Minority Stress and Stress Proliferation Among Same‐Sex and Other Marginalized Couples

• Author: Allen J. LeBlanc,Richard G. Wight,David M. Frost
• Published date: 01 February 2015
• Date: 01 February 2015
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12160

A J. LB San Francisco State University

D M. F Columbia University∗

R G. W University of California, Los Angeles∗∗

Minority Stress and Stress Proliferation Among

Same-Sex and Other Marginalized Couples

Drawing from 2 largely isolated approaches

to the study of social stress—stress prolifera-

tion and minority stress—the authors theorize

about stress and mental health among same-sex

couples. With this integrated stress framework,

they hypothesized that couple-level minority

stressors may be experienced by individual

partners and jointly by couples as a result

of the stigmatized status of their same-sex

relationship—a novel concept. They also

consider dyadic minority stress processes,

which result from the relational experience

of individual-level minority stressors between

partners. Because this framework includes

stressors emanating from both status-based

(e.g., sexual minority) and role-based (e.g.,

partner) stress domains, it facilitates the study

of stress proliferation linking minority stress

(e.g., discrimination), more commonly expe-

rienced relational stress (e.g., conict), and

Sociology/Health Equity Institute, San Francisco State

University,1600 Holloway Ave., HSS 359, San Francisco,

CA 94132 (aleblanc@sfsu.edu).

∗Columbia University,Mailman School of Public Health,

Department of Population and Family Health, 60 Haven

Ave., B2, NewYork, NY 10032.

∗∗UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, Department of

Community Health Sciences, 650 Charles E. YoungDr.

South, Box 951772, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1772.

KeyWords:dyadic/couple data, gay, lesbian, bisexual mental

health, stress coping and/or resiliency,theory construction.

mental health. This framework can be applied

to the study of stress and health among other

marginalized couples, such as interracial/

ethnic, interfaith, and age-discrepant couples.

Evolving theories of how people experience

stressful events and chronic stressors and strains

over the course of their lives have contributed

greatly to current understandings of the social

determinants of well-being. Two related but

distinct frameworks for examining the origins

and effects of social stress on mental health are

(a) stress proliferation and (b) minority stress

theory. Both originate from broader conceptu-

alizations of social stress theory (Dohrenwend,

2000; Pearlin, 1999), which posits that social

stressors—events or circumstances that require

individuals to adapt to changes intrapersonally,

interpersonally, or in their environment—can

be harmful to mental health. However, each

framework facilitates the examination of dis-

tinct research questions. Stress-proliferation

approaches foster the study of how stress can

expand and proliferate within constellations

of interrelated stressors in individual lives and

within key relationships. Minority stress theory

highlights the unique stress experiences of

persons who belong to socially disadvantaged

populations or are viewed as such by others.

We argue that integrating these two concep-

tualizations of stress furthers scholars’ existing

understanding of stress experience and how it

inuences mental health as well as how it leads

40 Journal of Marriage and Family 77 (February 2015): 40–59

DOI:10.1111/jomf.12160

Extending Stress Theory 41

to persistent mental health disparities between

minority and nonminority populations. To illus-

trate this potential, in this article we provide an

integrated theoretical model of minority stress

and mental health among same-sex couples.

This extension of social stress theory informs

future studies not only of social stress and

mental health among sexual minority popula-

tions but also of the relational context of stress

experience among other minority populations

(e.g., racial/ethnic minorities), and it has the

potential to advance understandings of dyadic

stress processes among heterosexual couples and

within other types of relationships (e.g., interra-

cial/ethnic couples, parent–child, siblings).

S P  F  S

P

Social stress processtheory (Pearlin, Menaghan,

Lieberman, & Mullan, 1981) fundamentally

addresses the reality that stress, of different

types (e.g., eventful and chronic) and from vary-

ing sources, can become involved in a causal

dynamic over time to inuence individual

well-being. The terms stressors,stress, and dis-

tress are used to describe the stress process, with

exposure to stressors leading to the experience

of stress, which in turn may lead to distress.

Stressors are seen as external challenges to

individuals’ adaptive capacities, and distress is

dened as maladaptive responses to stress, such

as depression, anxiety,fear, anger, or aggression.

Stress is often dened as a biological response

of the body to stressors, but in some literatures

the terms stressor and stress are synonymous. In

the psychosocial approach, it has proven more

useful to dene stressors than stress because it

remains unclear whether stressors precipitate

distress only through bodily stress response

(Wheaton, Young, Montazer, & Stuart-Lahman,

2013). It is with this basic understanding of

the stress process that we approach the study

of stress experience in the context of intimate

relationships.

The general conceptualization of stress as a

process was developed to highlight the circum-

stances of social stress experience that inuence

individual health over time. One notable feature

of the larger stress process is stress prolifer-

ation, which is based on the fact that life’s

challenges and ongoing difculties usually do

not exist independently of one another. In short,

stress proliferation refers to the observationthat

stress experiences often beget more stress in

people’s lives, creating—in the absence of

adequate psychosocial resources (e.g., a sense

of mastery, effective coping strategies, social

supports)—a causal chain of stressors that can

directly and indirectly be harmful to mental

health (Aneshensel, Pearlin, Mullan, Zarit, &

Whitlatch, 1995; Pearlin, 1999; Pearlin et al.,

1981; Pearlin & Bierman, 2013).

This proliferation of stress as it is sub-

jectively and objectively experienced by

individuals—and between individuals within

close relationships—has been empirically

demonstrated (Brody et al., 2008; Pearlin,

Aneshensel, & LeBlanc, 1997; Pearlin, Schie-

man, Fazio, & Meersman, 2005; Wight, Ane-

shensel, & LeBlanc, 2003). Although the reality

that stress often leads to more stress applies

to many life circumstances (e.g., racial/ethnic

discrimination [Gee, Walsemann, & Brondolo,

2012], neighborhood disadvantage [Aneshensel,

2010]), it has been most fruitfully theorized

within the context of signicant social roles

that individuals occupy (e.g., employee, parent,

child, and spouse/partner) and the associated

role sets through which these important social

relationships (e.g., husband–wife, parent–child,

employee–supervisor) are structured (Merton,

1938). Thus, researchers interested in empiri-

cally examining stress proliferation have tended

to develop studies that focus on people’s expe-

riences within key social roles, the obligations

of such roles, and the social and interpersonal

interactions attached to them (Milkie, 2010).

This framing has provided fertile ground for

understanding stress experience and health.

Highlighting these role-based experiences

also helps demonstrate how individuals linked

together by key social roles can indeed share the

experience of social stress.

Studies of informal caregivers and caregiving

dyads facing the challenges of chronic illnesses

or disabilities have proven to be an especially

useful focal point for illuminating stress pro-

liferation (Pearlin, Mullan, Semple, & Skaff,

1990). A series of such caregiving studies has

produced compelling evidence to illustrate how

care-related stressors may create a chain reaction

of consequent stressors that diminish well-being,

with most analyses focusing on the effects of

stress on mental health (Aneshensel et al., 1995;

LeBlanc, Aneshensel, & Wight, 1995; LeBlanc,

London, & Aneshensel, 1997; Wight, 2000;

Wight et al., 2003).