An Exploratory Study of Predictors of Relationship
Commitment for Cisgender Female Partners of
Transgender Individuals
LISA F. PLATT*
The current exploratory study investigates which variables predict commitment among
cisgender women currently in a relationship with a transgender-identified partner. This
study includes variables specific to gender diverse couples such as years in the relationship, amount of prior knowledge about transgender identity, and gender role beliefs. Also
included are the general relationship factors of satisfaction, quality of alternatives, investment size, and the outcome variable of commitment, as described in the Investment Model
of Commitment. Using convenience sampling from online support groups, the sample was
n = 138 cisgender female partners. The findings of the regression analyses indicate one’s
personal resilience and the number of years in the relationship prior to transition are significantly related to partner commitment, with satisfaction mediating both associations.
The longer a participant was in the relationship at the time of a gender transition of a partner, the less satisfaction they report, thus reducing commitment to the relationship. Additionally the more personal resilience a partner endorses, the higher the relationship
satisfaction, and in turn, more commitment is reported. The results offer information about
the important factors related to staying in relationships during and after a gender transition.
Keywords: Transgender partners; Transgender relationships; Transgender; Transgender
families; Investment model of commitment; Gender diverse couples
Fam Proc 59:173–190, 2020
PREDICTORS OF RELATIONSHIP COMMITMENT FOR PARTNERS OF
TRANSGENDER INDIVIDUALS
lthough the mainstream visibility of transgender1 individuals and their families have
increased in recent years, relatively few empirical studies have examined the partnering experience of gender diverse couples. One area of particular importance is the need for
an improved understanding of what predicts a partner’s commitment in a relationship
with a transgender-identified individual, especially when a gender transition occurs after
the start of the relationship. This study is an exploratory investigation into which relationship variables might predict commitment for cisgender female partners of transgender
A
*Department of Counseling, Rehabilitation Counseling, and Counseling Psychology, West Virginia University,
Morgantown, WV.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Lisa Platt, Department of Counseling,
Rehabilitation Counseling and Counseling Psychology, West Virginia University, 504-E Allen Hall, PO
Box 6122, Morgantown, WV 26506-6201. E-mail: lisa.platt@mail.wvu.edu
1
There are many gender identifiers used in the transgender/gender non-conforming community. The
term “transgender” here is used here for word flow and conciseness.
173
Family Process, Vol. 59, No. 1, 2020 © 2018 Family Process Institute
doi: 10.1111/famp.12400
FAMILY PROCESS
individuals. Using quantitative data, cisgender female partners were selected for this
study to build on prior qualitative findings with this specific population. Cisgender women
often remain committed to transgender partners (Pfeffer, 2017), but not always (Gurvich,
1991). Exploring the factors that predict partner commitment in these circumstances can
inform couples counseling providers and has implications for community-level advocacy
support for gender diverse couples.
The question of what predicts commitment for cisgender women who have transgenderidentified partners is an important one, as some assume a relationship will simply end
when the transgender partner makes a disclosure (“comes out”) or begins a gender transition. However, limited evidence from prior research suggests this is not always accurate,
that many couples remain committed and even thrive. For example, in a large sample
(n = 593) of transmen, Meier, Sharp, Michonski, Babcock, and Fitzgerald (2013) found of
those partnered at the time of transition, 51% were still with the same partner posttransition. Similarly, Devor (1997) reported that of the relationships established pretransition,
approximately half survived transition in a sample of transmen.
Yet, as other research has shown, there are also many challenges and complexities to
navigate in these relationships such as shifting sexualities, fluid gender roles, minority
stress, and community marginalization. In Meier et al.’s (2013) study, 25% of those partnered at the time of transition were no longer currently partnered with that partner
specifically due to the gender transition. Buxton (2007) also found the disclosure of a
transgender identity for heterosexual spouses raised questions about the continuation of
the marriage and that most ended in separation within the first few years. Similarly, in
Freedman, Tasker, and di Cegelie’s (2002) study of families where a parent disclosed a
transgender identity (mostly MTF), the majority of their parental sample was divorced or
separated, often with high levels of conflict reported in the clinical cases files.
It is important to note there is a wide variation in the operationalization of the term
gender transition and even what it means to be transgender or gender diverse (Lev, 2004).
Gender transition can include hormone treatment, changing of name of pronoun, surgery,
changing legal gender markers on documents such as a driver’s license, change in dress,
and many other social, legal, and medical options (Erickson-Schroth, 2014). However, the
process of changing one’s gender is deeply personal and individualized. As such, there are
no uniform criteria that establish what constitutes a gender transition or how to delineate
when one has completed a transition. Scholars who study partners of transgender individuals have addressed this complexity in various ways. Some researchers have specific
inclusion criteria such as limiting their participants to those whose partners have changed
pronouns and names (Brown, 2009). However, numerous others (Alegrıa, 2010; Gamarel,
Reisner, Laurenceau, Nemoto, & Operario, 2014; Meier et al., 2013; Pfeffer & LaRossa,
2010; Reisner, Gamarel, Nemoto, & Operario, 2014) have relied on participant self-definition of these terms, with the underlying assumption that a self-defined gender transition
has, or is, occurring based on the partner’s perception. This latter approach was used in
this study, as partners were not examined to define or provide details about their partners’ transitions.
GENERAL PREDICTORS OF COMMITMENT: THE INVESTMENT MODEL
Despite the distinctive relationship contexts of gender diverse couples, in many ways
the decision to remain committed is likely driven by the same factors seen in other types
of couples. In this exploration, the Investment Model of commitment, first proposed by
Rusbult (1980), serves as a framework for understanding the general relationship predictors in gender diverse couples. The Investment Model encompasses three relationshiplevel, interdependent factors which provide a structure for one’s level of dependence on, or
www.FamilyProcess.org
15455300, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/famp.12400 by Uva Universiteitsbibliotheek, Wiley Online Library on [03/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
174 /
/ 175
need for, the relationship. The four factors are (1) satisfaction level, (2) quality of alternatives, and (3) investment size. The model proposes that these three factors directly relate
to the fourth factor of commitment, defined as an intention to remain in a relationship, a
psychological attachment to a partner, and a long-term orientation toward the partnership (Arriaga & Agnew, 2001; Rusbult & Buunk, 1993).
As Rusbult (1980) describes, satisfaction level refers to the positive versus negative
affect experienced in a relationship. Satisfaction is influenced by the extent to which a
partner fulfills the individual’s important needs. For gender diverse couples, the satisfaction for partners can vary both in the short and long term once a transgender identity is
disclosed. Prior research suggests that a gender transition is quite impactful and can
impact dimensions of satisfaction for cisgender partners (Pfeffer, 2017).
In the Investment Model quality of alternatives refers to the perceived attractiveness of
the best available alternative to a relationship. Quality of alternatives is based on the
extent to which the individual’s most important needs could effectively be fulfilled by
others outside the current relationship. For gender diverse couples who are navigating
complex emotions and contextual factors, along with major changes in their transgender
partner, the quality of available alternative partners could become important in predicting
partner commitment.
Investment size refers to the amount and importance of the resources that are attached
to a relationship. In this model, commitment is seen as strengthened by the amount of satisfaction and investment size and weakened by the quality of possible alternatives to that
relationship (Arriaga & Agnew, 2001; Rusbult, 1980). For gender diverse couples, the size
of the investment in the relationship is often a major consideration in how to proceed upon
a gender transition. Issues of length of the relationship, marriage, and children become
salient factors in determining the commitment of a cisgender partner (Pfeffer, 2017).
The Investment Model has been shown to be especially powerful in predicting
commitment across many types of romantic relationships, including both heterosexual
and same-sex couples (for reviews of the literature, see Rusbult, 1987; Rusbult & Buunk,
1993; Rusbult, Drigotas, & Verette, 1994). In a meta-analysis Le and Agnew (2003) found
the three variables within the Investment Model collectively accounted for nearly twothirds of the variance in commitment across the 52 studies included.
Given the robust nature of the findings on the Investment Model, and its application to
a broad range of couples including same-sex couples, it is reasonable to assume satisfaction, investment size, and quality of alternatives could be predictive of commitment in
gender diverse couples as well. A partner of a transgender individual must weigh their
satisfaction in the relationship, the investment they have put into the relationship, and
the quality of possible alternatives outside of the relationship when deciding their
intention to remain committed. If shown to be predictive of commitment, these factors,
combined with the predictors of commitment which are more specific to gender diverse
couples, create a rich picture of the considerations for partners of a transgender
individual.
PREDICTORS OF COMMITMENT SPECIFIC TO GENDER DIVERSE COUPLES
While the Investment Model can be applied to gender diverse couples in numerous
ways, it is important to recognize the distinct contextual considerations that could predict
commitment of a cisgender partner. Previous research with cisgender partners of transgender individuals highlights how a gender transition is quite impactful on a relationship
and has implications for gender roles, sexuality, sociocultural experiences including safety
concerns, and quality of life (Gurvich, 1991; Joslin-Roher & Wheeler, 2009; Theron & Collier, 2013). Many partners of transgender-identified individuals report going through a
Fam. Proc., Vol. 59, March, 2020
15455300, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/famp.12400 by Uva Universiteitsbibliotheek, Wiley Online Library on [03/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
PLATT ET AL.
FAMILY PROCESS
process of effectively cotransitioning (Brown, 2009; Theron & Collier, 2013). For example,
in a qualitative study looking at cisgender female partners, Theron and Collier (2013)
found partners are deeply affected with the realities of effectively being in a “relationship
in transition.” Likewise, in a qualitative study of sexual minority female partners, Brown
(2009) found relationship partners report they must undergo a renegotiation of their own
identities in the face of changes from their transgender partners. In this study, partners
discussed how these changes are quite salient, disruptive, and difficult in many cases. In
several case studies with heterosexual couples, Hines (2006) reports that gender transition is often reflexively negotiated with regard to commitment to family. Malpas (2006)
adds to this by demonstrating, using case examples, how gender identity formation and
transition is actually a relational process for both partners in the couple.
Despite this prior research knowledge, little is known about the factors within this context that might predict partner commitment. However, there are a number of variables
that likely might be predictive of relationship commitment for cisgender female partners
of transgender individuals, based on the limited previous research. For example, it is
worth exploring the role of length of the relationship as a predictor variable. Perhaps a
partner who has been in the relationship for a longer time at the point of a transgender
partner disclosing or transitioning would remain committed given the size of the investment in the relationship. This investment could include formal marriage and/or the presence of children. Meier et al. (2013) found the average length of the relationships that had
been maintained through a transition was 5 years, with a range up to 25 years. This indicates, on average, that the partner commitment in relationships in this sample tended to
be fairly long-term. However, Meier et al. (2013) also found for those whose relationships
were not maintained posttransition, the length of time since transition occurred was significantly longer. This finding indicates there may be a negative correlation between
length of time in the relationship and continued partner commitment posttransition. However, Meier did not analyze the overall length of relationship at the start of a transition as
a predictive factor in commitment. In the present research, length of relationship prior to
transition is included to address this facet of the experience.
The amount of prior knowledge of the partner’s transgender identity could also factor in
one’s commitment to the relationship. In prior qualitative research, some partners report
the disruption of a new gender transition and a transgender disclosure is much greater
when they felt like the disclosure was unexpected (Gurvich, 1991; Lev, 2004). This is especially the case if the couple had been partnered for an extended period of time prior, with
partners expressing more feelings of betrayal, surprise, and disruption than partners who
had more prior knowledge (Gurvich, 1991). However, the body of research exploring these
variables is minimal, especially with regard to predicting partner commitment for cisgender women with transgender partners. As such, the amount of knowledge of the partner’s
transgender identity at the start of the relationship is included as a variable in the current
exploratory study.
Another area of interest is the gender roles beliefs of the partner, as gender is such a
salient feature of daily life for a gender diverse couple (Pfeffer, 2017). A common theme
among partners in prior qualitative research is an increased awareness of nonbinary and
fluid gender experiences, which requires flexibility in their gender role beliefs (Platt &
Bolland, 2017). In this study, a measure of gender role beliefs is included based on the
assumption that more flexible, nontraditional gender role beliefs could be predictive of a
willingness to remain in the relationship.
In addition, the current exploratory study also includes a measure of personal resilience. Smith et al. (2008) discuss how personal resilience can encompass the ability to
recover from stress, adapt to stressful circumstances, and function successfully in spite of
stress or adversity. Walsh (2003) discusses how individual resilience in the context of a
www.FamilyProcess.org
15455300, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/famp.12400 by Uva Universiteitsbibliotheek, Wiley Online Library on [03/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
176 /
couple or family can promote cohesiveness, positive communication, a more optimistic outlook, and improved flexibility.
Personal resilience for partners of transgender individuals may be a factor predicting
commitment, given that partners of transgender individuals must navigate high levels of
minority stress while also maintaining flexibility in navigating the deeply impactful gender-related needs of their partners and themselves. Building on the minority stress model
proposed by Meyer (2003), Hendricks and Testa (2012) discuss how transgender individuals, and by extension their partners, are subjected to exceedingly high rates of discrimination and violence. Minority stress comes from living in such a hostile and stressful social
environment (Meyer, 2003). This minority stress has far-reaching implications for health,
well-being, and relationship functioning (Gamarel et al., 2014; Reisner et al., 2014). Partners of transgender individuals frequently report safety concerns, explicit discrimination,
and hostility from their community environments aimed at their partners and themselves
(Lev, 2004; Platt & Bolland, 2017). Therefore, personal resilience, defined as the ability to
adapt to high levels of stress, is likely another predictor of commitment for partners.
CURRENT RESEARCH
In summary, the prior research suggests there are potentially a number of variables
that might predict the commitment of a cisgender female partner in a relationship with a
transgender-identified partner, both from the Investment Model theory and predictors
specific to gender diverse couples. As such, the current exploratory study sought to identify factors that predict relationship commitment among partners of transgender individuals. This investigation includes variables specific to gender diverse couples such as years
in the relationship, amount of prior knowledge about transgender identity, and gender
role beliefs. The investigation also includes the general relationship factors of (1) satisfaction, (2) quality of alternatives, and (3) investment size on the outcome variable of commitment, as described in the Investment Model of Commitment (Rusbult, 1980).
METHOD
Participants
The original inclusion criteria for the study were (1) a participant should be currently,
or previously, in a relationship with a transgender-identified individual, (2) 18 years of
age or older. Using these broad inclusion criteria, a final sample of 172 relationship partners of transgender-identified individuals completed the survey.
The inclusion criteria were intentionally broad to encourage a high response rate on
social media and other recruitment sites. Participants were primarily recruited from
online Facebook support groups for partners and families of transgender people. The
terms of transgender and gender transition were not predefined at any point in the study
procedures or materials, thus the sample consisted of respondents who self-report their
partner is, or has been, undergoing a gender transition based on their own self-defined
perceptions.
Upon completion of data collection, it was noted the original sample was predominantly
cisgender women with transgender-identified partners who were currently still in the
relationship. The low number of participants who were in other types of dyads and/or who
were no longer in the relationship made meaningful statistical comparison difficult. While
it is difficult to determine conclusively, there may be a number of reasons the sample was
predominantly cisgender women. First, the sample was obtained from online support
groups on social media. It is possible that women are more likely to utilize this type of
Fam. Proc., Vol. 59, March, 2020
15455300, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/famp.12400 by Uva Universiteitsbibliotheek, Wiley Online Library on [03/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
/ 177
PLATT ET AL.
FAMILY PROCESS
resource and seek out support. Second, perhaps relatedly, women are much more likely to
participate in transgender family research. The vast majority of studies looking at the
partner experience in gender diverse couples have consisted of female participants. One of
the few exceptions is the work of Gamarel et al. (2014) and Reisner et al. (2014), in which
both use a sample of male partners of transwomen. Their sample was drawn from onsite
locations primarily in San Francisco, such as bars, nightclubs, and community-based organizations. It is likely that such targeted sampling, in a geographic area with a higher than
average population of gender diverse couples, makes recruitment of male partners easier
than online methods used here. Third, one theory could be that perhaps male partners do
not remain in gender diverse partnerships at the same rate as women. This could stem
from differential gender role expectations on men and women, including masculinity
issues and socialization around attending to relationships. However, at this point, there is
a significant need to study these issues empirically.
In this study, without this ability to compare across subgroupings in the sample, the
nature of these outliers added unnecessary variability to the statistical analyses. Therefore, the final analytical sample, n = 137, consisted of cisgender women currently partnered with a transgender individual.
The sample of cisgender women were predominantly White people (86.2%), well-educated (90% having some college education or more), middle-class socioeconomic background (median yearly income = $50,000), and relatively young with an average age of
35 years (SD = 9.95). More than half of the couples (60.7%) were legally married and
37.2% had children together.
In terms of their relationships, 53.6% of the sample had no knowledge of their partners’
transgender identities at the start of the relationship. In addition, the couples have been
together on an average of 5.14 years (SD = 5.34) at the time the partner began a gender
transition. Of note, given the wide variation in how individuals define “gender transition,”
this term was not predefined by the researchers, nor was it followed up on in the survey
items. Therefore, there was not uniformity in how respondents defined and conceptualized
gender transition.
Most were committed to remaining in the relationship, with 23.9% indicating they were
“probably staying in the relationship in the future” and 68.1% indicating they were “definitely staying” in the relationship. The remaining 8% indicated they were “probably leaving” the relationship in the future, but were currently still partnered.
The self-reported sexual orientation and gender identity information provided by participants provides a look into the diversity of experiences within this population. In terms
of sexual orientation, participants were asked to identify their sexual orientation at the
start of the relationship as well as their current sexual orientation identifier. At the start
of the relationship, participants were 35.5% lesbian, 26.1% heterosexual, 10.9% queer,
13.8% bisexual, 10.1% pansexual, and 2.9% indicated the “other” identifier.
In prior research, partners have discussed how a gender transition within the relationship can contribute to a shift in sexual orientation labels one might use as these identifiers
are often defined by the gender of the other partner. In the current sample, 64.5% (n = 89)
indicated no change in their sexual orientation identifier from the start of the relationship
to current. Among those who did identify a change, the most frequent shift was moving
from the identifier of lesbian to the more nonbinary identifiers of either queer (n = 13) or
pansexual (n = 7).
With regard to their transgender partners, the average partner age was 35.3
(SD = 10.44). Participants also reported on the gender identity of their partner at the
start of the relationship. Participants indicated a range of gender identity labels used by
their partners in the beginning of the relationship including female (40.6%), male (29.0%),
www.FamilyProcess.org
15455300, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/famp.12400 by Uva Universiteitsbibliotheek, Wiley Online Library on [03/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
178 /
transman (13.8%), genderqueer (5.8%), genderfluid (4.3%), other (2.9%), and transwoman
(2.9%).
In other words, approximately 54% of partners could be classified as female to male
(FTM) and 32% as male to female (MTF), with the remaining 14% identifying as nonbinary gender labels. For the purposes of the analyses in this study, these three dyad types
were combined. This has several advantages. First, combining the different types of dyads
(i.e., partners who are FTM, MTF, or nonbinary) allows for a larger sample size with more
power to detect variation on the outcome variable of commitment. Second, merging dyad
types allows for a slightly more universal picture of cisgender female partner commitment
across different types of gender diverse couples. Any variation created by the merging of
different dyad types in the final sample was later controlled for in the regression analyses.
However, it is important to note that these three groups were statistically different in
several ways. First, the FTM dyad type was less frequently married, had less children,
and were in the relationship a shorter period as compared to the other two dyad types.
Second, the MTF dyad type scored lowest on IMS-Commitment and IMS-Satisfaction as
compared to their counterparts. These data can be seen in Table 1. In the regression analyses, dyad types were included as control variables to account for these differences. It is of
note that the dyad types were not significant predictors of commitment in the later regression analyses, as seen in Table 3. The three dyad groups were not significantly different
on the other demographic or outcome measures in the study.
Participants were recruited through advertisements on public pages on Facebook or
through network sampling via other participants. Advertisements were placed on several
widely utilized transgender partner Facebook pages, yielding a sample from across the
United States.
Materials
Measures were selected for the exploratory survey based on their theoretical and empirical association with partner commitment in relationships, both generally and specific to
gender diverse couples.
Demographic questionnaire
An 18-item demographic questionnaire was included in the survey. Two items of note in
the demographic questionnaire were (1) an item coded as “years” asking participants the
number of years in the relationship prior to a gender transition and (2) an item coded as
“knowledge” asking participants their amount of knowledge of their partner’s transgender
TABLE 1
Comparison of the Significant Differences Among Dyad Types in the Sample
Variable
Married (yes)
Children (yes)
Years in the
Relationship
IMS-Commitment
IMS-Satisfaction
Woman-MTF partner
dyads
Woman-FTM partner
dyads
Woman-nonbinary
dyads
77.3%
50.0%
M = 7.79 years
48.0%
26.7%
M = 3.71 years
61.1%
33.3%
M = 5.14 years
M = 6.67
M = 5.24
M = 7.06
M = 6.18
M = 7.64
M = 6.85
Note. N = 137; FTM = Female to Male transgender partners; IMS-Commitment = Investment Model
Scale-Commitment; IMS-Satisfaction = Investment Model Scale-Satisfaction; MTF = Male to Female
transgender partners; Years = Years in the relationship prior to a gender transition of a partner. All comparisons were significantly different at the p < .05 level.
Fam. Proc., Vol. 59, March, 2020
15455300, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/famp.12400 by Uva Universiteitsbibliotheek, Wiley Online Library on [03/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
/ 179
PLATT ET AL.
FAMILY PROCESS
identity at the start of the relationship. These variables are unique to gender diverse couples and were predictor variables of commitment considered to be specific to gender
diverse couples.
The demographic questionnaire also included the majority of variable measures
intended to assess for the control variables in the analyses. These items included age, race,
income, education, and religiosity, as well as marital status and whether the couple has
children together. The demographic data also allow for an informative descriptive snapshot of the range of features present in gender diverse couples.
The investment model scale
The Investment Model Scale (IMS; Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998) is a 22-item instrument designed to measure the three factors in the Investment Model (Rusbult, 1980) that
are known to predict commitment. The IMS was included in the survey as the measure of
the three constructs considered to be predictive of general relationship commitment. The
four subscales of the IMS are (1) commitment, (2) satisfaction, (3) quality of alternatives,
and (4) investment size, IMS-C, IMS-QA, IMS-S, and IMS-IS, respectively.
Sample items include, “I want our relationship to last a very long time.” and “Our relationship does a good job of fulfilling my needs for intimacy.” Items are rated on a 9-point
scale ranging from 0 = “Do Not Agree at All” to 8 = “Agree Completely” with higher mean
scores on the IMS-IS, IMS-S, and IMS-C and a lower mean score on IMS-QA indicating
higher levels of investment in relationship.
In prior research the IMS has demonstrated good reliability and validity as a measure
of relationship functioning. Rusbult et al. (1998) report the internal consistency of the four
subscale coefficients ranging from 0.82 to 0.92. In this study, the IMS also had good internal consistency with coefficients at (1) commitment = 0.89, (2) satisfaction = 0.81, (3)
quality of alternatives = 0.86, and (4) investment size = 0.81. The IMS has good convergent validity in prior research as well, showing significant correlation with other measures of relationship functioning such as the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976) and
the Relationship Closeness Inventory (Berscheid, Snyder, & Omoto, 1989).
IMS-Commitment was the outcome variable in the current analysis, with the other
three subscales (IMS-QA, IMS-S, and IMS-IS) treated as predictor variables in the analyses.
The brief resilience scale
The Brief Resilience Scale (BRS; Smith et al., 2008) is a 6-item scale assessing global
ability to recover or “bounce back” from stress. The BRS was included in the survey as the
measure of personal resilience, one of the constructs viewed to be specific to gender diverse
couples. Sample items include “tend to take a long time to get over set-backs in my life,”
and “I tend to bounce back quickly after hard times.” Items are rated on a 5-point scale
ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. After reverse scoring three
items, higher scores indicate more ability to recover from stress. The instrument is scored
by finding the mean of the six items. The BRS was included in the current analyses
because prior research has documented the minority stress faced by gender diverse couples. One’s personal resilience to stress therefore could be a factor contributing to partner
commitment, given the minority stress one experiences with a transgender partnership.
The BRS was designed to be a brief, but reliable and valid, measure of resilience to
stress. Smith et al. (2008) report good internal consistency of the items, ranging from 0.80
to 0.91 across a variety of samples. In this study, the BRS also demonstrated good internal
consistency with an alpha coefficient of 0.87. The BRS demonstrated convergent validity
with significant positive correlations to known measures of coping, ego resiliency, and positive affect (see Smith et al., 2008). The BRS also demonstrated discriminant predictive
www.FamilyProcess.org
15455300, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/famp.12400 by Uva Universiteitsbibliotheek, Wiley Online Library on [03/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
180 /
/ 181
validity with significant correlations to several health outcomes such as perceived stress,
anxiety, and physical symptoms (Smith et al., 2008). The BRS was viewed as one of four
distinctive predictive factors for partners of transgender individuals, given the minority
stress experienced by transgender individuals and their families (Meyer, 2003). For cohesion, the mean score on the BRS was labeled “PR” (personal resilience) in all subsequent
analyses. The BRS was included in this study as a predictor variable to assess for the role
of resilience to stress in partner commitment in gender diverse couples.
Gender Role Beliefs Scale - Short Version
The Gender Role Beliefs Scale-Short Version (GRBS-S; Brown & Gladstone, 2012) is a
10-item scale assessing endorsement of traditional gender role beliefs. The GRBS-S was
included in the survey as the measure of gender role beliefs, one of the constructs viewed
to be specific to gender diverse couples. Sample items include, “It is disrespectful to swear
in the presence of a lady,” and “It is ridiculous for a woman to run a train and a man to
sew clothes.” Items are rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 = “Strongly Agree” to 7 =
“Strongly Disagree,” with higher scores indicating more traditional gender role beliefs.
Items are totaled, with a possible range from 10 to 70. Considerable prior research has
reported how partners of transgender individuals experience a process of renegotiating
gender roles and expectations as a partner transitions.
The GRBS-S retains good reliability and validity as compared to the longer 20-item
GRBS developed by Kerr and Holden (1996). Brown and Gladstone (2012) report satisfactory internal consistency for the GRBS-S with a coefficient of 0.74 and good test-retest reliability with a coefficient of 0.86. In this study, the GRBS-S had good reliability
with an internal consistency coefficient of alpha = 0.81. The GRBS-S also showed evidence of construct validity with good predictive validity with measures of political ideology, religiosity, and participant gender (Brown & Gladstone, 2012). Given the
salience of gender considerations for gender diverse couples, the GRBS-S was treated
as the second out of four distinctive predictive factors for partners of transgender individuals in the analyses.
The GRBS-S was included in the current survey as a means to assess how gender role
beliefs contribute to partner commitment. The total GRBS-S total score was a predictor
variable in the current analyses.
Attitudes Toward Divorce Scale
The Attitudes Toward Divorce Scale (ATDS; Whitton, Stanley, Markman, & Johnson, 2013) is a 3-item scale assessing beliefs related to divorce as an acceptable solution for marital distress. This instrument was included as an additional control
variable in the study, as attitudes toward divorce or separation are often predictive
of relationship commitment (Whitton et al., 2013). The three items were (1) “When
married/partnered people realize that they no longer love each other, they should get
a divorce/separate even if they have children,” (2) “Sure, divorce/separation is bad,
but a lousy partnership is even worse,” and (3) “When there are children in the family, parents should stay married/partnered even if they do not get along.” After
reverse scoring the third item, a higher mean score on the ATDS indicates greater
acceptance of divorce. The ATDS was chosen for the survey to potentially account for
partner values around the acceptability of divorce/separation from a committed relationship as this has been shown in prior research to be related to commitment. Whitton et al. (2013) report the ATDS has satisfactory internal consistency with a
coefficient at 0.70. In this study, the ATDS demonstrated slightly better reliability
with a coefficient of 0.78. In the current analyses, the ATDS score was considered a
control variable.
Fam. Proc., Vol. 59, March, 2020
15455300, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/famp.12400 by Uva Universiteitsbibliotheek, Wiley Online Library on [03/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
PLATT ET AL.
FAMILY PROCESS
Procedure
The convenience sample was recruited through social media, online support groups,
and network sampling via other participants. Advertisements were placed on several
widely utilized transgender partner Facebook pages, yielding a sample from across the
United States. Respondents were required to (1) be 18 years or older and (2) have a transgender-identified partner, either currently or in the past. Those who elected to complete
the survey were invited to open a Qualtrics link to the online survey which began with the
informed consent. Upon agreeing to participate participants then completed the demographic questionnaire, GRBS-S, BRS, ATDS, and all of the IMS subscales in a counterbalanced order.
Upon completion of all materials, participants were thanked for their time. They were
then offered an optional opportunity to click to a separate Google form to enter their email
address for a chance to win an Amazon gift card. All email address information was kept
separate from the data.
RESULTS
The goal of the present exploratory study was to determine which variables may predict
relationship commitment among partners of transgender individuals. This investigation
includes variables specific to gender diverse couples as well as the general relationship
factors described in the Investment Model of commitment.
Initial Bivariate Correlation Analysis
Initial Pearson bivariate correlation analyses were conducted to examine the associations between the study variables. A bivariate correlation matrix was created to assess the
relationships among the four measures of constructs specific to gender diverse couples
(BRS; GRBS-S; Years; Knowledge) and three measures of constructs predictive of general
relationship commitment (IMS-S; IMS-QA; IMS-IS). In addition, the control variable of
attitudes toward divorce, ATDS, was included in the analyses. As the outcome measure,
IMS-Commitment was also included to assess the relationships between the predictor
variables and this outcome variable.
As is seen in Table 2, the analyses yielded several notable findings. In terms of constructs specific to gender diverse couples, personal resilience (PR) and years in the relationship prior to transition (Years) are the two variables significantly correlated with the
outcome variable, IMS-Commitment (Commitment). Interestingly, Years was negatively
correlated at r = .24 (p < .05), which indicates the longer a partner was in the relationship prior to transition, the less commitment they report. This negative correlation is different than the conventional assumption that a longer term relationship may yield more
commitment due to the size of the investment in the partnership (Rusbult, 1980; Rusbult
et al., 1998). PR was correlated in a positive direction with Commitment, which would be
expected based on high rates of stress gender diverse couples must cope with, as detailed
in the minority stress model (Meyer, 2003). The correlation matrix also indicates the general relationship commitment variables of IMS-Satisfaction (Satisfaction), IMS-Quality of
Alternatives (QA), and IMS-Investment Size (IS) are all correlated with Commitment as
well, with Satisfaction having the highest correlation coefficient at r = .62, (p < .05).
However, when looking at Years and PR, among the IMS predictor variables, Satisfaction is the only significant finding (r = .41 and r = .32; p < .05). Years and PR are not
significantly correlated with the other IMS predictor variables, QA and IS. These findings
point to a more complex association between the variables of years in the relationship, personal resilience, and the satisfaction when predicting partner commitment.
www.FamilyProcess.org
15455300, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/famp.12400 by Uva Universiteitsbibliotheek, Wiley Online Library on [03/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
182 /
TABLE 2
Correlations Among Possible Predictor Variables of Commitment
Variable
1. IMS-Commitment
2. IMS-Satisfaction
3. Years
4. Knowledge
5. IMS-Qual.Alternatives
6. IMS-Inv.Size
7. ATDS
8. PR
9. GRBS-S
1
–
.62**
.24*
.21
.39**
.20**
.12
.29**
.03
2
–
.41**
.31**
.33**
.15**
.01
.32**
.13
3
–
.45**
.08
.03
.17*
.1
.10
4
–
.09
.04
.10
.21*
.03
5
–
.09**
.00
.10
.08
6
–
.17*
.05
.00
7
8
9
–
.16
.36**
–
.11
–
Note. N = 137; ATDS = Attitudes Toward Divorce Scale; GRBS-S = Gender Role Belief Scale-Short;
IMS-Commitment = Investment Model Scale-Commitment; IMS-Satisfaction = Investment Model ScaleSatisfaction; IMS-Qual.Alternatives = Investment Model Scale-Quality of Alternatives; IMSInv.Size = Investment Model Scale-Investment Size; Knowledge = Amount of knowledge of partner’s
transgender identity at the start of the relationship; PR = Personal Resilience; Years = Years in the relationship prior to a gender transition of a partner.
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
Regression Analyses
Next, linear regression analyses were conducted to further assess the relationships
among the variables of Years, PR, and Satisfaction when predicting partner commitment.
Table 3 details the results of these analyses. In Model 1 of the analyses, the variables
specific to gender diverse couples (PR; Years; Knowledge; GRBS-S) were entered as predictor variables with the outcome variable of Commitment. Consistent with the pattern
seen in bivariate correlations, Years and PR significantly predicted Commitment. These
findings indicate that personal resilience and years in the relationship both independently
predict partner commitment.
Model 2 enters the demographic control variables, QA and IS, and ATDS into the analyses. As can be seen in Table 3, the predictor variables of Years and PR remain significant.
In Model 3, Satisfaction is added to the model. As can be seen in Table 3, both Years and
PR are no longer significant with the addition of the predictor variable Satisfaction. This
finding indicates Satisfaction mediates the relationship between Years and Commitment
as well as the relationship between PR and Commitment. In other words, the longer a participant was in the relationship at the time of a gender transition of a partner, the less satisfaction they report, thus reducing commitment to the relationship. Similarly,
Satisfaction appears to be mediating the relationship between PR and Commitment as
well. This mediating relationship is such that the more personal resilience a partner
reports, the higher the satisfaction, and in turn, more commitment is reported.
To confirm the mediation relationship of Satisfaction on PR and Years, each was subjected to a further test of mediation using the four-step protocol outlined by Baron and
Kenny (1986). Beginning with the predictor variable Years, the four-step test of mediation
was conducted, as seen in Table 4. Following this protocol, Satisfaction is shown to fully
mediate the relationship between Years and Commitment, as was also seen in the prior
regression model shown in Table 3. The four-step test of mediation was also conducted
with the predictor variable PR, as seen in Table 5. Satisfaction was again shown to fully
mediate the relationship between PR and Commitment, as was also seen in the prior
regression model shown in Table 3. Using these findings, Figure 1 summarizes the final
Fam. Proc., Vol. 59, March, 2020
15455300, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/famp.12400 by Uva Universiteitsbibliotheek, Wiley Online Library on [03/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
/ 183
PLATT ET AL.
FAMILY PROCESS
TABLE 3
Summary of Multiple Regression Analyses for Variables Predicting Partner Commitment
Model 1
Transgender couple
variables
adj R2 = .12 (SE = 1.22)
Variables
B
SE B
PR
Years
Knowledge
GRBS-S
Age (P)
Age (T)
Race
Married (Y/N)
Children (Y/N)
Income
Education
Religiosity
Town Size
Counseling
IMS-QA
IMS-IS
ATDS
FTM group
Nonbinary group
IMS-Satisfaction
.43
.05
.07
.01
.14
.02
.15
.01
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
b
.25**
.22*
.04
.09
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Model 2
Transgender couple
variables + control
variables
adj R2 = .31 (SE = 1.09)
B
SE B
b
.36
.09
.02
.00
.01
.00
.48
.06
.40
.02
.05
.07
.09
.04
.22
.18
.26
.09
.47
–
.14
.03
.15
.01
.02
.01
.31
.26
.25
.04
.07
.06
.13
.06
.05
.07
.15
.25
.34
.21*
.35*
.01
.03
.13
.00
.13
.02
.14
.05
.06
.09
.05
.06
.32**
.19*
.15
.03
.12
–
–
Model 3
Transgender couple
variables + control
variables + IMSsatisfaction
adj R2 = .44 (SE = .98)
B
.22
.03
.00
.01
.00
.00
.25
.01
.32
.00
.09
.05
.16
.00
.12
.09
.16
.10
.42
.31
SE B
.13
.02
.14
.01
.01
.01
.29
.24
.22
.04
.07
.06
.12
.06
.05
.07
.13
.23
.31
.06
b
.13
.14
.00
.07
.04
.01
.06
.00
.11
.00
.10
.06
.09
.00
.18**
.10
.09
.03
.11
.46**
Note. N = 137; Age (P) = Participant age; Age (T) = Transgender partner age; ATDS = Attitudes
Toward Divorce Scale; Counseling = Number of sessions of couples counseling attended; FTM- Female to
Male transgender partners (with MTF-male to female transgender partners as the reference category;
GRBS-S = Gender Role Belief Scale-Short; IMS-QA = Investment Model Scale-Quality of Alternatives;
IMS-IS = Investment Model Scale-Investment Size; IMS-Satisfaction = Investment Model Scale-Satisfaction; Knowledge = Amount of knowledge of partner’s transgender identity at the start of the relationship; PR = Personal Resilience; Years = Years in the relationship prior to a gender transition of a
partner. Values in bold indicate significant findings relevant to the study goals.
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
mediation relationships seen among the variables of Years, PR, Satisfaction, and the outcome of Commitment.
DISCUSSION
The goal of the present exploratory study was to determine which variables predict
relationship commitment among cisgender female partners of transgender individuals.
This exploration included variables specific to gender diverse couples as well as the general relationship factors described in the Investment Model of commitment (Rusbult,
1980; Rusbult et al., 1998). While the present sample is not representative of all cisgender
women in relationships with transgender-identified partners, the findings indicate that
years in the relationship prior to transition and one’s level of personal resilience are both
significantly related to commitment, with satisfaction mediating both relationships. As
www.FamilyProcess.org
15455300, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/famp.12400 by Uva Universiteitsbibliotheek, Wiley Online Library on [03/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
184 /
TABLE 4
IMS-Satisfaction as a Mediating Variable between Predictor Variable of Years and Outcome Variable of IMSCommitment
Model 1
Years on IMSCommitment
adj R2 = .02,
(SE = 1.54)
B
Variables
Years
IMS-Satisfaction
SE B
.05
–
b
.02
–
.24**
–
Model 2
Years on IMSSatisfaction
adj R2 = .08,
(SE = 1.92)
B
SE B
.15
–
.02
–
Model 3
IMS-Satisfaction
on IMSCommitment
adj R2 = .40,
(SE = 1.20)
Model 4
Years + IMSSatisfaction on
IMSCommitment
adj R2 = .39,
(SE = 1.22)
B
SE B
b
B
SE B
b
.40
–
.04
–
.62**
.005
.41
.01
.05
.02
.63*
b
.41**
–
–
Note. N = 137; IMS-Satisfaction = Investment Model Scale-Satisfaction; IMS-Commitment = Investment
Model Scale-Commitment; Years = Years in the relationship prior to a gender transition of a partner.
Values in bold indicate significant findings relevant to the study goals.
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
TABLE 5
IMS-Satisfaction as a Mediating Variable between Predictor Variable of Personal Resilience and Outcome of
IMS-Commitment
Model 1
PR on IMSCommitment
adj R2 = .03,
(SE = 1.52)
B
Variables
PR
IMS-Satisfaction
SE B
.49
–
.13
–
–
Model 2
PR on IMSSatisfaction
adj R2 = .05,
(SE = 1.97)
b
B
SE B
b
.29**
.82
–
.20
–
.32**
–
Model 3
IMS-Satisfaction
on IMSCommitment
adj R2 = .40,
(SE = 1.20)
Model 4
PR + IMSSatisfaction on
IMSCommitment
adj R2 = .39,
(SE = 1.22)
B
b
B
SE B
b
.62**
.17
.38
.11
.04
.10
.59**
–
SE B
–
.40
–
.04
Note. N = 137; IMS-Satisfaction = Investment Model Scale-Satisfaction; IMS-Commitment = Investment Model Scale-Commitment; PR = Personal Resilience. Values in bold indicate significant findings
relevant to the study goals.
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
there is a paucity of other research investigating partner commitment in gender diverse
couples, these findings offer important preliminary information about the complex array
of factors that relate to a decision to remain in the relationship, especially for particular
cisgender female partners.
Arguably, one of the most notable findings in the current analyses is the inverse association between years in the relationship and level of commitment, which is mediated by
satisfaction. While preliminary, this finding can be understood both from the theoretical
lens of the Investment Model as well as in the unique contexts faced by gender diverse
couples. The associations between length of the relationship, satisfaction, and commitment are consistent with prior research findings with heterosexual, cisgender couples.
Looking at the body of research applying the Investment Model, the most consistent findings across studies demonstrate the importance of satisfaction and the amount of
Fam. Proc., Vol. 59, March, 2020
15455300, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/famp.12400 by Uva Universiteitsbibliotheek, Wiley Online Library on [03/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
/ 185
PLATT ET AL.
FAMILY PROCESS
FIGURE 1. Mediation Model with Satisfaction, Years, and Personal Resilience Predicting
Relationship Commitment
perceived investment in the relationship as predictors of commitment (Le & Agnew,
2003). In past research, satisfaction and size of investment combined with perceived quality of alternatives collectively explained the majority of the variance in predicting commitment (Le & Agnew, 2003). While the majority of the studies included in the meta-analysis
conducted by Le and Agnew (2003) were heterosexual, cisgender couples, the current findings add exploratory data to this sizable literature and provide explanation for the present
results.
Considering the unique contextual experiences of cisgender female partners in gender
diverse relationships, another explanation for this finding could be that perhaps gender
transition is seen as more disruptive if the relationship is of longer standing than if the
relationship is of a shorter term. This disruption may then impact one’s satisfaction and
ultimately commitment to remain in the relationship.
Prior qualitative research provides initial support for this rationale and has consistently shown that a transgender disclosure in a long-term relationship is life-changing
and creates a range of reactions for partners. The participants in the work of Gurvich
(1991) described their initial reactions as “shock,” “disbelief,” and “anger.” In this small
sample, around half of the sample learned of their partner’s transgender identity four or
more years into a marriage. In another example, Joslin-Roher and Wheeler (2009), partners described how the major roles in the relationship often shift, with the transgender
partner at times needing more caretaking and emotional support. In addition, discrimination led some transgender partners to lose their employment, causing the partner to take
over the full financial responsibilities in the relationship (Joslin-Roher & Wheeler, 2009).
In Theron and Collier’s (2013) work, participants reported being deeply affected in almost
all domains by a partner in a gender transition. These changing realities included sexuality concerns, physical body-oriented changes, changing communication patterns, and coping with a large number of new stressors. Theron and Collier (2013) described how
partners were effectively “co-transitioning,” as the impact on the partner was so profound.
This prior research clearly points to the impactful nature of a transgender disclosure
and gender transition. For the select individuals in the current nonrepresentative sample,
the findings add to this knowledge by suggesting that the longer a relationship prior to a
gender transition, the less satisfaction is reported, which in turn decreases level of commitment. However, more research across other types of gender diverse dyads is needed to
fully understand how partners in shorter- or longer-term gender diverse relationships differ in their reactions, their satisfaction, and their commitment levels. The mechanisms
that underlie the current exploratory findings are important questions for future
research.
www.FamilyProcess.org
15455300, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/famp.12400 by Uva Universiteitsbibliotheek, Wiley Online Library on [03/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
186 /
On a related note, the amount of knowledge at the start of the relationship about a partner’s transgender identity did not predict commitment in the current findings. For the
current nonrepresentative sample, it appears that whether or not a partner entered the
relationship with knowledge of the transgender identity does not relate to commitment to
remain in the relationship. Despite qualitative research that speaks to the disruption that
ensues when a partner does not have any knowledge up front (Gurvich, 1991; Theron &
Collier, 2013), partners who enter the relationship with full knowledge still may or may
not remain committed. A more direct comparison of these two groups will also be an
important future research direction.
With regard to personal resilience, or one’s ability to recover or “bounce back” from
stress (Smith et al., 2008), these findings build on previous qualitative findings that speak
to the minority stress gender diverse couples face (Hendricks & Testa, 2012). For the current exploratory sample, the findings indicate that the more personal resilience partners
endorse, the more satisfied they are in their relationships, which in turn predicts commitment. Walsh (2003) discusses how individual resilience in the context of a couple or family
can promote cohesiveness, positive communication, and better satisfaction. In the face of
high rates of minority stress, partners who are able to recover and adapt more easily find
more satisfaction in their couple relationship. For those with less personal resilience, it
is likely that minority stress becomes a factor that erodes satisfaction and eventually
commitment.
This finding builds on the work of Gamarel et al. (2014), which found that for dyadic
pairs of transwomen and their cisgender male partners, the minority stress associated
with discrimination and relationship stigma significantly predicted lower relationship
quality and increases in mental health concerns. In other qualitative work, numerous
studies have discussed the need for good coping skills when navigating transphobia, safety
concerns, and overt discrimination in the community. Alegrıa (2010) describes how partners reported many concerns about the safety and support available in the public realm
for themselves and their partners. Alegrıa (2010) discusses how these concerns are highly
stressful and can eventually erode the quality of the relationship. The current findings
add exploratory data to this prior work by providing preliminary evidence that partner
personal resilience positively relates to relationship satisfaction, which then positively
relates to commitment. If a partner has less personal resilience, or the ability to cope with
the multitude of stressors that gender diverse couples face, they may be less satisfied and
less willing to remain in the relationship.
Taken together, the current findings highlight the importance of relationship satisfaction in predicting commitment. The findings also provide initial evidence for the associations between the length of the relationship and one’s personal resilience as predictors of
satisfaction, which then predicts level of commitment. This interplay of variables is both
informative and also highlights the critical need for further research on the experiences of
partners in gender diverse couples.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
While these findings are an important step forward in advancing transgender family
research, there are several notable limitations to address. One of the most important limitations of this exploratory study involves the nature of the nonrepresentative convenience
sample used. The final analytical sample was cisgender women, many of which identified
as sexual minority individuals, were well-educated, relatively high income, and utilize
social media support groups. This sample, and the associated data, is best viewed as
exploratory and preliminary. Experiences of other types of gender diverse dyads are not
likely represented by the current sample and should not be generalized as such.
Fam. Proc., Vol. 59, March, 2020
15455300, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/famp.12400 by Uva Universiteitsbibliotheek, Wiley Online Library on [03/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
/ 187
PLATT ET AL.
FAMILY PROCESS
The inclusion criteria for the study were only that the individual must be or have been
partnered with a transgender-identified individual. It is interesting to note that it appears
cisgender sexual minority women were most likely to participate in this type of convenience sampling. This is consistent with prior research as well, which has predominantly
explored this particular subset of transgender partners (Brown, 2009; Nyamora, 2004;
Pfeffer, 2017; Theron & Collier, 2013). Future research needs to explore why this particular subset of the population is more vocal and somewhat overrepresented in the research.
Given the importance of the intersection of gender, sexual orientation, and gender expression (Cole, 2009), it will be worthwhile for future research to explore the experiences of a
wide range of transgender partner dyads including heterosexual and gay male couples to
gain more perspectives.
Relatedly, the partners in the sample reported fairly high rates of commitment to
remain in their relationships. This uneven distribution may not fully capture the experiences and predictors of commitment for partners who decide to leave the relationship.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to recruit ex-partners to participate in research as they may
not frequent readily accessible recruitment locations. However, this population subset is
worth researching more fully in future studies.
Another important limitation of this exploratory study involves the self-defined nature of how participants describe, conceptualize, and define the concept of gender transition. The study inclusion criteria, materials, and survey items did not specify a
predetermined definition of gender transition. Participants were also not asked to provide their own self-definition of gender transition. While this choice has the advantage
of respecting the wide range of personalized ways gender transition is behaviorally
defined and acted upon, it does create a limitation for interpreting the current results.
In this way, the study findings are limited to cisgender women who self-report that they
consider themselves to be with a person who has, or is, transitioned, which can have
many different meanings. As each transgender person makes an individualized decision
about what gender transitions steps are personally undertaken, it is important for
future research to address this complexity with regard to partner commitment. It would
be prudent in future research to directly ask participants details of their definition of
gender transition and explore how differences in self-definition may or may not relate to
relationship processes.
Another limitation to note is for the purpose of this study, only one member of the dyad
completed the survey. The partners of transgender individuals were targeted given the
relative paucity of research focusing on this portion of the dyad. However, commitment to
remain in a relationship is ultimately a systems-level decision influenced by many interconnected factors within the dyad. Future research focusing on the dyad as a unit would
benefit this body of literature.
Likewise, the survey items used in the study had strengths and weaknesses. While the
survey attempted to address the range of relevant considerations for this population, several items will need to be added to future research. These include a prompt inquiring
about both partners’ assigned genders at birth and an item addressing the transgender
partner’s gender identity over time such as at the end of the relationship. These additions
will strengthen future research.
In addition, future research could more directly address the role of minority stress, gender fluidity, transphobia, relational ambiguity, and social support in the analysis of the
couple commitment and attachment. These types of contextual and socio-political factors
are likely also prominent for gender diverse couples.
In summary, the current exploratory study indicates that the main predictors of commitment for partners of transgender individuals are the number of years in the relationship and one’s personal resilience. Both of these factors are mediated by satisfaction in the
www.FamilyProcess.org
15455300, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/famp.12400 by Uva Universiteitsbibliotheek, Wiley Online Library on [03/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
188 /
relationship. Interesting, the amount of knowledge of a transgender identity does not predict commitment.
The body of literature dedicated to understanding the needs and experiences of transgender couples and families is still relatively small, despite the growing prominence of this
population. This research gap is striking given the important role of partner and family
relationships in promoting health and well-being, especially for those in marginalized
communities (Erickson-Schroth, 2014; Walsh, 2003). It is hoped the findings of this study
provide groundwork for more research, as well as assisting providers who serve gender
diverse couples.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The author declares no conflict of interest.
REFERENCES
Alegrıa, C. A. (2010). Relationship challenges and relationship maintenance activities following disclosure of
transsexualism. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 17(10), 909–916. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1365-2850.2010.01624.x.
Arriaga, X. B., & Agnew, C. R. (2001). Being committed: Affective, cognitive, and conative components of relationship commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(9), 1190–1203. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0146167201279011.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173.
Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (1989). The relationship closeness inventory: Assessing the closeness
of interpersonal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 792–807. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.792.
Brown, M. J., & Gladstone, N. (2012). Development of a short version of the gender role beliefs scale. International Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, 2(5), 154–158. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.ijpbs.20120205.
05.
Brown, N. R. (2009). ‘I’m in transition too’: Sexual identity renegotiation in sexual-minority women’s relationships with transsexual men. International Journal of Sexual Health, 21(1), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19317610902720766.
Buxton, A. P. (2007). Counseling heterosexual spouses of bisexual or transgender partners. In B. A. Firestein
(Ed.), Becoming visible: Counseling bisexuals across the lifespan (pp. 395–416). New York: Columbia University Press.
Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. The American Psychologist, 64(3), 170–180.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014564.
Devor, A. (1997). FTM: Female-to-male transsexuals in society. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Erickson-Schroth, L. (2014). Trans bodies, trans selves. A resource for the transgender community. New York:
Oxford.
Freedman, D., Tasker, F., & di Cegelie, D. (2002). Children and adolescents with transsexual parents referred to
a specialist gender identity development service: A brief report of key developmental features. Clinical Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 7(3), 423–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359104502007003009.
Gamarel, K. E., Reisner, S. L., Laurenceau, J., Nemoto, T., & Operario, D. (2014). Gender minority stress, mental
health, and relationship quality: A dyadic investigation of transgender women and their cisgender male partners. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(4), 437–447. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037171.
Gurvich, S. E. (1991). The transsexual husband: The wife’s experience. Dissertation Abstracts International, Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 52(8), 2837.
Hendricks, M. L., & Testa, R. J. (2012). A conceptual framework for clinical work with transgender and gender
nonconforming clients: An adaptation of the minority stress model. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 43(5), 460–467. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029597.
Hines, S. (2006). Intimate transitions: Transgender practices of partnering and parenting. Sociology, 40(2), 353–
371. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038506062037.
Joslin-Roher, E., & Wheeler, D. P. (2009). Partners in transition: The transition experience of lesbian, bisexual,
and queer identified partners of transgender men. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services: Issues in Practice, Policy & Research, 21(1), 30–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538720802494743.
Fam. Proc., Vol. 59, March, 2020
15455300, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/famp.12400 by Uva Universiteitsbibliotheek, Wiley Online Library on [03/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
/ 189
PLATT ET AL.
FAMILY PROCESS
Kerr, P. S., & Holden, R. R. (1996). Development of the gender role beliefs scale (GRBS). Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 11(5), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1037/t14862-000.
Le, B. L., & Agnew, C. R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: A meta-analysis of the investment
model. Personal Relationships, 10(1), 37–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.00035.
Lev, A. I. (2004). Transgender emergence: Therapeutic guidelines for working with gender-variant people and
their families. New York: Hawthorn Press.
Malpas, J. (2006). From otherness to alliance: Transgender couples in therapy. Journal of GLBT Family Studies,
2(3/4), 183–206. https://doi.org/10.1300/j461v02n03_10.
Meier, S. C., Sharp, C., Michonski, J., Babcock, J. C., & Fitzgerald, K. (2013). Romantic relationships of femaleto-male trans men: A descriptive study. International Journal of Transgenderism, 14(2), 75–85. https://doi.
org/10.1080/15532739.2013.791651.
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.
129.5.674.
Nyamora, C. M. (2004). Femme lesbian identity development and the impact of partnering with female-to-male
transsexuals (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Alliant International University, San Francisco Bay, CA.
(UMI No. 3133426)
Pfeffer, C. A. (2017). Queering families: The postmodern partnerships of cisgender women and transgender men.
New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199908059.001.0001
Pfeffer, C. A., & LaRossa, R. (2010). “Women’s work”? Women partners of transgender men doing housework and
emotion work. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(1), 165–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.
00690.x.
Platt, L. F., & Bolland, K. S. (2017). Relationship partners of transgender individuals: A qualitative exploration.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35, 1251–1272. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517709360.
Reisner, S. L., Gamarel, K. E., Nemoto, T., & Operario, D. (2014). Dyadic effects of gender minority stressors in
substance use behaviors among transgender women and their non-transgender male partners. Psychology of
Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1(1), 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000013.
Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the Investment Model.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16(2), 172–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00177.
x.
Rusbult, C. E. (1987). Responses to dissatisfaction in close relationships: The exit-voice-loyalty-neglect model. In
D. Perlman & S. Duck (Eds.), Intimate relationships: Development, dynamics, and deterioration (pp. 209–237).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Rusbult, C. E., & Buunk, B. P. (1993). Commitment processes in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10(2), 175–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/
026540759301000202.
Rusbult, C. E., Drigotas, S. M., & Verette, J. (1994). The Investment Model: An interdependence analysis of commitment processes and relationship maintenance phenomena. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance (pp. 115–139). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The Investment Model Scale: Measuring commitment level,
satisfaction level, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5(4), 357–391. https://doi.org//10.1111/j.14756811.1998.tb00177.x.
Smith, B. W., Dalen, J., Wiggins, K., Tooley, E., Christopher, P., & Bernard, J. (2008). The brief resilience scale:
Assessing the ability to bounce back. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 15(3), 194–200. https://d
oi.org/10.1080/10705500802222972.
Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar
dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/350547.
Theron, L., & Collier, K. L. (2013). Experiences of female partners of masculine-identifying trans persons. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 15(1), 62–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2013.788214
Walsh, F. (2003). Family resilience: A framework for clinical practice. Family Process, 42(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1545-5300.2003.00001.x.
Whitton, S. W., Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., & Johnson, C. A. (2013). Attitudes toward divorce, commitment,
and divorce proneness in first marriages and remarriages. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75(2), 276–287.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12008.
www.FamilyProcess.org
15455300, 2020, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/famp.12400 by Uva Universiteitsbibliotheek, Wiley Online Library on [03/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
190 /