Symposia
Couples / Close Relationships
Kate Dorrell, B.S.
PhD Student
Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science
North Chicago, Illinois
Isabel K. Benjamin, PhD
Graduate Student
Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science
Chicago, Illinois
Christina Dyar, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
The Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio
Joanne Davila, Ph.D.
Professor and Chair
Stony Brook University
Stony Brook, New York
Brian Feinstein, Ph.D. (he/him/his)
Associate Professor
Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science
N. Chicago, Illinois
Background. Bi+ (e.g., bisexual, pansexual, queer) individuals face unique stressors such as anti-bisexual discrimination and internalized binegativity. Research has found that minority stress is associated with lower relationship satisfaction among sexual minorities, but this has rarely been studied among bi+ individuals. Further, emerging evidence suggests that bi+ women’s experiences differ based on their partner’s sexual orientation, but this has not yet been examined among bi+ people of different genders. As such, the goals of the current study were to examine: 1) the associations between minority stressors and relationship satisfaction among bi+ individuals; and 2) differences in these constructs based on partner sexual orientation (bi+, lesbian/gay, or heterosexual).
Method. We used data from 349 bi+ adults who participated in an online study and reported being in a relationship (58% bi+ partner, 14% lesbian/gay partner, 28% heterosexual partner). Pearson’s correlations and one-way ANOVAs were conducted to examine the associations between minority stressors and relationship satisfaction and differences in these constructs based on partner sexual orientation.
Results. Internalized (r = -.24, p < .001) and anticipated (r = -.12, p = .047) binegativity were negatively associated with relationship satisfaction whereas outness was positively associated with it (r = .11, p = .039). Anti-bisexual discrimination was not associated with relationship satisfaction. Participants with bi+ partners reported lower anticipated binegativity than those with lesbian, gay, or heterosexual partners (p < .05). Participants with lesbian/gay partners were more out than those with bi+ partners, and participants with heterosexual partners were less out than those with bi+ partners (ps < .05). Partner sexual orientation was not associated with internalized binegativity or anti-bisexual discrimination.
Conclusions. Internalized and anticipated binegativity may be risk factors for relationship dissatisfaction among bi+ individuals, whereas outness may promote satisfaction. Findings also highlight the importance of partner sexual orientation in bi+ individuals’ experiences. Our findings establish a foundation for understanding risk factors for relationship dissatisfaction in this population and for considering differences based on partner sexual orientation, which have important implications for how bi+ individuals in relationships cope with identity- and relationship-based stressors.