(PS10-A6) Birds of a Feather Flock Together: Gender-concordance vs Gender-discordance in Sexual Minority Partners Predicts Disparate Romantic Relationship Outcomes and Attachment Insecurities

Sexuality and gender are established predictors of differential psychological functioning; sexual minorities and women struggle more than heterosexuals and men. Furthermore, bisexual people experience consistently worse outcomes than their heterosexual and gay counterparts, and transgender people fare worse than their cisgender male and female counterparts. These patterns are hypothesized to be a function of more frequent and impactful sexual and gender minority stress experiences.  
Despite relative clarity on individual functioning differences, comparisons of romantic relationship functioning by sexuality and gender are inconsistent, with some support for SGM couple functioning being worse, the same, and even better, than heterosexuals. Mixed findings call for a richer, dyadic conceptualization of gender and sexuality that moves beyond defining SGM couples solely by whether they are in a same-or-mixed-gender relationship, also taking into account specific identities (e.g., bisexual vs homosexual vs heterosexual) that may impact functioning.
Participants (N = 484) took an online survey during COVID-19 about their current relationship functioning (satisfaction, dyadic coping, and communication), attachment (anxiety and avoidance), and provided their own and their partner’s gender and sexuality. One novel group of mixed-gender, SGM couples (which include 1-2 sexual or gender minority partners, N =66) was compared to mixed-gender heterosexual couples (N =372) and same-gender SGM couples (N =20).
Multivariate and multiple regression analyses revealed a striking interaction pattern: Mixed-gender SGM couples reported worse relationship functioning than mixed-gender heterosexual couples, who largely did not differ from same-gender SGM couples. Notably, mixed-gender SGM couples also had the greatest attachment anxiety and avoidance.
Theories about sexual minority stress, attachment, and couple functioning within a cognitive behavioral framework bolster these findings. Both sexuality of the couple (i.e., SGM or heterosexual) and gender-concordance (i.e., same-gender vs. mixed-gender couple) pose possible risks and benefits. SGM couples have to cope with chronic sexual minority stress, while heterosexual couples can move throughout their environment without such stressors. Mixed-gender couples may have individual differences to navigate stemming from different gender socialization experiences. Same-gender couples, on the other hand, may benefit from mutual understanding through shared gender socialization and development.
Ultimately, couples with both gender-discordance and SGM identity may experience compounded stress, attachment insecurity, and poor outcomes when compared with gender-concordant couples (i.e., gay or lesbian couples), and separately, heterosexual couples. Implications for future research (e.g., mechanisms of dyadic predictors) and clinical intervention with SGM couples (e.g., considerations for working with bisexual, mixed-gender couples) will be discussed.