05

123
J Child Fam Stud

Table 5 Hierarchical Mother DR2 Father DR2

regression analyses for family
2 2
functioning predicting father B SE b R B SE b R
and mother reaction to CO B B

Step 1: Gender and age .10 .10 .22 .22

Gender (0 = female; -18.42 3.44 -.33** -1.64 3.25 -.02
1 = male)
Age at coming out -1.48 .61 -.15* -2.39 .59 -.25**
Step 2: Religiosity and .34 .24 .48 .24
political ideology
Religiosity 2.84 .55 .33** .28 .60 .03
Political ideology 6.03 1.96 .19** 6.79 1.09 .37**
Step 3: FACES IV subscales .48 .24 .61 .36
Cohesion .36 .40 .09 -.21 .38 -.05
Flexibility -.65 .43 -.13 -.02 .42 -.00
Disengaged family .12 .42 .02 .41 .41 .07
Enmeshed family -.12 .44 -.02 1.7 .44 .28**
Rigid family 1.9 .38 .38** .87 .37 .16**
The tabled values for beta Chaotic family -.38 .40 -.07 -.81 .38 -.14
reflect Bs after step 3
Total R .70 .78
* p \ .05; ** p \ .001

The analysis of the mother sample showed that a neg- colleagues’ sample (Willoughby et al. 2006). Future stud-
ative reaction to CO was predicted by the gender of the ies should verify these findings, especially in Italy;
adolescent (having a lesbian daughter) (b = .33, t = 5.36, according to cross-cultural studies, Italian mothers are
p \ .001), lower age at time of CO (b = .15, t = -2.43, more warm and protective towards their children than are
p \ .05), a greater parents’ religious involvement women from other countries (Putnick et al. 2012), which
(b = .33, t = 5.20, p \ .001), a parents’ right-wing polit- may have some bearing on an Italian mother’s reaction to
ical conservatism (b = .19, t = 3.41, p \ .01), and higher her child’s CO.
score in the scale Rigid of the FACES-IV (b = .38, However, despite not finding significant differences
t = 4.92, p \ .001). In the father sample, a worse reaction between perceived maternal and paternal reactions to CO,
to the CO of the son/daughter, was predicted by a lower differences were found in the ways parents discovered the
age of the adolescent at the CO (b = .25, t = 4.09, sexual orientation of their sons/daughters (Table 1).
p \ .001), a parents’ right-wing political conservatism Daughters and sons were more inclined to directly come
(b = .37, t = 6.90, p \ .001), and higher score in the scale out to their mothers versus their fathers, who appear to find
Enmeshed (b = .28, t = 3.93, \ .001) and Rigid (b = .16, out more indirectly. According to the literature, disclosure
t = 2.35, p \ .05). is a process that occurs in different stages, and CO to
parents (D’Augelli 1994) is one of them. Revealing sexual
orientation to parents, according to Eriksson model (1982),
Discussion could bean important task to develop a healthy personality,
to differentiate from parents and to win fears. However, the
The present research aimed to analyze the variables con- female parent seems to be the ‘‘chosen one’’ in the light of
nected with perceived parental reactions to their child’s the trustful relationship that daughters and sons feel they
CO. To assess participants’ perceptions of their parents’ have with their mothers (Miller and Boon 1999). That
reactions, we administered the Perceived Parental Reac- being so, a maternal negative reaction could strongly affect
tions Scale, from which no significant differences were the adolescent’s self-esteem and force him/her to assume a
found in maternal and paternal reactions in the same negative self-image, in addition to undermines the mother–
family. This result is inconsistent with the literature, which child relationship (Waldner and Magrader 1999).
suggests that mothers’ reactions are more negative than Nonetheless, as shown in Table 1, it appears frequently
fathers’, as has been seen in Willoughby and colleagues’ that parents discovered their daughter’s and son’s sexual
work (Willoughby et al. 2006); both scores suggesting the identity by themselves, maybe this could lead to a more
tendency for Italian parents to react more positively to the negative reaction, as parents can read the lack of honesty as
CO of their children, then parents in Willoughby and a lack of trust, or again they can have doubts, worries and

123
 J Child Fam Stud

being ashamed to talk about that with their sons and 7 and item 12 have been valued with the highest scores
daughters. both for fathers and mothers. These data suggest that both
Results reported in Table 2 show a correlation between parents are worried about what other people, friends and
a negative perceived maternal and paternal response and a relatives could think about their sons and daughters sexu-
parents’ perceived right-wing conservative political view; ality (item 2 and 7): These items could reflect deep feelings
the same correlation has been found between maternal of shame about having a homosexual daughter or son;
negative reaction and parents’ strong religious involve- parents can fear the judgment of others people, maybe
ment. These data, in line with the literature (Newman and about their parental skills and they are afraid to speak about
Muzzonigro 1993; Schope 2002), suggest that believing in that. These items shows higher correlations with Enmeshed
conservative traditional values can be a predictor of sexual and Rigid family functioning, along with the results already
prejudice. In countries such as Italy, where religious feel- presented: In these family it seems fundamental to keep the
ings are ingrained in the culture, it is not unusual for LGBT appearance from the outside, and it is possible that they
people to experienced religion-based homophobia (Baiocco prefer to keep the disclosure inside the family, and not
and Laghi 2013; Cartabia 2008; Herek 2000; Lingiardi mention about it to friends or others relatives (as it has been
et al. 2005, 2012); these experiences can prevent or delay seen in Rivers and Gordon 2010). Item 12 is more cultural
the disclosure for fear of rejection. This result deserves to related, and reflect the belief that only a couple formed by a
be analyzed more deeply. As has been seen, mothers with men and woman can have children and, as a consequence,
higher levels of religious belief and fathers with strong it opens a narcissistic wound in the parents who see their
conservatism and right-wing political views are more likely desire to become grandparents fading away.
to react in a negative way. In Italy, it is a cultural given that According to our results, the age of the son/daughter at
mothers are the ones who take care of the house, which can the time of CO is an important predictor of parental reac-
be seen as the ‘‘private-family thing,’’ while fathers have tion. The lower the age of the participants at the time of
the tendency to be concerned with the ‘‘public-social CO, the worse the reaction of both parents, which confirms
thing,’’ e.g., politics. Women, in the past, were not sup- our hypothesis (D’Augelli 2006; LaSala 2000; Saltzburg
posed to participate in political debates or go into politics, 2004; Savin-Williams 2001). ANCOVA analysis reveals
but they were responsible for the religious education of that both parents react worst to same-gender adolescents’
their daughters and sons. It is likely that in the more con- disclosure. From a paternal point of view, the CO of a male
servative families, aspects of this legacy remain, and this son can be seen as a failure to successfully pass on mas-
cultural phenomenon can explain current findings (Jurado culinity, and fathers can feel deepening feelings of shame,
Guerrero and Naldini 1996). which make them unwilling to discuss the disclosure and
Concerning the relationship between a negative parental participate emotionally in the event (LaSala 2010). Fur-
reaction and FACES IV dimensions, the data in Table 2 thermore, the analysis of the interaction between son/
show a strong correlation with enmeshed dimensions for daughter and parental gender shows that mothers with a
both parents. These results, along with the literature (Bai- lesbian daughter display a more negative reaction to the
occo et al. 2013a; De Vine 1984; Willoughby et al. 2006), disclosure than do fathers with a gay son. According to
support the hypothesis that poor family functioning (lack of Pearlman (2012), who has collected 24 stories of mothers
adaptability, no coping ability, poor resilience resources, with lesbian and transgender daughters, the maternal
lack of communication) is predictive of a negative parental reaction seems to be so negative because of the hurt and
reaction to the adolescent/young adult’s CO. The disclo- disappointment as they see all their dreams for their
sure about sexual orientation in an enmeshed family could daughter’s future unravel; this is followed by feelings of
be difficult for several reasons: the strong bonds between loss of the mother–daughter bond, which they now feel
the family’s members can limit the individual growth and more as a mother–son relationship (Pearlman 2012). Or, as
choices, so much so that almost any expression of inde- already said, mothers where also responsible for the emo-
pendence or separateness is seen as disloyalty to the fam- tional socialization of their daughters and sons, homosex-
ily. Highly enmeshed families are likely to have highly uality could be seen as a failure in this task and they
emotional interactions and the revelation can generate ‘‘blame’’ themselves for that. Nevertheless, as the present
strong feeling of delusion in overly dependent parents and, research is focus on the participants perception of their
as a consequence, feelings of guilty in their daughters and parents reaction, there is an interesting explanation for this
sons (Baiocco et al. 2013a). Or, again, the parent’s identity phenomena given by Chiari. According to her data, lesbian
could be so wrapped up in their child’s identity that makes daughter tend to ascribe feeling of disapproval to their
the acceptance of the disclosure really complicated. mother and feelings of worry to their fathers, more than
Table 3 shows the correlations between the highest PPRS’ male sons: This could be an effect of interpersonal
items scores and the family functioning. Three Item 2, item dynamics of identification and projection with their

123
J Child Fam Stud

reference parental figure. The young lesbian daughter family’s boundaries. Also, when the social group and the
perceives a more negative maternal reaction due to the gap family have strong religious affiliations and particularly
between herself and the object of identification, and, as a conservative political views, a message of homophobia has
consequence of this process, she overestimates the disap- been internalized, and this can jeopardize the process of
proval reaction (Chiari 2006). acceptance of the disclosure. Due to their social importance,
The association between sex, age, religiosity, political these results can be tested also in other southern Europe
involvement, and family dimensions has been examined regions, where the cultural values are similar to Italian’s one.
through step-wise hierarchical multiple regression in order Nevertheless, disclosing to family about sexual identity is an
to identify the predictors of parental negative reaction important step for every young LG, and these findings could
(Table 5). Maternal negative response is mostly predicted be helpful for social and clinical workers in every Country.
by: having a lesbian daughter, the age at the time CO, Homophobia and social marginalization of adolescents and
religious association, and a right-wing conservative polit- young adults is still a reality in Italy, and we hope that our
ical view. On the other hand, paternal negative response is findings can help family therapists, counselors, and educators
mostly predicted by a lower age of the son at the time of create a supportive and welcoming environment to daughters
CO and right-wing political conservatism. and sons who decide to take the difficult choice of CO.
Both maternal and paternal negative reaction are con-
nected to a higher score in the Rigid scale of the FACES IV
(mother b = .38, t = 4.92, p \ .001; father b = .16, Limitations
t = 2.35, p \ .05). According to the literature, rigid families
are characterized by overly low levels of flexibility and There were a few limitations to our study. First the sample was
adaptability, which are the family’s main resources to face relatively small; a larger and more representative sample
stressful and unexpected situations and keep the internal should be studied to obtain more stable results. The study was
cohesion (Mathis and Tanner 1991; James and Hunsley conducted in Italy, and these findings may not apply to LG
1995). Our results reveal, moreover, that a negative parental males living in other countries, since our data appear to be
reaction is also predicted by a higher score on the FACES IV strongly related to our culture. Also, the use of a convenience
enmeshed scale (b = .28, t = 3.93, p \ .001), which is sample can never truly access a representative sample of LG
characterized by higher levels of cohesion, an extreme individuals. The sample was composed by young adults, it
amount of emotional closeness, and strong demands on would be interesting to investigate the experience of adults
loyalty. In this situation, the disclosure can be seen as an and older people, in different times of life. Moreover there
unexpected betrayal of the expectation and values of the could have been some bias regarding the perception of neg-
family. These results suggest that when the family is dys- ative parental reaction, maybe perceived as more negative
functional and displays strong boundaries-related problems, than it actually was. In this regard it would be interesting to
the parental reaction to CO can be extremely negative. take a longitudinal study, in order to analyze whether the time
The inability to reframe perceptions, ideas, and infor- elapsed since the CO, has a particular influence on parental
mation about their son/daughter, can damage the family’s reaction’s perception. Finally, the study did not consider
bonds, leading to, on one hand, losing marital stability and, bisexual participants, once again due to the low number in our
on the other hand, make the child feel guilt and rejection sample; likewise, it is necessary to explore how the CO of
(Olson and Lavee 2013; Willoughby et al. 2008). For an bisexual adolescents is perceived by their parents, and to
adolescent/young adult who decides to reveal his or her verify if the differences between maternal and paternal reac-
same-sex attraction under these conditions, internalizing tions are the same as for the homosexual sample.
the minority sexual stigma could be a concrete possibility,
the negative consequences of which are well known in the
literature (Frost et al. 2013; Willoughby et al. 2008).
In conclusion, our findings confirm that a negative parental References
reaction results from poor family resources to face a stressful
situation, a strong belief in traditional values, a lower age at Armesto, J. C., & Weisman, A. G. (2001). Attributions and emotional
reactions to the identity disclosure (‘‘coming out’’) of a
time of CO, and—for mothers—having a lesbian daughter. homosexual child. Family Process, 40, 145–161.
These results have important implications in both clinical and Baiocco, R., Cacioppo, M., Laghi, F., & Tafà, M. (2013a). Factorial
social fields. First of all, in therapeutic and counseling and construct validity of FACES IV among Italian adolescents.
assessment, it is fundamental to understand these variables Journal of Child and Family Studies, 22, 962–970.
Baiocco, R., D’Alessio, M., & Laghi, F. (2010). Binge drinking
when focusing the intervention, in order to prevent a negative among gay, and lesbian youths: The role of internalized sexual
parental reaction to CO on one hand, and on the other hand to stigma, self-disclosure, and individuals’ sense of connectedness
help the family to accept the disclosure and readjust the to the gay community. Addictive Behaviors, 35, 896–899.

123
 J Child Fam Stud

Baiocco, R., & Laghi, F. (2013). Sexual orientation and the desires D’Augelli, A. R. (1994). Identity development and sexual orientation:
and intentions to become parents. Journal of Family Studies, Toward a model of lesbian, gay, and bisexual development. In E.
19(1), 90–98. J. Trickett, R. J. Watts & D. Birman (Eds.), Human diversity:
Baiocco, R., Laghi, F., Di Pomponio, I., & Nigito, C. S. (2012). Self- Perspectives on people in context. The Jossey-Bass social and
disclosure to the best friend: Friendship quality and internalized behavioral science series (pp. 312–333). San Francisco, CA, US.
sexual stigma in Italian lesbian and gay adolescents. Journal of D’Augelli, R., Grossman, A. H., & Starks, M. T. (2005). Parents’
adolescence, 35(2), 381–387. awareness of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths’ sexual orienta-
Baiocco, R., Nardelli, N., Pezzuti, L., & Lingiardi, V. (2013b). tion. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 474–482.
Attitudes of Italian heterosexual older adults towards lesbian and D’augelli, A. R., Grossman, A. H., & Starks, M. T. (2008). Families
gay parents. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 10, 285–292. of gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth: What do parents and siblings
Baptist, J. A., & Allen, K. R. (2008). A family’s coming out process: know and how do they react? Journal of GLBT Family Studies,
Systemic change, and multiple realities. Contemporary Family 4(1), 95–115.
Therapy, 30, 92–110. De Vine, J. L. (1984). A systemic inspection of affectional preference
Ben-Ari, A. (1995). The discovery that an offspring is gay: Parents’, orientation and the family of origin. Journal of Social Work and
gay men’s, and lesbians’ perspectives. Journal of Homosexual- Human Sexuality, 2, 9–17.
ity, 30, 89–112. Erikson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. New York:
Bos, H. M. W., Van Balen, F., & Van Den Boom, D. C. (2004). International Universities Press.
Experience of parenthood, couple relationship, social support, Erikson, E. H. (1982). The cycle life completed. New York: Norton.
and child-rearing goals in planned lesbian mother families. Frost, D. M., Lehavot, K., & Meyer, I. H. (2013). Minority stress and
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 755–764. physical health among sexual minority individuals. Journal of
Boxer, A. M., Cook, J. A., & Herdt, G. (1991). Double jeopardy: behavioral medicine, 36(6), 1–8.
Identity transitions and parent–child relations among gay and Gardner, A. T., de Vries, B., & Mockus, D. S. (2014). Aging out in
lesbian youth. In K. Pillemer & K. McCartney (Eds.), Parent– the desert: Disclosure, acceptance, and service use among
child relations throughout life (pp. 59–92). Hillsdale, NJ: midlife and older lesbians and gay men. Journal of Homosex-
Lawrence Erlbaum. uality, 61(1), 129–144.
Carnelley, K. B., Hepper, E. G., Hichs, C., & Turner, W. (2011). Green, R. J. (2000). ‘‘Lesbians, gay men, and their parents’’: A
Perceived parental reactions to coming out, attachment, and critique of La Sala and the prevailing clinical ‘‘wisdom’’. Family
romantic relationship views. Attachment and human develop- Process, 39, 257–266.
ment, 13, 217–236. Guzzo, G., Lo Cascio, V., & Pace, U., et al. (2014). Bullying
Cartabia, M. (2008). Legal study on homophobia and discrimination victimization, post-traumatic symptoms, and the mediating role
on grounds of sexual orientation in Italy. Vienna: European of alexithymia. Child Indicator Research, 7, 141–153.
Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. Heatherington, L., & Lavner, J. A. (2008). Coming to term with
Cass, V. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. coming out: Review and recommendation for family system-
The Journal of Homosexuality, 4, 219–235. focused research. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 329–343.
Chaudoir, S. R., & Fisher, J. D. (2010). The disclosure processes Henry, M. M. (2013). Coming out: Implications for self-esteem and
model: Understanding disclosure decision making and post depression in gay and lesbian individuals (Doctoral dissertation,
disclosure outcomes among people living with a concealable Humboldt State University).
stigmatized identity. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 236–256. Herek, G. M. (2000). Sexual prejudice and gender: Do heterosexuals’
Chiari, C. (2006). La famiglia attraverso lo svelamento. In D. Rizzo attitudes toward lesbian and gay men differ? Journal of Social
(Ed.), Omosapiens (pp. 10–21). Roma: Carocci Editore. Issues, 56, 251–266.
Conley, C. L. (2011). Learning about a child’s gay or lesbian sexual Herek, G. M., & Garnets, L. D. (2007). Sexual orientation and mental
orientation: Parental concerns about societal rejection, loss of health. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 3, 353–375.
loved ones, and child well being. Journal of Homosexuality, 58, Hoffman, N. D., Freeman, K., & Swann, S. (2009). Healthcare
1022–1040. preferences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and question-
Cramer, D. W., & Roach, A. J. (1988). Coming out to mom and dad: ing youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45(3), 222–229.
A study of gay males and their relationships with their parents. James, S., & Hunsley, J. (1995). The Marital Adaptability and Cohesion
Journal of Homosexuality, 15, 79–91. Evaluation Scale III: Is the relation with marital adjustment linear
D’Augelli, A. R. (2006). Developmental and contextual factors and or curvilinear? Journal of Family Psychology, 9, 458–462.
mental health among lesbian gay and bisexual youths. In A. Jurado Guerrero, T., & Naldini, M. (1996). Is the South so different?
E. Omoto & H. M. Kurtzman (Eds.), Sexual orientation and Italian and Spanish families in comparative perspective. South
mental health: Examining identity and development in lesbian, European Society and Politics, 1(3), 42–66.
gay, and bisexual people (pp. 37–53). Washington, DC: APA Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual
Books. behaviour in the human male. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders.
D’Augelli, A. R., & Grossman, A. H. (2001). Disclosure of sexual LaSala, M. C. (2000). Lesbian, gay men, and their parents: Family
orientation, victimization and mental health among lesbian, gay therapy for the coming-out crisis. Family Process, 39, 67–81.
and bisexual older adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, LaSala, M. C. (2010). Coming out, coming home: Helping families
1008–1027. adjust to a gay or lesbian child. New York: Columbia University
D’Augelli, A. R., & Hershberger, S. L. (1993). Lesbian, gay, and Press.
bisexual youth in community settings: Personal challenges and Lavee, Y., & Olson, D. H. (1991). Family types and response to
mental health problems. American Journal of Community stress. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53(3), 786–798.
Psychology, 21, 421–448. Legate, N., Ryan, R. M., & Weinstein, N. (2012). Is coming out
D’Augelli, A. R., Pilkington, N. W., & Hershberger, S. L. (2002). always a ‘‘good thing’’? Exploring the relations of autonomy
Incidence and mental health impact of sexual orientation support, outness, and wellness for lesbian, gay, and bisexual
victimization of lesbian, gay and bisexual youths in high school. individuals. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(2),
School Psychology Quarterly, 17, 148–167. 145–152.

123
J Child Fam Stud

Lingiardi, V., Baiocco, R., & Nardelli, N. (2012). Measure of Resnick, M. D., Bearman, P. S., Blum, R. W., Bauman, K. E., Harris, K.
internalized sexual stigma for lesbians and gay men: A new M., Jones, J., et al. (1997). Protecting adolescents from harm.
scale. Journal of Homosexuality, 59, 1191–1210. Findings from the national longitudinal study on adolescent health.
Lingiardi, V., Falanga, S., & D’Augelli, A. (2005). The evaluation of Journal of the American Medical Association, 278(10), 823–832.
homophobia in a Italian sample. Archives of Sexual Behavior, Rivers, I., & Gordon, K. (2010). ‘Coming out’, context and reason:
34, 81–93. First disclosure of sexual orientation and its consequences.
Lo Cascio, V., Guzzo, G., Pace, F., & Pace, U. (2013). Anxiety and Psychology & Sexuality, 1(1), 21–33.
self-esteem as mediators of the relation between family Roth, D. L., Mwase, I., Holt, C. L., Clark, E. M., Lukwago, S., &
communication and indecisiveness in adolescence. International Kreuter, M. W. (2012). Religious involvement measurement
Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 13(2), model in a national sample of African Americans. Journal of
135–149. doi:10.1007/s10775-013-9243-1. Religion and Health, 51, 567–578.
Maguen, S., Floyd, F. G., Bakeman, R., & Armistead, L. (2002). Russell, S. T. (2003). Sexual minority youth and suicide risk.
Developmental milestones and disclosure of sexual orientation American Behavioral Scientist, 46, 1241–1257.
among gay, lesbian, and bisexual youths. Applied Developmental Ryan, C., Huebner, D., Diaz, R. M., & Sanchez, J. (2009). Family
Psychology, 23, 219–233. rejection as a predictor of negative health outcomes in white and
Mathis, R. D., & Tanner, Z. (1991). Cohesion, adaptability, and Latino lesbian, gay, and bisexual young adults. Pediatrics,
satisfaction of family systems in later life. Family Therapy, 18, 123(1), 346–352.
47–60. Ryan, C., Russell, S. T., Huebner, D., Diaz, R., & Sanchez, J. (2010).
Meyer, I. H. (1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men. Family acceptance in adolescence and the health of LGBT young
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36, 38–56. adults. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 23,
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in 205–213.
lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and Sakalli, N. (2002). Application of the attribution-value model of
research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674–697. prejudice to homosexuality. The Journal of Social Psychology,
Miller, R. J., & Boon, S. D. (1999). Trust and disclosure of sexual 142(2), 264–271.
orientation in gay males’ mother-son relationships. Journal of Saltzburg, S. (2004). Learning that an adolescent child is gay or
Homosexuality, 38(3), 41–63. lesbian: The parent experience. Social Work, 49, 109–118.
Mohr, J. J., & Fassinger, R. E. (2003). Self-acceptance and self- Savin-Williams, R. C. (2001). Mom, dad. I’m gay: How families
disclosure of sexual orientation in lesbian, gay and bisexual negotiate coming out. Washington, DC: American Psychological
adults: An attachment perspective. Journal of Counselling Association.
Psychology, 50, 482–495. Savin-Williams, R. C. (2005). The new gay teenager. Cambridge,
Newman, B. S., & Muzzonigro, P. G. (1993). The effects of MA: Harvard University Press.
traditional family values on the coming out process of gay male Savin-Williams, R. C., & Dube, E. M. (1998). Parental reaction to their
adolescents. Adolescence, 28, 213–226. child’s disclosure of a gay/lesbian identity. Family Relations, 47, 7–13.
Olson, D. H. (2011). FACES IV and the circumplex model: Savin-Williams, R. C., & Ream, G. L. (2003). Sex variations in the
Validation study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 3, disclosure to parents of same-sex attractions. Journal of Family
64–80. Psychology, 17, 429–438.
Olson, D. H., & Gorall, D. M. (2006). Faces IV and the circumplex Schope, R. D. (2002). The decision to tell: Factors influencing the
model. Minneapolis, MN: Life Innovations. disclosure of sexual orientation by gay men. Journal of Gay and
Olson, D. H., & Lavee, Y. (2013). Family systems and family stress: Lesbian Social Services: Issues in Practice, Policy, and
A family life cycle. In K. Kreppner & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Research, 14, 1–22.
Family Systems and Life-span Development (pp. 165–196). New Shilo, G., & Savaya, R. (2011). Effects of family and friend support
York, NY: Psychology Press. on LGB youths mental health and sexual orientation milestones.
Pace, U., Cacioppo, M., & Schimmenti, A. (2012). The moderating Family Relations, 60, 318–330.
role of father’s care on the onset of binge eating symptoms Vaughan, M. D., & Waehler, C. A. (2010). Coming out growth:
among female late adolescents with insecure attachment. Child Conceptualizing and measuring stress-related growth associated
Psychiatry and Human Development, 43, 282–292. with coming out to others as a sexual minority. Journal of Adult
Pallini, S., & Laghi, F. (2012). Attention and attachment related Development, 17, 94–109.
behaviour toward professional caregivers in child care centers: A Waldner, L. K., & Magrader, B. (1999). Coming out to parents.
new measure for toddlers. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, Journal of Homosexuality, 37, 83–100.
173(2), 158–174. Willoughby, B. L., Doty, N. D., & Malik, N. M. (2008). Parental
Patterson, J. M. (2002). Integrating family resilience and family stress reactions to their child’s sexual orientation disclosure: A family
theory. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(2), 349–360. stress perspective. Parenting: Science and Practice, 8(1), 70–91.
Pearlman, Sarah. F. (2012). Mother-talk: Conversations with mothers Willoughby, B. L., Doty, N. D., & Malik, N. M. (2010). Victimiza-
of lesbian daughters and FTM transgender children. Toronto, tion, family rejection, and outcomes of gay, lesbian, and bisexual
ON: Demeter Press. young people: The role of negative GLB identity. Journal of
Putnick, D. L., Bornstein, M. H., Lansford, J. E., Chang, L., Deater- GLBT Family Studies, 6(4), 403–424.
Deckard, K., Di Giunta, L., et al. (2012). Agreement in mother Willoughby, B. L. B., Malik, N. M., & Lindahl, K. M. (2006).
and father acceptance–rejection, warmth, and hostility/rejection/ Parental reactions to their sons’ sexual orientation disclosures:
neglect of children across nine countries. Cross-Cultural The roles of family cohesion, adaptability and parenting style.
Research, 46(3), 191–223. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 7, 14–26.

123