Joanne Davila’s research while affiliated with Stony Brook University and other places

Bi+ individuals face unique stressors such as antibisexual discrimination and internalized binegativity. Minority stress is associated with relationship dissatisfaction among sexual minority individuals, but this has rarely been studied among bi+ individuals, a population that experiences unique stressors related to relationships (e.g., assumptions of promiscuity and unfaithfulness). As such, the current study examined the associations between minority stressors and relationship satisfaction among bi+ individuals and potential differences in these experiences based on gender composition (same gender, different gender, and at least one nonbinary individual) and partner sexual orientation (bi+, lesbian/gay, and heterosexual). The sample included 358 bi+ adults in relationships who completed an online survey. Partial Pearson’s correlations and one-way analysis of covariance were conducted, controlling for relationship length given its association with relationship satisfaction. Internalized and anticipated binegativity were negatively associated with relationship satisfaction, whereas outness was positively associated with relationship satisfaction. Antibisexual discrimination was not significantly associated with relationship satisfaction. Participants in relationships with bi+ partners reported lower anticipated binegativity than those in relationships with lesbian/gay or heterosexual partners and lower internalized binegativity than those with lesbian/gay partners. Those in relationships that included at least one nonbinary individual reported more antibisexual discrimination from heterosexual people than those in different-gender relationships. Internalized and anticipated binegativity may be risk factors for relationship dissatisfaction among bi+ individuals, whereas outness may promote satisfaction. Our findings establish a foundation for understanding risk and protective factors related to relationship dissatisfaction in this population.

Despite extensive research on depression and couple interactions, little is known about how depressed mood influences couples' experience of everyday life interactions. In this study, data were gathered from 72 different‐gender couples ( N = 144 individuals), who reported their feelings, behavior, and perceptions of their partner's behavior several times a day over 14 days. The study revealed that when individuals reported feeling more depressed, they perceived their romantic partner's behavior as more distant and hurtful, and they felt treated worse and more rejected. Moreover, when individuals reported feeling more depressed, their romantic partners perceived them as more distant, and they reported feeling treated worse and more rejected. However, depressed mood did not predict subsequent relationship perceptions in time‐lagged associations, and the directionality from relationship perceptions to depressed mood was inconclusive.

As the field continues to build knowledge about sexual minority stress, more precise research rests on adequate measurement of core constructs such as discrimination, internalized stigma, concealment, and sexual orientation-related rejection sensitivity. However, psychometric evaluations of common minority stress measures are limited. Measures are often assumed to form unidimensional constructs and to operate similarly among diverse subgroups within the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) community. Using an online sample of 1,253 sexual minority individuals in the United States, we evaluated four common minority stress measures: the Everyday Discrimination Scale, Internalized Homophobia Scale, Nebraska Outness Scale, and Sexual Orientation-Related Rejection Sensitivity Scale. We used confirmatory factor analyses to examine (a) the latent factor structure of each measure as conceptualized in the literature, and (b) measurement invariance/equivalence across sexual orientation (i.e., those who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual, queer, and asexual), gender identity (i.e., those who identify as cisgender men, cisgender women, as well as those with transmasculine, transfeminine, and gender expansive identities), and race/ethnicity (i.e., non-Hispanic White individuals and people of color). We found that no measure that we examined exhibited adequate fit to the data and limited evidence of full measurement invariance/equivalence in sexual orientation and gender identity comparisons. Measures operated similarly in comparisons of non-Hispanic White individuals and people of color. Results imply the need for more rigorous psychometric development and evaluation of minority stress measures to be more generalizable to diverse LGBTQ+ subgroups.

Background: Offspring of depressed mothers have elevated risk of developing depression because they are exposed to greater stress. While generally assumed that youth's increased exposure to stress is due to the environmental effects of living with a depressed parent, youth's genes may influence stress exposure through gene-environment correlations (rGEs). To understand the relationship between risk for depression and stress, we examined the effects of polygenic risk for depression on youth stress exposure. Methods: We examined the relations of a polygenic risk score (PRS) for depression (DEP-PRS), as well as PRSs for 5 other disorders, with youth stress exposure. Data were from a longitudinal study of a community sample of youth and their parents (n = 377) focusing on data collected at youth's aged 12 and 15 assessments. Results: Elevated youth DEP-PRS was robustly associated with increased dependent stress, particularly interpersonal events. Exploratory analyses indicated that findings were driven by major stress and were not moderated by maternal nor paternal history of depression, and of the 5 additional PRSs tested, only elevated genetic liability for bipolar I was associated with increased dependent stress-particularly non-interpersonal events. Limitations: Like other PRS studies, we focused on those of European ancestry thus, generalizability of findings is limited. Conclusion: Polygenic risk contributes to youth experiencing stressful life events which are dependent on their behavior. This rGE appears to be specific to genetic risk for mood disorders.

Internalized heterosexism has been linked to poor relationship outcomes among sexual minority individuals. However, there is a dearth of research examining how internalized heterosexism is associated with intimate behaviors, such as verbal intimacy and affectionate touch. Furthermore, there are no studies that utilize behavioral observation to examine these associations in contexts expected to pull for intimate behaviors, such as a positive relationship discussion. Using a multimethod approach, we investigated associations between self-reported internalized heterosexism and observed intimate behaviors during a positive relationship discussion using data of 72 sexual minority couples. We hypothesized that internalized heterosexism would be related to lower engagement in intimate behaviors. Bivariate intraclass correlations confirmed that internalized heterosexism was negatively associated with couple-level verbal intimacy and individual-level affectionate touch provision. Results of multiple linear regression indicated that internalized heterosexism accounted for a significant portion of variance in verbal intimacy displayed by couples. In addition, we found a statistically significant actor effect of internalized heterosexism on affectionate touch provision using an actor–partner interdependence model. Specifically, participants with higher internalized heterosexism provided their partner with less affectionate touch than those with lower internalized heterosexism. Our findings suggest that clinicians working with sexual minority couples presenting with intimacy-related problems should consider assessing internalized heterosexism to better inform case conceptualization and treatment planning.

Having a relationship agreement — a mutual understanding between partners regarding relationship and sexual behaviors both within and outside their relationship — has been linked with healthy relationship functioning. Yet research has been largely limited to sexual agreements among gay and bisexual men, with few studies regarding relationship agreement prevalence, types, and motivations among people of diverse sexual and gender identities and relationship types (e.g., polyamory, monogamy). This study sought to describe characteristics of and motivations for relationship agreements and examine associations between agreements and two metrics of relationship functioning: adaptive decision-making and satisfaction. In a cross-sectional online survey about sexuality, dating, and relationships among people of diverse sexual orientations, 722 U.S. participants ( M age 29.3, 48.9% cisgender women, 83.7% non-heterosexual, 34.9% monogamous) provided data regarding relationship agreements, decision-making, and satisfaction. Bivariate and regression analyses were used to examine individual and relational correlates of having an agreement as well as associations between agreements, deciding, and satisfaction. A large majority of participants ( N = 594, 82.3%) had a relationship agreement. Nearly two-thirds described their current relationship status as some form of consensual non-monogamy (CNM), with 41% having 2 or more current significant partners. Common reasons for making an agreement included building trust and honesty, protecting the relationship or partners’ feelings, managing expectations, and preventing HIV or STIs. Across participants, having an agreement — regardless of the type — was associated with higher scores on both satisfaction and decision making. Implications for couples/relationship researchers and therapists are discussed.

Little is known about how sexual minority couples cope with experiences of discrimination related to sexual orientation, and whether such processes are different from the management of general life stressors. Using self-report and observational methods, we investigated differences in couple support processes by stressor type. A sample of 84 sexual minority couples ( M age = 25.4 years, SD = 4.0) completed self-report measures and two video-recorded discussions (one sexual orientation-related discrimination stressor and one general life stressor not related to sexual orientation) that were coded for observed dyadic coping and social support behavior. In self-report models, more frequent stressors experienced by either partner, regardless of type, were related to more negative dyadic coping behavior and more positive partner social support provision. Discrimination stressors were uniquely related to less positive evaluations of dyadic coping behavior, but this result did not hold when accounting for covariates and could have been confounded by age. In observed models, we found no differences in positive dyadic coping or positive social support behavior across stressor discussions, but we found significantly less negative dyadic coping behavior during discrimination stressor discussions. Future work should examine how adaptive support processes may influence relationship functioning.

Bisexual, pansexual, and queer (bi+) individuals are at increased risk for depression and anxiety. These disparities are hypothesized to be due to the unique, minority-specific stressors that they experience. Prior research supports that bi+ stressors are associated with depression and anxiety, but nearly all studies have been cross-sectional, limiting our understanding of how experiencing bi+ stress influences individuals' levels of depression and anxiety as they occur in their day-today lives. To address this gap, we examined the daily associations between bi+ stressors (dis-crimination, internalized stigma, rejection sensitivity, and identity concealment) and depressed/anxious mood in a 28-day diary study. Participants were 208 bi+ individuals who completed daily measures of bi+ stressors and depressed/anxious mood. We tested unlagged (same-day) and lagged (next-day) associations, and we also tested whether internalized stigma, rejection sensitivity, and identity concealment functioned as mechanisms underlying the daily associations between discrimination and depressed/ anxious mood. Participants reported higher depressed/anx-ious mood on days when they reported higher discrimination , internalized stigma, rejection sensitivity, and identity concealment. There were significant unlagged indirect effects of discrimination on depressed and anxious mood via internalized stigma and rejection sensitivity, and there was also a significant unlagged indirect effect of discrimination on anxiety via identity concealment. However, none of the lagged associations were significant. Results suggest that bi+ stress is related to same-day, but not next-day, depressed/anxious mood. The nonsignificant lagged associations could reflect that bi+ individuals are using adaptive coping skills in response to bi+ stress, or that other experiences throughout the day have stronger influences on next-day mood.