Article

A Review and Critique of Psychological Reports

0(0) 1–120
Research on Same-Sex ! The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
Parenting and Adoption sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0033294116665594
prx.sagepub.com
Walter R. Schumm
School of Family Studies and Human Services,
Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA

Abstract
Are the outcomes for children of gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents in general the same
as those for heterosexual parents? That controversial question is discussed here in a
detailed review of the social science literature in three parts: (1) stability of same-sex
parental relationships, (2) child outcomes, and (3) child outcomes in same-sex adop-
tion. Relationship instability appears to be higher among gay and lesbian parent
couples and may be a key mediating factor influencing outcomes for children.
With respect to part 2, while parental self-reports usually present few significant
differences, social desirability or self-presentation bias may be a confounding factor.
While some researchers have tended to conclude that there are no differences
whatsoever in terms of child outcomes as a function of parental sexual orientation,
such conclusions appear premature in the light of more recent data in which some
different outcomes have been observed in a few studies. Studies conducted within
the past 10 years that compared child outcomes for children of same-sex and het-
erosexual adoptive parents were reviewed. Numerous methodological limitations
were identified that make it very difficult to make an accurate assessment of the
effect of parental sexual orientation across adoptive families. Because of sampling
limitations, we still know very little about family functioning among same-sex adop-
tive families with low or moderate incomes, those with several children, or those
with older children, including adolescents or how family functioning may change over
time. There remains a need for high-quality research on same-sex families, especially
families with gay fathers and with lower income.

Keywords
Same-sex parenting, research methods, lesbian parenting, LGBT issues, adoption
research

Corresponding Author:
Walter R. Schumm, School of Family Studies and Human Services, Kansas State University, 1700
Anderson Avenue, Manhattan, KS 66506-1403, USA.
Email: schumm@ksu.edu
2 Psychological Reports 0(0)

Introduction
Goldberg (2010) called for ‘‘policymakers and court officials’’ to rely upon
‘‘existing research—as opposed to stereotypes and morally driven arguments’’
(p. 122) in making policy and judicial decisions. Charlotte Patterson (2013a)
recently acknowledged that ‘‘in summary, there are many ways in which evi-
dence from psychological research can inform legal and policy debates that
affect lesbian and gay parents and their children’’ (p. 32). On one hand, she
concluded that ‘‘overall, the adjustment of children and adolescents does not
appear to be related to parental sexual orientation’’ (p. 31) while also noting that
‘‘it seems likely that future research will uncover yet more information about the
unique qualities of different family types’’ (p. 32). More recently, Manning,
Fettro, and Lamidi (2014) argued that ‘‘there is a clear consensus in the social
science literature’’ that children from same-sex parented families have fared just
as well as those from heterosexual parented families. Likewise, Webb and
Chonody (2014) stated that

difference in ability to provide loving, healthy environments for children based on

sexual orientation is not supported by empirical evidence. Furthermore, research
has found no emotional, psychological, developmental, or social differences
between children raised by opposite-sex parents or same-sex parents. (p. 414)

Golombok (2015) has recently argued that ‘‘much of this debate has been
founded upon myths and false assumptions about the deleterious consequences
of new family forms for the children who grow up in them, rather than the
findings of empirical research’’ (p. 214). Also recently, Fedewa, Black, and
Ahn (2015) have concluded that ‘‘the social sciences research over the past
four decades has borne a fairly consistent message: children reared by a gay
and lesbian parent fare just as well as children raised by a heterosexual parent’’
(p. 2), and claimed that their meta-analyses supported that conclusion. With
estimates as high as 12–14 million children being raised by same-sex parents
(Welsh, 2011), their children’s outcomes are clearly important.1 On the other
hand, there are scholars who have reviewed the same-sex parenting literature
and have concluded that it ‘‘does not constitute a solid body of scientific evi-
dence’’ (Nock, 2001, p. 47) as cited by Allen (2015, p. 173). Allen concluded that
‘‘a series of weak research designs and exploratory studies do not amount to a
growing body of advanced research’’ (p. 173).
In contrast to those who have come to believe that there are no differences
between traditional and new family forms or those who think that the content of
the area is nearly worthless, this report represents a continuation of social sci-
ence research into some of the meaningful differences that have been found with
respect to same-sex parenting, while not closing a blind eye to the theoretical and
methodological limitations often found in this area of study (Schumm, 2000,
Schumm 3

2004a, 2004b, 2005, 2008, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c, 2010d, 2010e, 2011a, 2011b,
2012a, 2012b, 2012c, 2013). In part 1, the issue of the stability of same-sex
parent relationships will be reviewed because it is well known that having mul-
tiple, stressful caregiver transitions is generally associated with adverse outcomes
for children (Strohschein, 2010, p. 24), although having common children
appears to be associated with greater relationship stability for heterosexual
couples (Karney & Bradbury, 1995; Karney & Crown, 2011; Waite & Lillard,
1991; Wiik, Seierstad, & Noack, 2014), although the pattern is less clear for
stepchildren or children born before marriage. In part 2, the issue of child out-
comes as associated with same-sex parenting will be reviewed. In part 3, the issue
of outcomes for children adopted by same-sex parents will be reviewed.
Methodological limitations in all these areas will also be considered. Appendix
A and Table 1 summarize many of the methodological limitations and their
implications concerning research on same-sex parenting.

Part 1: Stability of same-sex parent relationships

Importance of the issue
Kurdek (2005) noted that ‘‘perhaps the most important ‘bottom-line’ question
asked about gay and lesbian couples is whether their relationships last’’ (p. 252).
Parental stability is an important issue because ‘‘children whose parents have
divorced or separated show poorer psychological adjustment than children
whose fathers have died . . .’’ (MacCallum & Golombok, 2004, p. 1407).
Research has consistently found adverse effects for some children from the
divorce of their parents (Amato, 2000, 2001, 2010; Amato & Anthony, 2014;
Amato & Cheadle, 2005; Sun & Li, 2009), as noted by Dundas and Kaufman
(2000) who stated that ‘‘children will suffer from family disruptions’’ (p. 67).
Dempsey (2013), like Strohschein (2010), has also acknowledged that parental
instability, regardless of parental sexual orientation, can have adverse effects on
children. Strasser (2010) noted that ‘‘studies suggest that stability is important
for children’’ (p. 18). Amato (2010) has noted that one of the newer approaches
to understanding relationship instability among parents is a ‘‘perspective [that]
views the number of transitions, rather than divorce itself, as being the central
variable that affects children’s well-being’’ (p. 657); he went on to say that ‘‘the
multiple-transition perspective represents a relatively new way of thinking about
family structure, with a great deal of potential for future research’’ (p. 657).
Lansford (2009) has also highlighted the importance of multiple caregiver tran-
sitions for children’s outcomes. Ball (2013) acknowledged that ‘‘indeed, no one
denies that, everything else being equal, children raised in intact two-parent
households from a young age do better than children who experience family
instability’’ (p. 727). For example, using national data from the United States,
Fomby and Bosick (2013) found that parental instability was associated with
4
Table 1. Research Guidelines, Consequences, and Implications for Law and Policy.
Research Guideline
Was the sample of participants draw randomly
from a larger population?
Was the study double-blinded so that neither
participants, actual or potential, nor research-
ers in contact with participants could know or
determine the values and biases of the study’s
sponsors or the lead researchers?
Was the sample large enough to detect at least
medium size effects, if not ideally small effects?
Was the response rate reported and was it ade-
quate (ideally, 80% but at least 50%)?
Were the response rates for each group of par-
ents similar, not significantly different?
Were there pre-existing socioeconomic or family
size differences between the groups of parents?
If so, were these differences accounted for by
design or statistical controls?
Did either group of parents represent only the
socioeconomic elite of society? Or did the
study represent a substantial number of par-
ticipants from across the socioeconomic
spectrum?
Consequence if Guideline was not followed
The study’s results cannot be generalized to any
population
Experimenter bias may contaminate the results,
meaning that the participants tend to give the
answers they think the researchers want to
hear rather than what the participants actually
think or believe.
The study is more likely to obtain a Type II error,
overlooking various effects of different types of
parenting
The results cannot be generalized to the larger
population due to possible selection biases
The outcome may reflect differential selection
biases or other pre-existing differences
between the groups
The outcomes may reflect the impact of socioe-
conomic status or family size more than any
impact of sexual orientation of parents
The study’s results may only apply to the very
wealthy
Implication of consequence for law and policy
The effects of changing law or policy cannot be
predicted reliably
There is substantial risk in assuming that the
results of the study accurately reflect the
genuine attitudes or beliefs of the participants
There is a great risk of assuming there are no
differences between groups of parents when
such differences do exist
The effects of changing law or policy cannot be
predicted reliably
The impact of changing law or policy on the dif-
ferent groups is less certain
Changing law or policy may favor higher socioe-
conomic groups rather than being blind to such
differences, creating injustice as a function of
socioeconomic status rather than resolving it
Changing law or policy may only reliably predict
outcomes for the very wealthy and may pri-
marily benefit the wealthy rather than all citi-
zens, creating a problem of social justice
(continued)
 Table 1. Continued.
Research Guideline
Was parenting assessed in terms of the actual
amount of time spent with the children?
Was social desirability, both individual and rela-
tionship, measured and controlled for?
If prejudice against same-sex parents was con-
sidered, were possible sources measured in
reliable and valid ways, including sources from
within both the heterosexual and the gay
communities?
Was parental relationship instability measured and
used in a theoretical model as an intervening
variable between type of parent and child
outcomes?
Were moderating factors for parental stability
considered?
5
Consequence if Guideline was not followed Implication of consequence for law and policy
The study’s results may reflect labeling rather than Changing law or policy may help at a superficial
actual parenting level (labels) rather than a practical level
Study results may reflect a desire of parents to The effects may be uncertain since the research
‘‘look good’’ rather than their actual parenting results were likely biased
success
If families are asked about prejudice without clar- Law or policy changes need to take into account
ifying the multiple possible sources, then one prejudice from multiple, rather than singular,
might blame the wrong community or over- possible sources.
state the impact of that community’s prejudice
on child outcomes.
Study results may reflect the impact of instability Law or policy changes may end up targeting the
rather than other factors or other group wrong factors and be less helpful
differences
Jennings et al. (2014) suggested that parental sta- Law or policy changes that assume this or that will
bility for same-sex couples was enhanced by impact all parents equally, or enhance parental
not having children with any biological ties to stability equally, regardless of sexual orienta-
their same-sex parents while the opposite tion, may be incorrect.
might be true for heterosexual parents, a situ-
ation where biological relatedness and parental
sexual orientation might represent an inter-
action or moderating effect. For gay male par-
ents, extra-dyadic sexuality might have a
stabilizing influence, the opposite of what may
often occur for heterosexual couples.
(continued)
6
Table 1. Continued.
Research Guideline
Was sexual orientation measured correctly? Were
some same-sex parents actually mother-
daughter or father-son or grandfather-father or
grandmother-mother dyads?
Were objective sources other than the parents
used to measure child outcomes (e.g., teachers,
professionals) who were not in the employ of
the parents (and potentially biased to rate the
children better due to their financial depend-
ence on the parents)
If the study is longitudinal, does it account for
parents who separated or for parents who
changed their gender or sexual orientation?
Does the study account for varying amounts of
time spent in different types of families (e.g.,
heterosexual vs. nonheterosexual)?
Did the analysis consider suppressor effects?
Were the children old enough to reliably report a
wide range of parenting outcomes, especially
those that might not be apparent until the child
was an older adolescent or an adult?
Consequence if Guideline was not followed
The effects of parental sexual orientation per se
may be misunderstood
Results could be biased strongly by parental social
desirability or by financial linkages between the
nonparents and the parents
If parents who are now of a different gender or
sexual orientation are included with other
parents, the meaning of the parental groups is
no longer clear
The actual dose-response effects of different types
of parenting will be unclear and confused
Parental sexual orientation’s possible adverse
effects may be masked by the competing,
positive influence of suppressor variables such
as higher socioeconomic status
Research may underestimate important effects of
parenting
Implication of consequence for law and policy
Law or policy changes may have unintended con-
sequences since the target of the changes may
not reflect what was studied
Law or policy changes may be based on biased
research reports
The impact of changing law or policy may not have
as clear an effect as intended
The impact of changing law or policy will be
unclear since the groups of interest were
unclear
The effects of legal or policy changes will be
unclear since the impact of the variable of
interest was reported in a misleading way
The effects of legal or policy changes may have
effects opposite that of what was intended
(continued)
 Table 1. Continued.
Research Guideline
Were important theoretical outcomes omitted
from the study (e.g., delayed gratification,
impulsivity, time preference)? Were gender-
related skills of fathers assessed or only
maternal-focused skills?
Did the study fully report the demographic char-
acteristics of all groups of parents?
If anti-gay discrimination, stigma, or internalized
homophobia were measured and controlled
for, did the study also control for equivalent
forms of discrimination against heterosexual
parents or their children?
Did the study report the results of statistical tests
(e.g., t values), degrees of freedom, and levels
of statistical significance?
If the study used an alpha level of 0.10 rather than
0.05, was that decision explained and justified?
If the objective of the study was to ‘‘prove’’ the
null hypothesis, was equivalence testing used?
7
Consequence if Guideline was not followed
The full impact of different types of parenting may
be overlooked or misunderstood, especially
the contributions of fathers
It may not be clear what sorts of parents were
involved in the study
Children can be teased for a variety of reasons and
it is not clear if homophobic teasing is any
worse than other forms; adults can be discri-
minated against for many things, including use
of illegal drugs or other bad habits, as well as
race, ethnicity, disability, gender, age, religion,
or national origin; if some forms of stigma are
controlled but not others or if controls are
only applied to one group and not the other,
then research outcomes will be baised and lead
to misleading interpretations of data.
Without such data, the results mean little as the
author(s) can say anything they want without
having to support it with facts
Although such studies should not be dismissed
automatically, the reasons for such changes
should be clear and reasonable
If not, the best procedure for testing null
hypotheses was not used and results may be
misleading
Implication of consequence for law and policy
The effects of legal or policy changes may have
effects opposite that of what was intended
It will not be clear who might benefit from changes
to law or policy
Designing law or policy to work against only one
type of discrimination or only against discrim-
ination against one group and not all other
groups could, relatively speaking, harm or delay
equality or benefits to the other groups, even if
it helped one group.
Law or policy changes should not be based on
such research because there is little to help
predict how the changes might help parents.
The effects of law or policy changes may be less
clear due to a greater degree of ambiguity in
the research
If law or policy are based on erroneous assump-
tions about ‘‘no difference’’ results, their effects
could be misplaced
(continued)
8
Table 1. Continued.
Research Guideline
Did the study report enough information so that
effect sizes could be calculated – ideally effect
sizes should be reported upfront so the reader
does not have to calculate them.
Is information within an article internally consist-
ent, in agreement across tables or narratives? Is
information internally consistent across differ-
ent articles prepared from the same source of
data?
Were the limitations of the study thoroughly and
completely discussed? Were the limitations
explained in terms of their impact or lack
thereof on any attempt to change public policy
or law?
Consequence if Guideline was not followed
Without reported effect sizes, the actual impact of
factors or different types of parenting is not
really known. Results from large samples may
be overestimated while results from small
samples may be underestimated.
Such inconsistencies may imply carelessness with
coding or analyzing data, reducing the scientific
value of the research.
If limitations are not acknowledged or do not have
‘‘teeth’’ in terms of limiting larger applications,
then the study will tend to receive more credit
than it deserves.
Implication of consequence for law and policy
Changes to law or policy may not have clear
effects or may have effects not intended since
the meaning of research is ambiguous without
knowing what the magnitude of the effects
were
Law and policy changes that are based on low
quality research are more likely to fail to
accomplish their objectives.
Public policy or legal changes that are based on
studies whose limitations are not clearly indi-
cated and expressed in terms of their implica-
tions may have mixed results or unforeseen or
unintended consequences.
Schumm 9

‘‘low rates of college completion, early union formation and childbearing, and
an early entry into the labor force’’ (p. 1266), as well as other problem behaviors,
including getting drunk, damaging school property, shoplifting, physically injur-
ing someone else, truancy, lying, or staying out all night without parental per-
mission (Fomby & Sennott, 2013). Rosenfeld (2015) has acknowledged the risks
of multiple family transitions. Given that parental stability appears to be import-
ant for children, the next question must be whether there is any association
between parental sexual orientation and parental stability.

Arguments pro and con: Parental sexual orientation and stability

Scholarly opinion on whether same-sex parental relationships are more or less
stable than mixed-gender parental relationships runs the gamut, from ‘‘don’t
know’’ to ‘‘we know’’ but ‘‘knowing’’ meaning there are no differences, differ-
ences favor same-sex couples, or differences favor mixed-gender couples. No
viewpoint seems to have escaped presentation.

We don’t know about stability. Some scholars have taken the ‘‘don’t know’’
approach. For example, Ball (2003, p. 726) was not aware of any study that
had compared the relative stability of lesbian and heterosexual mothers, while
Peplau and Fingerhut (2007) stated that ‘‘we currently know little about the
longevity of same-sex relationships’’ (p. 412).

Minimal or no differences in stability. Other scholars have argued that we know and
what we know is that there is ‘‘no difference’’ in stability. As early as 1989, DiLapi
argued that ‘‘various studies of lesbian relationships indicate that lesbian rela-
tionships are as stable and mature as heterosexual relationships’’ (p. 116), includ-
ing those with children. Herek (1991) cited as a ‘‘myth’’ the idea that lesbians and
gay men were ‘‘not capable of sustained relationships’’ (p. 161), although he
admitted that ‘‘wide variability is apparent in the duration of gay relationships’’
(p. 162). He argued that ‘‘lesbian and gay male couples tend to be as well-adjusted
and satisfied as matched heterosexual couples’’ (p. 162), a conclusion supported
elsewhere (Schumm, Akagi, & Bosch, 2008). Lin (1999) also argued that it was a
false narrative or spurious argument that ‘‘gays and lesbians . . . do not form long-
term committed relationships that would provide stability for children’’ (p. 771).
Baetens and Brewaeys (2001) reported that it was only a myth that lesbian couples
had greater instability than heterosexual couples.
Lubbe (2007) disagreed with the ‘‘alleged lack of stability’’ (p. 269) in gay or
lesbian relationships. Recently, Short, Riggs, Perlesz, Brown, and Kane (2007)
reported that ‘‘. . . same-sex parenting couples have similar rates of relationship
dissolution as heterosexual parenting couples’’ (p. 19). Redding (2008) argued
that ‘‘these findings suggest that lesbigay families as just as stable for childrear-
ing as heterosexual families’’ (p. 164). A similar point was made by expert
10 Psychological Reports 0(0)

witnesses and accepted by Judge Walker (Perry v. Schwarznegger, 2010, section

70, pp. 70–72; Allen, 2015, p. 154) in the Proposition 8 trial. Diamond and
Butterworth (2009) argued that ‘‘same-sex relationships also have similar
levels of stability as do heterosexual relationships’’ (p. 356). Hartz (2010, p.
134) cited Cooper and Cates (2006) as saying that ‘‘Not a single study has
found anything unstable about the families created by lesbian and gay parents’’
(p. 87). Tasker (2010) appeared to doubt that Biblarz and Stacey (2010) had
been justified in disagreeing with the ‘‘no difference’’ hypothesis in this area.
Rith and Diamond (2013, p. 124) asserted that instability rates did not differ
between cohabiting other-sex and cohabiting same-sex couples.

Same-sex parental relationships as more stable. In contrast, other scholars believe

that same-sex relationships are more stable. Rohrbaugh (1992) argued that les-
bian couples should be more stable because women do not want to violate an
ethic of care and initiate a breakup and to prove ‘‘that lesbian relationships do
last’’ (p. 471) and to avoid the difficulties involved in finding a new partner in ‘‘a
limited and largely invisible population’’ (p. 471). Similarly, Goldberg (2010, p.
26) suggested that lesbian mothers might have enhanced relationship stability.
Goldberg (2010) argued that rates of breakups were similar (p. 115) and that
children were deterrents to breakups for same-sex parents in the same way they
are for heterosexual parents (p. 116), even though it remained an open question
(p. 27). Jennings, Mellish, Tasker, Lamb, and Golombok (2014) have suggested
that not having any biological ties to an adopted child might enhance equality
and stability for same-sex couples (pp. 220–221), possibly the opposite of what
might be effective for opposite-sex couples. Likewise, extra-dyadic relationship
agreements might stabilize parental relationships for same-sex couples, but not
for opposite-sex couples.

Same-sex parental relationships as less stable. However, recently, Biblarz and Stacey
(2010) as well as Patterson (2013b) broke with the no differences hypothesis with
Patterson admitting that ‘‘dissolution rates for same-sex couples do, however,
appear to be higher than those for heterosexual married couples’’ (p. 663).

Research about stability for same-sex couples not classified by

parental status
In favor of the ‘‘no difference’’ hypothesis, Balsam, Beauchaine, Rothblum, and
Solomon (2008), using data from male and female same-sex couples who had
early civil unions in Vermont, found no significant difference in relationship
stability over three years between LGB couples in civil unions and a comparison
sample of married heterosexual couples. Although LGB couples had fewer chil-
dren than heterosexual couples, results in their study for relationship instability
were not reported as a function of parental status.
Schumm 11

There are more studies finding evidence against a ‘‘no difference’’ conclusion.
Johnson (1991) surveyed 108 lesbian couples, most of whom were highly edu-
cated (nearly 48% had a graduate degree; p. 34), who had been together for at
least 10 years, allowing for some periods of separation during those years.
Despite being a lesbian herself, she found it difficult to locate lesbian couples
who had been together more than 20 years (only 25% of her couples had been
together at least that long, p. 33). Only 14% of her couples had never considered
breaking up (p. 207).
Green, Bettinger, and Zacks (1996) followed a group of 52 lesbian couples
over two years, finding that of the 48 couples who could be contacted, 14
(29.2%) had broken up. In his sample of 82 same-sex parents, Sarantakos
(1996b) found that 66% of the gay couples and 63% of the lesbian couples
had broken-up with three or more same-sex partners in the past five years;
7% of them had not broken up with any same-sex partner in the past five
years; even here it was possible that some of these couples had broken up in
either a heterosexual relationship or in another same-sex relationship in the past
six or more years. A majority of the same-sex couples agreed that their cohabit-
ations were based on freedom rather than commitment, which might explain
some of the instability. In his later study, Sarantakos (2000) found that less than
one-third of both gay and lesbian respondents reported two or fewer break-ups
in their same-sex relationships career while a majority of both reported three or
more break-ups during the previous five years (p. 149), with a higher rate of
instability than that found for heterosexual couples (p. 152). About half of the
same-sex couples expected their current relationship to dissolve rather than end
with the death of one of the partners (p. 150). Hequembourg (2004) studied 40
lesbian mothers and found that only 35% had been with their current partner
for more than 10 years.
Others (e.g., Connolly & Sicola, 2006; Kurdek, 2005; Van Eeden-Moorefield,
Martell, Williams, & Preston, 2011) have recognized that Blumstein and
Schwartz (1983) and Kurdek (1998, 2006b) found higher instability rates
among same-sex as compared to heterosexual couples. Rothblum, Balsam,
Solomon, and Factor (2006, p. 125) reported that their LGB participants had
been in committed relationships for much less time, on average, than their
matched (sibling) heterosexual participants, a result that paralleled their findings
in an earlier report (Rothblum, Balsam, & Mickey, 2004), although in that
report, results were significant statistically only for women (heterosexual sisters
had been in their current relationship an average of more than 12 years com-
pared to less than 6 years for both bisexual and lesbian sisters). Later,
Rothblum, Balsam, and Solomon (2008, p. 64) found that many (29%–54%)
same-sex couples who had married or entered into civil unions had often con-
sidered breaking up since the formation of their legal union, even though they
had known each other for an average of 9 (lesbians) to 13 (gay men) years.
Rothblum (2009) concluded that ‘‘same-sex couples do not stay together as
12 Psychological Reports 0(0)

long as married heterosexuals, and this may be the result of lack of legal mar-
riage, less likelihood of having children, greater autonomy, or less stigma
attached to being single than among heterosexuals’’ as well as ‘‘less social sup-
port’’ or ‘‘less resistance to breaking up’’ (p. 135). Several European studies have
found higher dissolution rates among same-sex couples than for heterosexual
couples (Kalmijn, Loeve, & Manting, 2007; Kurdek, 2005; Lau, 2012; Wiik
et al., 2014). Rothblum (2009, p. 133) reported data from Denmark from 1997
in which lesbian couples had a higher divorce rate (16.2%) than gay male cou-
ples (11.4%).
Kurdek (2004) followed 80 heterosexual couples who were parents, 146 het-
erosexual couples who were not parents, 80 gay couples, and 53 lesbian couples
(none of the gay or lesbian couples had children) for 11–12 years; he estimated
their breakup rates to be 3.1%, 18.7%, 19.0%, and 23.8%, respectively (p. 894).
He concluded that ‘‘it is safe to conclude that gay and lesbian couples dissolve
their relationships more frequently than heterosexual couples, especially hetero-
sexual couples with children’’ (2004, p. 896). Kurdek (2006b) followed hetero-
sexual and homosexual couples for 11 to 12 years and found that, among those
who were not separated by the death of a partner, 14.6% of the heterosexual
couples broke up compared to 22.5% of the same-sex couples (p < .02). Thus, he
concluded that ‘‘gay couples were more prone to separate than were heterosex-
ual married couples with children’’ (p. 523) and that ‘‘lesbian couples separated
more frequently than did the heterosexual married couples with children’’
(p. 524). It is important to note that among the couples without children, breakup
rates were not all that much different, regardless of sexual orientation in
Kurdek’s studies.
Recently, scholars from both ends of the political spectrum have concluded
that same-sex relationships are less stable than heterosexual ones (Byrd, 2011,
pp. 23–24; Whitton & Buzella, 2012). On the basis of differential longevities of
only a few gay, lesbian, and heterosexual relationships, Reczek and Umberson
(2012) concluded that ‘‘this difference in relationship duration is consistent with
other research suggesting that lesbian relationships are of shorter average dur-
ation than gay and straight relationships (Andersson, Noack, Seierstad, &
Weedon-Fekjaer, 2006)’’ (p. 1785). Verbakel and Kalmijn (2014) stated that
same-sex couples (referring to European research) had ‘‘higher dissolution
risks than different-sex couples’’ (p. 3), which seemed to be more valid for les-
bian couples than gay couples.

Research about stability for same-sex parents

It is possible that unmarried same-sex couples might be as stable as heterosexual
couples, particularly unmarried heterosexual couples, and yet stability rates
might differ when comparing same-sex and heterosexual parents. Stevens,
Perry, Burston, Golombok, and Golding (2003) reported that within four to
Schumm 13

seven years, lesbian parents had high breakups rates, 40% if the child was con-
ceived by donor insemination and 61% otherwise. Brown and Perlesz (2007) in an
Australian study found a 19% breakup rate among 21 cohabiting lesbian parent-
couples after their study interviews (2002–2005) had been completed.
Tasker and Golombok (1997) compared their lesbian and heterosexual
mothers on relationship stability (‘‘style’’) and found a nonsignificant effect
size of 0.37, as reported by the young adult children, in favor of greater stability
for the heterosexual mothers and their male partners (p. 57); likewise, while 25%
of the lesbian mothers had engaged most of their child’s life in one long-term
monogamous relationship, 35% of the heterosexual mothers had done so.
Tasker and Golombok (1997) acknowledged that ‘‘the majority of the lesbian
mothers were no longer with the same partner they had been with at the time of
the first investigation 14 years earlier’’ (p. 57). However, the same young adult
children reported an effect size of 0.39 favoring the relationship happiness of the
lesbian mothers. Notably, relationship instability among the 25 lesbian families
in the Tasker and Golombok (1997, p. 115) study appeared to be related to the
development of nonheterosexual attraction or behavior, with 100% (6/6) of
the children of lesbian mothers who had five or more sexual partners while
the child was growing up reporting such, compared to 15.8% (3/19) of those
whose mothers had fewer partners (Fisher’s Exact Test, two-sided, p < .001,
r ¼ .75, d ¼ 2.23).
Brewaeys, Ponjaert, Van Hall, and Golombok (1997) studied 30 lesbian
families with children conceived by donor insemination vs. 68 heterosexual
families and found instability rates between the focal child’s birth and an aver-
age age of five for the child of 10% for the lesbian couples and 4.4% for the
heterosexual families (the difference was not significant statistically). Brown and
Perlesz (2007) studied 25 lesbian families and found that at least six or seven had
broken up from previous lesbian relationships, although at the time of the inter-
view only four remained single (eight had children from previous heterosexual
relationships). Furthermore, of the 21 families involving lesbian couples, four
(19%) broke up shortly after the interview (p. 303), for a total of ten to eleven
(40% or more) who had involved their child in some sort of lesbian separation,
not to mention the heterosexual break-ups. Furthermore, Brown and Perlesz
(2007) mentioned the research of Gabb (2005) who found that ‘‘at least 30% of
her sample had separated’’ in the ‘‘few years from finishing her research to
publishing her findings’’ (p. 303). Notably, Biblarz and Stacey (2010) were will-
ing to conclude on the basis of only one scientific study (MacCallum &
Golombok, 2004) that lesbian parent couples probably had lower stability
rates than heterosexual parents.
Schumm (2010d) reanalyzed data from four studies (Bos, Gartrell, Peyser, &
van Balen, 2008; Bos, Gartrell, van Balen, Peyser, & Sandfort, 2008; Brewaeys
et al., 1997; Chan, Brooks, Raboy, & Patterson, 1998; Fulcher, Chan, Raboy, &
Patterson, 2002; Gartrell & Bos, 2010; MacCallum & Golomobok, 2004) and
14 Psychological Reports 0(0)

found the same outcome, that lesbian mothers had lower stability rates than
heterosexual mothers. In particular, MacCallum and Golombok (2004) found
breakup rates for lesbian vs. heterosexual mothers of 43% vs. 13% (p < .05);
Fulcher et al. (2002) and Chan, Brooks, et al. (1998) found corresponding rates
of 39% vs. 6% (p < .05); Bos, Gartrell, Peyser, and van Balen (2008) found 48%
vs. 30% (p < .05); Brewaeys et al. (1997) found 10% vs. 4% (ns). After reviewing
other data on divorce among heterosexuals, Schumm concluded that over a
10-yr timeframe, about 15–20% of heterosexual parents would break up com-
pared to 40–45% of lesbian parents (p. 505).
Gartrell, Bos, and Goldberg (2011, p. 1201) reported that 56% of their les-
bian parent couples had separated by the time their focal child was 17 years old,
compared to a 36% separation rate for their comparison group of heterosexual
parents, a significant (p < .001) difference. Similarly, Van Gelderen, Bos,
Gartrell, Hermanns, and Perrin (2012) reported that the 56% result also differed
significantly from the 36.3% divorce rate of heterosexual parents of 17-year-old
adolescents in the sixth cycle of the U.S. National Survey of Family Growth
(p. 21). Furthermore, Gartrell, Bos, et al. (2011) reported that parental instabil-
ity within the lesbian partners was associated with reduced mental health out-
comes for their children (p < .09, with d approximately 0.49), although Van
Gelderen et al. (2012) interpreted that nonsignificant finding as evidence of
the helpful effects of a higher rate of shared custody among the separated lesbian
parents. In their first report of the U.S. National Lesbian Study, Gartrell et al.
(1996) indicated that 94% of their participants were White and 67% had a
college education. A similar study by Birditt, Brown, Orbuch, and McIlvane
(2010) followed 174 White newly married couples (with an average educational
attainment of some college, 13.3 years, husbands; 13.0 years, wives) for 16 years,
over which time 63 (36.2%) divorced. Comparing the breakup rates for the two
studies, the odds ratio (OR) was 2.27 (95% CI, 1.30–3.99, p < .005).
Potter (2012), as detailed in Schumm (2012b), found very low rates of stability
between kindergarten and eighth grade for both gay (100% breakups) and les-
bian (70% breakups) parents among a national (United States) random sample
of parents, compared to 69% breakups for heterosexual stepfamilies and 4.4%
for married heterosexual families (of those who remained in the nine years of the
study). If that assessment of Potter’s data is correct, from birth of the child
through eighth grade, then the breakup rates for both lesbian and gay parents
were 100% compared to 70% for stepfamilies and 4.7% for married heterosex-
ual families (of those who remained in all years of the study).
Goldberg and Kuvalanka (2012) discussed how they obtained a sample of 49
children who had been born into 22 heterosexual relationships and 27 nonheter-
osexual relationships. Since the heterosexual relationships involved parents who
came out later as gay or lesbian, it is probably safe to assume most of them
divorced, although that percentage was not reported. But what of the 27 non-
heterosexual relationships? Of the 27, 20 were born via donor insemination to
Schumm 15

lesbian couples, two were born to single lesbian mothers, one was adopted at
birth by a lesbian couple, one was adopted as a toddler by a lesbian couple, while
three more were born into or adopted by couples who were not romantically
involved but were coparents. Thus, there were 22 lesbian couples who gave birth
to or adopted children (two children had single mothers, three children had
parents who were not romantically involved). Goldberg and Allen (2013a)
reported that of those 22, 16 broke up and usually repartnered into new step-
family configurations (73%, 15 born into lesbian couples via donor insemination
and 1 adopted as a toddler by a lesbian couple); of the 20 lesbian couples who
became parents by donor insemination, 15 (75%) broke up. Furthermore, of the
16 children from same-sex couples who broke up, the average age for that
breakup was cited by Goldberg and Allen (2013a, p. 533) as 6.34 years with a
median of 5.50 years and a range of 1 to 13 years.However, of the five children
born to or adopted by nonromantically involved couples or to single lesbian
mothers (n ¼ 5), four (80%) had parents who later formed romantic partnerships
that later dissolved. Thus, of the 27 children born into or adopted by gay or
lesbian parents (not originally born into a heterosexual relationship except for
the one child adopted as a toddler by two lesbian mothers), 20 (74%) experi-
enced a parental breakup. If all of the 22 children born into heterosexual rela-
tionships experienced a parental divorce or breakup, then as many as 42 (86%)
of the 49 children overall experienced a parental breakup.
Wiik et al. (2014) studied registered partnerships and marriages in Norway
from 1993 to 2010 and found that having common children reduced divorce
rates for lesbian and heterosexual couples but may have increased divorce rates
for gay male couples. For all three types of families, having a stepchild was
associated with a greater risk of divorce. Divorce rates over approximately 18
years were about 31% for heterosexual couples and between 40% and 44% for
same-sex couples, greater for lesbians than for gay male couples. Rosenfeld and
Thomas (2012) collected data in 2009 from over 4000 participants through
Knowledge Networks (also used or discussed by Herek, Norton, Allen, &
Sims, 2010; Norton & Herek, 2013; Regnerus, 2012a, 2012b; Schumm, 2012b),
including data from adults involved in both same-sex and heterosexual couples,
and followed their relationship changes over four (Rosenfeld, 2014) subsequent
years. Results have been reported elsewhere (Schumm, 2015a), with similar to
lower stability for same-sex couples and parents.
Allen, Pakaluk, and Price (2013) found higher instability rates from U.S.
Census data for same-sex couples. Even for same-sex couples, parental instabil-
ity has been found to be detrimental for their children’s educational outcomes;
Rosenfeld (2013) found that children from unstable same-sex couple homes had
a grade retention rate of 11.1% compared to 8.5% for more stable same-sex
couples’ children. Sullins (2015c) used residential home ownership as a proxy for
relationship stability and found, using random national U.S. data, that same-sex
parents were more likely to be renting than owning a home (45% vs. 38%,
16 Psychological Reports 0(0)

p < .05) compared to heterosexual parents. Van Rijn-van Gelderen, Bos, and
Gartrell (2015) reported that only 19% of their initial group of lesbian mothers
had separated between their child being an average of six and 16 years old;
however, in an earlier report, only 3% of the lesbian mothers had separated
between the child’s age of 6 and 10 or 11 years (Bos, Gartrell, van Balen, Peyser,
et al., 2008) indicating that 16.4% of the mothers had separated between the
child’s age of 11 and 16, a difference that is statistically significant (p < .01, two-
sided Fisher’s Exact Test, d ¼ 0.49, a medium effect size). In other words, older
children appeared to represent more of a threat to the stability of the lesbian
mothers’ relationships. A recent research report (Bos, Knox, van Rihn-van
Gelderen, & Gartrell, 2016) while not assessing the stability of same-sex parents
per se, did control for caretaker transitions for the children (average age of 11
years, range of ages 6 to 17 years) who currently had two same-sex parents,
which found only 70.5% (98/139) of the children of lesbian parents and 47.1%
(8/17) of the children of gay father parents had not experienced a previous
parental divorce or transition into their current family from a previous family.
That result indicates that even if a same-sex couple’s experience with a child is
one of same-sex parental stability, it is possible that the child may have experi-
enced previous family instability. Farr, Crain, Oakley, Cashen, and Garber
(2016) studied 49 of an original 56 same-sex families with adopted children
(now ages 6–11, M ¼ 8.06 years) at the second wave of their five-year longitu-
dinal study and found that among the 49 families they could reach at wave 2,
18.4% had broken up since wave 1.
Thus, this situation demands caution in that some of the adverse outcomes
correlated with same-sex parenting might actually be related to parental rela-
tionship instability or multiple caregiver transitions rather than parental sexual
orientation, a matter that will require careful theoretical modeling and statistical
testing (Schumm, 2010c). One major hurdle to overcome is the difficulty in
obtaining random samples of large numbers of highly committed, very stable
same-sex parents whose children’s outcomes can be compared to outcomes for
children of heterosexual couples who would be equivalent in terms of stability,
education, socioeconomic status, and numbers of children. Finding any same-
sex parent couples can be a challenge. For example, Bos, Gartrell, Roeleveld,
and Ledoux (2013) analyzed data from 11,609 Dutch elementary school students
and found only 32 lesbian couples who were parents of a student in the sample
(0.28%) and fewer (0.095%) gay male couples who were parents of a student in
the sample.
While we probably will not have a definitive answer until stability rates are
assessed across more large, national, longitudinal studies and/or when marriage is
equally available to same-sex and heterosexual couples, the preliminary evidence
would seem to weigh against the null hypothesis here. Some research with same-
sex couples has considered relationship duration but has not differentiated same-
sex couples with or without children (Campbell, 2000; Carpenter & Gates, 2008).
Schumm 17

However, there is a strong possibility that having a child, which tends to

stabilize heterosexual relationships (Heaton, 1990), may tend to destabilize
same-sex partnerships, possibly because many same-sex relationships have chil-
dren from a previous union, which can ‘‘have an adverse impact on marital
stability’’ (Lehrer, 2008, p. 466). Recall that Kurdek (2004, 2006b) did not find
great differences in relationship stability among nonparents as a function of
sexual orientation, but when lesbian mothers have been matched with hetero-
sexual mothers, the former have had much greater rates of instability. The net
result is that it seems that having a child tends to stabilize heterosexual rela-
tionships, possibly keeping some unhappy ones stable (Andersson & Kolk,
2011; Kalmijn et al., 2007; Karney & Bradbury, 1995; Rodriques, Hall, &
Fincham, 2006, p. 92), while having a child may tend to destabilize same-sex
relationships, possibly because step-children tend to destabilize parental rela-
tionships (Lillard & Waite, 1993). Another concern may be the possibility that
after a break-up, lesbian mothers may engage in multiple sexual
relationships—Gartrell, Rodas, Deck, Peyser, and Banks (2006) reported
that at the time when the focal child was about 10 years old, ‘‘separated
NLFS birthmothers had between one and six new relationships that the
child had been aware of after splitting with the co-mother (M ¼ 2.3;
SD ¼ 1.58)’’ (p. 183). There is not much evidence on whether civil unions or
marriage would stabilize same-sex relationships of parents. Solomon,
Rothblum, and Balsam (2004) compared the extent to which lesbians and
gay men in civil unions or not in civil unions had seriously considered or
discussed ending their current relationship. Rates of such consideration were
lower for those in civil unions, but the effects were small for lesbians (d ¼ 0.09
and 0.23, p < .05) and of medium size for gay men (d ¼ 0.58 and 0.49, both
p < .05). Rates were not broken down by parental status, and the role of
selection effects is unknown but could have led more committed partners to
engage in civil unions; in other words, the causal effect may have gone from
commitment to civil union rather than from civil union to more commitment.
Fedewa et al.’s (2015) meta-analysis did not take parental stability into
account, so to date no meta-analytic data have been published on relationship
stability rates for same-sex couple parents compared to heterosexual parents.

Sexual orientation and qualitative differences in close relationships

Even so, there may be qualitative aspects of some same-sex relationships that are
substantively different from heterosexual relationships in ways that might
detract from stability. One possible process might involve jealousy between a
biological parent and a social coparent, a common situation in lesbian families
(Goldberg, Downing, & Sauck, 2008; Sullivan, 2004). Goldberg et al. (2008)
found that lesbian mothers reported that at least at some point in the child’s
life, most of the children had preferred the biological mother, which led to
18 Psychological Reports 0(0)

intense feelings of jealousy among some of the comothers. A second concern

involves the meaning of sexual unions in terms of monogamy. For example,
Green (2010) studied 15 married gay men and 15 married lesbians from two
cities in Canada and reported that 40% of the lesbian and 60% of the gay male
spouses did ‘‘. . . not believe that marriage need always be monogamous. What is
more, nearly half of male same-sex spouses (47%) report an explicit policy of
nonmonogamous practice, as did one female same-sex spouse’’ (p. 417). Green
also notes that in his study

Of those with explicitly monogamous marriages (73%), half of these latter respond-
ents believe that it is acceptable for marriages to be nonmonogamous (roughly
equal by gender), while over one-fifth (22% monogamous males, 9% monogamous
females) remain open to the possibility that their own marriages may one day
become nonmonogamous (p. 418).

Furthermore, some of his couples (at least one gay and one lesbian) not only
were nonmonogamous or open to nonmonogamy but stated that getting married
provided the security needed to make nonmonogamy feasible—‘‘Conversely,
perhaps counterintuitively, some couples remain monogamous until they are
married. For example, Karl and his spouse find that marriage creates a level
of dyadic commitment that makes possible sexual exploration outside the dyad’’
(Green, 2010, p. 418).
Although Bowen (2014) seems to disagree, Rothblum et al. (2006) concurred
that nonmonogamy is ‘‘an accepted part of gay male culture’’ (p. 126), a fact she
reiterated later (Rothblum, 2009, p. 125). Nichols (1990) also has identified
nonmonogamy as ‘‘the norm rather than the exception’’ (p. 357) for gay men.
Blumstein and Schwartz (1990, p. 317) studied couples who had lived together
between 3 and 10 years and found for men, higher rates of nonmonogamy for
gays (79%) than for heterosexual cohabitors (25%) and husbands (11%) while
the corresponding rates for women were 19%, 22%, and 9%. Likewise, hus-
bands (75%) and wives (84%) were more likely to agree that monogamy was
important to them than were heterosexual male (62%) or female (70%) coha-
bitors or lesbians (71%) or gay men (36%) (p. 319). Peplau and Cochran (1990)
cited Blumstein and Schwartz (1983, p. 274) for high rates of nonmonogamy
among gay men (66%) in relationships under 2 years in duration as well as 94%
for those in relationships over 10 years, compared to ‘‘22% of wives, 30% of
husbands, 43% of lesbians’’ (p. 338). Conley, Ziegler, Moors, Matsick, and
Valentine (2012) likewise accepted as fact the idea that there was ‘‘widespread
acceptance of extradyadic sexual activity . . . within gay male communities,’’
and research had found significantly higher ‘‘consensual nonmonogamy rates’’
(p. 129) among gay male couples than those couples including a female. Conley
et al. (2012) argued that ‘‘for couples who want to have a central, primary
romantic relationship, the period after a relationship is established and on
Schumm 19

solid footing may be an especially good point to test the waters of consensual
non-monogamy’’ (p. 135). Furthermore, they argued that ‘‘evidence is lacking
for the hypothesis that monogamy is more beneficial for children than CNM
[consensual nonmonogamy]’’ (p. 132). These themes seem to turn convention on
its head—instead of marriage being secured and protected through monogamy,
nonmonogamy is secured and protected through marriage.
Sarantakos (1998, p. 28) in his research with 82 same-sex couples found that
only 10% of the gay partners and 17% of the lesbian partners were intentionally
monogamous, in a closed union. Two-thirds of his respondents did not feel it
was wrong to have sex with someone other than their current partner
(Sarantakos, 2000, p. 92). Peplau and Fingerhut (2007) found up to 82% of
gay males having engaged in extradyadic sex (pp. 409–410). Peplau, Fingerhut,
and Beals (2004) have stated that ‘‘a distinctive feature of contemporary gay
men’s relationships is the tendency to form sexually open (nonmonogamous)
relationships’’ (p. 356), that ‘‘sexual exclusivity is by no means the norm among
contemporary gay couples’’ (p. 356), and that ‘‘sexual openness is the norm for
most gay male relationships’’ (p. 366). Solomon, Rothblum, and Balsam (2005)
reported that over 58% of gay men in civil unions compared to 15% of married
heterosexual men had engaged in sex outside their committed relationship since
its legal formation. About 45% of the gay men in civil unions appeared to
believe that extradyadic sex would be acceptable under some conditions.
Gartrell (1999) herself stated that ‘‘my own experience also suggests that more
lesbians dabble in nonmonogamy than acknowledge it. Perhaps if more of us
speak out about our sex lives, polyamorism will become just as passé on my
resume as lesbianism is today’’ (p. 32). Matthews, Tartaro, and Hughes (2003)
studied lesbian and heterosexual women and found that 32% of the lesbians
had more than one sexual partner in the past year compared to 7% of the
wives (p < .05).
As another example of polyamory, with respect to bisexual women, Strock
(2008, pp. 181–191) discussed the complex lives of such women who have sim-
ultaneous male and female lovers, often with their husband to whom they
remain married and their female lover. Van de Ven, Rodden, Crawford, and
Kippax (1997) found in their study of over 2500 homosexual men in Australia
that among older men at least 42% had had sex with more than 100 partners
while only 2.7% had been monogamous their entire life, with current rates of
monogamy between 15% and 24% depending on the age group (p. 354).
However, LaSala (2004) has argued that while not all gay men are nonmono-
gamous, monogamy may not be that important for many gay male couples.
Rith and Diamond (2013) acknowledged that gay couples were more likely
than others to engage in extradyadic sexual activity but regretted that ‘‘yet not
a single empirical study of this topic . . . has considered whether the thoughtful,
planful approach to extradyadic sex taken by male–male couples might actu-
ally represent a better and healthier ‘norm’ for relationship functioning than
20 Psychological Reports 0(0)

the traditional sexual monogamy expected within heterosexual marriage’’

although this hypothesis was never stated (p. 132).
The New Family Structures Study (NFSS) has a question on the extent to
which respondents agreed or disagreed with whether it was OK for married
adults to have sex with other persons while they were still married. Overall,
about 18% of respondents either agreed that it was OK or they were unsure.
Both gender and sexual orientation were significant predictors of relative accept-
ance of extramarital sex. Men were more likely to accept it (OR ¼ 1.68, p < .001,
95% CI, 1.38–2.05) as were nonheterosexuals (OR ¼ 2.44, p < .001, 95% CI,
1.92–3.10) when using weighted data to predict acceptance from both gender
and sexual orientation together. Among heterosexuals, more men (19.5%) than
women (12.8%) were accepting (p < .001); among nonheterosexuals, more men
(38.1%) were accepting than women (25.6%) (p < .001). Among men and
women, the sexual orientation difference was also significant in both analyses
(p < .001). Some might argue that religiosity might explain away such differ-
ences. However, including (lower) church attendance in the binary logistic
regression model did little to change the ORs or significance levels for sexual
orientation (OR ¼ 2.33, p < .01) or gender (OR ¼ 1.60, p < .001) while the appar-
ent effect of lower church attendance was less substantial and less significant
(OR ¼ 1.06, 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.11, p < .005).
Other factors that might be involved with relationship stability is that many
same-sex couples may not take advantage of morality (or religion) or even mar-
riage itself as a deterrent to relationship instability. Kurdek (2006a) in a study of
66 gay male, 104 lesbian, and 144 heterosexual couples found that none of the
170 nonheterosexual persons scored above zero on moral values as a deterrent
for instability while many of the heterosexual participants rated it as much more
important (d > 0.78). Zero out of 170 is remarkable in social science research;
usually at least a few percent of respondents take one side or the other on any
given question. Kurdek’s (2006a) research suggests a total rejection by these
participants of (presumably traditional) morality as a basis for staying in a
long-term relationship. In contrast, the heterosexual participants far more
often (p < .01) cited family and children as deterrents to breaking up
(d > 1.22 vs. gay males; d > 0.76, vs. lesbians). Kurdek’s results may have
echoed the findings of Bigner and Jacobsen (1989, p. 168) who found an
effect size of 0.75 (p ¼ .001) in which heterosexual fathers were more likely
to agree that ‘‘having children makes a stronger bond between husband and
wife’’; they also found an effect size of 0.65 (p ¼ .01) in which heterosexual
fathers were more likely to agree with the statement ‘‘after becoming a parent,
a person is less likely to behave immorally.’’ Thus, not only is the concept of
moral values or having children seen as less relevant for relationship stability
for couples, but as less relevant with respect to being a parent by gay men or
lesbians.
Schumm 21

Verbakel and Kalmijn (2014) recently reported on results from Dutch

national surveys conducted between 2001 and 2007 that involved 841 men in
same-sex couples, 852 women in same-sex couples, and 183,306 heterosexual
couples. Notably, despite what the authors themselves describe as ‘‘the Dutch
context is characterized by high levels of tolerance toward homosexuality’’ (p. 9),
the rate of marriage for same-sex couples was only 38% compared to 86% for
heterosexual couples, despite the gay men and lesbians having much higher rates
of college education, an indication of higher socioeconomic status, than hetero-
sexual men (43% vs. 31%) and heterosexual women (54% vs. 24%).

Conclusion to part 1
Open questions remain whether same-sex couples without children are more or
less stable than equivalent heterosexual couples or the extent to which the avail-
ability of legal marriage might change what has been seen in research to date
with parenting relationships. However, research to date indicates that gay and
lesbian parents have less stable relationships than heterosexual parents (of whom
a greater percentage were probably married). Potential explanations for this
difference may include, besides the legal availability of marriage, sexual non-
monogamy and different reasons or values for maintaining a stable relationship
for the sake of children. Such results may indicate that a better comparison
group (than intact two-parent heterosexual families) for same-sex parents
would be heterosexual stepfamily parents, as both groups likely have higher
rates of previous divorce and a greater number of parental caregiver transitions,
although differences would remain (Tasker, 2013, pp. 10–12). It is also possible
that stable same-sex parents might have children with outcomes as positive as
those for stable heterosexual stepfamilies. At the same time, regardless of par-
ental sexual orientation, children experiencing multiple caregiver transitions or a
sense of parental rejection or abandonment may report lower levels of adjust-
ment than children from more stable, caring families. As Gartrell, Bos, et al.
(2011) reported, children from disrupted lesbian parent families reported lower
psychological adjustment with a medium, though not significant (p < .09), effect
size. Children from ‘‘mixed-orientation marriages’’ (heterosexual marriages in
which at least one partner comes out as nonheterosexual after the marriage) may
also be disadvantaged. Another possibility is that child outcomes could vary by
the congruence of parental and child sexual orientation, regardless of or in
combination with differences in family structure. However, few studies have
controlled for parental instability when comparing child outcomes as a function
of family sexual orientation, so the remaining literature review in this report
must remain somewhat tentative as a consequence. In other words, any disad-
vantages associated with same-sex parent families might be attributable to par-
ental instability rather than to deficits in parental skills.
22 Psychological Reports 0(0)

Part 2: General outcomes for children of same-sex

parents
Considering parental and child sexual orientations
Tasker and Golombok (1997) stated that ‘‘one of the most commonly voiced
assumptions in child custody cases involving a lesbian mother is that the children
will grow up to be homosexual, an outcome that is generally considered to be
undesirable by those involved in decision making in courts of law’’ (p. 5).
Patterson (2013a) cited only four studies, none of them more recent than
1998, to draw her conclusion that ‘‘the great majority of children with lesbian
or gay parents grow up to identify as heterosexual’’ (p. 31). At least 150 scholars
have echoed that theme, claiming that children of LGB parents are not at all
more likely to grow up to experiment with same-sex sexual behavior or to iden-
tify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) than are the children of
heterosexual parents (Schumm, 2013). For example, Lin (1999) argued that it
was a false narrative that ‘‘children raised by gays and lesbians are more likely to
‘turn out’ gay or lesbian themselves than children raised by heterosexuals’’ (p.
771) and that ‘‘the notion that the parents’ sexuality influences the child’s sexual
orientation, is firmly discounted by empirical studies’’ (p. 776). Markey (1998)
argued that ‘‘children of gay parents are no more likely to be gay than are
children of heterosexual parents’’ (p. 723). Foster (2005) reported as a key find-
ing of research on lesbian mother families that their children were ‘‘no more
likely to grow up gay or lesbian than the children raised in heterosexual families’’
(p. 51). Tobin and McNair (2009) argued that

The underlying fear of many people . . . is the potential that the sexual orientation of
such persons [gays and lesbians as parents] will influence or determine the sexual
orientation of the children in their care. The literature provides no basis to support
this fear. (p. 13)

Most recently, Ball (2013) argued that ‘‘the empirical evidence does not permit
us to conclude that there is a clear association between the sexual orientation of
lesbian and gay parents and both the gender attitudes/interests and the sexual
orientation of their children’’ (p. 699) and that ‘‘in short, the empirical evidence
by no means supports the conclusion that there is a clear association between the
sexual orientation of lesbians and gay men and that of their children’’ (p. 756),
which he reiterated in a later book (Ball, 2014). Likewise, Dempsey (2013) con-
cluded from her literature review that ‘‘the children raised by same-sex parents
appear no more likely to describe themselves as conclusively lesbian, gay, or
otherwise homosexual’’ (p. 14). Ball (2013), Dempsey (2013), Dundas and
Kaufman (2000, p. 67), Kuvalanka (2013), Schulenberg (1985, p. 37), Tasker
(2013), Bowen (2014), and Harder (2016, p. 1295) were not cited in Schumm
Schumm 23

(2013) but are additional examples of scholars or researchers who have, at least
for the most part, accepted the ‘‘no difference’’ hypothesis with respect to inter-
generational transfer of sexual orientation (ITSO). Ritter (2010, p. 384) has
reported how the court in Perry v. Schwarzenegger assumed that ITSO was a
myth, not based on scientific evidence.
However, a few scholars have been more cautious in drawing such a conclu-
sion (Schumm, 2013). For example, Ball (2003) admitted that there was enough
support to refute the null hypothesis that there was ‘‘sufficient indicia of a pos-
sible association to meet the easy-to-satisfy factual component of the rational
basis test’’ (p. 757). Wainright, Russell, and Patterson (2004) also hedged their
bets a bit, noting that the offspring of lesbian mothers

Were, however, more likely to have considered a gay or lesbian relationship as a

possibility for themselves and to have been involved in a same-sex relationship,
suggesting that although sexual attraction and identity may not be related to par-
ental sexual orientation, the likelihood of considering or entering a same-sex rela-
tionship may be associated with parents’ sexual orientation. (p. 1887)

Kuvalanka (2013) stated that ‘‘until studies utilizing large, representative sam-
ples are conducted, the question of whether children of LGBTQ parents are
more likely to identify as LGBTQ than children of heterosexual parents will
remain unanswered’’ (p. 166). Herek (2014) has also argued that ‘‘few studies
have been published to date that examine the sexual orientation of adults who
were raised by parents in a same-sex committed relationship’’ (p. 593).
However, contrary to such assertions, and apparent scholarly consensus, it
has been demonstrated that parental sexual orientation does appear—in a large
number of studies, contrary to Herek’s (2014) assertion—to be associated with
child outcomes in terms of a child’s sexual orientation (Schumm, 2013). When a
formal meta-analysis was performed on data from several studies that had pro-
vided rates for children from both heterosexual and same-sex parent families
(Canning, 2005; Gottman, 1989; Javaid, 1993; Huggins, 1989; Kunin, 1998;
Murray & McClintock, 2005; Regnerus, 2012a, 2012b; Rivers, Poteat, &
Noret, 2008; Sirota, 1997; Swank, Woodford, & Lim, 2013), an overall OR of
3.12 (95% CI, 2.53 to 3.83, p < .001) was obtained, suggesting that the odds that
children from same-sex parent families would grow up to identify as LGB or to
engage in same-sex sexual behavior were three times greater than for children of
heterosexual parents. For example, Ross and Dobinson (2013) cited Murray and
McClintock (2005) as having found that ‘‘43% of the participants raised by
bisexual parents and 38% of the participants raised by gay/lesbian parents’’
(p. 96) were LGBT.
Those results differ from Fedewa et al. (2015), who reviewed three or four
studies on associations between parental and child sexual orientation. Fedewa
et al. cited Javaid (1993) and reported an effect size of 0.30, with children of
24 Psychological Reports 0(0)

lesbian mothers more likely to report having homosexual fantasies or concerns

and more likely to report nonheterosexual partners and an effect size of 0.61
for looking forward to marriage and parenthood. However, Javaid did break his
results down by gender of child, although those results were not reported by
Fedewa et al. (2015, p. 17). For daughters, the effect size for having homosexual
fantasies was 0.54, while for choice of partners and looking forward to marriage
and children, the effect size was 0.93 (p < .05); hence, for daughters, parental
sexual orientation had apparent effect sizes in the medium to large range. For
sons, results were not tabulated for homosexual fantasies; for the other two
variables, the effect sizes were the same, d ¼ 0.36, a small to medium effect
size. Javaid’s (1993) results paralleled Schumm’s (2010b) results in which the
association between child sexual orientation and parent sexual orientation was
stronger for daughters than for sons, especially for data from mothers. Likewise,
Bos and Sandfort (2010) had an effect size of 0.12 for sons and 0.53 (p < .05) for
daughters of lesbian mothers vs. heterosexual mothers, again featuring stronger
results for daughters than for sons. The third source cited by Fedewa et al.
(2015) was Schwartz (1986; Gottman, 1989); remarkably, across two groups
of heterosexual parents and one group of lesbian mothers, 24% of the daughters
in each group reported higher scores on a scale assessing nonheterosexual sexual
orientation.
Earlier, Crowl, Ahn, and Baker (2008) did a meta-analysis of five studies on
child sexual orientation, finding an average d ¼ 0.20. Crowl et al. cited Javaid
(1993) and Schwartz (1986) as did Fedewa et al. (2015) but Crowl et al. (2008)
also cited Tasker and Golombok (1995). The other two sources of the meta-
analysis for child sexual orientation from Crowl et al. (2008) were not specified
by Crowl et al. (2008). Tasker and Golombok (1995) and Golombok and Tasker
(1996) reported that children of lesbian mothers, compared to children of het-
erosexual mothers, were more likely to report same-sex sexual attraction
(d ¼ 0.36), nonheterosexual sexual orientation (d ¼ 0.39), to have considered
having a same-sex sexual relationship (d ¼ 1.07, p < .01), to having engaged in
a same-sex sexual relationship (d ¼ 0.75, p < .05), and to have engaged in a same-
sex sexual relationship if they had experienced same-sex sexual attraction
(d ¼ 1.57, p < .05). One article overlooked in Schumm (2013) was Joos and
Broad (2007) who found a 42.3% rate of LGBT children among same-sex par-
ents, which, compared to a 10% rate (e.g., Allison & Risman, 2013, in a sample
of college students found that 7.8% reported a nonheterosexual sexual orienta-
tion), would be significant and substantial in terms of effect size (two-sided
Fisher’s Exact Test, p < .03, d ¼ 0.74). Cheng and Powell (2015), despite a variety
of corrections and controls to the NFSS data, continued to find a significant
association between parental and adult child sexual orientation.
Similarly to what was found for relationship stability, scholars have differed
on whether we know the answer or not to the question of whether children of
same-sex parents are more likely to grow up to be LGBT. Some scholars
Schumm 25

question if we have enough data to answer that question while others argue that
we have enough data to conclude that there is no significant association.
However, there does appear to be enough data to conclude that there is
indeed a significant association. If this situation can have developed over time
for the issue of sexual orientation as a child outcome, could it have developed for
other possible outcomes of same-sex parenting? Accordingly, the ‘‘no difference’’
hypothesis, summarized immediately below, will be investigated with respect to
other aspects of same-sex parenting.

Support often claimed for the ‘‘no difference’’ hypothesis

The ‘‘no difference hypothesis posits that there are no ways in which the children
of LGBT parents are harmed (e.g., higher rates of drug abuse, casual sexual
behavior, educational progress, or different rates of time preference) compared
to the children of heterosexual parents. It is possible that children of LGBT
parents may be advantaged, especially if the children are LGBT themselves’’
(Rouse, 2002, p. 196; Kuvalanka, 2013, p. 168–169; Manning et al., 2014).

Support from social scientists. Herek (1991) discounted the idea that ‘‘being exposed
to a homosexual parent or role model’’ would be ‘‘likely to have negative effects
on a child’’ (p. 157). Rohrbaugh (1992) stated that ‘‘Previous research has
demonstrated that lesbians and their children do not have psychological prob-
lems that are different from those shown by heterosexual women and their chil-
dren’’ (p. 467). Patterson and Redding (1996) stated that ‘‘not a single study has
found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any important
way relative to children of heterosexual parents’’ (p. 43). Torbati (1997) argued
that ‘‘in fact, study after study indicates that children of homosexual parents
suffer no social, emotional, or psychological harm, or other disadvantages as a
result of having homosexual parents when compared to the children of hetero-
sexual parents’’ (p. 1831). Anderson (1999) said that ‘‘in short, the findings
presented in this book [Tasker & Golombok, 1997] indicate quite powerfully
that being raised in a lesbian-headed family has few, if any, negative long-term
effects on children. In fact, some of their findings indicate that there may be
advantages to being raised in a lesbian-headed family’’ (p. 641).
O’Donnell (1999) claimed that ‘‘in fact, the evidence is that lesbian and gay
parenting is no more harmful than heterosexual parenting’’ (p. 89). Gershon,
Tschann, and Jemerin (1999) reported that ‘‘previous studies show that there is
no difference, as measured by a wide range of psychological evaluations,
between children of lesbian parents and children of heterosexual parents’’
(p. 442). Savin-Williams and Esterberg (2000) challenged any critics of same-
sex parenting to ‘‘prove their case’’ regarding any ‘‘alleged adverse effects on
children’’ (p. 201) because they believed that ‘‘for too long, custody, adoption,
and visitation decisions have been on the basis of myth and prejudice’’ (p. 210).
26 Psychological Reports 0(0)

Rouse (2002) noted that ‘‘yet, several reviews of previous research studies found
no evidence that children reared in households in which one or both adults are
homosexual are harmed or compromised in comparison to being raised by het-
erosexual parents’’ (p. 196). Murray (2004) concluded that ‘‘the concerns raised
about children growing up in a lesbian family appear largely unfounded’’
(p. 139). Wainright et al. (2004) indicated that ‘‘results of these studies suggest
that children’s development is similar in many respects, whether they are raised
by lesbian or by heterosexual parents’’ (p. 1886). Parks and Humphreys (2006)
argued that ‘‘children raised in lesbian families are well adjusted and healthy; no
adverse effects of lesbian motherhood on child development have been identi-
fied’’ (p. 231). Gartrell et al. (2006) stated that ‘‘in the past 20 years, studies have
consistently found that children in lesbian families are as well adjusted as chil-
dren in heterosexual families,’’ ‘‘despite the stigmatization that comes with
growing up in a homophobic culture’’ (p. 175). Redding (2008) cautiously
accepted the ‘‘no difference’’ hypothesis regarding same-sex parenting outcomes
for children. Fulcher, Sutfin, and Patterson (2008) stated that ‘‘research suggests
that these children [children growing up in families headed by lesbian mothers]
show normal development’’ (p. 330); likewise, Sutfin, Fulcher, Bowles, and
Patterson (2008) stated that ‘‘research on children born to or adopted to lesbian
parents shows that these children develop normally, showing no particular
behavioral, social, or emotional problems’’ (p. 503).
Goldberg (2009) argued that ‘‘turning to child outcomes, children of LGB
parents do not appear to differ from children of heterosexual parents in terms of
self-esteem, depression, behavioral problems, or social functioning’’ (p. 583).
Riggs, McLaren, and Mayes (2009) concluded that ‘‘Studies have found that
there may well be benefits for children raised in lesbian- or gay parent house-
holds . . .’’ (p. 52). Bos and van Balen (2010) stated that ‘‘in general, growing
evidence suggests that there are no differences in between children raised in
lesbian families and those raised in heterosexual families with regard to psycho-
logical adjustment [citations omitted]. This has been summarized as the ‘no-
difference consensus’’’ (p. 432). Bos (2013) has stated that ‘‘in general, growing
evidence suggests that there are no differences between young children raised in
lesbian-parent families and those raised in two-parent heterosexual families with
regard to problem behavior and well-being’’ (p. 25).
Many others have argued for the ‘‘no differences’’ hypothesis (MacCallum
& Golombok, 2004; Mendez, 2009; Micucci, 2010; Pennings, 2011; Veldorale-
Brogan & Cooley, 2011), as previously discussed (Schumm, 2005, pp. 429–432).
Bos, Goldberg, van Gelderen, and Gartrell (2012) concluded that ‘‘no differ-
ences in psychological well-being have been found between children in planned
lesbian families and those in heterosexual two-parent families’’ (p. 608). Gartrell,
Bos, Peyser, Deck, and Rodas (2012) expressed concern that courts might still be
worried about whether children of lesbian or gay parents might ‘‘show evidence
of psychological maladjustment’’ (p. 1212). Perrin, Siegel, Dobbins, et al. (2013)
Schumm 27

have reiterated this ‘‘no differences’’ viewpoint, with the apparent support of
the American Academy of Pediatrics, as well as have Perrin, Cohen, and
Caren (2013) and Anderson (2013).
Biblarz and Stacey (2010) indicated that ‘‘scholars have achieved a rare
degree of consensus that unmarried lesbian parents are raising children who
develop at least as well as their counterparts with married heterosexual parents’’
(p. 5). In fact, Biblarz and Stacey (2010) argued that in some ways lesbian
mothers might make better parents than heterosexual parents as the children
would get a double-dose of mothering and more involved parenting, a conclu-
sion with which Dempsey (2013) and Rith and Diamond (2013) concurred.
Biblarz and Stacey (2010) went so far as to state that ‘‘lesbian coparents seem
to outperform comparable married heterosexual, biological parents on several
measures, even while being denied the substantial privileges of marriage’’ (p. 17).
Bos (2013) has likewise argued that ‘‘lesbian mothers are more committed as
parents, spend more time caring for their children, and report higher levels of
emotional involvement with their children’’ (p. 25), even though she indicates
that such levels of better parenting do not appear to have translated into better
results in terms of child development. Ball (2014) was less certain about gender
role development, but overall concluded that same-sex parenting had no harmful
consequences for children, based on his review of the social science literature.
Likewise, Ruspini (2016) concluded that

Studies have also indicated that children with same-sex parents show no significant
differences from children in heterosexual homes when it comes to social develop-
ment and adjustment. Findings suggest that children with lesbian or gay parents are
comparable with children from heterosexual parents on key psychosocial develop-
mental outcomes. (p. 895)

Harder (2016) likewise has stated that ‘‘children raised by same-sex parents are
no more likely to suffer from the many health and behavioral outcomes that are
of concern’’ (p. 1295).

Support from legal sources. Some courts have accepted the idea of a scientific
consensus on such issues, as one court noted that ‘‘. . . the quality and breadth
of research available, as well as the results of the studies performed about gay
parenting and children of gay parents, is robust and has provided the basis for a
consensus in the field’’ and ‘‘these reports and studies find that there are no
differences in the parenting of homosexuals or the adjustment of their chil-
dren . . . the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold
otherwise’’ (cited in Brodzinsky, Green, & Katuzny, 2012, p. 240). Schlatter and
Steinback (2013) list as their second myth about gay men and lesbians that
‘‘same-sex parents harm children’’ (p. 2), arguing that ‘‘no legitimate research
has demonstrated that same-sex couples are any more or less harmful to children
28 Psychological Reports 0(0)

than heterosexual couples’’ (p. 2). Holtzman (2013) stated that ‘‘research con-
sistently finds that parenting among lesbians and gay men is associated with
secure attachments, relationship satisfaction, and normal development for both
adults and children’’ (p. 369).
Most recently, Ball (2013), in a law review journal, in what he alleges is a
comprehensive review of the social science literature claimed that

The social science evidence showing a lack of an association between parental

sexual orientation and the psychological and social functioning of children is so
conclusive and so uniform, that efforts to impose marriage and parenting restric-
tions on lesbians and gay men based on concerns about such functioning are
irrational (and therefore unconstitutional) because they lack a defensible factual
foundation (p. 698)

and that

The clear absence of empirical findings showing differences in the psychological and
social functioning of children of lesbians and gay men, when compared to the
children of heterosexual parents, means that the contention that parental sexual
orientation is associated with such functioning cannot be defended factually, and
thus fails to satisfy the rational basis test (p. 699).

Yet, some have indicated that it is possible that such conclusive interpretations
of research may have been biased by the liberal values of many social scientists
(Erich, Leung, & Kindle, 2005, p. 46; Redding, 2001, 2013a, 2013b; Stacey &
Biblarz, 2001, p. 161.). As noted earlier, Manning et al. (2014) published a precis
of the amicus brief of the American Sociological Association that asserted sup-
port for the ‘‘no difference’’ hypothesis concerning same-sex parenting.
Likewise, Herek (2014) has argued that ‘‘parents’ sexual orientation has not
been found to affect children’s healthy development’’ (p. 589).

Looking deeper into the research

If the absolute claims of ‘‘no difference’’ were true, then there should be no
research whatsoever that has ever yielded positive or adverse findings with
respect to same-sex parenting. Even Herek (2014), without specifying the results,
indirectly admits to the possibility that some ‘‘differences have been observed
between children raised by heterosexuals and those raised by lesbians, gay men,
or bisexuals’’ (p. 589). Despite the firm conclusions cited above, I will argue that,
if one looks closely or ‘‘behind the research curtain’’ as one reviewer of this
report put it, there is some empirical evidence that children of gay, lesbian, or
bisexual parents may experience life problems suggestive of difficulties in psy-
chological adjustment (lower self-esteem, difficulties with secure attachments,
Schumm 29

substance abuse, precocious sexuality, sexually transmitted infections, criminal

activity, difficulties in educational progress, need for psychotherapy, eating dis-
orders, depression, etc.), as well as differences in gender role attitudes or behav-
iors.2 Each of these outcomes will be considered in order; at least some of them
could be considered as evidence of harm, on average, to the children of LGBT
parents. To make the case of ‘‘some evidence’’ would seem to be a tall order,
given the volume of claims to the contrary that have just been reviewed. Yet,
Goldberg and Allen (2013b) though worried that ‘‘the ‘anti-gay family’ camp
may indeed use controversial data to argue against LGBT rights’’ (p. 364), called
for ‘‘wading into these deeper waters’’ (p. 364) where politically popular findings
might not always be found in reality. As Goldberg and Allen seem to hint, I
think that the closer researchers can get to reality, the more helpful our research
can become for policy and family life education.

Studies on self-esteem and attachment

A study by Huggins (1989) is often cited as evidence (Allen & Burrell, 1996;
Anderssen, Amlie, & Ytteroy, 2002; Ball, 2013, p. 703; Erwin, 2007; Fitzgerald,
1999; Flaks, Ficher, Masterpasqua, & Joseph, 1995; King & Pattison, 1991;
Murray & McClintock, 2005; Perrin, 2002; Reed, 2013; Rohrbaugh, 1992;
Shapiro, 1996; Torbati, 1997; Victor & Fish, 1995; Wainright et al., 2004, pp.
1887, 1895) or as evidence of claims (Cameron, 1999; Marks, 2012) that there are
no differences in self-esteem among adolescents regardless of whether their
parent is a lesbian or a heterosexual mother. For example, Ball (2013) has
claimed that ‘‘Huggins found no differences in the self-esteem scores between
the two groups of adolescents’’ (p. 703). Huggins (1989) has also been cited for
other purposes (Clarke, Kitzinger, & Potter, 2004; Lin, 1999; Tasker, 2013).
Since all of the mothers in Huggins’s study had been divorced, the impact of
divorce was accounted for within the study’s design.
Because such extensive citation of Huggins’ study has occurred, it merits a
deeper look. A basic limitation of this study was that there were so few partici-
pants (18 lesbian mothers’ children and 18 children of heterosexual mothers, as
well as even smaller subsets of the participants) that even a very large effect size
of 1.50 would not be significant statistically. On the surface, from Table 1
(p. 128), it appears that sons of lesbians reported higher self-esteem than sons
of heterosexual mothers (d ¼ 0.46) while daughters of lesbians reported lower
self-esteem than daughters of heterosexual mothers (d ¼ 0.58). However, from
Table 2 (p. 130), it appears that when lesbian mothers acquired a female lover,
the self-esteem of both sons (d ¼ 0.14) and daughters (d ¼ 0.35) appeared to be
higher. If the dynamics of lesbian families were the same as those of heterosexual
families, we might expect to see a similar difference for the children whose het-
erosexual mother had remated with a man. But that is not what seemed to
happen. In contrast, the self-esteem scores of both sons (d ¼ 1.11) and daughters
30 Psychological Reports 0(0)

(d ¼ 1.47) increased by a factor of several times in terms of effect sizes. Of course,

there is a wide diversity of outcomes associated with stepfamilies, as when a
heterosexual mother remarries a heterosexual man (Hetherington & Stanley-
Hagan, 2000); a family gaining a new stepparent may not always lead to a
child reporting higher self-esteem. The point is that when the mothers recoupled,
at least the daughters, who now had a father figure, appeared to be much better
off or at least make more substantial improvements in terms of self-esteem than
those who had gained another lesbian mother, despite the argument that lesbian
mothers provide a double dose of more effective parenting (Biblarz & Stacey,
2010). Furthermore, the self-esteem of the daughters of single heterosexual
mothers (M ¼ 80.0) was higher than the self-esteem of both daughters of
single lesbian mothers (M ¼ 69.0, d ¼ 0.78) and those of coupled lesbian parents
(M ¼ 77.2, d ¼ 0.17). The self-esteem of daughters of heterosexual mothers who
had coupled with a man was greater than that of the daughters of lesbian
mothers who had coupled with another lesbian (d ¼ 0.68). Likewise, self-
esteem among the sons of heterosexual mothers who had recoupled with a
man was very slightly higher (for all practical purposes the same) than that of
lesbian mothers who had recoupled with another lesbian (d ¼ 0.03). There were
four daughters of lesbian mothers who reported especially high self-esteem but
two of their fathers had died and one other father was gay.
While it can be argued that the small size of this study negates its value almost
entirely, it remains a useful lesson in how what is claimed as a proper conclusion
from a study can be disputed, if one takes a look at the same set of results from a
different perspective. Other research may suggest other issues well beyond this
specific paper, but the point is that there can be multiple interpretations of data,
even from a single article.
Puryear (1983) in her dissertation found an effect size of 0.64 favoring the self-
esteem of the sons of heterosexual mothers compared to the sons of lesbian
mothers. At the same time, Puryear (1983) asked children to draw pictures of
their family members; only 20% of the children of lesbian mothers drew pictures
of their mother cooperating with them compared to 67% of the children of
heterosexual mothers (p < .01).
Gershon et al. (1999) reported results on global self-esteem for 76 adolescent
children, ages 11 to 18 years old, of lesbian mothers from the San Francisco Bay
area. The average self-esteem score was (averaged across five items) 3.21
(SD ¼ 0.57) and appeared to be reduced when the adolescents reported stigma,
measured by a 10-item Likert-type scale, on account of their mother’s sexual
orientation. That level of self-esteem appears to be higher (Granleese & Joseph,
2001; Grohalt, Ekeberg, Wichstrom, & Haldorsen, 2005; Pommier & Witt, 1995;
Wichstrom, 1995) or similar (Rose, Hands, & Larkin, 2012; Rudasill & Callahan,
2008) to that of a variety of other studies that assessed self-esteem with the same
instrument. Only one study (Thomson & Zand, 2002) appeared to report results
from adolescents reporting a slightly higher level of global self-esteem.
Schumm 31

Wainright et al. (2004) found a gender split on their results for self-esteem as a
function of parental gender mix. The sons of same-sex parents reported higher
self-esteem (d ¼ 0.22) while the daughters of same-sex parents reported lower
self-esteem (d ¼ 0.33) than did the children of heterosexual parents. In a possible
proxy for attachment, Wainright et al. (2004) assessed parental warmth as
reported by their adolescents. Both sons (d ¼ 0.16) and daughters (d ¼ 0.36) of
heterosexual parents reported greater parental warmth than did the children of
same-sex parents.
MacCallum and Golombok (2004) interviewed children of 25 lesbian and 38
two-parent heterosexual mothers and rated the children on global self-esteem.
The children of lesbian mothers themselves more highly (d ¼ 0.47) on global self-
esteem. On several measures of maternal warmth, lesbian mothers were rated
more highly, by both lesbian mothers and their child; surprisingly, in many
cases, single-parent heterosexual mothers were also rated more highly by them-
selves or their child than were two-parent heterosexual mothers. Golombok and
Badger (2010) also reported higher self-esteem among lesbian offspring at age 19.
Murray and McClintock (2005) compared 36 children of lesbian mothers with
63 children of heterosexual mothers on self-esteem, finding that the former
scored higher (d ¼ 0.22), although social desirability was also higher for the
children of lesbian mothers (d ¼ 0.25). Bos and Sandfort (2010, p. 123) have
acknowledged the possibility of social desirability bias on the part of children
of lesbian or heterosexual parents especially for more sensitive questions.
Bos and Sandfort (2010) found that parental nonheterosexual orientation
predicted the child’s sexual questioning. However, sexual questioning predicted
global self-worth (b ¼ .19, p < .05) and social competence (b ¼ .24, p < .05),
adversely. Furthermore, Bos, van Balen, Sandfort, and van den Boom (2006)
found that daughters of lesbians were more likely to aspire to ‘‘masculine’’
occupations (ES ¼ 0.53, p < .05) and have a nonheterosexual sexual orientation
(ES ¼ 0.74, p < .01), both of which predicted lower social competence for daugh-
ters in their study (Schumm, 2011b, p. 92).
Sirota (1997, 2009) compared 68 daughters of gay fathers with 68 daughters
of heterosexual fathers on adult attachment styles. Sirota found that 78% of the
daughters of gay fathers vs. 44% of the daughters of heterosexual fathers
reported insecure attachment (p < .001); in terms of comfort with close relation-
ships, 44% of the daughters of gay fathers reported discomfort compared to 12%
of the daughters of heterosexual fathers (p < .001). Schumm (2008) found that the
higher divorce rate among gay fathers was not sufficient to account for all of those
differences. Effect sizes for the various aspects of attachment ranged between 0.75
and 1.14 in favor of the daughters of heterosexual fathers (Schumm, 2010f).
In a study of 35 adolescents from Australian same-sex families, Crouch,
Waters, McNair, and Power (2014) found higher, though not significant
(p < .14) levels of self-esteem compared to norms for Australian adolescents in
general, in spite of those same adolescents reporting significantly greater rates of
32 Psychological Reports 0(0)

problems with peers (p < .01). As 74% of the same-sex parents had completed
tertiary education and 66% of the same-sex families earned more than $100,000
per year, it remains a possibility that socioeconomic status was a confounding
variable. In a larger study by Crouch, Waters, McNair, Power, and Davis (2014)
of parent’s views of family life in Australian same-sex families, same-sex parents
rated family cohesion higher than parents from the general Australian popula-
tion; however, 46% of the parents had postgraduate degrees and 59% earned
$100,000 per year or more.
In summary, the preponderance of evidence seems to favor similar or better
self-esteem for children of same-sex parents, but there are some studies that did
find lower levels of self-esteem, perhaps more so for daughters. In terms of attach-
ment, for the four studies reviewed, the preponderance of evidence seems to favor
the children of heterosexual parents, especially perhaps for daughters. However,
few of the studies controlled for social desirability or background differences.

Substance abuse
A review of the literature on substance abuse has been reported elsewhere
(Schumm, 2015b), concluding that the preponderance of evidence indicated,
for results from the United States, ‘‘somewhat higher drug and alcohol use
among children of LGB parents, compared to that among children of hetero-
sexual parents’’ (p. 16). However, that review did not include results from Bos,
van Gelderen, and Gartrell (2015) who found no differences in drug use among
adolescents from the Netherlands. Likewise, Golombok and Badger (2010)
found no differences in drug use among young adults from Britain. These dis-
parate results may suggest some international differences in apparent outcomes
of same-sex parenting.

Sexuality
Tasker and Golombok (1997) found in their British research that daughters of
lesbians, compared to daughters of heterosexual mothers, were more likely to
have had unstable or multiple cohabitations with sexual partners (71% vs. 22%,
p < .05; p. 131), have more than one sexual partner after puberty (88% vs. 56%,
p < .05, d ¼ 0.78; p. 127), and have cohabited with a sexual partner after know-
ing them for less than six months (71% vs. 17%, p < .05; p. 131) (Schumm,
2011b, pp. 110–111). Also, 62.5% (10/16) of the daughters of lesbian mothers
compared to 22.2% (2/9) of the daughters of heterosexual mothers had experi-
enced between 5 and 19 different sexual partners of either gender (p < .10, two-
sided Fisher’s Exact Test, p. 127). In terms of numbers of sexual partners, the
effect size was large (d ¼ 0.78) and significant (p < .05, p. 127) with the daughters
of lesbian mothers having more sexual partners than the daughters of hetero-
sexual mothers. However, sons of lesbian mothers were somewhat less likely to
Schumm 33

have more sexual partners (d ¼ 0.24). In fact, an interesting reversal occurred by

child gender: among the children of heterosexual mothers, sons had more sexual
relationships than daughters (d ¼ 0.75) but among the children of lesbian
mothers, sons had fewer sexual relationships than daughters (d ¼ 0.72).
In a second British study, possibly because the children from two-parent
heterosexual families were a year younger (18 years old on average) than
those from lesbian families (19 years old on average), they were less likely to
have begun dating (56% vs. 88%, p < .01) and less likely to have left home (6%
vs. 32%, p < .05)(Golombok & Badger, 2010).
Regnerus (2012a, 2012b) reported higher average numbers of both male and
female sexual partners among children of same-sex attracted parents than
among children of heterosexual stable parents, as well as higher rates of sexually
transmitted infections. Rates of sexual cheating were higher among adult off-
spring of the most stable lesbian families (18.2%) compared to rates for off-
spring of intact heterosexual families (11.7%), but the differences were not
significant (Schumm, Landess, & Williams, 2014). Surprisingly, the sexual orien-
tation of the offspring made a difference; among children of the most stable
lesbian families, sexual cheating was 50% for nonheterosexual children but
only 6.3% for heterosexual children while rates were 26.4% and 10.0%, respect-
ively, for children from intact biological families. Rates of cheating were higher
for offspring of heterosexual stepfamilies (26.1%; 47.5% and 19.4% by sexual
orientation). In terms of ever having had a sexually transmitted infection, rates
were higher for offspring from the most stable lesbian families (23.1%) than for
offspring from intact, heterosexual families (10.2%) but rates were higher for
nonheterosexual offspring from four of the five types of families in the NFSS.
Offspring from the most stable lesbian families reported greater numbers of
cohabiting partners relative to offspring from intact, biological families
(d ¼ 0.46, p < .05) and heterosexual stepfamilies (d ¼ 0.15). Parallel results were
obtained in terms of believing that premarital cohabitation was a good idea
(d ¼ 0.39, p < .05; d ¼ 0.05) and in believing that the use of pornography was
acceptable (d ¼ 0.45, p < .05; d ¼ 0.24). Differences in terms of actual use of
pornography were smaller (d ¼ 0.16, p ¼ 0.11) and nonsignificant, which was
also found for acceptance of casual sex (d ¼ 0.29, 0.01).
More studies are needed in this area, but the evidence to date seems to suggest
that offspring of same-sex parents may be more likely to adopt more progressive
sexual norms and behaviors than offspring from stable heterosexual families,
with smaller differences between offspring from heterosexual stepfamilies and
the most stable same-sex families. One analysis of Regnerus’s NFSS data found
that one of the best predictors of support for same-sex marriage and same-sex
parenting was a measure of progressive sexual values (Schumm, 2015a). Thus, in
addition to their own intrinsic importance, the sexual values of one’s offspring
may well predict a variety of political attitudes or social beliefs. While I am not
aware of any research on this, it is possible that the sexual orientation of
34 Psychological Reports 0(0)

offspring may mediate any relationship between parental sexual orientation and
offspring’s sexual values and behaviors.

Crime and conduct problems

Hawkins (2011) surveyed 70 heterosexual mothers, 59 heterosexual fathers, 59
lesbian mothers, and 25 gay fathers and compared the parents on their ratings of
their adolescent’s behavior problems and parent–adolescent relationship quality
(pp. 45–46). Lesbian mothers and gay fathers reported more positive levels of
couple relationship activities (d ¼ 0.37, p < .05 and 0.36, respectively). However,
in spite of reporting more positive couple behaviors, lesbian mothers reported
greater problems than did heterosexual mothers (d ¼ 0.50, p < .01), and hetero-
sexual and gay fathers differed in terms of effect size but the results were not
significant (d ¼ 0.33, p ¼ 0.18, two-tailed test). In terms of parent ratings of the
quality of their relationship with their adolescent, heterosexual mothers
(d ¼ 0.14) and fathers (d ¼ 0.29) reported better scores. Thus, even though the
parental relationships of heterosexual parents were more problematic, the het-
erosexual parents reported both higher parent–adolescent relationship scores
and fewer conduct problems.
With respect to conduct problems, as reported by parents on the SDQ scale,
Crouch, Waters, McNair, Power, and Davis (2014) did not find significant dif-
ferences between the children of same-sex and heterosexual parents. However,
Sullins (2015b, p. 378) found a significant and moderate effect size difference
using random, nationally representative U.S. data, with children from same-sex
families having higher rates of conduct problems (d ¼ 0.53, p < .001).
With respect to crime, Regnerus (2012a, 2012b) reported higher rates of
having been arrested or having pled guilty to non-minor offenses for children
from same-sex families. Schumm et al. (2014) considered three measures of
criminal activity, including having been arrested, convicted, and jailed, which
here were combined into one binary measure (any evidence of crime vs. none).
Rates for adult offspring of intact biological parents were lower (13.6%) com-
pared to those from heterosexual stepfamilies (25.2%, OR ¼ 2.14, 95% CI, 1.50
to 3.04, p < .001) and those from the most stable lesbian families (40.0%,
OR ¼ 4.22, 95% CI, 1.86 to 9.62, p < .002), as well as those from the less
stable gay and lesbian families (39.6%). The difference between heterosexual
stepfamilies and the most stable lesbian families was not significant (p < .12).
It was of interest that none of the nonheterosexual children from the most stable
lesbian families had ever been involved in any criminal activity; the high rates of
criminal activity came from their heterosexual offspring (35% arrested, 25%
convicted, 15.8% jailed). For offspring of the heterosexual families, the child’s
sexual orientation did not appear to be associated with crime rates of any type.
Thus, there is some evidence of conduct problems, including criminal activity,
associated with same-sex parenting, but it may be partly associated with parental
Schumm 35

instability and partly with incongruence between parental and child sexual
orientation.

Employment status
Tasker and Golombok (1997) discussed the employment status of sons and
daughters of both lesbian mothers and single parent heterosexual mothers.
None of their results were statistically significant, probably because of their
small samples. However, daughters of the heterosexual mothers were less
likely to be unemployed (12.5% vs. 31.3%, d ¼ 0.42) and more likely to be
having career success or be enrolled in higher education (62.5% vs. 37.5%,
d ¼ 0.48) than the daughters of the lesbian mothers. The opposite pattern held
for sons, as the sons of lesbian mothers were less likely to be unemployed (0%
vs. 41.7%, d ¼ 1.03, p < .06, two-tailed Fisher’s Exact Test) and more likely to be
having career success or be enrolled in higher education (62.5% vs. 41.7%,
d ¼ 0.42). The employment outcomes may have been associated, as Tasker
and Golombok noted (p. 138), with the higher proportion of lower class children
among the heterosexual mothers.
Regnerus (2012a, 2012b) found that current household income of offspring of
stable, heterosexual families was higher than that of offspring from same-sex
families. He also found that the former offspring were less likely to currently be
receiving public assistance or to be unemployed. Current rates of using public
assistance were higher for adult offspring from the most stable lesbian families
(39.3%) than for those from intact biological families (14.8%) or stepfamilies
(33.9%). Some gender differences were found. Comparing offspring from intact
heterosexual families with those from heterosexual stepfamilies, differences were
significant for both sons (11.0% vs. 21.9%, OR ¼ 2.27, 95% CI, 1.13 to 4.52,
p < .03) and daughters (16.7% vs. 38.4%, OR ¼ 3.10, 95% CI, 2.13 to 4.51,
p < .001). However, results were only significant for daughters when comparing
offspring from intact heterosexual families with those from the most stable les-
bian families (16.7% vs. 50.0%, OR ¼ 4.98, 95% CI, 2.02 to 12.28, p < .001).
It is surprising that more research has not been done in this area. Results are
mixed but if one is able to place any trust in the NFSS data, which involved
nearly 3000 participants compared to the fewer than 50 participants in the
Tasker and Golombok (1997) study, one would probably lean toward offspring
of same-sex families having more employment difficulties. Again, any such
effects might be explained by parental instability or incongruence between par-
ental and child sexual orientation.

Educational progress and perceived competence

Hartz (2010, p. 132) argued that children of same-sex parents performed as well
in school as children of heterosexual parents with comparable levels of education
36 Psychological Reports 0(0)

and income. Again, it must be asked if this is another case of a potentially false
‘‘no difference’’ hypothesis. Although Sarantakos (1996a) did not assess educa-
tional progress, in his comparative study of the children of same-sex and hetero-
sexual parents and their children, he found that ‘‘it was more likely for
homosexual parents to have no firm expectations regarding the education of
their child and to leave the decision to their children and their future interest
and progress’’ (p. 27). Comparing his same-sex parents vs. cohabiting and married
heterosexuals, respectively, he found very substantial effect sizes in favor of the
latter, for parent–school participation (d ¼ 0.42, 1.53), aspirations for child’s edu-
cation (1.30, 2.08), and support for doing homework (1.00, 1.40), respectively.
Comparing the children, Sarantakos (1996a) found that children of same-sex
parents scored higher on autonomy (1.25, 2.44) and in social studies (0.54, 0.32)
compared to children of cohabiting and married heterosexual parents. However,
with respect to teacher ratings and grades for attitude of child toward learning
(0.25, 0.78), sociability of child (1.50, 2.57), language (1.65, 2.72), math (1.90,
2.79), and sports (2.52, 3.75), the children of cohabiting and married heterosex-
ual parents received more favorable ratings or grades from the teachers. In his
study, it should not be overlooked that most of the results were strong enough
that they exceeded—by multiples—Cohen’s (1992) criterion (0.80) for a ‘‘large’’
effect size. In his later study, Sarantakos (2000) summarized comments from the
adult children of same-sex parents as ‘‘low performance at school was also
mentioned by many adult children who, looking back at their school years,
felt that they did not perform up to capacity’’ (p. 132). Sarantakos (2000) also
reported higher rates of truancy (skipping school) among the children of same-
sex couples (p. 131). A limitation of Sarantakos’s research is that teachers or
peers may have been biased against the children of same-sex parents; however,
such an argument may not mediate the entire relationship between parental
sexual orientation and academic achievement because (1) teachers did rate the
children of same-sex parents higher in social studies and autonomy, (2) the other
effect sizes were so large that it would seem unlikely they could be explained
entirely by prejudice, and (3) the children themselves from same-sex families said
they performed less well than they could have. Parental instability may also have
played a role in lower academic performance, but again, it is not immediately
clear how such instability would have boosted social studies scores. Yet, often
overlooked, is the possibility that at least some of the prejudice experienced by
same-sex parents comes from other same-sex couples or individuals who do not
have children (Jennings et al., 2014, p. 208), as well as from heterosexuals.
Tasker and Golombok (1997, p. 43) reported that in terms of getting further
higher education (breakdowns by gender of child were not provided), the children
of lesbian mothers were doing better than the children of the heterosexual mothers
(56% vs. 33.3%, p < .15, two-tailed Fisher’s Exact Test, d ¼ 0.47). Their study
suggests that prejudice against the children of same-sex parents is not always
sufficient to keep them from outperforming their heterosexual-family peers.
Schumm 37

Golombok, Tasker, and Murray (1997) compared heterosexual two-parent

and single parent families against lesbian mother families. The heterosexual
families differed significantly from the lesbian families in terms of mother’s
age (p < .05), social class (p < .001), and family size (p < .0001). The lesbian
mothers reported lower depression than did the two-parent heterosexual
mothers (d ¼ 0.31) and higher mother’s warmth to child (d ¼ 1.04, p < .05).
The children of the lesbian mothers reported greater peer acceptance
(d ¼ 0.19) than did the children of the two-parent heterosexual mothers (and
greater than that of the children of lesbian mothers as well). What is remarkable
is that in this study, the two-parent heterosexual mothers and their families were
disadvantaged in terms of age (younger), family size (more children), fewer
socioeconomic resources, children with lower peer acceptance, higher maternal
depression, and higher maternal stress (d ¼ 0.37) but their children reported
higher cognitive competence (d ¼ 0.94, p < .001) and physical competence
(d ¼ 0.55, p < .01), as reported previously (Schumm, 2011b, p. 92). Golombok
et al. (2003) also found that children from two-parent heterosexual families
reported greater cognitive competence (d ¼ 0.14) and physical competence
(d ¼ 0.38) than children from two-parent lesbian families, even though the
latter families had greater socioeconomic status, greater maternal acceptance,
lower stress, fewer children, and less frequent corporal punishment (Schumm,
2011b, p. 93).
Golombok et al. (2003) reported teacher ratings on the Strengths and
Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) and found that teachers rated the children of
single-parent lesbian mothers as more likely to have abnormally problematic
scores than the children of heterosexual single parent mothers (27.8% vs.
20.3%) and likewise for children of two-parent lesbian and heterosexual families
(11.1% vs. 4.3%), although the differences were not statistically significant.
Nevertheless, Golombok et al. found that for three of the six SDQ comparisons
of teacher ratings, single parent families’ children fared worse than the
children of two-parent families, with a fourth rating being a trend in the same
direction (p < .10).
Wainright et al. (2004) found a gender split on their results for grade point
averages (GPA), as self-reported by the adolescents in their study; the sons of
same-sex parents reported higher GPA (d ¼ 0.27) while the daughters of same-
sex parents reported lower GPA (d ¼ 0.19) than did the children of heterosexual
parents; however, there was considerable missing data for the boys (27%) and
girls (14%) on the GPA variable.
MacCallum and Golombok (2004) interviewed children about their school
situation. The children of lesbian mothers rated their interest/effort in school-
work higher than did the children of two-parent heterosexual mothers (d ¼ 0.54,
p < .05). The children of lesbian mothers also rated school functioning higher
(d ¼ 0.79, p < .05). Surprisingly, the children of heterosexual mothers rated bul-
lying as slightly more of a problem than did the children of lesbian mothers
38 Psychological Reports 0(0)

(d ¼ 0.09). However, a major limitation of the MacCallum and Golombok

(2004) study is that the lesbian and two-parent heterosexual mothers differed
on child’s age (d ¼ 0.68, p < .05, lesbians’ children older), family size (d ¼ 1.22,
p < .001, heterosexual families larger), mother’s occupational status (d ¼ 0.39,
p < .10, lesbians higher), age of mother (d ¼ 0.26, lesbians younger), anxiety
(d ¼ 0.24, lesbians less anxious), and depression (d ¼ 0.46, p < .08, lesbians
lower), factors that were not all controlled statistically when comparing the
families on the child outcome variables (a website was used to calculate t tests
and determine p values, www.graphpad.com/quickcalc/ttest2/ while another
website, www.campbellcollaboration.org/resources/effect_size_input.php was
used to calculate d values).
Using data from a random national U.S. study, Fedewa and Clark (2009)
compared 35 heterosexual and 35 same-sex families (27 lesbian, 8 gay) in terms
of parental reports of their own parenting practices, home-school collaboration,
and their child’s social adjustment, as well as the actual academic achievement of
the child. Even though a higher percentage of heterosexual parents families fell
into the lowest quintile of socioeconomic status (31% vs. 11%, OR ¼ 2.41,
p < .10, d ¼ 0.41), in terms of academic achievement, the child of heterosexual
parents performed better than the children of lesbian (d ¼ 0.17) or gay (d ¼ 0.07)
parents. In terms of parent practices, gay fathers reported far worse behavior
(d ¼ 1.30, p < .01) than did heterosexual parents, while lesbian mothers
reported higher scores (d ¼ 0.23). Lesbian (d ¼ 0.05) and gay parents
(d ¼ 0.44) described home–school collaboration less favorably than did hetero-
sexual parents. In terms of social adjustment, lesbian mothers rated their chil-
dren the same as heterosexual parents while gay fathers rated them lower
(d ¼ 0.24) than did heterosexual parents.
Riggs, Rosenthal, and Smith-Bonahue (2011) reviewed literature on GLBT
(lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) youth and concluded that such youth
were at risk for lowered school achievement, more frequent truancy, and dimin-
ished college aspirations, especially if they had been discriminated against.
However, Gershon et al. (1999) did not find a significant relationship between
scholastic competence and stigma, which would argue against the Riggs et al.
(2011) hypothesis. Bos et al. (2012) studied the children of lesbian mothers
and found that those children who had a male role model scored higher on curi-
osity (d ¼ 0.44).
Rosenfeld (2010, 2013) has used U.S. Census data to argue for no significant
differences in school retention rates for children in same-sex families. Allen et al.
(2013) disputed Rosenfeld’s (2010) analysis, claiming that children from same-
sex families were 35% less likely to make normal progress in their education.
Potter (2012) found no significant differences in educational outcomes for chil-
dren of same-sex couples after controlling for parental stability. What none of
these scholars did, as far as I can tell, is to use parental stability as an intervening
variable between family type and child outcomes, testing for the significance of
Schumm 39

the possible mediating effect of parental stability. What is needed is to use rela-
tionship stability as an intervening variable between family type and educational
outcomes, with tests for the significance of both the direct and indirect effects of
family type on the outcomes (Warner, 2013, pp. 652–662). Rosenfeld (2010,
2013) tried to control for parental instability by controlling for residential mobil-
ity; interestingly, Huggins (1989) found in her study of 18 lesbian and 18 het-
erosexual mothers (all of whom had been divorced from previous heterosexual
marriages) that the lesbian mothers had changed residences after their divorce
twice as often as the heterosexual mothers.
Regnerus (2012a, 2012b) reported that offspring of lesbian, gay, and bisexual
(GLB) parents had lower educational attainment than did offspring of stable,
heterosexual parents. My further assessment of NFSS data indicates that off-
spring from transient same-sex adoptive (SSA) families did have lower educa-
tional achievement than offspring from intact two-parent biological or
heterosexual stepfamilies but offspring from relatively stable lesbian parent
families (who represented only 10% of all SSA families using weighted data)
had educational attainment nearly equal to that of offspring from stable two-
parent heterosexual families. There were also some complex interaction effects
by which nonheterosexual respondents who were older had much higher educa-
tion than nonheterosexual respondents who were younger, a pattern that was
especially strong for women while the opposite pattern held for heterosexual
women (lower educational levels for those who were older). For men, regardless
of sexual orientation, older respondents reported higher education.
A recent article did try to parse numerous factors simultaneously using
Canadian Census data (Allen, 2013). That research found that for children
ages 17 to 22 years old, those living with opposite-sex married parents had a
72% chance of having graduated from high school compared to 59% for
cohabiting heterosexuals, 60% for gay father couples, 52% for lesbian couples,
62% for single fathers, and 61% for single mothers. If the parents had graduated
from high school themselves, the corresponding percentages improved, respect-
ively, to 75%, 68%, 64%, 55%, 67%, and 65%. If neither parent had moved
within the past five years, the corresponding percentages were 73%, 62%, 59%,
58%, 65%, and 64%. Notable apparent interactions were found between gender
of child and gender of parent(s). Controlling for child characteristics, parental
education, and parental marital status, daughters of lesbians had low ORs
(compared to married heterosexuals’ daughters) of graduating from high
school (OR ¼ 0.45, p < .05) as did daughters of gay fathers (OR ¼ 0.15,
p < .05). While the ORs were higher for sons of gay fathers (OR ¼ 1.61)
and lower for sons of lesbian mothers (OR ¼ 0.76), neither was significant
statistically. Allen (2013) ruled out attendance effects as an alternative explan-
ation of the results. However, it is possible that some children had graduated
from high school and moved out of their family home, rendering the results
less clear.
40 Psychological Reports 0(0)

Sullins (2015c) compared children from same-sex and opposite-sex parents on

attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), learning disability status, and
intellectual disability status and found significant differences for ADHD (14%
vs. 7%, p < .001) and learning disability (14% vs. 8%, p < .05) but not intellec-
tual disability (1.5% vs. 0.7%).
The effects of parental sexual orientation on a child’s educational outcomes
represent a hotly contested area of research at present. The stability of parental
relationships (regardless of parental sexual orientation), bullying against the
child, parental educational attainment, parental value placed on their children’s
education, parental socioeconomic resources available to support their chil-
dren’s educational progress, and the child’s own sexual orientation may mediate
any associations between parental sexual orientation and children’s educational
outcomes; unfortunately, no research has yet taken all such mediating factors
into account. Some other interesting possibilities could be occurring. What if
bullying was predicted by incongruence between parental and child sexual orien-
tations—in other words, if the GLB children of heterosexual parents or the
heterosexual children of GLB parents were more likely to report bullying? If
so, it would be even more difficult to assess the role of bullying in restricting
educational attainment as a function of parental sexual orientation. It seems that
the preponderance of research indicates that educational outcomes are dimin-
ished for children of GLB parents, but such results could be mediated by or
explained away by other background factors, especially parental instability
rather than parental sexual orientation directly.

Mental health
Lesbian mothers generally report that their children are doing well in terms of
mental health, which could be an effect of parental social desirability response
bias—as noted by Golombok, MacCallum, Goodman, and Rutter (2002), ‘‘with
any investigation that uses parental reports, one must be aware of the social
desirability bias whereby parents try to present themselves and their children in
the best possible light’’ (p. 965). Tasker and Golombok (1997) stated that

Interview data are always open to criticisms of bias owing to self-presentation

effects. Indeed, it is reasonable to suspect that lesbian mothers may wish to portray
an overly positive picture of family life in view of the discrimination they often face
in a predominately heterosexual society. (p. 146)

Tasker and Golombok (1998) indicated that in their research study

The possibility also remains that, compared with the heterosexual mothers in the
study, the lesbian mothers may have wished to portray a more positive picture of
Schumm 41

their partner’s involvement in child care given the lack of public recognition of
female co-parents. (p. 64)

Because the researchers themselves (1997, pp 39, 45) interviewed the partici-
pants, bias could have been introduced since it is possible that neither the sub-
jects nor, of course, the researchers were blind to the objectives of the Tasker
and Golombok research. Likewise, when Balsam et al. (2008) reported greater
relationship quality for same-sex couples compared to heterosexual couples,
they acknowledged that same-sex couples ‘‘may have been inclined to present
their relationships in the best possible light to avoid perpetuating homophobic
stereotypes about same-sex couples’’ (p. 113) and that their results ‘‘may have
been due to a response bias on the part of the same-sex couples in the study, who
were well aware that their relationships were being compared with their hetero-
sexual siblings’ relationships’’ (p. 113). Means-Christensen, Snyder, and Negy
(2003) found that lesbians tended to report higher levels of relationship social
desirability than did their cohabiting heterosexual females (scores of 55.5 vs.
51.3), although the difference was reversed and smaller for gay men vs. hetero-
sexual men (48.6 vs. 49.4).
Goldberg (2010, p. 169) has also acknowledged a concern with self-presenta-
tion bias by parents, as well as has Raley (2010, p. 188). Gartrell et al. (1996) also
agreed that lesbian mothers ‘‘might wish to present themselves and their families
in the best possible light,’’ and thus findings for maternal reports of children’s
mental health might have been ‘‘shaped by self-justification and self-presentation
bias’’ (p. 279). After noting that few studies had been blinded to researchers or
participants in their review of the literature on same-sex parenting, Anderssen
et al. (2002) noted that ‘‘participants or researchers may consciously or uncon-
sciously bias data in one or the other direction, and this bias may become stronger
when using self-reported recall data’’ (p. 348). Murray and McClintock (2005)
measured social desirability and found that children of same-sex parents reported
higher social desirability scores than did children of heterosexual parents, though
the effect was small (d ¼ 0.25) and not significant, though very slightly larger than
differences found for self-esteem (d ¼ 0.22) and anxiety (d ¼ 0.24). The point is not
that there is a meaningful difference between effect sizes of 0.22 and 0.25 but that it
is possible had social desirability been controlled, the other differences might have
been substantially reduced. Van Rijn-van Gelderen et al. (2015) acknowledged the
‘‘possibility of reporter bias in adolescent and parental reports’’ (p. 72) but did not
report measuring or controlling for social desirability.
Golombok et al. (2003) also reported how children were rated by a child
psychiatrist, with more ratings of psychiatric disorder for children of lesbians
than for children of heterosexual parents (single parents, 20% vs. 10%; two
parents, 5.5% vs. 8.1%; combined, 13% vs. 9%), although the differences
were not significant statistically.
42 Psychological Reports 0(0)

Bos (2004, p. 56) and Bos, van Balen, and van den Boom (2007, p. 43) found
that lesbian mothers had a slightly higher need to justify themselves (the scale
included four items: In anticipation of negative reactions from others, I give my
children more attention than other parents do; I try to prove to other that I am a
good parent; I feel that I must justify my parenthood qualities to other parents;
I feel pressured to tell other people that everything is going well with the devel-
opment of our child; Bos et al., 2007, p. 40) as a parent compared to heterosex-
ual mothers (d ¼ 0.09) and lesbian co-mothers even more so compared to
heterosexual fathers (d ¼ 0.31, p < .05). The perceived need to justify one’s par-
enting may increase social desirability responding among same-sex parents even
more than may occur normally with any parent. After all, it is difficult to assess a
child’s problems without seeming to implicate poor parenting. Tasker and
Golombok (1997, p. 136) reported no significant differences among adult chil-
dren of lesbian and heterosexual mothers in terms of depression or anxiety;
however, the respective effect sizes were 0.29 and 0.16 in favor of the children
of heterosexuals; furthermore, 50% or more of the children of both groups
of mothers had not found consistent employment or education (p. 139) and
over a third of both groups had required serious psychological intervention
(pp. 143–144). One reviewer noted that Tasker and Golombok found a trend
(p < .06) for sons of heterosexual mothers to be more likely to be unemployed.
Bos et al. (2012) reported slightly higher anxiety (d ¼ 0.32), anger (d ¼ 0.06),
and depression (d ¼ 0.25) among both male and female adolescents from lesbian
families who had not experienced a male role model. Their lesbian mothers also
reported more frequent problems with internalizing (d ¼ 0.35) and externalizing
(d ¼ 0.11) and for total behavioral problems (d ¼ 0.15) for children without a
male role model. The mothers’ reports of problems for boys may have been more
strongly influenced by a lack of a male role model with respect to externalizing
(d ¼ 0.25) and for total problems (d ¼ 0.24).
Regnerus (2012a, 2012b) reported that offspring of LGB parents were more
likely to be depressed or to have thought about suicide than offspring from
stable, heterosexual families. However, Schumm et al. (2014) found a possible
interaction between family type and offspring orientation predicting self-
reported depression; when parent and child sexual orientations were similar,
offspring reported lower rates of depression, otherwise rates were higher),
although overall, rates of depression were not much higher for offspring from
the most stable lesbian families than for those from intact biological families
(d ¼ 0.20) or heterosexual stepfamilies (d ¼ 0.02). Suicide ideation rates appeared
to reflect parent-child congruence on sexual orientation. While there were no
significant differences between rates for offspring from intact heterosexual
families (5.4%) compared to those from the most stable same-sex lesbian
families (3.7%), the rates shifted based on the child’s sexual orientation. Rates
were higher for nonheterosexual children from intact heterosexual families
(12.0%) and heterosexual stepfamilies (27.8%) and heterosexual children from
Schumm 43

the lesbian families (5.0%) but lower for heterosexual children from intact het-
erosexual families (4.6%) and heterosexual stepfamilies (8.4%) and nonhetero-
sexual children from the lesbian families (0.0%).
Although Crouch, Waters, McNair, Power, and Davis (2014) found no sig-
nificant differences between children of same-sex and opposite-sex parents on
several SDQ scales, as reported by parents, Sullins (2015b), using random, U.S.
national data, found greater emotional problems (d ¼ 0.09), peer difficulties
(d ¼ 0.24, p < .05), social problems (d ¼ 0.43, p < .01), and total problems
(d ¼ 0.41, p < .001) for children of same-sex families compared to children
from heterosexual families. In a different report, using the same random, U.S.
national data, Sullins (2015c) found higher rates of serious emotional problems
for children from same-sex families (12% vs. 5%, p ¼ .001), rates that appeared
to increase (15% vs. 6%) after controlling for child gender, child age, child race,
and parents’ education and income. Children from same-sex families were also
more likely to have seen a general physician for mental health reasons (13% vs.
5%, with controls, p ¼ .002), though not a mental health professional (18% vs.
17%). Controlling for biological degree (but not instability, bullying, or parental
psychological distress) reduced the statistical significance of same-sex parenting
(OR ¼ 1.43, p < .07) for predicting child’s emotional problems; however, bio-
logical degree was confounded with same-sex parenting, so the value of such
controls is debatable.
The most glaring deficiency in the area of mental health outcomes is that
parental or children’s social desirability response biases have seldom been
assessed or controlled, rendering the results of most studies somewhat ambigu-
ous. Where differences have been observed, the effect sizes were often small and
not statistically significant. Mediating factors such as the child’s sexual orienta-
tion or the availability of opposite-sex role models for the child have seldom
been evaluated statistically in more complex models. It is clear that, in general,
homosexuals experience poorer mental health than heterosexuals (Schumm,
2013). It is not clear how having a same-sex parent would impact a child’s
mental health, especially if the child were nonheterosexual. Would parent–
child congruence on sexual orientation lead to improved mental health or
would being nonheterosexual by itself tend to lower the child’s mental health?
It seems that no one has yet evaluated such a question empirically.

Self-control, impulsivity, and discipline

While Biblarz and Stacey (2010) viewed increased desire by heterosexual parents
for their children to manifest ‘‘self-control’’ as ‘‘an emphasis on social conform-
ity in children’’ (p. 7), recent research highlights self-control, self-regulation, and
avoidance of impulsivity as important child outcomes (Baumeister & Tierney,
2011). As one reviewer noted, there may not be evidence that a parent’s valuing
of self-control predicts a child having self-control, but if parental modeling has
44 Psychological Reports 0(0)

any effect, such a result would not be surprising. Moffitt et al. (2011) followed a
cohort of a thousand children from ages 2 to 32 years and found that early
childhood self-control predicted (p < .001) better adult health, less substance
abuse, fewer substance abuse problems, lower levels of depression (p < .06),
less likelihood of being a single parent, fewer financial struggles, and fewer
criminal convictions; they stated that ‘‘the need to delay gratification, control
impulses, and modulate emotional expression is the earliest and most ubiquitous
demand that societies place upon children, and success at many life tasks
depends critically on children’s mastery of such self-control’’ (p. 2693).
Likewise, for example, Meldrum, Barnes, and Hay (2015, online) recently
found that low self-control predicted delinquency in youth. Bechtold,
Cavanagh, Shulman, and Cauffman (2014) noted that ‘‘impulsivity is one of
the strongest psychological predictors of crime’’ (p. 1).
Balter (2008) in the journal Science noted that ‘‘our ability to trade immediate
gratifications for long-term rewards sets up apart from other, more impulsive
animals. Without patience, activities from planting crops for later harvest to
sending space probes to Mars would be impossible’’ (p. 404). Logue (2000)
defined self-control ‘‘as choice of a more delayed, but ultimately more valued,
outcome over a less delayed, but less valued, outcome. Impulsiveness can be
defined as the opposite’’ (p. 167). He used smoking as an example—‘‘if someone
chooses to smoke, that person is choosing the immediate positive stimuli asso-
ciated with smoking instead of a long, healthy life. Therefore, smoking can be
defined as impulsiveness, and not smoking can be defined as self-control’’
(p. 168). Logue further argued that ‘‘self-control and resistance to temptation
have been part of America’s Judeo-Christian heritage’’ (p. 179) though he
admitted that such an emphasis on self-control appeared to be declining. Not
only smoking, but overeating, drug use, suicide, unprotected sexual activity
reflect impulsive choices, according to Logue (pp. 181–186). Sensation seeking,
a concept close to impulsivity, has been associated with smoking, drinking, and
drug use, crime, antisocial behavior, and delinquency, as well as risky sexual
behavior (Zuckerman, 2007). A more detailed discussion and illustrations of the
importance of children learning self-control has been presented elsewhere
(Nazarinia Roy, Schumm, & Britt, 2014, pp. 37–47). Parents must emphasize
self-control in children or they risk numerous future deficits in how their chil-
dren grow up as adults. Leeman, Hoff, Krishnan-Sarin, Patock-Peckham, and
Potenza (2013) found that impulsivity among adolescents was associated with
greater drug abuse and with gambling problems. Self-control also appears to tie
in with sexual behavior—Sipsma, Ickovics, Lin, and Kershaw (2013) found that
adolescents who expected to drink a lot of alcohol in the future were significantly
more likely to have several sexual partners and to use contraception inconsist-
ently. Moreover, Walsh, Latzman, and Latzman (2013) found that childhood
sexual abuse’s relationship to risky sexual behaviors among adolescents was
mediated by problematic use of alcohol.
Schumm 45

However, with respect to a scale that assessed, among other items, ‘‘self-
control’’ as a goal for children valued by parents, Bos (2004, p. 58) and Bos
et al. (2007, p. 40), in their study of Dutch parents, found a medium and sig-
nificant difference between lesbian mothers and heterosexual mothers (d ¼ 0.55,
p < .001) and between social mothers and heterosexual fathers (d ¼ 0.40, p < .01),
with the same-sex parents scoring lower on the scale (i.e., lower self-control
goals). Furthermore, the Dutch heterosexual parents also scored higher on struc-
ture and limit setting in the Bos et al. (2007) report (biological mothers vs.
lesbian mothers, d ¼ 0.46, p < .01; social mothers vs. heterosexual fathers,
d ¼ 0.37, p < .001; also, see Bos, 2004, p. 69). Valuing self-control less for a
child does not guarantee that the child will exhibit less self-control, but one
might surmise that a child would be more likely to imitate what their parent(s)
value more.
Regnerus (2012a, 2012b) found small but not significant differences in impul-
sivity among children of same-sex parents vs. children from stable, heterosexual
families. However, Schumm et al. (2014) found opposite results, with greater
impulsivity self-reported among offspring from heterosexual families compared
to those from the most stable lesbian families.
Bos, Gartrell, and van Gelderen (2013) compared 78 adolescents of lesbian
mothers with 93 adolescents matched from a national sample. Mental health and
behavioral comparisons were performed on six outcomes across the two groups
of adolescents. The adolescents of lesbian mothers scored more favorably on two
outcomes (affective problems, d ¼ 0.11; anxiety problems, d ¼ 0.12) but less
favorably on four outcomes (somatic problems, d ¼ 0.17; attention problems,
d ¼ 0.10; oppositional problems, d ¼ 0.27, p < .10; conduct problems, d ¼ 0.33,
p < .05). Bos, Gartrell, and van Gelderen (2013) attribute some of these differ-
ences to stigmatization; however, only 41% of the adolescents reported any such
stigmatization. Furthermore, it is not clear what the direction of effect might be.
Does stigmatization lead to conduct problems or do conduct problems lead to
stigmatization? One of the larger differences reported (Table 4, p. 130) is that the
stigmatized adolescents were more likely (19% vs. 3%) to have their mothers
reporting that they hang ‘‘around with others who get in trouble’’ (p. 130) while
both groups were reported by their parents to break ‘‘rules at home, school, or
elsewhere’’ (p. 130) (22% vs. 38%). The mothers also reported more lying or
cheating (14% vs. 27%). Swearing or obscene language were also reported
frequently (11% vs. 27%). Thus, a key question would be whether an adolescent
who has tendencies to lie, cheat, break rules, use obscene language, and hang
out with bad characters is being stigmatized for having a lesbian mother or for
being anti-social or for hanging out with anti-social peers who might tend to
stigmatize others.
Stigmatization seems to feature some unusual aspects. In some studies, it
appears to make a difference. In their study of Dutch adolescents with lesbian
parents, van Rijn-van Gelderen, Bos, and Gartrell (2015) found that
46 Psychological Reports 0(0)

stigmatization (for having a lesbian parent) predicted more problem behavior.

However, stigmatization was relatively rare and usually of a mild nature. There
were 14 items measuring various types of stigmatization but only 9 of the 67
adolescents reported any of those types occurring ‘‘often’’ and only for 3 of the
14 types. In contrast, fewer than 10% of the adolescents reported any stigma-
tization in the previous year for 11 of the 14 items. Moreover, fewer than 5% of
the adolescents reported any stigmatization for 7 of the 14 items. The main
exception was a question about peers having asked annoying questions
(52.2% reported this as an issue). Two other exceptions were in reference to
being gossiped about (16.4% reported this sometimes) and having had jokes
made about oneself (28.4% reported this as an issue). The items about being
hit, kicked, tripped, hostility, abusive language, and disapproving remarks were
seldom cited as problems.
MacCallum and Golombok (2004) interviewed 25 lesbian and 38 heterosexual
mothers on their disciplinary aggression and severity of disputes with their chil-
dren. While the differences were not significant, the effect sizes were 0.24 and
0.63, respectively, with more favorable interviewer ratings for the heterosexual
(two-parent) mothers. When the child was interviewed about the quality of
maternal discipline, heterosexual mothers were rated more favorably, d ¼ 0.66
(p < .05). Both the mother and child were asked questions from the Conflict
Tactics Scale concerning physical aggression (hitting) during parent–child con-
flicts. The lesbian mothers rated themselves lower on such aggression than did
the heterosexual mothers (d ¼ 0.07); however, the children rated the mothers in
the opposite direction, with lesbian mothers being rated as more harsh
(d ¼ 0.18). Heterosexual mothers rated themselves as more likely to use reason-
ing with the child (d ¼ 0.19) and the children tended to concur with that assess-
ment (d ¼ 0.04). Single-parent heterosexual mothers (N ¼ 38) tended to be rated
more poorly on these same measures than either the two-parent heterosexual
mothers or the lesbian mothers.
Interestingly, Stark (2012) has provided considerable sociological evidence
that being religious is associated with not being impulsive, that is, having
higher self-control, which leads to lower rates of most crime, among other
social ills, although for an opposing viewpoint, see Ray (2009). More in line
with Stark, Luntz (2009) has reported that

Two-thirds (66 percent) of nonreligious Americans agree with the statement ‘If it
feels good, do it,’ despite its selfish, dangerous undertones. By comparison, fully 71
percent of religious Americans disagree with the concept of instant gratification.
What we have here is a chasm between the value systems of these two American
camps. (p. 261)

Despite the apparent importance of self-control, a remarkable finding here is

how little research has been done with respect to such important psychological
Schumm 47

outcomes as self-control and impulsivity with regard to parental sexual orienta-

tion. It remains possible that parental instability and parent–child incongruence
on sexual orientation might complicate assessment of any such possible effects of
parenting.

Children’s reports of their own adjustment

While reports from lesbian mothers are often quite positive about how their
children are doing, reports from the children themselves are far less often pre-
sented in social science research. Puryear (1983) found that young children of
heterosexual parents drew family pictures with more evidence of joint or
cooperative activities than did those of lesbian parents, with effect sizes ranging
between 0.72 and 1.89; sons in heterosexual families also reported higher self-
esteem than sons of the lesbian mothers (d ¼ 0.56, a medium effect size, but not
significant statistically). Patterson (2005) cited Puryear’s (1983) study but did not
report those adverse findings.
Wainright et al. (2004) compared boys and girls from same-sex parents and
opposite-sex parents on depressive symptoms and anxiety. For the girls, there
were data missing from 25% of the adolescents, while there was 30% missing
data for the boys. Depressive symptoms were greater for children from the same-
sex families (boys, d ¼ 0.13; girls, d ¼ 0.23). Larger differences were found for
anxiety (boys, d ¼ 0.79; girls, d ¼ 0.33). It is notable that even an effect size that
was large did not yield a statistically significant result because of the small
sample size and low statistical power involved in Wainright et al.’s (2004)
study. Thus, in this study based on a national random sample, the children of
heterosexual parents appeared to be doing better in terms of mental health than
the children of same-sex parents (some of whom may not have been lesbians).
Schumm et al. (2014) found that offspring from intact, biological families and
heterosexual stepfamilies reported better physical health (d ¼ 0.72, p < .05;
d ¼ 0.36, p < .10) compared to offspring from the most stable lesbian families.
Likewise, offspring reported differences on the basis of having had a more loving
family (d ¼ 1.16, p < .05; d ¼ 0.04). However, Crouch, Waters, McNair, and
Power (2014) found significantly (p < .001) better health among adolescents
from same-sex families in Australia, although higher socioeconomic status was
a confounding factor.
Recently, Gartrell et al. (2012) reported that of their 78 children of lesbian
mothers, 56% (40/71, p. 1215) of whom had separated by the time the child was
17 years old, nearly 66% had been in psychotherapy (16% of whom for reasons
related to maternal separation from the co-mother), 15% had suffered depres-
sion, and 14% had suffered from attention deficit disorder (ADD)/ADHD, anx-
iety, or bipolar disorder. Furthermore, 13% of the daughters had scores
indicative of eating disorders along with 3% of the sons. At the same time,
16% of the children rated themselves at the highest possible level of well-being,
48 Psychological Reports 0(0)

with only 1.5% rating themselves in the lowest 5 (of 10) categories. Only 41% of
these children had ever experienced any ‘‘homophobic stigmatization’’ (p. 1222),
a result that suggests some weakness in arguments that attribute all disparities in
child outcomes to such stigmatization. With respect to ADHD, Sullins (2015a)
found, with National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data, that children of
same-sex parents were more than twice as likely to suffer from ADHD compared
to children from heterosexual families; although children from same-sex families
were less likely to be bullied in general than children from heterosexual families,
children who were bullied and from same-sex families were far more likely
(p < .001) to suffer form ADHD (59%) than children who were bullied from
heterosexual families (16%).
With respect to children’s reports of their own adjustment, evidence is mixed
but less favorable with respect to adjustment for children of same-sex parents,
especially when compared to how well same-sex parents rate the adjustment of
their children. As with other child outcomes, parental instability and incongru-
ence of parent and child sexual orientation may mediate outcomes based on
children’s reports of their own adjustment, as well as influences of social desir-
ability response bias.

Teacher’s reports of children’s adjustment

Vanfraussen, Ponjaert-Kristofferson, and Brewaeys (2002) found that teachers
rated the overall adjustment of lesbians’ children lower (d ¼ 0.52, p < .05) though
lesbian mothers themselves rated their childrens’ adjustment higher, as did the
youth. Specifically, teachers rated the children from lesbian families as having
fewer problems on one scale, somatic (d ¼ .04), contradicting any idea that the
teachers were automatically rating those children worse, but they rated the het-
erosexuals’ children as having fewer problems in terms of internalizing
(d ¼ 0.19), externalizing (d ¼ 0.29), being withdrawn (d ¼ 0.35), being anxious
or depressed (d ¼ 0.09), being delinquent (d ¼ 0.44), being aggressive (d ¼ 0.20),
having social problems (d ¼ 0.07), having reasoning problems (d ¼ 0.41), and
having attention problems (d ¼ 0.72, p < .01). The attention problems scale
included items regarding having difficulties concentrating, learning, daydream-
ing, or being easily distracted. The lesbian mothers rated their children as the
same or better (i.e., having fewer problems) on 6 of 10 subscales compared to the
teachers rating them worse on 9 of 10 subscales (p < .06, two-sided Fisher’s
Exact Test) while the children of lesbians rated themselves better on 9 of 10
subscales compared to the teachers ratings being the exact opposite (p < .002,
two-sided Fisher’s Exact Test). Vanfraussen et al. (2002) noted that ‘‘we dis-
covered that teachers evaluate the emotional/behavioral well-being of children
from lesbian families less positively than that of children from heterosexual
[families]’’ (p. 248). As noted previously, teachers also rated the children of
gay and lesbian parents less favorably than they rated the children of married
Schumm 49

or cohabiting heterosexual parents in Sarantakos’s (2000) Australian research.

There have been other reports (Chan, Brooks, et al., 1998; Chan, Raboy, &
Patterson, 1998; Flaks et al., 1995; Golombok, Spencer, & Rutter, 1983),
though, where teachers rated children relatively similarly, regardless of their
parental sexual orientation. Thus, the evidence remains mixed with respect to
teacher ratings.

Gender roles
Armesto (2002), Bos et al. (2012), Lev (2010), Ritenhouse (2011), Ball (2012),
Fond, Franc, and Purper-Ouakil (2012), and Perrin, Siegel, et al. (2013) have
argued that parental sexual orientation is unrelated to the gender role attitudes
or behavior of their children, lending their support to the ‘‘no difference’’
hypothesis with respect to gender roles. Hicks (2013) has concluded that
‘‘researchers have argued that they [children of LGBT parents] do not exhibit
any gender confusion, and that their parents or families offer adequate role
models’’ (p. 155), though many ‘‘authors have concluded that the gender devel-
opment of children of LGBT parents is very similar to that of children of het-
erosexual parents, there is also evidence that those parents are careful not to
impose rigid gender roles or expectations upon their children’’ (p. 155).
However, MacCallum and Golombok (2004) discussed the theory that the
lack of a father figure and the presence of only mothers in a same-sex family
might result in children showing atypical gender role development, with boys
being less masculine and girls more masculine. Crowl et al. (2008) did not find
clear evidence of gender role differences but nevertheless, they suggested from
the results of their meta-analysis that ‘‘children raised by same-sex parents may
exhibit different sex-typed behaviors than do children raised by heterosexual
parents’’ (p. 400). Bos et al. (2012, p. 614) believed that social learning theory
would predict more gender role problems for sons of lesbian mothers as those
sons might be more likely to be lacking a male role model. Patterson, Sutfin, and
Fulcher (2004) identified four distinct social theories that might have relevance
to gender role attitudes of parents (and possibly their children). The absence of
a father is a genuine issue; for example, Dundas and Kaufman (2000) studied
16 lesbian families in Toronto, Canada, and found that of their 20 children,
13 (65%) had unknown donor fathers; most of the children with known fathers
had been conceived in a mother’s previous heterosexual relationship. Some of
the lesbian mothers (8/27) were concerned about their child’s not having a male
role model or about the child feeling deprived of having a known father (7/27),
but they did not think it would negatively affect their child’s development. Thus,
in terms of theoretical predictions, there remains a divided opinion.
However, even in terms of interpretation of research, some scholars have
reached conclusions other than the ‘‘no difference’’ conclusion. Sutfin et al.
(2008) stated that ‘‘although the research is limited, it suggests that lesbian
50 Psychological Reports 0(0)

mothers may have more liberal attitudes about children’s gender-related behav-
iors than heterosexual parents’’ (p. 503) while also saying that ‘‘research on these
children also reveals that they show typical development of gender identity, as
well as of sex-typed behaviors and preferences’’ (p. 503)—although also indicat-
ing that the children’s ‘‘gender role development may be less tied to traditional
gender role stereotypes’’ (p. 504). Fulcher et al. (2008) likewise stated that ‘‘chil-
dren of these [lesbian] parents may show greater gender-role flexibility than do
children of heterosexual parents’’ (p. 332). Farr, Forssell, and Patterson (2010)
have noted that ‘‘from psychoanalytic theories to social cognitive theories, major
conceptualizations of human development have often been interpreted as pre-
dicting difficulties in gender development for children of lesbian and gay par-
ents’’ (p. 165). Biblarz and Stacey (2010) stated that there were some significant
differences in their literature review that indicated that lesbian parents were less
likely to emphasize gender conformity in children and that at least sons of les-
bian mothers were characterized by greater gender-role flexibility and tolerance
of gender nonconformity.
Kweskin and Cook (1982) discovered in their study that, among mothers with
masculine, feminine, or androgynous self-described sex roles, lesbian mothers
were more likely to be masculine or androgynous in sex-role orientation them-
selves (81.3% vs. 53.3%, p ¼ .10, one-sided Fisher’s Exact Test, d ¼ 0.62) while
among mothers with either feminine, androgynous, or masculine sex-roles,
75.0% (21/28, p < .05, two-sided Fisher’s Exact Test, d ¼ 0.99) held that same
sex-role ideal for their child. Yet, the direct effect of parental sex-role orientation
on child’s sex-role orientation was small, r ¼ .12 (d ¼ 0.22). Had they tested for
the significance of the indirect effect of parental sex-role orientation on child’s
sex-role orientation, they might have found a nearly significant indirect effect
(z ¼ 1.40, p < .09), using the Sobel test for mediation (Warner, 2013).
Brewaeys et al. (1997) found that sons of lesbians had less masculine gender
role scores than sons of heterosexual mothers (d ¼ 0.78), while the daughters of
lesbians had slightly lower feminine gender role scores than the daughters of
heterosexual parents (d ¼ 0.21). Dundas and Kaufman (2000) in the Toronto
Lesbian Family Study found that 52% (14/27) of the lesbian mothers had wished
to be male at some time; 59% (16/27) responded that they either wished to be
male, saw being male as an advantage, had identified with a male role as a child
or adult, or knew someone who wished they (the lesbian mother) was male (p.
75), and 30% (8/27) of the lesbian mothers had three or four of those patterns.
None of the mothers expressed a preference for a male child, although half (10/
20) of the children were boys. They indicated that ‘‘many of the mothers of boys
reported some worries about their sons’ not having a male role model and
thought this was a bigger issue for boys than girls’’ (p. 75). One son ‘‘thought
it would be better to be a girl’’ (p. 76).
Patterson et al. (2004) found in their comparison of 33 lesbian couples with 33
heterosexual couples that the lesbian parents held less traditional role
Schumm 51

expectations for their children (d ¼ 0.92, 0.97). MacCallum and Golombok’s

(2004) study considered children’s scores on the Children’s Sex Role Inventory
by which each child was assessed on masculinity and femininity. Sons of hetero-
sexual mothers scored lower on femininity than did the sons of lesbian mothers
(d ¼ 1.42, p < .05), while daughters of heterosexual mothers scored a bit higher on
femininity (d ¼ 0.10). However, both sons and daughters of lesbian mothers
scored higher on masculinity (d ¼ 0.19, 0.08, respectively). Daughters of hetero-
sexual mothers scored higher on femininity than did sons (d ¼ 1.20, p < .05) while
the reverse was found for daughters of lesbian mothers (d ¼ 0.16). Sons of both
heterosexual mothers (d ¼ 0.20) and sons of lesbian mothers (d ¼ 0.37) scored
higher on masculinity than did daughters in similar families. Sutfin et al. (2008)
found that both daughters (d ¼ 0.57) and sons (d ¼ 0.66) of heterosexual parents
reported more traditional gender role attitudes than did the children of lesbian
parents; in fact, the gender role attitudes of sons of lesbians were nearly identical
(i.e., more feminine) to those of daughters of heterosexuals.
Fulcher et al. (2008) found a similar pattern to Kweskin and Cook’s (1982),
although they did not test for indirect effects. They found at least one significant
effect of parental sexual orientation on parental sex-role attitudes; they found
more significant effects of parental sex-role attitudes on children’s sex-role
attitudes.
Bos et al. (2012) assessed femininity and masculinity in boys and girls from
lesbian families. Overall, girls scored higher on femininity (d ¼ 0.82, p < .05) than
boys but girls also scored a bit higher on masculinity (d ¼ 0.13) than boys. Girls
also scored higher on femininity than they did on masculinity (d ¼ 1.07, p < .05),
but so did boys (d ¼ 0.37). However, Bos et al. (2012) also broke their sample
down in terms of the apparent availability of a male role model for the children.
When there had been no male role model, girls scored higher on femininity than
boys (d ¼ 0.68, p < .05) and boys scored higher than girls on masculinity
(d ¼ 0.24). Girls also scored higher on femininity than on masculinity
(d ¼ 0.95, p < .05) but so did boys (d ¼ 0.05). When there had been a male role
model, girls scored higher on femininity (d ¼ 1.05, p < .05) than did boys, but
girls also scored higher on masculinity than did boys (d ¼ 0.67, p < .05). Both
girls (d ¼ 1.29, p < .05) and boys (d ¼ 0.77, p < .05) scored higher on femininity
than masculinity. For daughters, having a male role model seemed to increase
both femininity and masculinity but with a stronger sense of femininity. For
sons, having a male role model was associated with lower masculinity and higher
femininity, creating a stronger difference between those scores, a counter-
intuitive result, unless perhaps the male role model(s) involved were men who
were more feminine in orientation themselves. Other early studies have also
suggested an effect of parental sexual orientation on children’s gender role atti-
tudes (Schumm, 2011b, pp. 41–46).
Three studies have compared parental attitudes about their preferences for
their own children’s gender roles, using the Parent Ideas Questionnaire (PIQ),
52 Psychological Reports 0(0)

as a function of parental sexual orientation, including Patterson et al. (2004),

Fulcher et al. (2008), and Sutfin et al. (2008). A meta-analysis of the scores from
those three studies yielded a Hedge’s g ¼ 0.86 (standard error ¼ 0.115, 95% CI,
0.64 to 1.09), z ¼ 7.48 (p < .001). Bos and Sandfort (2010) found that both sons
(d ¼ 0.46) and daughters (d ¼ 0.34) reported higher parental pressure to conform to
traditional gender roles if their parents were heterosexuals rather than lesbians.
With respect to children’s gender roles, those can be rated by the parents or
by the children themselves. I did not find any children’s ratings for children
under the age of four. Parents rated their own children under the age of four
in two studies (Farr et al., 2010; Goldberg, Kashy, & Smith, 2012); with meta-
analysis of that data, Hedge’s g ¼ 0.31 (standard error ¼ 0.131, 95% CI, 0.06 to
0.57), z ¼ 2.38 (p < .02). One study (Brewaeys et al., 1997) featured parent rat-
ings for older children or adolescents, yielding a meta-analysis with g ¼ 0.34
(standard error ¼ 0.117, 95% CI,  0.008 to 0.687), z ¼ 1.91, though not quite
significant (p < .06). There were more studies that involved older children’s own
ratings (Fulcher et al., 2008; Golombok et al., 2003; MacCallum & Golombok,
2004; Sutfin et al., 2008), which upon meta-analysis were g ¼ 0.27 (standard
error ¼ 0.068, 95% CI ¼ 0.135 to 0.403), z ¼ 3.94 (p < .001). From a meta-
analytic perspective, lesbian parents are more likely to hold nontraditional
gender attitudes with respect to children (large effect size) and there at least
one study that indicated that there was a small to medium effect size for lesbian
mothers to insist on less gender conformity to traditional gender norms. From
both the parent’s perspective and the child’s perspective, there is a evidence that
children of lesbian parents are more likely to adopt nontraditional gender roles,
though the effect size is small, possibly because of competing sources (teachers,
peers, media) of normative emphasis on more traditional gender roles.
The preponderance of evidence to date suggests that children of lesbian
mothers tend to adopt less traditional gender role expectations than do children
of heterosexual parents. Those who advocate gender role androgyny would likely
welcome such effects while those who support traditional gender roles probably
would not. It is difficult to assess the harmfulness of changes in gender role atti-
tudes without using them as mediating variables in a more complex model with
different more clearly accepted measures of such ‘‘harm.’’ Nonetheless, same-sex
parenting does seem to have a small but significant effect on children’s gender role
attitudes, stemming from a large effect of less traditional gender role preferences
of same-sex parents for their children and a moderate effect of lower parental
pressure on children to conform to traditional gender roles.

Gender identity
It is not uncommon for scholars to say that there is no evidence of any gender
identity confusion among the children of nonheterosexual parents. For example,
as discussed elsewhere (Schumm, 2013), in the amicus curiae brief of the
Schumm 53

Massachusetts Psychiatric Society, the American Psychoanalytic Association,

the National Association of Social Workers, and others in the case of
Goodridge et al. vs. Massachusetts (2003), it was argued that none of over
300 children studied had shown any evidence of gender confusion, wished to
be the other sex, or consistently engaged in cross-gender behavior (p. 35). Using
the same three studies (Kirkpatrick, Smith, & Roy, 1981; Rees, 1980; Schwartz,
1986), all reported in a relatively narrow and old timeframe between 1980 and
1986, meta-analyses by Crowl et al. (2008) and Fedewa et al. (2015) suggested no
significant effects of parental sexual orientation on children’s gender identity.
However, there have been indications of a few isolated individual cases of
apparent gender identity confusion appearing in research reports. Sarantakos
(1996a) studied children from heterosexual married, heterosexual cohabiting,
and gay and lesbian parents and said that the children’s teachers indicated that

Girls of gay fathers were reported to demonstrate more ‘‘boyish’’ attitudes and
behavior than girls of heterosexual parents. Most young boys of lesbian mothers
were reported to be more effeminate in their behavior and mannerisms than boys of
heterosexual parents.

While the former patterns might be tied to minor gender role differences,
Sarantakos (1996a) also noted that the children of gay and lesbian parents were
described by the teachers as ‘‘more confused about their gender’’ than were chil-
dren of heterosexual couples (p. 26). Later, Sarantakos (1998) noted that ‘‘cross-
sex identity and sexual pluralism and promiscuity can cause confusion to young
children and retard their social and emotional growth and development’’ (p. 33),
then citing his 1996a study for support of the idea of increased gender identity
confusion among children of some same-sex parents. His research may suggest
that gender role differences and gender identity confusion exist on one continuum,
even if they are conceptualized as quite different phenomena.
Chrisp (2001) interviewed eight New Zealander lesbian mothers with sons.
Two of the lesbian mothers interviewed reported mixed feelings about their son’s
athletic opportunities, glad for their sons on one hand but virtually ashamed
that their sons might be getting opportunities denied to young women of the
same age. She discussed one woman (p. 199) who, after her sonogram revealed
her child’s gender, said, ‘‘I was profoundly disappointed. I wept. I sobbed to my
friends . . . the thought of spending the rest of my life with a boy’’ (Wells, 1997,
p. 20). She discussed how lesbian mothers are conflicted in that they want their
son to be accepted by peers but don’t want them to become ‘‘macho’’ males, men
who grow up to oppress women. Chrisp continued noting that

However, the lesbian mother, especially if she is living with another woman, and
particularly if she has sons, is making a clear statement that there is no role within
the home for the father of the child/ren, if he exists. (p. 203)
54 Psychological Reports 0(0)

She disagreed with the idea that sons are disadvantaged if they do not have a
father.
Golombok et al. (2003, p. 30) reported that at least one son of a single lesbian
mother had a very atypically feminine score that had, apparently as an outlier,
reduced the overall score on the Pre-School Activities Inventory (PSAI) gender
role average for single lesbian mothers, a result that seems more like gender
identity confusion, if not reversal, than gender flexibility, as labeled by Biblarz
and Stacey (2010). Kuvalanka and Goldberg (2009) studied a subset of 18 LGBT
children from among 78 adult children from LGBT families, all of whom had
lesbian parents; of these, 4 were gender-queer (3) or gender ambiguous (1), quite
possibly an indication of gender identity confusion or ambiguity.
In Canada, using a variety of recruitment methods, VanderLaan, Gothreau,
Bartlett, and Vasey (2011) surveyed 88 heterosexual men, 111 heterosexual
women, 105 homosexual men, and 95 lesbians. They found that gay men
reported being ‘‘more gender atypical with respect to childhood behavior than
heterosexual men (p < .001, Cohen’s d ¼ 1.17)’’ (p. 1236) and that lesbian women
‘‘were significantly more gender atypical with respect to childhood behavior
than . . . heterosexual women (p < .001, Cohen’s d ¼ .91)’’ (p. 1236). Similar
results were found for childhood cross-sex identity scores with lesbian women
‘‘significantly more gender atypical with respect to childhood [gender] identity
than . . . heterosexual women (p < .001, Cohen’s d ¼ .74)’’ (p. 1236), while gay
men ‘‘were significantly more gender atypical with respect to childhood
[gender] identity than heterosexual men (p ¼ .042; Cohen’s d ¼ .38)’’ (p. 1236).
The magnitude of the effect sizes reported by Vanderlaan et al. should not be
overlooked, with most effect sizes being in or near the ‘‘large’’ range. These
results raise the possibility that through either their modeling of their own
gender identity variations to their own children or through being more tolerant
of their own children’s gender identity variations, same-sex parents might tend
to raise children with greater gender identity variation than might be found for
typical heterosexual parents.
Goldberg and Allen (2013c) interviewed 11 young adults, ages 19 to 29 years,
who had lesbian mothers and donor fathers, from a larger data set (N < 50). Of
these, one (9.1%) self-defined as gender-queer (p. 341). Kuvalanka (2013, p. 170)
reported preliminary results from her study of 30 LGBTQ children of LGBTQ
parents; of those 30 children, 8 (26.7%) identified their gender as something
other than male or female. If one were to assume, conservatively, that in a
comparable group of children of heterosexual parents that one child was
gender-variant, the result would be statistically significant (p < .05, two-sided
Fisher’s Exact Test, d ¼ 0.69, OR ¼ 10.5). Thus, in recent years, there have
been at least 12 or 13 cases in the literature where the children of LGBTQ
parents appear to have developed a sense of gender identity somewhat inde-
pendent of their actual physical gender. Such results may not constitute a trend,
but they would seem to refute any notion that gender identity disturbances have
Schumm 55

never occurred among the children of LGBTQ families, as some have argued as
discussed elsewhere (Schumm, 2013). A recent book (Green & Friedman, 2013)
illustrates the parenting practices of a growing number of LGBTQ parents who
deliberately avoid telling their children if they are boys or girls, leaving that to
their own decision as adults, a process called ‘‘children’s gender self-determina-
tion’’ (Ward, 2013, p. 43). As the editors state, they want child rearing to foster
‘‘a space where children are free to explore and experiment with their gender’’
(Green & Friedman, 2013, p. 4), even though this represents a ‘‘deeply radical
cultural shift’’ (p. 5). Differences in gender roles or identity among children of
nonheterosexual parents may thus reflect conscious training and role modeling
by their parents in some families.

Comorbidity of outcomes
Often child outcomes are studied in isolation, one at a time, rather than in
combination. Adult offspring of lesbian families may differ from adult children
of two-parent heterosexual families or heterosexual stepfamilies in terms of
combinations of outcomes. This has seldom, if ever, been explored in the litera-
ture. Using the NFSS data and the five categories of families discussed previ-
ously, seven adverse outcomes were recoded to a binary status (present, not
present), including being on public assistance, drinking to get drunk, using mari-
juana, having been arrested, having been convicted, having been jailed, and
having ever had a sexually transmitted infection. These were summed and
recoded into two levels of outcomes: two or fewer and three or more, out of
the seven. The percentages of adult offspring of the five types of families who
scored three or more were: intact biological families (10.6%), heterosexual step-
families (25.2%), unstable gay and lesbian families (38.7%), and more stable
lesbian families (33.3%). The difference between stepfamilies and more stable
lesbian families was not significant statistically though the OR was positive
(1.48). The differences between outcomes for intact two-parent heterosexual
families and heterosexual stepfamilies (OR ¼ 2.85, 95% CI, 1.97 to 4.13,
p < .001) and more stable lesbian families (OR ¼ 4.23, 95% CI, 1.76 to 10.16,
p < .001) were both significant. Compared to intact heterosexual families, mul-
tiple adverse outcomes were several more times likely among families with
reported nonheterosexual romantic relationships, even among the most stable,
though some differences were not significant statistically.

Conclusion to part 2
Thus, even though it is true that lesbian mothers usually rate their children
highly, there is some evidence of problems associated with same-sex parenting,
in terms of drug abuse and more risky sexual behavior, even crime, possibly
educational progress, among other concerns—vastly differing opinions range
56 Psychological Reports 0(0)

from Schlatter and Steinback’s (2013) view of problems as a myth, and Byrd’s
(2011) and Monte’s (2013) arguments that religious prohibitions against same-
sex parenting may be protective of children. To date, no one has assessed dif-
ferences in time preference or delayed gratification among children as a function
of their parents’ sexual orientations, but current findings regarding drug abuse
and risky sexual behavior may point to difficulties with delayed gratification or
time preference (or higher rates of impulsivity) among the children of same-sex
parents, possibly an unintended consequence of such parents having lower
expectations for self-control among their children. As Sarantakos (2000,
p. 132) observed and others have suggested more recently (Anderson, 2013;
Perrin, Cohen, & Caren, 2013; Perrin, Siegel, et al., 2013), it is possible that
factors other than parental sexual orientation per se (parental divorce, number
of transitions within the family of origin) might account for differences observed
in these harms. For example, same-sex parents might be more accepting of drug
use or use more drugs themselves and children might be modeling drug use or its
acceptance rather than sexual orientation per se. It is possible that hostility from
the LGBT community, as well as from the heterosexual community, might
account for some of these disparities. Thompson (2002) noted that ‘‘lesbian
mothers thus faced bias from heterosexuals as well as other lesbians and gay
men. Lesbian periodical literature is replete with accounts of lesbian animosity
toward lesbian mothers’’ (p. 47). Chrisp also observed that lesbian culture some-
times causes ‘‘lesbians with boy children to be an outcast minority’’ or a ‘‘living
contradiction’’ guilty of sin for ‘‘mothering a son’’ (p. 205). In such circum-
stances, it is possible a young boy might question the value of his gender because
of its apparent effect on his mother within her community. Nevertheless, it is one
thing to argue for ‘‘no differences’’ dogmatically and another to explain some
observed differences as part of a more complex model. The next area for review
will be the results of studies on same-sex parent adoption of children, where any
effects one way or the other are more likely to reflect purely social rather than
genetic effects.

Part 3: Outcomes for children adopted by same-sex

parents: Controversies and questions associated with
adoption by gay and lesbian parents
Dearth of research
Until recently, it was possible to claim that ‘‘there are no studies specifically of
adoptive [gay or lesbian] parents’’ (Redding, 2008, p. 142), while two years later,
Biblarz and Stacey (2010) cited only one such study (Kindle & Erich, 2005).
While Lavner, Waterman, and Peplau (2012) acknowledged that ‘‘questions
remain regarding whether [gay and lesbian parents] can promote the same posi-
tive outcomes in their children as heterosexual parents’’ (p. 465), Brooks, Kim,
Schumm 57

and Wind (2012) disagreed, stating that while there had been uncertainty in the
past about same-sex families adopting, now it was clear from research that ‘‘the
sexual orientation of parents is not associated with children’s outcomes’’ (p.
150). Moreover, they argued that ‘‘gay men and lesbians may bring special
strengths to the table as adoptive parents’’ (p. 150). Farr et al. (2010) acknowl-
edged that ‘‘less is known about lesbian and gay adoptive families than about
other families headed by lesbian and gay parents’’ and that there are ‘‘only a
small number of studies exploring family functioning and children’s adjustment
in adoptive families with lesbian, gay, and heterosexual couples’’ (p. 166) and
that ‘‘in sum, very little empirical research about adoptive lesbian and gay
families has been reported’’ (p. 166), but they concurred with the gist of
Brooks et al.’s (2012) conclusions, stating that ‘‘the findings of these studies
are consistent with those of previous research in that parental sexual orientation
has not been found to be significantly associated with child outcomes or family
functioning’’ (p. 166). However, Farr and Patterson (2013b) acknowledged that
‘‘there is continued controversy surrounding the adoption of children’’ (p. 39).

Important policy implications

Brooks et al. (2012, p. 173) have estimated that between 2% and 7% of all
adoptions in the United States are to gay or lesbian parents. While some
states permit full joint adoption by same-sex couples, others do not
(Berkovitz, 2013; Flaks, 1994; Tobin & McNair, 2009; Wald, 2006), which—be-
cause of legal issues—can create uncertainty and stress for sexual minority
families (Goldberg, Moyer, & Kinkler, 2013; Goldberg, Moyer, Kinkler, &
Richardson, 2012). In a small (N ¼ 22) qualitative study of current or prospect-
ive adoptive gay (n ¼ 7) and lesbian (n ¼ 15) parents living in Florida, Goldberg,
Moyer, Weber, and Shapiro (2013) were told by many of their participants that
they felt better after Florida’s ban on homosexual adoption (Ronner, 2010) was
lifted between 2008 and 2010. Clearly, there are substantial and continuing
policy implications associated with research on gay and lesbian adoption
(Zink, 2005).

Scientific questions
Aside from policy considerations, however, is the scientific issue that adoption
allows social scientists to separate child outcomes related to genetic linkages
from outcomes associated with one’s parents from environmental factors
within the family. While genetics may play a role in child outcomes for biological
parents, it is clear that when two same-sex parents adopt a child with whom
neither parent is genetically related, any parental influence upon the child will be
entirely social. Therefore, if child outcomes were found to be similar for same-
sex parents’ children regardless of whether the child was adopted or was
58 Psychological Reports 0(0)

biologically related to at least one parent, such a result would suggest that social
environmental factors were the key factors influencing the child rather than
parental DNA (Amato, 2010).

Goal and scope of part 3 of this review

Despite continuing controversy (Patterson, 2009a; Riggs, 2006; Ritenhouse,
2011; Rye & Meaney, 2010; Ryan & Cash, 2004) within the past decade, an
increasing amount of research has been devoted to comparing outcomes for
adopted children as a function of their parents’ sexual orientations. It has
been observed that same-sex couples are up to four times as likely to be raising
adopted children compared to heterosexual couples (Farr et al., 2016). Here my
goal is to review, analyze, and discuss several of the more important research
articles that have been published in the past 10 years on gay and lesbian adop-
tion. Because many other scholars have focused on outcomes for the children of
same-sex parents in general (Bos, 2013; Lamb, 2012; Marks, 2012; Millbank,
2003; Patterson, 2005; Patterson & Redding, 1996; Tasker, 2013; Tasker &
Patterson, 2007), the review here will be limited to families for whom all or at
least some of the children of the same-sex parents were adopted. There is yet not
enough consistency among the outcomes studied to permit a formal, rigorous
meta-analysis, so this review will be more narrative in nature. However, not only
are arguments made of ‘‘no difference’’ with respect to parental sexual orienta-
tion and adoption, but Farr and Patterson (2013b) have made a case that lesbian
and gay adoptive parents may make better adoptive parents than many hetero-
sexuals, ultimately concluding that family process matters more to child out-
comes than family structure. Yet, at the same time, Farr and Patterson (2013b)
said that ‘‘further study will be needed before firm conclusions can be drawn
about associations between parental sexual orientation and family functioning
among adoptive couples’’ (p. 49).

Review of research findings

Earliest studies, 2008 or earlier. When Ryan (2007) reviewed the literature on adop-
tion and same-sex parenting, he assessed the research of Leung, Erich, and
Kanenberg (2005) as follows:

A recent study by Leung et al. (2005) compares family functioning in gay/lesbian

and heterosexual adoptive families. The study found no negative effects for children
adopted by gay or lesbian parents. In fact, families headed by gay or lesbian par-
ents with older children . . . experienced higher levels of family functioning. (p. 112)

This is a comment reiterated by Averett, Nalavany, and Ryan (2009, p. 134).

In an early study, Erich, Leung, Kindle, and Carter (2005) investigated family
Schumm 59

conditions for parents and children from 47 gay and lesbian parents who had 68
adopted children.
In a different report, one that Farr and Patterson (2013b) cited as evidence
of ‘‘no significant differences in overall family functioning among adoptive
families’’ (p. 49) as a function of parental sexual orientation, Erich, Leung,
and Kindle (2005) compared those same 47 gay/lesbian parents with 25 het-
erosexual parents on their ratings of family functioning, with the result that
functioning was lower for the gay/lesbian parents (d ¼ 0.14), even though the
gay/lesbian parents reported higher social support, a much higher percentage
of male parents (49% vs. 4%), and much higher levels of education (70% vs.
48% with graduate education), as well as a slight tendency toward majority
racial status (92% vs. 88%). Effect sizes of other factors were larger—adoption
by foster parents (0.55), childhood diagnosis (physical handicap, learning dis-
ability, psychological disorder) (0.70), prior disrupted adoption (0.65), and
history of prior abuse or neglect against the child (0.24). While they indicated
that adoptive parental sexual orientation was not significant in a regression
model predicting family functioning scores, beta was 0.17, equivalent to an
effect size of d ¼ 0.36 (p < .07), with gay/lesbian parents reporting lower family
functioning. Some factors in the same regression model had apparently weaker
effects than parental sexual orientation for predicting better levels of family
functioning (higher social support, having adopted a White child) while others
had stronger effect sizes (private or international adoption; adopted by foster
parents, lower child’s grade in school, higher number of placements prior to
adoption, not having a childhood diagnosis). In their regression model, they,
remarkably, did not control for many of the pre-existing differences in parental
conditions.
In a subsequent analysis of the same data from 25 heterosexual families and
47 gay/lesbian families with an additional 86 special needs families, Leung et al.
(2005) found a significant interaction effect between age at adoption of the child
and parental sexual orientation, where family functioning was better if the gay/
lesbian parent had adopted a younger child. However, interaction effects cannot
be validly tested in regression models unless the main effects are also incorpo-
rated into the model, which was not the case. Again, the pre-existing advantages
of the gay/lesbian parents were not controlled statistically, leaving the meaning
of the findings in doubt.
Ryan (2007) reported results for 94 gay and lesbian parents of the 183
surveyed earlier (Ryan & Cash, 2004) about their children and found that
their scores were somewhat more positive and statistically significant on several
outcome measures than had occurred in previous studies (not part of this
study) with heterosexual parents. As noted previously, substantial differences
in socioeconomic status (SES) across the studies might have accounted for the
reported differences, not to mention any possible effects of social desirability
response bias related to the parents reporting on their own parenting qualities.
60 Psychological Reports 0(0)

Sutfin et al. (2008) compared average parental attitudes about gender across
29 lesbian parents (with 9 sons, 20 daughters) and 28 heterosexual parents (with
13 sons, 15 daughters). Over half (55%) of the children of the lesbian mothers
had been adopted compared to 17% of the children of the heterosexual parents,
reflecting an imbalance in the percentages of adoptions across the two groups of
parents. The boys (d ¼ 0.66) and girls (d ¼ 0.59) of the heterosexual parents had
more traditional attitudes about gender transgressions than did the children of
the lesbian mothers. With respect to the parents, the heterosexual parents of
boys (d ¼ 1.04) and girls (d ¼ 0.65) had more traditional attitudes about gender
roles than did the lesbian mothers. In their study, raters evaluated the gendered
nature of each child’s bedroom décor, resulting in more traditional gender décor
for both boys (d ¼ 0.22) and girls (d ¼ 0.80) in traditional families. Another way
of evaluating their results would be that lesbian parents had less role-differen-
tiated gender attitudes between sons and daughters (d ¼ 0.16) than did hetero-
sexual parents (d ¼ 0.49) with that also reflected in children’s attitudes (d ¼ 0.56)
for children (comparing gender role scores of sons and daughters) of lesbian
parents vs. for children of heterosexual parents (d ¼ 0.72).
Fulcher et al. (2008) studied 33 lesbian mother families vs. 33 heterosexual
families; of the children in these families, 52% had been adopted into the lesbian
families compared to 15% for the heterosexual families. The lesbian families had
10 boys and 23 girls while the heterosexual families had 15 boys and 18 girls.
With one exception (stereotype knowledge about own gender, ES ¼ 0.15 where
the daughters of lesbians scored with higher knowledge than the daughters of
heterosexual mothers), the sons and daughters of heterosexual parents scored in
more traditional gender role directions with respect to gender transgressions
concerning a male actor (d ¼ 0.47, sons; d ¼ 0.61, p < .05, daughters), gender
transgressions concerning a female actor (d ¼ 0.07, 0.49), stereotype knowledge
regarding one’s own gender (sons, d ¼ 0.24), and stereotype knowledge regarding
the other gender (d ¼ 0.40, sons; d ¼ 0.23, daughters). In terms of preference for
more traditional child activities, sons of lesbians scored in a more traditional
direction than did sons of heterosexual parents (d ¼ 0.08) while daughters were
the opposite (d ¼ 0.29). As noted earlier, Fulcher et al. (2008) ideally should have
tested for the mediating effect of parental sex-role attitudes, between parental
sexual orientation and children’s sex-role attitudes.

Later studies, 2009 to 2011. In their most recent report, Erich, Kanenberg, Case,
Allen, and Bogdanos (2009) collected data from 27 gay/lesbian parents and 127
heterosexual parents as well as 210 adolescent children who had been adopted.
The lesbian/gay parents had advantages in terms of education (48% with a
graduate degree vs. 33% for heterosexual parents), income (57% over $70,000
vs. 34% for heterosexuals), age (59% under the age of 50 compared to 47% for
heterosexuals), and having younger adopted adolescents (68% under age 14 vs.
42% for heterosexuals). However, heterosexuals were less likely to be single (3%
Schumm 61

vs. 44%) and more likely to have been together for more than 20 years (43% vs.
30%). Heterosexual parents also scored higher on a measure of social desirabil-
ity (d ¼ 0.31) and on total couple satisfaction (d ¼ 0.33). Adolescents from gay/
lesbian families scored slightly higher on social desirability (d ¼ 0.16). Gay/les-
bian families reported higher scores on parent satisfaction with the relationship
(d ¼ 0.19), parent life satisfaction (d ¼ 0.05), adolescent attachment to the parent
(d ¼ 0.07), and adolescent life satisfaction (d ¼ 0.49) but lower attachment to
peers (d ¼ 0.30). Interpretation of their results is made difficult due to missing
data on some outcome variables, with as much as 59% missing data for some
outcomes, as well as a lack of a multivariate analysis of variables, including
parental sexual orientation, that might have been used to predict the outcome
measures. The authors note that

Post hoc power analyses were conducted on each of these t-tests. The range of
scores was from .06 to .43 indicating relatively low levels of power for each of these
t-test analyses. Low levels of power could indicate that the findings of ‘‘no evidence
of group differences’’ may be a function of small sample sizes and high standard
deviations rather than there being no actual significant differences between these
groups. (p. 401)

Averett et al. (2009) surveyed adoptive couples with children between the ages of
1 and 5 years and between 6 and 18 years. In the former sample, there were 86
children of lesbian and gay (LG) parents and 294 children of heterosexual par-
ents. In the latter sample, the respective counts were 69 and 935. In the younger
sample, the children of gay and lesbian parents scored lower on both internaliz-
ing (d ¼ 0.19) and externalizing (d ¼ 0.28) problems while the parents scored
higher on adoption preparation (d ¼ 0.46) and family functioning was lower
for the LG parents (d ¼ 0.14). In the older sample, the children of LG parents
scored lower on externalizing problems (d ¼ 0.25) and similarly on internalizing
problems (d ¼ 0.02) while the GL parents scored higher on adoption preparation
(d ¼ 0.17) and lower on family functioning (d ¼ 0.27).
Tan and Baggerly (2009) gathered data from 600 families with 733 adopted
children from China, one parent from each family completing a mailed survey.
Among the 600 families, 24 lesbian couples who had adopted one (n ¼ 17) or two
(n ¼ 7) children together were identified. All of the adopted children were girls.
Single-parent and two-parent families were matched on number of children,
child’s age at adoption, and age at assessment in months with the 31 children
from the 24 lesbian families. All parents were White. Their procedure yielded
three groups of 24 families with 31 children each. The average at adoption was
about 10 to 11 months while the average age at assessment was about 65–66
months. Despite the matching, the groups differed substantially in terms of
education and income. While 46% of the married couples and 38% of the les-
bian couples earned more than $130,000 a year, only 8% of the single mothers
62 Psychological Reports 0(0)

did so. In terms of education of the parent responding, the groups also differed
significantly with an effect size of 0.93 between the two groups of couples. While
one-third of the married heterosexual parents had a graduate degree, over 58%
of the single mothers and 75% of the lesbian mothers had a graduate degree.
For the preschool children, there were 18 children of single mothers and 17
children each for the lesbian and married heterosexual families. Twelve tests
were conducted comparing psychological outcomes for the preschool children
but only three significant differences were identified. However, examination of
effect sizes indicated that the children of lesbian mothers scored higher on inter-
nalizing problems than the children of heterosexual married mothers (d ¼ 0.37),
especially for the subscales of emotionally reactive (d ¼ 0.47) and withdrawn
(d ¼ 0.80). Similar results were obtained for externalizing problems (d ¼ 0.33)
and the subscale of aggressive behaviors (d ¼ 0.80). For both types of problems
together, the effect size was 0.55, with a higher rate of problems for the children
of the lesbian mothers. Yet because of the small sample sizes, the only difference
found to be significant was for the withdrawn subscale; in other words, unless
the effect size was large (.80 or greater), there was not enough statistical power in
the samples to detect differences. Notably, for most issues, the single mothers’
children were reported (by the mothers) to have the fewest problems.
For the older children, there were 13 children of single mothers and 14 chil-
dren each for the other two groups. Here, also the single mothers reported the
fewest problems. Comparing the lesbian and married heterosexual families, les-
bian mothers reported more internalizing problems (d ¼ 0.44), more externaliz-
ing problems (d ¼ 0.66), more social problems (d ¼ 0.37), more thought problems
(d ¼ 0.72), more attention problems (d ¼ 0.39), and more total combined inter-
nalizing and externalizing problems (d ¼ 0.49). Yet, because of low statistical
power, the only difference identified as significant statistically was for thought
problems, for which there was a nearly large (0.72) effect size. The authors
concluded, despite the evidence, that ‘‘lesbian couple adoption is not detrimental
to adopted Chinese girls’’ (p. 182). One limitation not mentioned by the authors
is that selection effects could have played a role (e.g., perhaps adoption agencies
had stricter standards for single mothers than for couples or gave more difficult
children to lesbian mothers).
Although the single mothers earned less household income, because they were
supporting two or three persons with it, their per capita income may have been
equal to that of the coupled families, who were supporting three to four persons.
Despite the major limitations of the study (no male children, very low statistical
power) and the possibility of social desirability response bias (as the authors
acknowledged, p. 183), they concluded that adoptions by lesbian couples and
single mothers should be increased as a matter of social justice. Ironically, the
authors note that social justice should be obtained for those who lack power in
society because of race, age, and SES—yet, most of the lesbian mothers in this
study had much higher educational levels (75% graduate degrees), were White,
Schumm 63

had very high income (71% earning more than $90,000 a year), and were of
mature age (47 years on average), as well as being employed full-time (58%).
Farr et al. (2010) studied 27 lesbian mother, 29 gay father, and 50 heterosex-
ual couple parent families who had adopted children who were six years of age
or younger at the time of their study. Consistently, the same-sex family children
were rated by their own parents and their teachers as having fewer problems
than the heterosexual family children with effect sizes from .08 to .25. In terms of
gender role behavior, daughters of lesbian mothers were rated a bit more mas-
culine compared to daughters of gay fathers (d ¼ 0.18) or heterosexual parents
(d ¼ 0.13) while sons of gay fathers were rated more masculine than boys from
lesbian (d ¼ 0.29) or heterosexual (d ¼ 0.33) families. Effect size differences for
gender role behavior as a function of child gender varied slightly across type of
family—2.09 for heterosexual parents, 2.00 for gay parents, and 1.90 for lesbian
parents. Teacher ratings of child internalizing problems were lower for lesbian
families than for heterosexual families (d ¼ 0.20) or for gay fathers (d ¼ 0.28).
Teacher ratings of child externalizing problems were lower for lesbian families
than for heterosexual families (d ¼ 0.15) or for gay fathers (d ¼ 0.08). Parent
ratings of child internalizing problems were lower for lesbian families than for
heterosexual families (d ¼ 0.19) or for gay fathers (d ¼ 0.09). Parent ratings of
child externalizing problems were lower for lesbian families than for heterosex-
ual families (d ¼ 0.28) or for gay fathers (d ¼ 0.21). In November 2014, Farr
reported on a follow-up study of the same adoptive parents and indicated that
there were no significant differences at the second study among the three groups
of children. However, her data appeared to show a trend in opposite directions,
as the children of same-sex parents appeared to have less favorable scores at the
second time while the children of heterosexual parents appeared to have more
favorable scores; Farr did not discuss the statistical effect size or statistical sig-
nificance of that trend.
Goldberg, Bos, et al. (2011) gathered data from 30 gay male, 45 lesbian, and
51 heterosexual couples and measured their perceived adoption stigma, inter-
nalized adoption stigma, and depression. Comparing lesbians vs. heterosexual
mothers, the heterosexual mothers scored higher on perceived (d ¼ 2.17) and
internalized stigma (d ¼ 2.04) but lower on depression (d ¼ 0.93). With respect
to fathers, similar patterns were obtained with d ¼ 1.24, 0.62, and 1.22, respect-
ively. Thus, gay and lesbian adoptive parents scored higher on depression, about
which the authors noted ‘‘in addition, depression was selected as an indicator of
mental health in light of much research showing that depression has important
implications for parenting quality and child outcomes (England & Sim, 2009)’’
(p. 135). It was of note that heterosexual parents scored lower on depression but
scored higher on the two stigma factors.

Most recent studies, 2012 to 2015. Another study that involved some adoption by
lesbian co-mothers and did feature high parental education, involved gender role
64 Psychological Reports 0(0)

traits of 78 children (39 boys, 39 girls) of lesbian mothers was reported by Bos
et al. (2012). About half of the adolescents (age 17 years) in the study indicated
that they had male role models at that time. Those with and without male role
models were compared on masculine and feminine role traits and on several
aspects of psychological adjustment. The authors concluded that there were few
differences as a function of reported male role modeling. Although the measure-
ment of male role modeling was questionable because of the lack of depth (i.e.,
How long have you had a male role model? How intensive or important was that
modeling for you? Did you recently lose an important male role model?), the
outcome variables regarding psychological adjustment seemed valid. The meas-
ures of role traits seemed problematic as girls scored higher than boys on both
feminine (d ¼ 0.82) and masculine traits (d ¼ 0.13) while boys with male role
models scored lower on masculine traits. Also, boys (d ¼ 0.26) and girls
(d ¼ 0.39) scored higher on feminine traits if they had male role models.
Although none of the results were significant statistically, probably because of
the small sample size, the adolescents with male role models fared better in terms
of lower anxiety (ds ¼ 0.31, 0.32 for girls/boys, respectively), lower depression
(d ¼ 0.23, 0.25), greater curiosity (ds ¼ 0.74, 0.15), less internalizing problems
(ds ¼ 0.28, 0.46), and lower total problem behavior (ds ¼ 0.06, 0.24). Boys with
male role models had fewer externalizing problems (d ¼ 0.25) but higher anger
(d ¼ 0.22). Girls with male role models had less anger (d ¼ 0.35) but more exter-
nalizing problems (d ¼ 0.07). With a one-sample chi-squared test, the outcomes,
with 12/14 in favor of children with male role models, are not what would be
expected if the null hypothesis (equal outcomes in each direction) were true
(p < .01). While the results for role traits are ambiguous, the results for psycho-
logical adjustment clearly favored the children who reported having male role
models, contrary to the stated findings.
Using the same data set, Gartrell, Bos, Peyser, Deck, and Rodas (2011)
looked at outcomes for adolescents whose lesbian mothers had separated from
their co-mother. Four outcomes were reported—internalizing problems, exter-
nalizing problems, total problems, and psychological health problems. While
results were split as a function of whether or not the parents shared custody,
all four outcomes were worse (ds ¼ 0.20, 0.24, 0.22, and 0.16, respectively, none
significant) for adolescents whose parents had adopted as coparents. More
recently, van Rijn-van Gelderen, Bos, and Gartrell (2015) followed up a third
wave of their Dutch Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (DLLFS) and found
nonsignificant differences between the 16-year-old children of lesbian mothers
and a matched sample of children of heterosexual parents, although the children
from lesbian families reported a higher rate of externalizing problems (d ¼ 0.21).
Furthermore, externalizing problems significantly increased for the children in
lesbian families from T2 to T3 (d ¼ 0.53, p < .05) while internalizing problems
also increased (d ¼ 0.23) but not significantly, comparing scores from T3 and T2
(Bos, Gartrell, van Balen, et al., 2008).
Schumm 65

In another important adoption study, Lavner et al. (2012) studied outcomes

for adopted children from 82 families (60 heterosexual, 15 gay, and 7 lesbian),
some outcomes assessed at 2, 12, and 24 months after adoption. The authors
concluded that ‘‘children in both household types . . . maintained similar levels of
behavior problems over time’’ (p. 465). While gains in cognitive development
from 2 to 24 months were similar for both groups of children (ds ¼ 0.51, 0.59,
respectively, for heterosexual and LG families’ children), small increases
occurred for internalizing (d ¼ 0.07) and externalizing problems (d ¼ 0.06) for
children in LG families compared to stronger declines for children in heterosex-
ual families in terms of internalizing (d ¼  0.48) and externalizing (d ¼  0.42)
problems. Rather than maintaining similar levels over time of behavioral prob-
lems, children in LG families tended toward more of both types of behavioral
problems, while children adopted into heterosexual families were experiencing
moderate declines in both types of behavioral problems. Farr (2014) appears to
have found a similar longitudinal trend.
Goldberg, Moyer, et al. (2012), in a qualitative study, examined adoption
placements for 42 couples (17 lesbian, 13 gay, 12 heterosexual) a few months
after they had been placed with a child whom they wanted to adopt. This study
was unusual in that the heterosexual parents earned more income than the same-
sex parents, all of the adopted children were from the child welfare system, and
some of the children being adopted were teenagers (n ¼ 5). The lesbian (d ¼ 0.43)
and gay (d ¼ 0.58) parents also adopted children who had experienced more
prior placements than those of the heterosexual parents. The authors also men-
tioned an outcome seldom reported by other scholars—adoptions that eventu-
ally were disrupted, which included three families (two lesbian, one gay). This
issue may have been related to children’s preplacement characteristics.
Goldberg, Moyer, et al. (2012) summarized the literature on sexual orienta-
tion and parenting with respect to gender-typical behaviors by saying
‘‘. . . although the very limited empirical literature that examines the gender-
typed play behavior of children with lesbian, gay, and heterosexual parents
has documented no differences in children’s gender-typed play behavior by
family type (Farr et al., 2010), theory nevertheless suggests that differences
may exist’’ (p. 3) such that ‘‘boys and girls in same-gender parent families
should have less divergent scores on the PSAI (i.e., be less gender-stereotyped)
compared to boys and girls in heterosexual-parent families)’’ (pp. 3–4). As noted
before, they compared data from 44 lesbian couples, 34 gay couples, and 48
heterosexual couples who had an adoptive child placed with them two years
earlier, with the child between the age of two and four years. The outcome
measure was the PSAI (Pre-school Activities Inventory), based on parental
report about the child’s gender role play, with higher scores reflecting more
typically masculine play, whose standardization sample (p. 509) featured a
large effect size difference (d ¼ 2.41) between boys and girls, with boys scoring
higher on masculinity.
66 Psychological Reports 0(0)

Boys were rated as more masculine than girls by all parents, on average
(d ¼ 2.14, p < .001). For families of boys, PSAI scores were more masculine
for boys in heterosexual families compared to boys in both gay (d ¼ 0.34) and
lesbian families (d ¼ 0.68). For families of girls, PSAI scores were more feminine
for girls in heterosexual families compared to girls in both gay (d ¼ 0.23) and
lesbian families (d ¼ 0.72). More remarkably, comparing PSAI scores for boys
and girls across the three types of families, the effect size (Cohen’s d) for gender
difference was 1.22 for lesbian families, 1.99 for gay families, and 2.94 for het-
erosexual families (2.88 for heterosexual fathers, 2.92 for heterosexual mothers),
an interaction effect essentially (p ¼ .003), although the authors also ran a
planned contrast (p ¼ .009). The authors controlled for child’s age and parental
income and found essentially the same results.
Because the authors provided the ranges of scores as well as means and
standard deviations, we can look at the situation in terms of extreme cases. In
terms of children of heterosexual parents, the most extreme ‘‘tomboy’’ of their
daughters had a score of 58, about six points lower than the average score for the
sons (64), just above the one standard deviation score (7) to the feminine side of
the boy’s average score. Approximately, that means that even the most mascu-
line of the daughters of heterosexual parents was less masculine than about 80%
of the sons of heterosexual parents. The most feminine of the sons of hetero-
sexual parents scored about 50, which was about one standard deviation (8) on
the masculine side of the daughters’ average score (41), meaning that the most
feminine of the sons of heterosexual parents was still more masculine than about
80% of the daughters of heterosexual parents.
For children of lesbian mothers, sons scored an average of five points less
masculine (59) while daughters scored about seven points more masculine (48)
compared to the children of heterosexual parents. Furthermore, the most extreme
tomboy scored five points more masculine than the average of the lesbians’ sons
while the most feminine son scored about nine points below the average for the
lesbians’ daughters. The extreme children instead of scoring in the 20th percentile
among heterosexuals are now scoring closer to the 80th percentile. Another point
is that the standard deviations for the children of lesbian and gay parents were
larger for both sons and daughters than were the standard deviations for the
children of heterosexual parents. To summarize, among the children of hetero-
sexuals, the most extreme tomboy girl nonetheless scored in a more feminine
direction than most heterosexual sons. The most feminine of the sons of hetero-
sexual parents still scored nonetheless scored in a more masculine direction than
most daughters of heterosexual parents. In contrast, there was far more overlap in
scores among sons and daughters of lesbian (and gay) parents. The overall dif-
ference in patterns was quite remarkable and seemingly more than mere gender
role ‘‘flexibility.’’ Nevertheless, the authors concluded that ‘‘. . . lesbian and gay
parents’ own gender-nonconforming identities may facilitate their creation of an
environment that supports and reinforces less gender-typed behavior’’ (p. 9).
Schumm 67

Farr and Patterson (2013a) reported results for 25 lesbian, 29 gay, and 50
heterosexual adoptive couples; although the focus of the study was on parent
and teacher-rated externalizing behavior problems, scores on the problems were
not reported for either parents or teachers for any of the three types of families.
In terms of predicting problems, couples who were less supportive of each other,
more competitive, and less satisfied with their division of labor reported more
problems with their children, although the overall R2 was only 13%.
Goldberg, Moyer, and Kinkler (2013) reported a small (N ¼ 45 couples)
qualitative study on parental bonding over two years for parents of adoptive
children. The researchers did not report any tests of statistical significance, but it
appears from their narrative that attachment differences between parents as a
function of sexual orientation were minimal. However, mental health difficulties
of three mothers were described, by the mothers, as having created challenges
for raising an adopted child. Two heterosexual mothers were dealing with
depression while a lesbian mother was dealing with past physical abuse in her
family of origin.
Goldberg and Smith (2013) compared outcomes two years after adoption for
40 lesbian couples, 35 gay male couples, and 45 heterosexual couples in terms of
parental reports of externalizing and internalizing behaviors of their child. The
children placed with the lesbian (d ¼ 0.28) and gay (d ¼ 0.80) couples were
younger than those placed with heterosexual couples, although the current age
of the children was about two or three years regardless of their family’s struc-
ture. The children placed with gay couples were less likely to have been involved
in a prior placement (12%) than were children placed with lesbian (42%) or
heterosexual (42%) couples (p < .001). Comparing the heterosexual and lesbian
parents’ rating of their child, the former rated their children lower on both
externalizing (d ¼ 0.06) and internalizing (d ¼ 0.16) problems. Comparing the
heterosexual and gay parents’ ratings, the former rated their children lower on
externalizing problems (d ¼ 0.01) but higher on internalizing problems (d ¼ 0.25)
even though the gay parents were rated higher on depression (d ¼ 0.23). In terms
of background factors, the lesbian and heterosexual families were the closest, but
the lesbian mothers rated their children as having substantially more problems,
even though the lesbian mothers had less relationship conflict with each other
than did the heterosexual couples (d ¼ 0.12); with advantages in terms of edu-
cation, income, fewer prior placements of their child, and less relationship con-
flict (d ¼ 0.05), gay fathers rated their children as having fewer internalizing
problems than did the heterosexual parents for their children.
Golombok et al. (2014) reported comparisons of adoptive parents in a study
of 41 gay father families, 40 lesbian mother families, and 49 heterosexual parent
families from Britain. In contrast to previous studies, gay father families gener-
ally did as well or better than both lesbian and heterosexual families. One major
limitation of the study was that results (means, standard deviations, effect sizes)
for sex-typed behavior were not presented, though they were reported as not
68 Psychological Reports 0(0)

significant. The results may have reflected ‘‘an especially stringent’’ process ‘‘for
gay couples who wish to adopt’’ (p. 464) or that gay couples may have received
placements of children with fewer psychological problems. The authors con-
cluded that ‘‘the absence of a female parent does not necessarily have adverse
consequences for child adjustment’’ and that ‘‘family processes are more influ-
ential in child adjustment than is family structure’’ (p. 465). The authors also
concluded that their null findings with respect to sex-typed behavior were ‘‘con-
sistent with previous research on young children with same-sex parents’’ (p. 465).
Overlooked in many such discussions is the possibility that a structural variable
(e.g., number of caregiver transitions) may significantly predict a mediating or
intervening variable (e.g., satisfaction with childhood family life) while the med-
iating variable significantly predicts a child outcome, such as adult depression.
Using a subset of data from the NFSS with those variables, a Sobel test (Warner,
2013) was found to be significant (z ¼ 3.02, p < .005), indicating that while the
direct effect of structure (transitions) was not significant, the indirect effect was
significant. It is one thing to say a direct effect was not significant but another
entirely to say that structure did not matter, even though structure may have
significantly predicted an intervening process variable and indirectly but signifi-
cantly predicted a second process-type outcome. Bos et al. (2016) reported that
lesbian parents had higher stress levels than heterosexual parents and that higher
parental stress levels predicted more emotional difficulties for children, but they
did not report a statistical test for the indirect, effect of parent type on children’s
emotional difficulties, operating through parental stress as a mediating variable.
Sullins (2015c) using random, national U.S. data, compared the children of
same-sex and opposite-sex parents where neither parent had a biological tie to
the child, as is common for adoptive parents and their children. He found that
(presumably) adopted children from same-sex families had a higher rate of emo-
tional problems (22.0%) than those from heterosexual families (11.2%), but the
wide 95% confidence interval for the same-sex families (8.0–47.6%) overlapped
the smaller confidence interval for the heterosexual families (10.2–12.1%), yield-
ing nonsignificant results.

Discussion
Methodological concerns
Although the quality of research has been improving in recent years, there
remain serious methodological limitations of research on parental sexual orien-
tation and adoption.

Samples. First, most of the studies involved relatively small, nonrandom sam-
ples. This limitation by itself often meant that small to medium effects had little
chance of being identified as statistically significant. For example, Tasker and
Schumm 69

Golombok (1997) admitted that their small study had a 52% chance of detecting
an effect size as large as 0.50, an 81% chance of detecting an effect size as large as
0.75 (p. 47). Even so, the nonrandom nature of most of the samples means that
the results of most of the studies cannot be generalized to a larger population
from which the studies drew their participants, even given the restricted nature
of those populations (e.g., very high socioeconomic status, only one or two
adopted children). Some of the studies (e.g., Ryan, 2007) did not involve
direct comparison groups of heterosexual adoptive families (not counting
those from other studies), which limited their usefulness.

Family socioeconomic status. Second, most of the studies involve families with
extremely high income and education, especially for gay fathers, often combined
with small numbers of children being adopted or in the home, as detailed in
Appendix B. Regardless of sexual orientation, high socioeconomic families can
afford to purchase high-quality child care, which could easily obscure any defi-
ciencies in their own parenting skills. Most of the studies involve adoptions of
one or two children, most often younger children (under the age of six). Between
high incomes and few dependents, not only were incomes very high for most
participant families but per capita income levels were extremely high.
Consequently, the results of most available studies can tell us little about
sexual orientation and adoption for low to moderate socioeconomic status
families or for families who have adopted several children. In addition, few of
the studies involved adoptions of older (e.g., teenage) children, limiting our
insight into how sexual orientation might interact with age. Only one study
(Leung et al., 2005) considered that interaction and did not assess it properly
from a statistical perspective but reported a finding that same-sex parents had
better family functioning score with older adopted children compared to hetero-
sexual parents; however, heterosexual parents had better family functioning
scores with younger adopted children compared to same-sex parents.

Omitted factors. Third, the studies were remarkable for important things they did
not assess. Perhaps, most important has been the omission of any assessment of
delayed gratification, impulsivity, emotional regulation, self-control, willpower,
or time preference, which have been demonstrated to be important developmen-
tal outcomes in childhood that predict adult outcomes (Baumeister & Tierney,
2011; Mischel, Shoda, & Peake, 1988; Moffitt et al., 2011). If and when more
studies assess outcomes for adopted adolescents, other outcomes such as drug
use and sexual activity should be considered. Another important omission is
social desirability, which could influence parental reports about their children,
especially given the legal pressures involved with adoption (Tan & Baggerly,
2009), but one that is seldom measured, much less used as a statistical or
design control factor. It is not clear that same-sex parents would evidence
greater social desirability response bias; heterosexual parents might do so.
70 Psychological Reports 0(0)

One way to control for social desirability would be to obtain measures of child
outcomes from disinterested observers, persons who were not related to the child
nor in the employ of the child’s parents.
Even though it is often believed that having been abused by one’s own parents
is a risk factor for one’s own sexual orientation (Roberts, Glymour, & Koenen,
2013; Wilsnack, Kristjanson, Hughes, & Benson, 2012; Schumm, 2013) or par-
enting skills (Hall, 2011; McCloskey & Bailey, 2000; Trickett, Noll, & Putnam,
2011), and some adoptive parents reported difficulties because of prior abuse or
other mental health issues (Goldberg, Moyer, & Kinkler, 2013), none of the
studies reported assessing or controlling for emotional, physical, or sexual
abuse in the adoptive parents’ backgrounds, although Erich, Leung, and
Kindle (2005) controlled for abuse in the child’s prior history.
Another measurement concern is how well sexual orientation was measured,
something easier said than done. This author once scanned a data set which
appeared to include 12 lesbian (same-sex) foster parents or adoptive couples, but
closer examination revealed that 4 (33%) of the same-sex couples were mother–
daughter dyads who were jointly fostering a child. Regnerus (2012a, 2012b,
2012c) received extensive criticism for the way in which he measured sexual
orientation (Anderson, 2013; Perrin, Cohen, & Caren, 2013; Perrin, Siegel,
et al., 2013; Reiss, 2014); most of the studies reviewed here were not exposed
to the same level of scrutiny but might have some of the same limitations with
respect to measuring parental sexual orientation.
Few of the studies reported how many children were at clinical levels of psy-
chological maladjustment; only Goldberg and Smith (2013) found that between
7% and 11% of children in some of their three family types were assessed by their
parents in a clinically distressed range of externalizing or internalizing. Most of
the studies did not consider placement failures; only Goldberg, Moyer, et al.
(2012) appeared to consider this issue, finding that 10% (3/30) of the adoptions
by gay/lesbian couples became placement failures (possibly related to more diffi-
cult adoptions) compared to none (0/12) of the heterosexual parent adoptions in
their study, a nonsignificant difference. Of course, adoptions can fail, regardless of
parental sexual orientation, often because children are brought into their new
families with serious distress from previous family experiences.
Another measurement concern is that adoption itself could vary by type, a
fact seldom discussed. Two same-sex parents might adopt a child together at the
same time or the coparent might adopt the biological child of the other parent;
one article (Gartrell, Bos, et al., 2011) that considered the latter issue found
adverse outcomes for children after the parents involved in a coparent adoption
had separated.

Longitudinal patterns. Few of the studies assessed change over time in child out-
comes across different types of families. In one of the few truly longitudinal
studies, Lavner et al. (2012) reported that outcomes were similar after two
Schumm 71

years for children of same-sex and heterosexual parents, a fact that obscured the
longitudinal reality that problems had increased slightly for children of same-sex
parents but had declined moderately for children of heterosexual parents over the
two-year period. In other words, their study revealed that a one-time status report
on outcomes for children might not provide as much information about changes
in children’s development as a report that took account of changes over time
between outcome assessments. Farr (2014) appeared to have found a similar
pattern. More long-term longitudinal studies are needed if we are to better under-
stand how child outcomes change over time across different types of families.

Are there truly no differences?

As noted at the start of this review, some scholars have maintained that there is no
research whatsoever that has ever found any significant or substantive differences
in child outcomes as a function of parental sexual orientation, for adoptive par-
ents or any other parents. First, a finding of ‘‘no difference’’ may simply mean that
an outcome has never been assessed or measured (e.g., delayed gratification, as
noted above). Not measuring a specific outcome and then claiming that there is no
evidence of such a difference may be true in one sense but cannot truly justify a
claim that there are no differences at all for such an outcome.
From a scientific perspective, we can study averages or we can study extremes.
The ‘‘no difference hypothesis’’ could therefore mean that averages are not dif-
ferent or that there are no extremes at all (or at least no differences in extremes).
Perhaps, one group has more extreme cases (or a larger variance or standard
deviation) in terms of child outcomes even if the averages are the same. Larger
variances can signal greater risk (Schumm, Bosch, & Doolittle, 2009), even when
average scores are the same. Perhaps, the averages are different but in terms of
clinical levels of distress there are no differences. Finding a ‘‘no difference’’
outcome for one aspect may not guarantee that there would be no difference
on the other aspect. One could easily state ‘‘no difference,’’ and yet, it might
mean more than one thing.

What about family functioning or children’s psychological adjustment?

Family functioning. If one looks on the surface, findings are mixed with respect to
family functioning or children’s internalizing and externalizing behaviors. With
respect to family functioning, there are few studies, but Erich, Leung, and Kindle
(2005) found lower family functioning (d ¼ 0.14) for SSA parents in spite of those
parents having advantages in terms of social support and education. After some,
but not all, of the relevant variables were controlled, even lower levels of family
functioning were found (d ¼ 0.36, p < .07) for the gay and lesbian adoptive
families. Even though that discrepancy represented a small to medium effect, its
nonsignificance (p < .07) permitted Ryan (2007) and Averett et al. (2009) to argue
72 Psychological Reports 0(0)

for the no difference hypothesis. Nevertheless, there were several other factors
that were more influential for predicting family functioning than parental sexual
orientation. Averett et al. (2009) also examined family functioning and found
lower levels for same-sex families of younger (d ¼ 0.14) and older (d ¼ 0.27) chil-
dren. Thus, with respect to family functioning, it appears that SSA families are
experiencing lower functioning, but the effect sizes are small to medium at most,
usually not significant given the small sample sizes involved. There is some evi-
dence that same-sex families may do better with younger children than older
children with respect to family functioning. My speculation is that a child being
raised by a grandmother and a mother (two women) might not differ from one
being raised by two lesbians while the child was too young to understand the
difference, but as the child grew older, the difference might matter more, if only to
the child’s peers or to the child’s extended family.

Children’s psychological adjustment. Most assessments have focused on parental

reports of children’s internalizing and externalizing behaviors, reports that
could be biased by social desirability. There has been no research to date on
delayed gratification among children of SSA parents. Recognizing those limita-
tions, there have been several studies on the externalizing and internalizing
behaviors of young children of SSA parents. However, results are clearly
mixed, with some research favoring children of same-sex parents and other
research favoring the children of heterosexual parents. It is interesting in that
when research favors the children of heterosexual parents, the effect sizes are
larger (between 0.30 and 0.70), but when it favors children of same-sex parents,
the effect sizes are smaller ( < 0.30). One study found that children of lesbian
mothers did better psychologically (small effect sizes) if they had close male role
models. However, most of the studies have concerned young children; a number
of problematic issues (e.g., smoking, alcohol abuse, use of illegal drugs, prema-
ture sexual activity, sexual victimization) may not become relevant until an
adopted child reaches adolescence. For example, Schumm (2012b) reviewed a
number of studies that had found that children of gay or lesbian parents had
engaged in higher rates of illegal drug use compared to the children of hetero-
sexuals, an outcome that would probably not be detected as a significant differ-
ence among very young children but has been found among adolescent children
of same-sex parents (Goldberg, Bos, & Gartrell, 2011).

Gender role behaviors and attitudes. Across several studies, it appears that both sons
and daughters from heterosexual adoptive families have more traditional gender
role attitudes and behaviors, with an average effect size between 0.35 and 0.40, a
small to medium effect. On one hand, such an effect might reflect an admirable
gender role flexibility among children of same-sex parents. On the other hand, it
might be a precursor to gender nonconformity, which has been associated with
children becoming nonheterosexual and with their experiencing greater
Schumm 73

psychological adjustment problems in later life, including tendencies toward

suicidality (Ploderl & Fartacek, 2009). In Goldberg et al. (2012) study, differ-
ences between parental gender role ratings for boys and girls varied very sub-
stantially across family types, from effect sizes of 1.22 to 2.80. It appears that
same-sex parents are more likely to have less traditional gender role attitudes,
which appears to influence their children, even their home décor.

Conclusion of part 3
In part 3 of this report, outcomes for children adopted by same-sex parents are
considered. Studies conducted within the past 10 years that compared child out-
comes for children of same-sex and heterosexual adoptive parents were reviewed.
Numerous methodological limitations were identified that make it very difficult to
make an accurate assessment of the impact of parental sexual orientation across
adoptive families. Samples were often small and nonrandom. Some ‘‘same-sex’’
adoptive or foster parents may be mother–adult daughter heterosexual dyads.
Important variables were often overlooked, including social desirability response
bias. None of the studies assessed child outcomes in terms of delayed gratification,
self-control, impulsivity, emotional self-regulation, or time preference. Most par-
ticipating gay and lesbian families were from the socioeconomic elite of U.S.
society. Most studies involved the adoption of young children, under the age of
six years. Because of numerous methodological limitations, it might be best to
hesitate to draw much in the way of firm conclusions from the available research.
We still know very little about family functioning among same-sex families with
low or moderate incomes, those with several children, or those with older chil-
dren, including adolescents. Some important child outcomes (e.g., substance
abuse, sexual orientation, educational progress) may not become relevant or
apparent until an adopted child reaches adolescence. Within the limited available
studies, it appears that same-sex families may report slightly lower levels of family
functioning, especially with respect to older adopted children, but most studies
have found few differences in children’s internalizing or externalizing behaviors as
reported by parents. Two studies appear to have found opposing longitudinal
trends in which children in heterosexual adoptive families fared better over time
while children in SSA families fared worse. Small to moderate effect size differ-
ences were observed in terms of children’s gender role behaviors and attitudes,
probably reflecting less traditional gender role attitudes among same-sex parents
compared to heterosexual parents.

Re-evaluating the ‘‘no differences’’ hypotheses:

Summary
There remain several areas involving same-sex parental relationships that may
seem yet to feature a ‘‘no difference’’ scholarly consensus, but for which actual
74 Psychological Reports 0(0)

differences may indeed exist. It may take some time to sort out the extent of such
differences and to pinpoint pathways through which those differences occur, but
rigid dogmatic adherence to the theory of ‘‘no differences’’ or fear of disputing
‘‘no difference’’ hypotheses will not help us improve research and theory con-
struction in a timely manner. Essentially, recent research seems to confirm a
number of disparities between sexual minorities and heterosexuals as parents.
Furthermore, the disparities do not appear to be spurious or an artifact of
discrimination or stigmatization inasmuch as controlling for such factors does
not explain away all of the disparities in most studies.
We might ask ‘‘What is the best way to summarize the literature on same-sex
parenting?’’ There are many possible approaches. One might be to focus on
certain outcome variables across all ages of children. Another might be to
focus on certain types of studies. A third might be to focus on outcomes for
children in terms of age. Here the focus will be on short-term vs. long-term
outcomes for children. Much of the literature can be summarized in favor of
the ‘‘no differences’’ hypothesis if one only considers one-time studies of either
young children or children who have spent very few years in a same-sex parental
household. At the same time, if one focuses on either longitudinal studies or
studies of adolescent or adult children from same-sex families, then there is
much more evidence not in favor of the ‘‘no differences’’ hypothesis.

Implications
Academic implications: Scholarly ‘‘consensus’’ is not always valid or correct. From the
literature, virtually anyone could have made a strong case for a scholarly consen-
sus on numerous ‘‘no difference’’ hypotheses between sexual minority parents and
heterosexual parents or between sexual minorities and heterosexuals in general.
However, the facts are often different from scholarly consensus, most notably
perhaps for the ITSO but also for other areas. While some of the disparities
observed may legitimately be attributed in part to discrimination against sexual
minorities, some of the disparities may yet be found to be related to differences in
over-benefited status, personal conduct, gender nonconformity, or impulsivity
(delayed gratification/time preference/delay discounting) rather than to sexual
minority status per se. In a general sense, this report serves as a caution against
drawing conclusions prematurely from an underdeveloped research literature,
regardless of the political pressures on scholars to bring closure to complex, con-
troversial questions that may have serious political or policy implications. It also
may serve as a caution against the dangers of the use of intimidation, especially ad
hominem attacks on individual scholars themselves, to try to obscure empirical
findings that may not be politically popular. The greater danger is, in fact, that
such intimidation may well ‘‘work’’ in the short run, discouraging thorough
debate and discussion about controversial issues from a wide range of viewpoints
(Redding, 2013a, 2013b), if not eliminating some minority viewpoints from the
Schumm 75

field of science altogether. Another more subtle form of intimidation is the reduc-
tion of disagreement about the merits of various family forms to ‘‘sexual preju-
dice’’ if one happens to assess possibly higher risks associated with nontraditional
family structures (Herek & McLemore, 2013). Yet, if one is concerned about the
credibility of social science in the long run, that is not how science should be done.

Judicial implications. The results presented here should give judicial authorities
pause. On one hand, courts presumably want to rely upon accurate social science
information (Patterson, 2013a). However, as shown here, much of what was
thought at one time to be reliable, sound evidence is actually not so clear.
Previous research has shown how bias can influence social science (Schumm,
2015a, 2015b, 2016). There is a danger that premature closure on debate about
important issues related to social science may threaten the credibility of the judi-
cial system. It has been shown elsewhere (Schumm, 2016) that Miller, Mucklow,
Jacobsen, and Bigner (1980) has not been cited often, perhaps because its finding
that many lesbian mothers had negative perceptions of their fathers had never
been replicated in other research. However, as one example, Dundas and
Kaufman (2000) found that of their 27 lesbian mothers from Canada, 8 (30%)
‘‘reported a completely absent father (meaning, having no contact for many years)
for large parts of their childhood’’ (p. 74) while 11 other of the 27 lesbian mothers
(41%) ‘‘reported fathers who were present but unavailable or punitive’’ (p. 74). It
is easy to claim that research has not been cited; therefore, it is not valid or
important, but what if research is valid and has been replicated? Basically,
courts need to seek out serious opinions and research from multiple perspectives
when making their most important decisions; they should not assume that ‘‘the
best’’ of both sides will automatically make it to the courtroom.

Appendix A: Methodological issues with sexual

orientation research
As has been noted before (Schumm, 2012b), assessing the effects of different
family structures on children is no easy task. There are numerous methodological
concerns that must be taken into account. Here some of them will be reviewed.
Specific examples of some of the methodological problems often found in studies
of LGBT populations have been detailed elsewhere (Marks, 2012; Schumm,
2004a, 2004b, 2005, 2008, 2010a, 2010e, 2010f, 2011a, 2011b, 2012a, 2012b,
2012c, 2013, 2014, 2015a, 2015b, 2016; Schumm & Crawford, 2015).

Sample
Random samples make generalizing one’s results to a larger population and the
use of statistical tests more appropriate. Without random samples, one cannot
76 Psychological Reports 0(0)

be sure that the results will apply to anyone outside the particular group of
participants. Samples that are not random are often called convenience samples.
Even though many social science studies have involved convenience samples,
they are not the ‘‘gold standard’’ for social science research. Despite what some
researchers believe (Herek, 2006, p. 610), a dozen or more small convenience
samples are very unlikely to equal the scientific value of even one large random
sample. Brewster et al. (2014) noted that ‘‘scholarly discourse on gay and lesbian
family life has been dominated by studies of small, nonprobability-, and com-
munity-based samples’’ (p. 504). Crouch, Waters, McNair, Power, and Davis
(2014) in their recent study on Australian same-sex families noted that ‘‘studies
to date have often relied on small samples. Such sample sizes limit statistical
analysis and the wider application of findings to the broader community’’ (p. 2).
They also noted that ‘‘the self-selection of our convenience sample has the
potential to introduce bias that could distort results’’ (p. 10). Nonrandom or
convenience samples also involve the risk of selection biases—what factors were
associated with the particular participants being chosen or volunteering to be
part of the nonrandom study? Again, Crouch, Waters, McNair, Power, and
Davis (2014) affirmed the limitations of convenience samples by stating that

Convenience samples are also commonly used and are often fraught with problems.
As participants are self-selecting, such studies are open to accusations of bias that
might skew results in favor of same-sex parent families and capture only specific
subsets of the gay and lesbian community. (p. 2)

In their study, they acknowledged that self-selection may have caused it to be

‘‘clear that the families from the ACHESS are earning more and are better
educated than the general population’’ (p. 10). Recently, Sullins (2015b) has
shown that convenience samples of same-sex families may yield ‘‘false positive
outcomes for parent-reported SDQ’’ (p. 375) scores compared to SDQ scores
from random samples.
Even random samples may have low statistical power if they are small. For
example, as noted by Allen (2015, p. 162), Bos, Gartrell, Roeleveld, et al. (2013)
used a random sample of over 11,000 children but only found children from 32
lesbian-couple parent and 11 gay-male couple parent families; Fedewa and Clark
(2009) had data from 22,000 children but only 35 same-sex families (27 lesbian
parents, 8 gay male parents) were identified. As Vanfraussen et al. (2002) noted,
with respect to their study involving 24 lesbian families and 24 heterosexual
families that ‘‘a further investigation should be carried out using large sample
sizes before drawing any conclusions’’ (p. 250). Bos et al. (2016) began with a
sample of 95,677 completed household interviews but found only 156 same-sex
households among them (0.16%), although they analyzed data from only 95
(0.1%). Cohen (1988) has highlighted the importance of even small effects in
psychology. Yet, a small sample (e.g., two groups of 44 participants each) may
Schumm 77

not be able to detect (in terms of finding a significant result statistically) a large
effect where Cohen’s d is greater than or equal to 0.80. Sometimes the sample is
smaller because few of those persons contacted for the study agreed to participate,
leading to a low response rate. Low response rates, even for random samples, may
mean that those who did participate were substantially different from those who
did not, meaning that the results cannot be generalized to the original population
and may be biased by selection effects. A common problem is that the response
rates of different populations may differ (e.g., those with more of a vested interest
in the study are more likely to be identified as possible participants and may be more
open to participating if they are selected as possible participants), which can create
further selection bias. Even if the sample appears to have a large number of parti-
cipants or an initially high response rate, often there are large amounts of missing
data, where the participants were not eligible or did not answer many of the ques-
tions asked of them. Those who do not answer questions may be different in
systematic ways from those who do, meaning that missing data can bias results.
For example, Bos (2004, p. 51) reported results for 100 lesbian parent families and
100 heterosexual families; however, the response rate for lesbian parents was 55.6%
compared to 21.4% for the heterosexual families. Allen (2015, p. 160) noted that
one study of gay fathers featured only a 3.6% response rate (Bos, 2010).
The use of convenience samples means that selection bias is an issue. As noted
by Golombok et al. (2003),

A genuine limitation of the existing body of research is that the majority of studies
have relied on volunteer or convenience samples because it has not been possible to
obtain a representative sample of lesbian-mother families. Although it is not known
how, or to what extent, the samples studied have been biased, lesbian mothers
whose children show atypical gender development or psychological problems
may have been unlikely to volunteer, particularly because lesbian-mother families
are so often the focus of prejudice and discrimination. (p. 21)

Likewise, Gartrell et al. (2000) acknowledged a limitation of their convenience

sample, that ‘‘the study participants are self-selected and not necessarily demo-
graphically representative of the lesbian population as a whole’’ (p. 547). Power
et al. (2010) agreed that

The non-probability sampling methods used in this study potentially creates [sic]
some bias in the sample as those more connected to social and support networks
are more likely to have been exposed to information about the study.
Unfortunately this means people who are more socially isolated and/or who
have poorer mental health may be under-represented in the sample. (p. 8)

Likewise, many studies on same-sex families seem to attract LGBT respondents

with very high levels of education. As Power et al. (2010) have stated, ‘‘it is
78 Psychological Reports 0(0)

unclear whether this reflects an actual higher level of education among

Australians who openly identify as same-sex attracted or whether people from
lower socio-economic backgrounds are less likely to participate in research,
particularly internet based research’’ (p. 8). Crouch, Waters, McNair, Power,
and Davis (2014) found much higher levels of education among their same-sex
parents (46% had graduate degrees, 27% had only an undergraduate degree
compared to only 29% of heterosexual mothers (with an undergraduate or
graduate degree) from a comparative Australian sample). Likewise, income
levels for same-sex parents are often very high compared to levels for the general
public. Crouch, Waters, McNair, Power, and Davis (2014) reported that median
household income in Australia was less than $65,000 while 59% of their same-
sex households reported annual incomes of $100,000 or higher. Brewster et al.
(2014) likewise agreed with others that ‘‘the picture of lesbian parents that has
emerged from this research is biased toward middle- and high-income, well-
educated, white women’’ (p. 508). Often surveys online are used to gather
data on same-sex families. As Power et al. have noted (2010) using an online
survey for data collection ‘‘also means it is not possible to determine a response
rate as it is not known how many people saw information about the study and
declined to participate’’ (p. 8). Sometimes even the comparison groups of het-
erosexual families are based on convenience or snowball samples (Vanfraussen,
Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, & Brewaeys, 2002, p. 239). Some scholars have tried to
combine random and convenience samples together to increase sample size, but
as Julien et al. (2008) said, ‘‘this strategy raised statistical power, but it also led
to comparing a group of heterosexual mothers free of selection bias to a group of
lesbian mothers not entirely free of selection bias’’ (p. 865).
Another issue hidden within the use of convenience samples is the risk of
experimenter bias (Wilkinson & Task Force on Statistical Inference, 1999),
which can occur whenever those who know the hypotheses or political goals
of the research are the same as those who interact with the actual or potential
participants prior to or during the study. As Wilkinson indicated ‘‘an author’s
self-awareness, experience, or resolve does not eliminate experimenter bias. In
short, there are no valid excuses, financial or otherwise, for avoiding an oppor-
tunity to double-blind’’ (p. 596).
Sampling for lesbian, gay, or bisexual populations is especially challenging
(Meyer & Wilson, 2009). Many studies dealing with LGBT participants combine
the worst of all of these sampling problems—they do not involve random sam-
ples for any of the parent groups, the samples are small, response rates are low
or unknown, response rates differ between LGBT and heterosexual groups (e.g.,
Bos, 2004), participants may be able to determine the goals and values of the
researchers, and there are substantial amounts of missing data. Merely summing
the apparent results from many low quality studies (i.e., nonrandom, small, low
response rate, different response rates, high levels of missing data) is unlikely to
‘‘add up’’ to the scientific value of a smaller number of well conducted studies.
Schumm 79

Statistics and effect sizes

Statistics may not mean much in the absence of a random sample. Many think of
statistics and probability levels. However, effect size is a more reliable parameter
for assessing research findings. By making a sample small enough, almost
anyone can ‘‘prove’’ the null hypothesis, regardless of the true effect involved
because very few findings will be statistically significant. Cohen (1988) said of
any claim that the null hypothesis had been proved that such a ‘‘conclusion is
always strictly invalid, and is functionally invalid as well unless power is high’’
(p. 16). Furthermore, Cohen (1994) stated that ‘‘I have learned and taught that
the primary product of a research inquiry is one or more measures of effect size,
not p values’’ (p. 1308) [emphasis added]. Likewise, Rosnow and Rosenthal
(1996) said years ago that ‘‘just because a p value is reported as ‘statistically
significant’ does not mean that the effect was large, nor does a p value reported
as ‘nonsignificant’ imply a trivial result’’ (p. 331). By making a sample large
enough, almost anyone can obtain a rejection of the null hypothesis, even if the
true effect size is trivial. Rosnow and Rosenthal (1996) also commented that
‘‘many researchers also continue to obsess on p values to the exclusion of effect
sizes and statistical power; they may pay lip service to Cohen’s message but do
not seem to have fully absorbed it’’ (p. 331). Blackwelder (1982) stated that ‘‘p is
a measure of evidence against the null hypothesis, not for it, and insufficient
evidence to reject the null hypothesis does not imply sufficient evidence to accept
it’’ (p. 346). Thus, the effect size becomes, in a real sense, the only ‘‘honest
arbiter’’ of research, especially controversial research. When attempting to
‘‘prove’’ the null hypothesis, equivalence testing should be used (Altman &
Bland, 1995; Jones, Jarvis, Lewis, & Ebbutt, 1996; Rogers, Howard,
& Vessey, 1993; Stegner, Bostrom, & Greenfield, 1996; Tryon, 2001; Tryon &
Lewis, 2008; Wellek, 2003).
Perhaps, one of the most common measures of effect size is Cohen’s (1988,
1992) d. In a very approximate manner, Cohen’s d represents the difference in
average scores between two groups divided by the average of the standard
deviations of the two groups. Cohen (1992) used d ¼ 0.20 as ‘‘small’’, 0.50 as
‘‘medium’’, and 0.80 as ‘‘large’’, although Amato (2012, p. 772) has recom-
mended using < .20 (weak), .20–.39 (moderate), .40–.59 (strong), and
.60 + (very strong). In this context, it is very important to remember what
Jacob Cohen, one of the leading psychological methodologists of the late 20th
century, said: ‘‘many effects sought in personality, social, and clinical-psycholo-
gical research are likely to be small effects as here defined, both because of the
attenuation in validity of the measures employed and the subtlety of the issues
frequently involved’’ (1988, p. 13).
In some cases, zero-order correlation coefficients can be converted to effect
sizes in terms of Cohen’s d (Cohen, 1988, p. 22). The American Psychological
Association (1994, p. 18; 2001, p. 25; 2010, pp. 33–34) has long recommended
80 Psychological Reports 0(0)

the reporting of effect sizes in addition to levels of statistical significance, a

recommendation often ignored in practice. Effect sizes help guard against mis-
interpretation of results in two situations. First, with a small sample (N < 100)
someone might detect a medium effect size of 0.50 but discount its importance
because it was not statistically significant, one type of misinterpretation. Second,
with a large sample (N > 2,000), someone might detect a trivial effect size of 0.03
but find it to be close to significance (p < .07) and overemphasize its importance,
another type of misinterpretation (Hatzenbuehler, Jun, et al., 2014, p. 53)].
While moderating or interaction effects are of interest and may require a
larger sample than usual, it is uncertain how useful it is scientifically to use
huge samples (e.g., N > 55,000) and attempt to put more meaning into main
or interaction effects that are barely significant (e.g., confidence intervals from
0.47 to 0.99) especially when there are statistically significant main effects with
more definitive confidence intervals (e.g., 2.31 to 6.04) (Hatzenbuehler, Birkett,
van Wangenen, & Meyer, 2014, p. 283).

Data analysis
Some scholars seem to believe that research means predicting one variable from
a host of other variables. However, research is supposed to be connected to
theory which involves mediating and moderating effects, essentially something
more complex than mere prediction. When control variables are used, there
should be logic behind their selection, both in terms of theory and in terms of
relevance to the particular data set. For example, if two groups of parents
differed substantially in terms of income or education and assuming that socio-
economic status is important for parenting success (Lamb, 2012), then it would
seem important from both theory and the situation in that particular data set to
control for family income (especially on a per capita family member basis) and
parental education, as has been done occasionally (Tasker & Golombok, 1998)
before drawing much in the way of conclusions about the role of other differ-
ences between the two groups of parents. Tasker (2010) reported that lesbian
parents ‘‘may be relatively affluent and well resourced’’ (p. 36). Golombok et al.
(2003) did attempt to control statistically for pre-existing differences between
their heterosexual and nonheterosexual families in terms of children’s ages and
number of siblings; however, even though their study featured educational dif-
ferences across the families, those differences were not controlled, as noted pre-
viously (Schumm, 2008). Controlling for socioeconomic status is especially
important in studies where pre-existing differences in socioeconomic status
exist between different groups of parents. For example, if same-sex parents
have higher socioeconomic status (i.e., education or per capita family income)
that would typically correlate positively with child outcomes, meaning that
socioeconomic status would likely act as a suppressor variable. If the study
found no apparent effect of sexual orientation but socioeconomic status was
Schumm 81

positively correlated with nonheterosexual sexual orientation and with child

outcomes, then controlling for socioeconomic status by design or statistically
would likely yield a result in which nonheterosexual sexual orientation was
revealed to have an underlying adverse impact on child outcomes. Analyses
should also control for other relevant factors, such as parental relationship
satisfaction; in one study (Bos et al., 2007), the lesbian parents had higher
relationship satisfaction than the comparison group of heterosexual couples
(d ¼ 0.51, p < .001) but that difference was not controlled statistically.
It is important to remember that ‘‘significant indirect effects can occur in the
absence of significant total or direct effects’’ (Rucker, Preacher, Tormala, &
Petty, 2011, p. 362), which can be easily overlooked in the absence of an assess-
ment of intervening or mediating variables. Some studies have overlooked the
possible mediating role of parental relationship instability when comparing het-
erosexual and LGBT families on various child outcomes. For example, the
Rosenfeld (2013) and Allen et al. (2013) controversy (see also Potter’s (2012)
study) was really about whether parental instability should have been used as an
intervening or mediating variable between parental sexual orientation and child
educational outcome. The data suggest that instability did mediate that relation-
ship—in other words, same-sex parents had higher rates of instability and higher
rates of instability predicted higher rates of grade retention. While that suggests
a strong possibility of a significant mediating effect of instability between par-
ental sexual orientation and child outcomes, it does not appear that anyone has
actually tested for that possible mediating effect, aside perhaps from Rosenfeld
(2015). Some studies have obscured such mediating effects by splitting their
sample into single parents and two-parent families. Golombok et al. (2003)
did so, which obscured the result that same-sex parents had high (presumably
higher than heterosexuals) rates of instability and that single parents (i.e.,
unstable parents) had significantly more adverse child outcomes. Had
Golombok et al. (2003) tested a mediating model of parental sexual orienta-
tion ! relationship instability ! child outcomes, they might have found a sig-
nificant indirect effect of parental sexual orientation on child outcomes.
Seldom have the indirect effects of a child’s sexual orientation (given that they
had lesbigay parents) been evaluated. One study that did so (Bos & Sandfort,
2010) found that parental nonheterosexual orientation predicted the child’s
sexual questioning. However, sexual questioning predicted global self-worth
(b ¼ .19, p < .05) and social competence (b ¼ .24, p < .05), adversely.
Furthermore, Bos et al. (2006) found that daughters of lesbians were more
likely to aspire to ‘‘masculine’’ occupations (ES ¼ 0.53, p < .05) and have a
nonheterosexual sexual orientation (ES ¼ 0.74, p < .01), both of which predicted
lower social competence for daughters in their study (Schumm, 2011b, p. 92). In
other words, in this one set of parents and children, the child’s sexual question-
ing or nonheterosexual orientation acted as an intervening variable between
parental sexual orientation and adverse child outcomes, in terms of self-worth
82 Psychological Reports 0(0)

and social competence. More studies need to be done in which models with such
indirect pathways are evaluated. Some studies have been done in which as
assessment of mediation would have been useful but was not done (Fulcher
et al., 2008; Kweskin & Cook, 1982). On the other hand, Sutfin et al. (2008)
did assess mediating effects.
Parent ratings of children (e.g., is your child a good child?) or of the parent’s
love for their child and children’s rating of parents (e.g., how much do your
parents love you?) are vulnerable to social desirability bias. Social desirability
can refer to oneself (individual social desirability, e.g., are you perfect?) or to a
romantic relationship (relationship social desirability, e.g., is your marriage per-
fect?), or to parent–child relationship; it is important to match each type of
social desirability with the type of outcome—individual, relationship, or paren-
tal—being assessed. In some cases, authors acknowledge the limitation imposed
by not measuring social desirability. Vanfraussen et al. (2002) noted that ‘‘the
absence of a social desirability scale does not permit us to evaluate whether or
not the informants have presented the real situation or an ideal one’’ (p. 250).
Telingator and Patterson (2008) stated that ‘‘family members may have systema-
tic biases in reporting information about their own families’’ (p. 1365). Erich
et al. (2009) stated that ‘‘responses of this sort are subject to the effects of social
desirability and impression management’’ (p. 403) in their study of adoptive
same-sex parents. As noted previously in this report, Golombok, MacCallum,
Goodman, and Rutter (2002) stated that, ‘‘with any investigation that uses
parental reports, one must be aware of the social desirability bias whereby
parents try to present themselves and their children in the best possible light’’
(p. 965). Tasker and Golombok (1997) stated that

Interview data are always open to criticisms of bias owing to self-presentation

effects. Indeed, it is reasonable to suspect that lesbian mothers may wish to portray
an overly positive picture of family life in view of the discrimination they often face
in a predominately heterosexual society. (p. 146)

Tasker and Golombok (1998) indicated that in their research study

The possibility also remains that, compared with the heterosexual mothers in the
study, the lesbian mothers may have wished to portray a more positive picture of
their partner’s involvement in child care given the lack of public recognition of
female co-parents. (p. 64)

Goldberg (2010, p. 169) has also acknowledged a concern with self-presentation

bias by parents, as well as has Raley (2010, p. 188; 2013, p. 333). Gartrell et al.
(1996) also agreed that lesbian mothers ‘‘might wish to present themselves and
their families in the best possible light,’’ and thus findings for maternal reports
of children’s mental health might have been ‘‘shaped by self-justification and
Schumm 83

self-presentation bias’’ (p. 279). After noting that few studies had been blinded
to researchers or participants in their review of the literature on same-sex par-
enting, Anderssen et al. (2002) noted that ‘‘participants or researchers may
consciously or unconsciously bias data in one or the other direction, and this
bias may become stronger when using self-reported recall data’’ (p. 348).
Suggested items for various measures of social desirability have been suggested
elsewhere (Schumm, 2015a).

Family backgrounds can be complex

Many scholars aspire to find ‘‘pure’’ family types. They hope, for example, to
find nonheterosexual families in which children were not conceived in prior
heterosexual relationships and in which there has been no parental instability
and in which both parents ‘‘parent’’ full-time. However, ‘‘pure’’ types may be
exceedingly rare, or at least difficult to find for research purposes. Some family
types may be even more difficult to locate than others. For example, collecting
data from families headed by gay fathers has been very difficult. Fulcher et al.
(2008) were able to obtain data from 33 lesbian couples in their study, but they
had to drop consideration of gay parent couples because they were only able to
recruit three for their study (p. 332). Crouch, Waters, McNair, Power, and Davis
(2014) in an Australian convenience sample found only 18% of same-sex parents
were gay fathers but they did note that ‘‘there is a lack of research looking at
male same-sex parented families, and too often authors extrapolate results from
research on lesbian parenting to the whole range of same-sex families’’ (p. 2). In
addition, coadoption may involve different family structures and processes than
adoption by itself, making comparisons more difficult.

Parental sexual orientation can be complex

Measuring parental sexual orientation is no small task, as explained in detail
elsewhere (Gates & Sell, 2007; Schumm, 2012b, p. 1358). Although some GLB
persons perceive their sexual orientation as fixed, sexual orientation in general
varies sufficiently that Hatzenbuehler, Jun, Corliss, and Austin (2014) used
sexual orientation as a ‘‘time-varying variable’’ (p. 56) in their analyses of
tobacco use among sexual minority and heterosexual youth. Another often over-
looked issue in measuring sexual orientation is that at least one study (Gartrell
et al., 2000) that began with lesbian mothers—and has continued to use all of
them as lesbian-identified participants—included women who later changed
their gender to male or their sexual orientation to heterosexual, at least in
terms of later partnering with men (Schumm, 2012b, p. 1360). Sometimes it is
not clear whether ‘‘same-sex’’ means lesbian or not; at times, Patterson and her
colleagues use 44 families from the Add Health study as lesbian-led families
(Wainright & Patterson, 2006) while at others, they narrowed their selection
84 Psychological Reports 0(0)

to 18 families (Patterson, 2009b) to try to include only truly lesbian families;

later Sullins (2015d) reanalyzed the same data and found only 17 lesbian
families. It is also possible that ‘‘same-gender’’ parents could be mother–daugh-
ter, father–son, sister–sister, brother–brother, grandfather–father, grand-
mother–mother dyads rather than LGB dyads.

Children often born from prior heterosexual relationships

Holtzman (2013) has noted that ‘‘large proportions of children reared by gay
men and lesbians were born into cross-sex marriages’’ (p. 369). Gershon et al.
(1999) found that 67% of their adolescent participants had been ‘‘born to
mothers who were in a heterosexual marriage’’ (p. 438). Power et al. (2010)
noted that ‘‘a large number of lesbians and gay men have children from previous
heterosexual relationships’’ (p. 2). Brown and Perlesz (2007) noted that ‘‘the
majority of lesbian-parented families formed with children from previous het-
erosexual relationships in step- or blended families’’ (p. 268). Sarantakos (2000,
p. 102) studied over 300 same-sex couples from Australia and New Zealand and
found that all of the children of gay fathers and more than 75% of the children
of lesbian mothers had been born into previous heterosexual relationships.
Murray and McClintock (2005) found that nearly all (94%) of their lesbian/
bisexual mothers and over half (57%) of their gay fathers had been divorced
from previous heterosexual relationships. When Hequembourg (2004, 2007) stu-
died 40 lesbian mothers, she found that 20 of them had children from a previous
heterosexual relationship and another five had children from their partner’s
previous heterosexual relationship. Lick, Tornello, Riskind, Schmidt, and
Patterson (2012) found that 83% of the children of gay fathers in their study
had been born to heterosexual parents. As early as 1975, Riley observed that
‘‘most lesbian mothers were heterosexually married for at least several years’’ (p.
859). Later, Tasker and Golombok (1991) observed that ‘‘a further limitation to
these studies is that most of the children who participated spent the early part of
their lives in a heterosexual family’’ (p. 186). More recently, Rothblum (2009)
has noted that ‘‘. . . many LGBs have been previously heterosexually married’’
(p. 121) and that ‘‘even today, LGBs who are heterosexually married yet part-
nered with same-sex lovers may be a very large subgroup’’ (p. 122). Likewise,
Perrin (2002) observed that ‘‘most individuals who have a lesbian and/or gay
parent were conceived in the context of a heterosexual relationship’’ (p. 341).
Rosenfeld (2013) explicitly recognized such when he said after the Regnerus
research had been published that ‘‘most children raised by same-sex couples
are form a prior heterosexual relationship that has to break up before the
same-sex couple parenting family is formed’’ (p. 964); later, Rosenfeld (2015)
found that controlling for prior transitions reduced the apparent adverse effects
of a variety of nontraditional family structures assessed in Regnerus’s research.
Perrin, Siegel, et al. (2013) also noted that ‘‘same-gender couples, like
Schumm 85

heterosexual couples, may become parents by having children in previous het-

erosexual relationships . . .’’ (p. e1375). Tasker (2013) stated, even though more
recent research was focusing more on planned parenting by lesbian and gay
couples (Bos, 2013; Farr & Patterson, 2013b), that ‘‘most of our knowledge
about whether or not parental sexual orientation influences children’s develop-
ment is derived from studies of children raised by their lesbian mother and her
new female partner after the child’s mother and father separated’’ (p. 3). Even
with very recent data, Crouch, Waters, McNair, Power, and Davis (2014) found
that at least 20% of the children in their study of same-sex parents had been
conceived through heterosexual intercourse. In a later study, Crouch, Waters,
McNair, and Power (2014) found that 37% of their same-sex families had con-
ceived the child in a previous heterosexual relationship.
Some studies included participants from mixed-orientation marriages before
that term had come into common use (Buxton, 1994, 1999; Harris & Turner, 1986;
Hays & Samuels, 1989). In particular, Golombok et al. (1983) found that of the
children of their 27 lesbian mothers, 25 (93%) of those mothers had conceived
their children in previous heterosexual relationships, including 21 marriages. As
another example, Harris and Turner (1986) surveyed 23 gay or lesbian parents, of
whom 19 (83%, p. 106) had been married heterosexually previously; 4 of their
respondents had been previously married heterosexually between two and five
times. Huggins (1989) studied 18 lesbian mothers’ children; all of those mothers
had been married heterosexually. Turner, Scadden, and Harris (1990) contacted
10 gay fathers and 11 lesbian mothers, all of whom had been in heterosexual
marriages previously. Rohrbaugh (1992, p. 467) stated that it had been estimated
that almost a quarter of all lesbian women had children from previous hetero-
sexual unions. Javaid (1993) studied 26 children of 13 lesbian mothers, and all of
whose children had been born into previous heterosexual relationships. Bailey,
Bobrow, Wolfe, and Mikach (1995) studied the sons of 55 gay fathers and found
that all of the fathers had previously been married heterosexually.
Perrin and Kulkin (1996) stated that ‘‘the majority of gay men and lesbians who
are parents conceived children in the context of heterosexual relationships . . .’’ (p.
629) and found that 31% of the 433 children in their study (of whose same-sex
parents, 59% had earned a graduate degree) had been conceived in a previous
heterosexual relationship. Barrett and Tasker (2001) indicated that

Although, currently, it appears that the majority of children with gay or bisexual
fathers will have been conceived within heterosexual relationships, in recent years
greater numbers of gay and lesbian people have chosen to form families outside the
institution of marriage, through common law, coparenting, or other mutually ben-
eficial arrangements. (p. 63)

In their survey of 101 gay fathers, they found that as many as 87% of the fathers
had been or were still in sexual relationships with women. At least 82% of the
86 Psychological Reports 0(0)

children involved had been conceived within a heterosexual marriage while

another 12% appear to have been conceived in nonmarital heterosexual relation-
ships (p. 68). Of those 101 fathers who were actively parenting a child, over 80%
of those children had been conceived by their father heterosexually (p. 68).
Oswald, Goldberg, Kuvalanka, and Clausell (2008) found that most—over
90%—of the same-sex parents in their study had children from previous hetero-
sexual relationships. Tasker, Barrett, and De Simone (2010) studied 18 sons and
18 daughters of 24 gay fathers, of whom all had conceived those children in
previous heterosexual relationships. Lytle, Foley, and Aster (2013) interviewed
children of same-sex parents, of whom 90% were from previous heterosexual
relationships that had dissolved. Crouch, McNair, Waters, and Power (2013)
used an online survey in Australia and New Zealand during 2008 to gather
data from 434 same-sex parents (85% women, 14% men); 67% of gay fathers
and 42% of lesbian mothers had conceived at least one of their children through a
heterosexual relationship.
Golombok et al. (2003) found that the children of lesbian mothers had become
involved in a lesbian family at an average age of more than four years, even
though the target age of the child for the study for lesbian and heterosexual
parents was five to eight years. It appears that at least one child did not enter
into a lesbian family until the age of 108 months while being no older than 116
months of age, meaning that the child had spent no more than 10 months in a
lesbian family, less than 10% of its total life. Yet, that child was included with
children who had spent their entire lives from birth in a lesbian family, while it
appears that at least two other children spent more time outside of a lesbian family
than in one (Schumm, 2014). The complexity of this might be better understood if
you were comparing homeschooled children and public school children. If chil-
dren who had attended public school for 11 years but had been homeschooled for
just a couple of months were included in with children who had been home-
schooled since kindergarten, the research design would be threatened. If going
to one type of school or the other matters, then the duration of time in that school
system should matter, not just the technicality of which type of school they
happen to be in on any given day. Perhaps, the same should be true of assessing
family structure in terms of its historical pattern rather than just its immediate
situation. Few research studies have taken this issue into account when studying
heterosexual and nonheterosexual families. One exception was a study of ADD
HEALTH data by Tillman (2007) who studied a variety of pathways of family
structural changes as predictors of academic outcomes for adolescents.

Parents often part-time; others may be doing much of the actual

parenting
Gershon et al. (1999) noted that 54% of their adolescent participants ‘‘had
fathers who were involved in their lives to the degree that they visited with
Schumm 87

their father five or more times per year’’ (p. 438). Henehan, Rothblum, Solomon,
and Balsam (2007) surveyed gay and lesbian couples who had obtained civil
unions in Vermont, along with gay and lesbian friends who had been referred
by the original participants. They found, as noted in Schumm (2011b) that only
18% of the children of gay couples (78% of whom were in civil unions) lived
with their parents full-time compared to 62% of the children of heterosexual
fathers. For lesbians, the corresponding percentages were 39% and 59% com-
pared to 71% for heterosexual mothers. In terms of actual time spent with
children, they found that 39% of the children of gay fathers and 41% of the
children of lesbian mothers never or only occasionally visited with their same-sex
parents compared to figures of 11% and 26% for children of heterosexual
fathers and mothers. The point is that when comparing different groups of
parents, the actual time spent with children should be considered as an impor-
tant factor, not just the label of ‘‘parent.’’ The study may also suggest that
simply having a civil union (or perhaps marriage) may not mean actually spend-
ing more time with as a parent with one’s children. Unless getting married
actually translates into spending more time with a child, marriage may do rela-
tively little for the process factors that are so important for children, even if the
children gain some legal benefits from a different legal situation. It is also pos-
sible that much of a child’s parenting is being done by hire (of varying quality),
as Farr et al. (2010) reported, ‘‘all parents noted that some individual . . . pro-
vided outside care for their child on a regular basis’’ (p. 168). Another concern is
that the associates of gay or lesbian parents may tend to be largely gay or
lesbian, providing fewer heterosexual male role models for their children
(Schumm, 2011b, pp. 43–44).

From a life-cycle perspective, effects may be delayed

Another concern with assessing child outcomes for same-sex families is that ‘‘it is
conceivable that the effect of father-absence in early infancy may not become
apparent until the adolescent years’’ (MacCallum & Golombok, 2004, p. 1409).
Both Amato (2000) and Lansford (2009) have noted that some effects of parental
instability might not be apparent until a child enters late adolescence or early
adulthood. One study (Leung et al., 2005) considered this issue and appeared to
find that that same-sex parents were doing less well with older adopted children.

Parent, teacher, and child reports may differ

It has also occurred that the reports of children and/or their teachers (or other
professionals) have differed from those of mothers. For example, Golombok
et al. (1997) found that lesbian mothers rated themselves as having much
more warmth toward their children (d ¼ 1.04, p < .05) than did two-parent het-
erosexual mothers, but the results were reversed when it came to children’s
88 Psychological Reports 0(0)

ratings of maternal acceptance (d ¼ 0.12 in favor of heterosexual children); this

may be an indirect indication of parental social desirability response bias. As
noted before, Vanfraussen et al. (2002) found that ‘‘we discovered that teachers
evaluate the emotional/behavioral well-being of children from lesbian families
less positively than that of children from heterosexual [families]’’ (p. 248).
Teachers also rated the children of gay and lesbian parents less favorably than
they rated the children of married or cohabiting heterosexual parents in
Sarantakos’s (2000) Australian research. Golombok et al. (2014) may not
have found major differences between parent and teacher ratings for children
from gay, lesbian, and heterosexual households, but on the eight pairwise com-
parisons reported, the effect sizes had different signs on half (p. 463), indicating
that teacher’s ratings often differed from parent ratings.

LGB parents may face hostility or discrimination from LGB

nonparents
It is also possible that ‘‘when lesbians or gay men become parents they may lose
some of their connections within the lesbian and gay community’’ (Power et al.,
2010, p. 2). Same-sex parents may even encounter outright hostility toward
themselves or toward their children from LGBT persons who are not parents
or from heterosexuals. Thompson (2002) noted that ‘‘lesbian mothers thus faced
bias from heterosexuals as well as other lesbians and gay men. Lesbian period-
ical literature is replete with accounts of lesbian animosity toward lesbian
mothers’’ (p. 47). Riggs (2008) has described one case in which a gay man
‘‘Paul appeared to hold negative perceptions of lesbian mothers in general’’
(p. 232). Riggs et al. (2009) stated that ‘‘What has received no attention to
date, however, are the attitudes of lesbian and gay individuals toward lesbian
and gay parents’’ (p. 52). Riggs et al. (2009) discussed a variety of research
reports in which gay or lesbian parents had experienced alienation from non-
parent gay and lesbian individuals, described in terms of ‘‘harsh criticism’’ or ‘‘a
rupture’’ (p. 54) of friend networks. In their analysis of data from 265 gay and
lesbian respondents, they found a trend for nonparent gay and lesbian persons
to hold more negative views toward gay and lesbian parents compared to gay
and lesbian parents (b ¼ 0.13, p < .11, two-tailed). However, discrimination
can also occur against heterosexuals for a variety of reasons. Some discrimina-
tion may be based entirely on superficial characteristics, but some discrimination
may also be based on personal behaviors (e.g., illegal drug use, bullying, having
multiple sexual partners) that others may deem harmful.

Limitations and their implications should be acknowledged

Most studies mention some limitations. However, ‘‘confession should not have
the goal of disarming criticism’’ (Wilkinson & Task Force on Statistical
Schumm 89

Inference, 1999, p. 602). Vague limitations like ‘‘more research is needed’’ add
little of value. For example, if a study was nonrandom and, therefore, should not
be used to generalize results to a larger population, it might be best to indicate
that the study had little value for public policy because any policy changes might
or might not have their anticipated effects on any known group within the
population. Limitations should have ‘‘teeth’’ in terms of limiting the usefulness
of the research for applied purposes, including judicial decisions or changes in
government policy.

Politicization of science
Redding (2013a, 2013b) has commented extensively on the politicization of
social science. Previously, I have commented on the numerous ad hominem
attacks on Professor Regnerus from his opponents (Schumm, 2013). Even
pro-LGBT scholars can fall prey to attacks if their ideas deviate from
expectations. For example, Stacey and Biblarz (2001) were criticized by
Golombok et al. (2003) for having ‘‘overemphasized the differences that have
been reported between children with lesbian and heterosexual parents’’ (p. 21).
Ball (2003) alleged that their conclusion was unwarranted and ‘‘both useless and
dangerous’’ (p. 703). Hicks (2005) claimed their ideas were ‘‘unproven and dis-
putable’’ with no basis in fact (pp. 162–163) and later (2013) that they had
‘‘problematic notions of gender’’ (p. 157). Hequembourg (2007) doubted
they were entirely correct (p. 132). I have discussed this issue elsewhere
(Schumm, 2016).

Not asking too much

Most of the concerns addressed here are basic scientific guidelines, many of
which have been promoted by the American Psychological Association (1994,
2001, 2010) and are not ‘‘asking too much’’ of scholars, as if doing high quality
research was simply too much to expect.

Summary
All of these concerns with the limitations of research concerning LGBT issues
should raise red flags about any attempt to achieve scientific consensus prema-
turely, even if for a good or noble cause. If anyone is motivated to avoid a rush
to judgment or a rush to consensus, it should be scientists including social
scientists. As Gonsiorek (2006) has argued, ‘‘scientific thought, then, is at its
core, evolving and ambiguous’’ (p. 266). Manzi (2012) argued similarly, that
‘‘science never provides Truth with a capital T’’ because there is always a pos-
sibility that any scientific belief, no matter how much it represents a consensus
opinion, might be proven to be incorrect. The limitations of science in general
90 Psychological Reports 0(0)

may be especially applicable to social science because of the complexity of

human social behavior (Manzi, 2012, p. 117).

Appendix B: Research bias towards very high income

families in studies of adoptive families
One must observe that a major concern in studies of adopting same-sex parents
is the unusually high parental income and education often reported, often for
both same-sex and opposite-sex couples, a situation acknowledged by Farr and
Patterson (2013b, p. 51). Although Lamb (2012) has observed that parental
socioeconomic status and the quality of the parent’s relationship with each
other are major factors in predicting a child’s overall psychological adjustment,
Dempsey (2013) has acknowledged that ‘‘the possible effect of important socio-
economic family factors, such as income and parental education, were not
always considered’’ (p. 1) in research on same-sex families. Therefore, if two
groups of parents are compared without adjusting for socioeconomic differ-
ences, especially in terms of per capita family income, the results could be
severely biased and easily misinterpreted. Furthermore, if the goal is to under-
stand the apparent effect of parental sexual orientation, the influence of socio-
economic status should be controlled by design or with statistics. If not, it will
not be feasible to generalize results to adoptive families of lower socioeconomic
status. For example, suppose we study 10 sets of adoptive families whose
incomes average $200,000 a year and find that parental sexual orientation
makes little difference. That might mean that (1) parental sexual orientation
did not matter among families with extraordinarily high incomes or that (2)
any effects associated with parental sexual orientation were overridden by the
positive effects of higher socioeconomic status, but it would not imply that
parental sexual orientation was unimportant among families earning, say,
25% of the incomes in the 10 studies. It would also be an important confound
if the 10 sets of families averaged 1.5 children but lower SES families averaged,
say, 4.5 children, as the per capita family income would be even lower, relatively,
than the actual household income. Next, the potentially confounding effects of
socioeconomic status will be considered for each of most of the studies consid-
ered in this review in chronological order, by year, of their publication.

Potentially confounding influence of very high socioeconomic status

Earliest studies, 2008 or earlier. Some of the earliest research with adoptive families
found somewhat lower education and income than will be seen in more recent
research; for example, Erich and Leung (2002) and Leung and Erich (2002)
found that less than 27% of their fathers and mothers had been earning more
than $40,000 at the time of the adoption, with less than 31% of the mothers and
only 21% of the fathers having more than a college education. In an earlier
Schumm 91

study, Erich and Leung (1998) reported even lower parental education and
income. Compared to such very early reports, later research might well seem
to be investigations of the ‘‘cream of the crop’’ of adoptive parents, regardless of
parental sexual orientation.
Ryan and Cash (2004) surveyed 183 gay and lesbian parents from the U.S.
(N ¼ 182) and Canada (N ¼ 1). Nearly 80% of the parents had a college degree.
The average annual household income was $110,667 (SD ¼ 73,382). Notably
only 10% of the gay or lesbian parents reported that their child had been
teased ‘‘sometimes’’ or ‘‘often’’ about having homosexual parents (p. 462). In
a later report based on only the U.S. families (Ryan & Brown, 2012, p. 191), the
average annual household income had increased to $113,281 (SD ¼ 74,824) with
over 80% of the parents having a college degree.
In studies of 47 gay and lesbian adoptive families compared to 25 heterosexual
families, Erich and Leung and their colleagues (Erich, Leung, & Kindle, 2005;
Erich, Leung, Kindle, & Carter, 2005; Leung, Erich, & Kanenberg, 2005) reported
that 70% of gay/lesbian parents had graduate educations compared to only 48%
of the heterosexual parents (and 35% for parents of special needs children).
Goldberg and Perry-Jenkins (2007) studied 29 lesbian couples in the transition
to parenthood and found they had average annual incomes of $100,600 with a
range of $48,400 to $300,000; in addition, 58% had graduate degrees.
Ryan and Whitlock (2007) surveyed 96 lesbian adoptive parents and found an
average annual household income of over $95,000 with over 80% of parents
having a college degree (over 50% having a graduate degree). This study was
also notable because few of the adoptive parents reported any experience of bias
or discrimination from their lawyers (4.2%), judges (13.5%), social workers
(5.2%), adoption agency staff (10.4%), birth family (6.3%), or other profes-
sionals (25.0%).
Ryan (2007) reported on research with 94 gay and lesbian adoptive parents,
finding that their average annual income was $107,328 with 77.9% having a
college degree, with 50.3% having a graduate degree. However, Ryan compared
the ratings by parents about themselves (the parents) for his participants against
parents of whom 65% were identified as clerical, machine operator, or unskilled
workers (Hellen, 1999, p. 32), while in Hellen’s study, socioeconomic status was
correlated strongly with total parental scores (r ¼ .40, p < .003, d ¼ 0.87). The
measure of social status (SES) used by Hellen (1999) yielded a mean score of
34.41, a level associated with parents employed as skilled craftsmen, clerical, and
sales workers. In terms of the total inventory score for parents, the lesbian and
gay parents scored higher than the Hellen study parents (d ¼ 0.61). If we assume
35% of the Hellen study parents had a college degree, the effect size for educa-
tional difference between the Hellen study’s parents and Ryan’s parents would
have been d ¼ 0.82. The other comparison study by Farver, Kim, and Lee-Shin
(2000) involved two groups of parents, one with an SES score of 39.12
(SD ¼ 2.13) and the other a score of 40.10 (SD ¼ 2.89), the first in the same
92 Psychological Reports 0(0)

level of unskilled workers as Hellen’s study and the second just barely into the
level associated with medium business, minor professional, and technical work-
ers. The effect size difference for the total parental scores was d ¼ 1.02 between
Ryan’s parents and Farver et al.’s parents. Essentially, the SES differences
between the Ryan (2007) study and the two comparison studies could easily
have accounted for the effect size differences in self-reported parenting skill
across the three studies because the effect size differences in SES among the
groups were substantial as well as was the effect size association between par-
ental self-report scores and socioeconomic status (Hellen, 1999).
Fulcher et al. (2008) surveyed 33 lesbian couples (52% of their children in the
study had been adopted) and 33 heterosexual families (15% adopted) from the
East Coast of the United States, finding that the lesbians were better educated
(d ¼ 0.35, primary mothers; d ¼ 0.12, social mother vs. father) and had greater
income (d ¼ 0.28), even though income was measured with a truncation above
$60,000 annual household income such that higher incomes did not factor very
much into the mean score for income. In a subset of those 66 families, Sutfin
et al. (2008) found that the lesbian mothers (55% of their children adopted) had
more education than the heterosexual parents (17% adoptive children) (d ¼ 0.20)
although incomes were similar, though truncated again (both groups of families
scored 6.8 on a scale of income that ranged between 1 and 7).

Later studies, 2009 to 2011. Brown, Smalling, Groza, and Ryan (2009) studied
182 gay and lesbian adoptive parents and calculated an average annual income
of $125,726 for men and $97,001 for women, with $113,281 for all participants
combined (SD ¼ $74,824). In their study of adoptive parents, Erich et al. (2009)
reported annual incomes of over $90,000 for 37% of their 27 lesbian and gay
parents compared to only 22% of their 127 heterosexual parents; in terms of
education, 48% of the lesbian and gay parents had graduate degrees compared
to 33% of the heterosexual parents. Tan and Baggerly (2009) found that their 24
lesbian mothers most often had graduate degrees (75%), were employed full
(58%) or part (25%) time, and most (71%) had annual incomes of $90,000 or
more. Downing, Richardson, Kinkler, and Goldberg (2009) interviewed 32 gay
male couples who were considering adoption and found their average annual
income to be $173,153 while 47% had graduate degrees. Averett et al. (2009)
compared gay and lesbian couples with heterosexual couples, with children in
two age brackets. For parents with younger children (ages 1–5 years) over 58%
of the gay/lesbian parents had graduate degrees compared to 9% of the hetero-
sexual couples while in the older sample (ages 6–18 years), the respective per-
centages were over 49% and 11%. The average family incomes for the two
groups of same-sex parents, respectively, were $118,619 and $111,207 compared
to $62,798 and $58,222 for the heterosexual couples.
Farr et al. (2010) reported that ‘‘all parents noted that some individual, such
as a teacher, daycare provider, babysitter, or other relative or adult, provided
Schumm 93

outside care for their child on a regular basis’’ (p. 168). One advantage of high
socioeconomic status is that a parent can purchase high quality child care, which
may even compensate for at least some possible deficits in one’s own parenting
skills. In other words, high socioeconomic status may obscure or mask the actual
quality of one’s parenting, if not outright compensate for lower quality parent-
ing. However, such a possibility is seldom considered and cannot be tested for
validity unless socioeconomic status is controlled through study design or sta-
tistical controls.
Tornello, Farr, and Patterson (2011) surveyed 230 gay adoptive fathers, find-
ing their average annual income to be $211,000 with 80% or more of the fathers
and their partners having at least a college degree. Goldberg, Kinkler,
Richardson, and Downing (2012) studied 45 adoptive couples (15 heterosexual,
15 lesbian, 15 gay; 90% Caucasian) and found an average household income of
$141,908 (SD ¼ $90,885) with over 43% holding a graduate degree. Goldberg,
Kinkler, and Hines (2011) obtained data from 30 gay male, 45 lesbian, and 51
heterosexual adoptive couples and found high average annual incomes for all
three groups (gay couples, $104,747; lesbian couples, $178,843, heterosexual
couples, $125,481).
Brodzinsky (2011) surveyed 83 lesbians and 75 gay men who had adopted
children. Income was not reported, but educational levels were very high with
over 90% of both gay men and lesbian parents having a college degree; more-
over, 64% of the gay men and 57% of the lesbians had a graduate degree.

Recent studies, 2012 and 2013. Lavner et al. (2012) studied households that
included adoption of 82 high-risk children; while household income was not
reported, 34% of the primary adoptive parents had at least some graduate educa-
tion. Brooks et al. (2012) surveyed 82 gay/lesbian adoptive families and 1071
straight adoptive families, finding that slightly more of the former earned
$80,000 annual household gross income than the latter (57.6% vs. 54.7%); how-
ever, in terms of education of the respondent the percentages were significantly
different in terms of having at least some graduate study (71.3% vs. 48.5%), which
also held true for the other partner (64.4% vs. 40.0%). The average number of
children in the households was also significantly different, 1.94 vs. 2.67 (d ¼ 0.38,
p < .05). Another interesting difference in the Brooks et al. (2012) study was that
the focal adoptive child had been with the gay/lesbian families for 2.57 years
compared to 4.19 years for the heterosexual families (d  0.40).
In their qualitative study of 35 gay adoptive father couples, Richardson,
Moyer, and Goldberg (2012) reported an annual median family income of
$122,750 with a range of annual family incomes from $53,000 to $550,000
(even though 9% of the fathers were not working outside the home and 19%
were working only part-time); furthermore, 43% of the fathers had earned a
graduate degree. Among the 35 gay adoptive couples, 77% delegated child care
to others, to other family members (11%), part-time daycare (26%), or full-time
94 Psychological Reports 0(0)

preschool (17%), with 23% hiring full-time nannies. Goldberg, Moyer, et al.
(2012) conducted a qualitative study with 17 lesbian, 13 gay, and 12 heterosexual
couples who were adopting a child having been a foster parent to that child from
the child welfare system; in this study, heterosexual parents had higher average
annual family incomes ($141,501) than both gay ($123,480, d ¼ 0.38) and lesbian
($77,704, d ¼ 2.03) couples.
Goldberg, Kashy, et al. (2012) compared data from 44 lesbian couples, 34 gay
couples, and 48 heterosexual couples who had been placed with an adoptive
child two years earlier, with the child between the age of two and four. While
the difference between lesbian family household average income ($121,485) and
heterosexual family household average income ($141,658) was not significant
(d ¼ 0.26), the average income for gay family households ($194,528) was signifi-
cantly higher than that for both lesbian families (d ¼ 0.93) and heterosexual
families (d ¼ 0.61). A higher percentage of adoptions in heterosexual families
(33.3%) were international than in same-sex families (12.8%), two-sided
Fisher’s Exact Test, p ¼ .012; r ¼ .25, p ¼ .005; OR ¼ 3.40 (95% CI, 1.39–8.32,
p ¼ .007)). Otherwise, the families were remarkably similar in parental age, par-
ental education, race, age of child, and gender of child.
Goldberg, Moyer, and Kinkler (2013) reported data from 15 lesbian couples,
15 gay couples, and 15 heterosexual couples who had adopted children but only
reported the average household income for all of the couples ($159,753,
SD ¼ $82,123). Goldberg and Smith (2013) studied 40 lesbian families, 35 gay
families, and 45 heterosexual families who had adopted one child, their first child,
with a follow-up interview after two years. The average annual household income
for all of their couples was $144,902; gay couples earned more than heterosexual
couples (d ¼ 0.70, $202,200 vs. $127,560) while lesbian couples earned less
(d ¼ 0.20, $114,040); educational attainment for heterosexual couples was lower
than that of the gay couples (d ¼ 0.23) or the lesbian couples (d ¼ 0.12). Farr and
Patterson (2013a) studied 104 adoptive families, using a subset of data from 106
adoptive families discussed in a previous report (Farr et al., 2010) and found that
gay fathers tended to have higher annual family incomes ($190,000) than hetero-
sexual parents ($150,000) (d ¼ 0.38) as did lesbian mothers ($168,000) (d ¼ 0.21);
their gay (89%) and lesbian (94%) adoptive parents more often had a college
degree than the heterosexual adoptive parents (85%).
Golombok et al. (2014) reported results from a study of 41 gay father
families, 40 lesbian mother families, and 49 heterosexual parent families who
had an adopted child between the ages of three and nine years. Some of the
significant differences between the groups of families were not reported; for
example, it was reported that ‘‘There was no difference between family types
in the number of hours per week children spent in nonparental care’’ (p. 458),
but gay father families spent nearly two hours a week more in nonparental care
(6.83 hours vs. 5.05 hours), with Cohen’s d ¼ 0.41 (p < .06). The length of place-
ment was much longer (over 45 months vs. under 33 months) for heterosexual
Schumm 95

families than for gay father families (d ¼ 0.62, p < .05). The percentage of second
parents who were skilled labor (vs. professional/managerial) was nearly triple the
rate between heterosexual (30%) compared to gay father families (10%) with a
similar pattern for the first parents (33% vs. 13%). The heterosexual families
reported higher levels of depression (d ¼ 0.40, p < .01), anxiety (d ¼ 0.29,
p < .14), and parenting stress (d ¼ 0.49, p < .01) than gay father families. Thus,
the comparisons are biased by the heterosexual families having lower socioeco-
nomic positions, fewer hours of nonparental care, and greater mental health
problems. Given such pre-existing differences, one might expect children of gay
father families to be doing better than children from heterosexual families.
Such extraordinary levels of socioeconomic status may prevent the general-
ization of research on adoption to nonadoptive or lower socioeconomic status
adoptive families. It is quite possible that a two-parent adoptive family living on
an annual income of $30,000 with four children might not fare as well as a two-
parent adoptive family living on $200,000 with two children, regardless of the
parents’ sexual orientations because of the very substantial difference in per
capita family income ($5,000 vs. $50,000, an order of magnitude difference).
The risk of high socioeconomic status confounding our understanding of
sexual orientation and outcomes for adopted children may have increased in
more recent years as more recent research seems to have sampled some of the
highest earning adoptive parents. The affordability of high quality child care
also may obscure any significant influence of parental sexual orientation because
at least part of the effects of (good or bad) parenting actually may be due to the
interaction with children provided by the other caretakers hired by the parents.
The bottom line is that much of the research to be discussed here probably will
not apply directly to adoptive families of lesser means or lower levels of parental
education and even within very high socioeconomic status families, sexual orien-
tation may be confounded with other factors.

Acknowledgments
This report is a revision of a paper presented at Session II: Legal Perspectives on Issues of
Marriage and Children, Symposium on Contemporary Issues Regarding Marriage
and Children, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah,
March 15, 2013. This report was supported in part by summer faculty grants from the
Witherspoon Institute, Princeton, New Jersey. The Witherspoon Institute had no influ-
ence or control over the content of the manuscript. Appreciation is expressed to several
anonymous reviewers who dedicated considerable professional time to evaluating this
report and providing numerous helpful recommendations for improvements and correc-
tions. All errors, mistakes, or omissions herein are the fault of the author alone.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
96 Psychological Reports 0(0)

Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article: This report was supported in part by summer
faculty grants from the Witherspoon Institute, Princeton, NJ.

Notes
1. Census estimates of the number of same-sex families with children appear to suggest
much lower numbers, perhaps in the hundreds of thousands (Brewster, Tillman, &
Jokinen-Gordon, 2014, p. 505). Miller and Price (2014) estimated the number at
240,000, while Gates (2013) estimated it at 220,000 in terms of children living with
same-sex parents. However, Harder (2016, p. 1294) estimated that three million same-
sex parents are raising as many as six million children, while Bos et al. (2016, p. 179)
accepted an estimate of approximately 131,000 same-sex couples raising children in the
United States as of 2013. For more details on this controversy and its history, see
Schumm and Crawford (2015) and Schumm et al. (2016).
2. This review will not focus on outcomes associated with parental division of labor
(Patterson et al., 2004; Schumm, 2011c, pp. 39–40), sexual abuse by parents
(Schumm, 2013; Schumm et al., 2014), stigmatization by peers (Schumm, 2011c, pp.
49–50), or parental self-reports that lack controls for social desirability response bias.

References
Allen, D. W. (2013). High school graduation rates among children of same-sex house-
holds. Review of Economics of the Household, 11(4), 635–658.
Allen, D. W. (2015). More heat than light: A critical assessment of the same-sex parenting
literature, 1995–2013. Marriage & Family Review, 51, 154–182.
Allen, M., & Burrell, N. (1996). Comparing the impact of homosexual and heterosexual
parents on children: Meta-analysis of existing research. Journal of Homosexuality, 32,
19–35.
Allen, D. W., Pakaluk, C., & Price, J. (2013). Nontraditional families and childhood
progress through school: A comment on Rosenfeld. Demography, 50, 955–961.
Allison, R., & Risman, B. J. (2013). A double standard for ‘‘Hooking up’’: How far have
we come toward gender equality? Social Science Research, 42, 1191–1206.
Altman, D. G., & Bland, J. M. (1995). Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
British Medical Journal, 311, 485.
Amato, P. R. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 62, 1269–1287.
Amato, P. R. (2001). Children of divorce in the 1990s: An update of the Amato and Keith
(1991) meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 355–370.
Amato, P. R. (2010). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 650–666.
Amato, P. R. (2012). The well-being of children with gay and lesbian parents. Social
Science Research, 41, 771–774.
Amato, P. R., & Anthony, C. J. (2014). Estimating the effects of parental divorce and
death with fixed effects models. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76, 370–386.
Schumm 97

Amato, P. R., & Cheadle, J. (2005). The long reach of divorce: Divorce and child well-
being across three Generations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 191–206.
American Psychological Association. (1994). Publication manual of the American
Psychological Association (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual of the American
Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American
Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Anderson, K. M. (1999). Review of the book growing up in a lesbian family: Effects on
child development. Sex Roles, 41(7–8), 639–641.
Anderson, E. (2013). The need to review peer review: The Regnerus scandal as a call to
action. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 17, 337–351.
Anderssen, N., Amlie, C., & Ytteroy, E. A. (2002). Outcomes for children with lesbian or
gay parents: A review of studies from 1978 to 2000. Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology, 43, 335–351.
Andersson, G., & Kolk, M. (2011). Trends in childbearing and nuptiality in Sweden: An
update with data up to 2007. Stockholm Research Reports in Demography, 7, 21–29.
Andersson, G., Noack, T., Seierstad, A., & Weedon-Fekjaer, H. (2006). The demograph-
ics of same-sex marriages in Norway and Sweden. Demography, 43, 79–98.
Armesto, J. C. (2002). Developmental and contextual factors that influence gay fathers’
parental competence: A review of the literature. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 3,
67–78.
Averett, P., Nalavany, B., & Ryan, S. (2009). An evaluation of gay/lesbian and hetero-
sexual adoption. Adoption Quarterly, 12, 129–151.
Baetens, P., & Brewaeys, A. (2001). Lesbian couples requesting donor insemination: An
update of the knowledge with regard to lesbian mother families. Human Reproduction
Update, 7, 512–519.
Bailey, J. M., Bobrow, D., Wolfe, M., & Mikach, S. (1995). Sexual orientation of adult
sons of gay fathers. Developmental Psychology, 31, 124–129.
Ball, C. A. (2003). Lesbian and gay families: Gender nonconformity and the implications
of difference. Capital University Law Review, 31, 691–749.
Ball, C. A. (2012). The right to be parents: LGBT families and the transformation of
parenthood. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Ball, C. A. (2013). Social science studies and the children of lesbians and gay men: The
rational basis perspective. William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 21, 691–764.
Ball, C. A. (2014). Same-sex marriage and children: A tale of history, social science, and
law. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Balsam, K. F., Beauchaine, T. P., Rothblum, E. D., & Solomon, S. E. (2008). Three-year
follow-up of same-sex couples who had civil unions in Vermont, same-sex couples not in
civil unions, and heterosexual married couples. Developmental Psychology, 44, 102–116.
Balter, M. (2008). Why we’re different: Probing the gap between apes and humans.
Science, 319, 404–405.
Barrett, H., & Tasker, F. (2001). Growing up with a gay parent: Views of 101 gay fathers
on their sons’and daughters’ experiences. Educational and Child Psychology, 18, 62–77.
Baumeister, R. F., & Tierney, J. (2011). Willpower: Rediscovering the greatest human
strength. New York, NY: Penguin Press.
98 Psychological Reports 0(0)

Bechtold, J., Cavanagh, C., Shulman, E. P., & Cauffman, E. (2014). Does mother know
best? Adolescent and mother reports of impulsivity and subsequent delinquency.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 1903–1913.
Berkovitz, D. (2013). Gay men and surrogacy. In A. E. Goldberg & K. R. Allen (Eds.),
LGBT-parent families: Innovations in research and implications for practice (pp. 71–85).
New York, NY: Springer.
Biblarz, T. J., & Stacey, J. (2010). How does the gender of parents matter? Journal of
Marriage and Family, 72, 3–22.
Bigner, J. J., & Jacobsen, R. B. (1989). The value of children to gay and heterosexual
fathers. In F. W. Bozett (Ed.), Homosexuality and the family (pp. 163–172). New York,
NY: Haworth Press.
Birditt, K. S., Brown, E., Orbuch, T. L., & McIlvane, J. M. (2010). Marital conflict
behaviors and implications for divorce over 16 years. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 72, 1188–1204.
Blackwelder, W. C. (1982). ‘‘Proving the null hypothesis’’ in clinical trials. Controlled
Clinical Trials, 3, 345–353.
Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1983). American couples: Money, work, and sex.
New York, NY: William Morrow.
Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1990). Intimate relationships and the creation of sexuality.
In D. P. McWhirter, S. A. Sanders & J. M. Reinisch (Eds.), Homosexuality/hetero-
sexuality: Concepts of sexual orientation (pp. 307–320). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Bos, H. M. W. (2004). Parenting in planned lesbian families. Amsterdam, the Netherlands:
Vossiuspers UvA.
Bos, H. M. W. (2010). Planned gay father families in kinship arrangements. Australia and
New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 31, 356–371.
Bos, H. M. W. (2013). Lesbian-mother families formed through donor insemination.
In A. E. Goldberg & K. R. Allen (Eds.), LGBT-parent families: Innovations in research
and implications for practice (pp. 21–37). New York, NY: Springer.
Bos, H. M. W., Gartrell, N. K., Peyser, H., & van Balen, F. (2008). The USA National
Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS): Homophobia, psychological adjust-
ment, and protective factors. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 12, 455–471.
Bos, H. M. W., Gartrell, N., Roeleveld, J., & Ledoux, G. (2013). Civic competence of
Dutch children in female same-sex parent families: A comparison with children of
opposite-sex children. Youth & Society. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/
0044118X13502366
Bos, H. M. W., Gartrell, N. K., van Balen, F., Peyser, H., & Sandfort, T. G. M. (2008).
Children in planned lesbian families: A cross-cultural comparison between the
United States and the Netherlands. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 78,
211–219.
Bos, H. M. W., Gartrell, N., & van Gelderen, L. (2013). Adolescents in lesbian families:
DSM-oriented scale scores and stigmatization. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social
Services, 25, 121–140.
Bos, H. M. W., Goldberg, N., van Gelderen, L., & Gartrell, N. (2012). Adolescents of the
U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Male role models, gender role
traits, and psychological adjustment. Gender & Society, 26, 603–638.
Schumm 99

Bos, H. M. W., Knox, J. R., van Rijn-van Gelderen, L., & Gartrell, N. K. (2016). Same-
sex and different-sex parent households and child health outcomes: Findings from the
National Survey of Children’s Health. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral
Pediatrics, 37, 179–187.
Bos, H. M. W., & Sandfort, T. G. M. (2010). Children’s gender identity in lesbian and
heterosexual two-parent families. Sex Roles, 62, 114–126.
Bos, H. M. W., & van Balen, F. (2010). Children of the new reproductive technol-
ogies: Social and genetic parenthood. Patient Education and Counseling, 81,
429–435.
Bos, H. M. W., van Balen, F., Sandfort, T. G. M., & van den Boom, D. C. (2006).
Children’s psychosocial adjustment and gender development in planned lesbian families.
Working paper, Social and Behavioral Sciences Department of Education, University
of Amsterdam.
Bos, H. M. W., van Balen, F., & van den Boom, D. C. (2007). Child adjustment and
parenting in planned lesbian-parent families. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77,
38–48.
Bos, H. M. W., van Gelderen, L., & Gartrell, N. (2015). Lesbian and heterosexual two-
parent families: Adolescent-parent relationship quality and adolescent well-being.
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24, 1031–1046.
Bowen, D. M. (2014). All that heaven will allow: A statistical analysis of the coexistence
of same-sex marriage and gay matrimonial bans. Denver University Law Review, 91(2),
277–334.
Brewaeys, A., Ponjaert, I., Van Hall, E. V., & Golombok, S. (1997). Donor insemination:
Child development and family functioning in lesbian mother families. Human
Reproduction, 12, 1349–1359.
Brewster, K. L., Tillman, K. H., & Jokinen-Gordon, H. (2014). Demographic character-
istics of lesbian parents in the United States. Population Research and Policy Review,
33, 503–526.
Brodzinsky, D. M. (2011). Expanding resources for children III: Research-based best prac-
tices in adoption by gays and lesbians. New York, NY: Evan B. Donaldson Adoption
Institute.
Brodzinsky, D. M., Green, R. J., & Katuzny, K. (2012). Adoption by lesbians and gay
men: What we know, need to know, and ought to do. In D. M. Brodzinsky &
A. Pertman (Eds.), Adoption by lesbians and gay men: A new dimension in family
diversity (pp. 233–253). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Brooks, D., Kim, H., & Wind, L. H. (2012). Supporting gay and lesbian adoptive families
before and after adoption. In D. M. Brodzinsky & A. Pertman (Eds.), Adoption by
lesbians and gay men: A new dimension in family diversity (pp. 150–183). New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Brown, R., & Perlesz, A. (2007). Not the other mother: How language constructs lesbian
co-parenting relationships. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 3, 267–308.
Brown, S., Smalling, S., Groza, V., & Ryan, S. (2009). The experiences of gay men
and lesbians in becoming and being adoptive parents. Adoption Quarterly, 12,
229–246.
Buxton, A. P. (1994). The other side of the closet: The coming-out crisis for straight spouses
and families. New York, NY: Wiley.
100 Psychological Reports 0(0)

Buxton, A. P. (1999). The best interest of children of gay and lesbian parents. In R.
M. Galatzer-Levy & L. Kraus (Eds.), The scientific basis of child custody decisions
(pp. 319–356). New York, NY: Wiley.
Byrd, A. D. (2011). Homosexual couples and parenting: What science can and cannot
say. Journal of Human Sexuality, 3, 4–34.
Cameron, P. (1999). Homosexual parents: Testing ‘‘common sense’’ – A literature review
emphasizing the Golombok and Tasker longitudinal study of lesbians’ children.
Psychological Reports, 85, 282–322.
Campbell, K. M. (2000). Relationship characteristics, social support, masculine ideologies,
and psychological functioning of gay men in couples (Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion). California School of Professional Psychology, Alameda, CA.
Canning, T. T. (2005). Gay and heterosexual fathers: A comparative analysis of child
behavior and well-being. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B. Science and
Engineering, 66(07), 3995.
Carpenter, C., & Gates, G. J. (2008). Gay and lesbian partnership: Evidence from
California. Demography, 45, 573–590.
Chan, R. W., Brooks, R. C., Raboy, B., & Patterson, C. J. (1998). Division of labor
among lesbian and heterosexual parents: Associations with children’s adjustment.
Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 402–419.
Chan, R. W., Raboy, B., & Patterson, C. J. (1998). Psychosocial adjustment among
children conceived via donor insemination by lesbian and heterosexual mothers.
Child Development, 69, 443–457.
Cheng, S., & Powell, B. (2015). Measurement, methods, and divergent patterns:
Reassessing the effects of same-sex parents. Social Science Research, 52, 615–626.
Chrisp, J. (2001). That four letter word – Sons: Lesbian mothers and adolescent sons.
Journal of Lesbian Studies, 5, 195–209.
Clarke, V., Kitzinger, C., & Potter, J. (2004). ‘Kids are just cruel anyway’: Lesbian and
gay parents’ talk about homophobic bullying. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43,
531–550.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 115–119.
Cohen, J. (1994). Things I have learned so far. American Psychologist, 45, 1304–1312.
Conley, T. D., Ziegler, A., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Valentine, B. (2012). A critical
examination of popular assumptions about the benefits and outcomes of monogamous
relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 124–141.
Connolly, C. M., & Sicola, M. K. (2006). Listening to lesbian couples: Communication
competence in long-term relationships. In J. J. Bigner (Ed.), An introduction to GLBT
family studies (pp. 271–296). New York, NY: Haworth Press.
Cooper, L., & Cates, P. (2006). Too high a price: The case against restricting gay parenting.
New York, NY: American Civil Liberties Union Foundation.
Crouch, S. R., McNair, R. P., Waters, E. B., & Power, J. J. (2013). What makes a same-
sex parented family? Medical Journal of Australia, 199, 94–96.
Crouch, S. R., Waters, E., McNair, R., & Power, J. (2014). The health perspectives of
Australian adolescents from same-sex parented families: A mixed methods study.
Child: Care, Health, and Development, 41(3), 1–9.
Schumm 101

Crouch, S. R., Waters, E., McNair, R., Power, J., & Davis, E. (2014). Parent-reported
measures of child health and wellbeing in same-sex parent families: A cross-sectional
survey. BMC Public Health, 14(635), 1–12.
Crowl, A., Ahn, S., & Baker, J. (2008). A meta-analysis of developmental outcomes for
children of same-sex and heterosexual parents. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 4,
385–407.
Dempsey, D. (2013). Same-sex parented families in Australia. [Child Family Community
Australia Paper No. 18]. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Diamond, L. M., & Butterworth, M. (2009). The close relationships of sexual minorities.
In M. C. Smith & N. DeFrates-Densch (Eds.), Handbook of research on adult learning
and development (pp. 350–377). New York, NY: Routledge.
DiLapi, E. M. (1989). Lesbian mothers and the motherhood hierarchy. Journal of
Homosexuality, 18, 101–121.
Downing, J., Richardson, H., Kinkler, L., & Goldberg, A. E. (2009). Making the deci-
sion: Factors influencing gay men’s choice of an adoption path. Adoption Quarterly,
12, 247–271.
Dundas, S., & Kaufman, M. (2000). The Toronto lesbian family study. Journal of
Homosexuality, 40(2), 65–79.
England, M. J., & Sim, L. J. (2009). Depression in parents, parenting, and children:
Opportunities to improve identification, treatment, and prevention. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press.
Erich, S., Kanenberg, H., Case, K., Allen, T., & Bogdanos, T. (2009). An empirical
analysis of factors affecting adolescent attachment in adoptive families with homosex-
ual and straight parents. Children and Youth Services Review, 31, 398–404.
Erich, S., & Leung, P. (1998). Factors contributing to family functioning of adoptive
children with special needs: A long term outcome analysis. Children and Youth Services
Review, 20, 135–150.
Erich, S., & Leung, P. (2002). The impact of previous type of abuse and sibling adoption
upon adoptive families. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26, 1045–1058.
Erich, S., Leung, P., & Kindle, P. (2005). A comparative analysis of adoptive family
functioning with gay, lesbian, and heterosexual parents and their children. Journal
of GLBT Family Studies, 1, 43–60.
Erich, S., Leung, P., Kindle, P., & Carter, S. (2005). Gay and lesbian adoptive families:
An exploratory study of family functioning, adoptive children’s behavior, and familial
support networks. Journal of Family Social Work, 9, 17–32.
Erwin, T. M. (2007). Two moms and a baby: Counseling lesbian couples choosing
motherhood. Women & Therapy, 30, 99–149.
Farr, R. H. (2014). Longitudinal outcomes for children adopted by lesbian, gay, and
heterosexual parents. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National
Council on Family Relations, Baltimore, Maryland, November 19.
Farr, R. H., Crain, E. E., Oakley, M. K., Cashen, K. K., & Garber, K. J. (2016).
Microaggressions, feelings of difference, and resilience among adopted children with
sexual minority parents. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 45, 85–104.
Farr, R. H., Forssell, S. L., & Patterson, C. J. (2010). Parenting and child development in
adoptive families: Does parental sexual orientation matter? Applied Developmental
Science, 14, 164–178.
102 Psychological Reports 0(0)

Farr, R. H., & Patterson, C. J. (2013a). Coparenting among lesbian, gay, and heterosex-
ual couples: Associations with adopted children’s outcomes. Child Development, 84,
1226–1240.
Farr, R. H., & Patterson, C. J. (2013b). Lesbian-mother families formed through donor
insemination. In A. E. Goldberg & K. R. Allen (Eds.), LGBT-parent families:
Innovations in research and implications for practice (pp. 39–55). New York, NY:
Springer.
Farver, J. A. M., Kim, Y. K., & Lee-Shin, Y. (2000). Within cultural differences:
Examining individual differences in Korean American and European American pre-
schoolers’ social pretend play. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 583–602.
Fedewa, A. L., Black, W. W., & Ahn, S. (2015). Children and adolescents with same-
gender parents: A meta-analytic approach in assessing outcomes. Journal of GLBT
Family Studies, 11(1), 1–34.
Fedewa, A. L., & Clark, T. P. (2009). Parent practices and home-school partnerships: A
differential effect for children with same-sex coupled parents? Journal of GLBT Family
Studies, 5, 312–339.
Fitzgerald, B. (1999). Children of lesbian and gay parents: A review of the literature.
Marriage and Family Review, 29, 57–75.
Flaks, D. K. (1994). Gay and lesbian families: Judicial assumptions, scientific realities.
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 3(1), 345–372.
Flaks, D. K., Ficher, I., Masterpasqua, F., & Joseph, G. (1995). Lesbians choosing
motherhood: A comparative study of lesbian and heterosexual parents and their chil-
dren. Developmental Psychology, 31, 105–114.
Foster, D. (2005). The formation and continuance of lesbian families in Canada. CBMH,
22, 281–297.
Fomby, P., & Bosick, S. J. (2013). Family instability and the transition to adulthood.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 75, 1266–1287.
Fomby, P., & Sennott, C. A. (2013). Family structure instability and mobility: The con-
sequences for adolescents’ problem behavior. Social Science Research, 42, 186–201.
Fond, G., Franc, N., & Purper-Ouakil, D. (2012). Homoparentalitie et developpement de
l’enfant: Donnees actuelles. L’Encephale, 38, 10–15.
Fulcher, M., Chan, R. W., Raboy, B., & Patterson, C. J. (2002). Contact with grandpar-
ents among children conceived via donor insemination by lesbian and heterosexual
mothers. Parenting: Science and Practice, 2, 61–76.
Fulcher, M., Sutfin, E. L., & Patterson, C. J. (2008). Individual differences in gender
development: Associations with parental sexual orientation, attitudes, and division of
labor. Sex Roles, 58, 330–341.
Gabb, J. (2005). Lesbian m/otherhood: Strategies of familial-linguistic management in
lesbian parent families. Sociology, 39, 585–603.
Gartrell, N. K. (1999). If this is tuesday, it must be dee . . . confessions of a closet poly-
amorist. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 3, 23–33.
Gartrell, N., Banks, A., Reed, N., Hamilton, J., Rodas, C., & Deck, A. (2000). The
National Lesbian Family Study: 3. Interviews with mothers of five-year-olds.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 70, 542–548.
Gartrell, N. K., & Bos, H. M. W. (2010). US national longitudinal lesbian family study:
Psychological characteristics of 17-year-old adolescents. Pediatrics, 126(1), 1–9.
Schumm 103

Gartrell, N., Bos, H. M. W., & Goldberg, N. G. (2011). Adolescents of the U.S. national
longitudinal lesbian family study: Sexual orientation, sexual behavior, and sexual risk
exposure. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 1199–1209.
Gartrell, N., Bos, H., Peyser, H., Deck, A., & Rodas, C. (2011). Family characteristics,
custody arrangements, and adolescent psychological well-being after lesbian mothers
break up. Family Relations, 60, 572–585.
Gartrell, N., Bos, H. M. W., Peyser, H., Deck, A., & Rodas, C. (2012). Adolescents with
lesbian mothers describe their own lives. Journal of Homosexuality, 59, 1211–1229.
Gartrell, N., Hamilton, J., Banks, A., Mosbacher, D., Reed, N., Sparks, C. H., & Bishop,
H. (1996). The national lesbian family study: 1. Interviews with Prospective Mothers.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 66, 272–281.
Gartrell, N., Rodas, C., Deck, A., Peyser, H., & Banks, A. (2006). The USA national
lesbian family study: Interviews with mothers of 10-year-olds. Feminism & Psychology,
16, 175–192.
Gates, G. J. (2013). LGBT parenting in the United States. Los Angeles: The Williams
Institute.
Gates, G. J., & Sell, R. (2007). Measuring gay and lesbian couples. In S. L. Hofferth & L.
M. Casper (Eds.), Handbook of measurement issues in family research (pp. 235–244).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gershon, T. D., Tschann, J. M., & Jemerin, J. M. (1999). Stigmatization, self-esteem, and
coping among the adolescent children of lesbian mothers. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 24, 437–445.
Goldberg, A. E. (2009). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual family psychology: A systemic, life-
cycle perspective. In J. H. Bray & M. Stanton (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of
family psychology (pp. 576–587). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Goldberg, A. E. (2010). Lesbian and gay parents and their children: Research on the family
life cycle. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Goldberg, J. (2012). The tyranny of cliche´s: How liberals cheat I the war of ideas.
New York, NY: Penguin.
Goldberg, A. E., & Allen, K. R. (2013a). Same-sex relationship dissolution and LGB
stepfamily formation: Perspectives of young adults with LGB parents. Family
Relations, 62, 529–544.
Goldberg, A. E., & Allen, K. R. (2013b). Conclusion: Reflections on the volume and visions
for the future. In A. E. Goldberg & K. R. Allen (Eds.), LGBT-parent families: Innovations
in research and implications for practice (pp. 359–365). New York, NY: Springer.
Goldberg, A. E., & Allen, K. R. (2013c). Donor, dad, or. . .? Young adults with lesbian
parents’ experiences with known donors. Family Process, 52, 338–350.
Goldberg, N. G., Bos, H. M. W., & Gartrell, N. K. (2011). Substance use by adolescents
of the USA. National longitudinal lesbian family study. Journal of Health Psychology,
16, 1231–1240.
Goldberg, A. E., Downing, J. B., & Sauck, C. C. (2008). Perceptions of children’s par-
ental preferences in lesbian two-mother households. Journal of Marriage and Family,
70, 419–434.
Goldberg, A. E., Kashy, D. A., & Smith, J. Z. (2012). Gender-typed play behavior in
early childhood: Adopted children with lesbian, gay, and heterosexual parents. Sex
Roles, 67, 503–515.
104 Psychological Reports 0(0)

Goldberg, A. E., Kinkler, L. A., & Hines, D. A. (2011). Perception and internalization of
adoption stigma among gay, lesbian, and heterosexual adoptive parents. Journal of
GLBT Family Studies, 7, 132–154.
Goldberg, A. E., Kinkler, L. A., Richardson, H. B., & Downing, J. B. (2012). On the
border: Young adults with LGBQ parents navigate LGBTQ communities. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 59, 71–85.
Goldberg, A. E., & Kuvalanka, K. A. (2012). Marriage (in) equality: The perspectives of
adolescents and emerging adults with lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 74, 34–52.
Goldberg, A. E., Moyer, A. M., & Kinkler, L. A. (2013). Lesbian, gay, and heterosexual
adoptive parents’ perceptions of parental bonding during early parenthood. Couple
and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 2, 146–162.
Goldberg, A. E., Moyer, A. M., Kinkler, L. A., & Richardson, H. B. (2012). ‘‘When
you’re sitting on the fence, hope’s the hardest part’’: Challenges and experiences of
heterosexual and same-sex couples adopting through the child welfare system.
Adoption Quarterly, 15, 288–315.
Goldberg, A. E., Moyer, A. M., Weber, E. R., & Shapiro, J. (2013). What changed when
the gay adoption ban was lifted?: Perspectives of lesbian and gay parents in Florida.
Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 10, 119–124.
Goldberg, A. E., & Perry-Jenkins, M. (2007). The division of labor and perceptions of
parental roles: Lesbian couples across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 24, 297–318.
Goldberg, A. E., & Smith, J. Z. (2013). Predictors of psychological adjustment in early
placed adopted children with lesbian, gay, and heterosexual parents. Journal of Family
Psychology, 27, 431–442.
Golombok, S. (2015). Modern families: Parents and children in new family forms.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University.
Golombok, S., & Badger, S. (2010). Children raised in mother-headed families from
infancy: A follow-up of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers, at early
adulthood. Human Reproduction, 25, 150–157.
Golombok, S., MacCallum, F., Goodman, E., & Rutter, M. (2002). Families with children
conceived by donor insemination: A follow-up at age twelve. Child Development, 73,
952–968.
Golombok, S., Mellish, L., Jennings, S., Casey, P., Tasker, F., & Lamb, M. E. (2014).
Adoptive gay father families: Parent-child relationships and children’s psychological
adjustment. Child Development, 85, 456–468.
Golombok, S., Perry, B., Burston, A., Murray, C., Mooney-Somers, J., Stevens, M., &
Golding, J. (2003). Children with lesbian parents: A community study. Developmental
Psychology, 39, 20–33.
Golombok, S., Spencer, A., & Rutter, M. (1983). Children in lesbian and single-parent
households: Psychosexual and psychiatric appraisal. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 24, 551–572.
Golombok, S., & Tasker, F. (1996). Do parents influence the sexual orientation of their
children? Findings from a longitudinal study of lesbian families. Developmental
Psychology, 32, 3–11.
Schumm 105

Golombok, S., Tasker, F., & Murray, C. (1997). Children raised in fatherless families
from infancy: Family relationships and the socioemotional development of children of
lesbian and single heterosexual mothers. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
and Allied Disciplines, 38, 783–791.
Gonsiorek, J. C. (2006). Sexual orientation and mental health: What the behavioral sci-
ences know about sexual orientation and why it matters. In J. C. Gonsiorek (Ed.),
Mental disorders of the new millennium: Biology and function. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Gottman, J. S. (1989). Children of gay and lesbian parents. Marriage and Family Review,
14, 177–196.
Granleese, J., & Joseph, S. (2001). Reliability of the harter self-perception profile for chil-
dren and predictors of global self-worth. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 155, 487–492.
Green, A. I. (2010). Queer unions: Same-sex spouses marrying tradition and innovation.
Canadian Journal of Sociology, 35, 399–436.
Green, R. J., Bettinger, M., & Zacks, E. (1996). Are lesbian couples fused and gay male
couples disengaged? Questioning gender straightjackets. In J. Laird & R. J. Green
(Eds.), Lesbians and gays in couples and families: A handbook for therapists
(pp. 185–230). New York, NY: Jossey-Bass.
Green, F. J., & Friedman, M. (2013). Chasing rainbows: Exploring gender fluid parenting
practices. Bradford, Canada: Demeter Press.
Grohalt, B., Ekeberg, O., Wichstrom, L., & Haldorsen, T. (2005). Suicidal and nonsui-
cidal adolescents: Different factors contribute to self-esteem. Suicide and Life-
Threatening Behavior, 35, 525–535.
Hall, S. (2011). ‘It’s going to stop in this generation’: Women with a history of child abuse
resolving to raise their children without abuse. Harvard Educational Review, 81, 24–49.
Harder, B. M. (2016). Lesbian relationships. In C. L. Shehan (Ed.), The Wiley Blackwell
encyclopedia of family studies (Vol. 3, pp. 1292–1297). Malden, MA: Wiley.
Harris, M. B., & Turner, P. H. (1986). Gay and lesbian parents. Journal of
Homosexuality, 12, 101–113.
Hartz, C. L. (2010). Arkansas’s unmarried couple adoption ban: Depriving children of
families. Arkansas Law Review, 63, 113–138.
Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Birkett, M., van Wangenen, A., & Meyer, I. H. (2014). Protective
school climates and reduced risk for suicide ideation in sexual minority youths.
American Journal of Public Health, 104, 279–286.
Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Jun, H. J., Corliss, H. L., & Austin, S. B. (2014). Structural stigma
and cigarette smoking in a prospective cohort study of sexual minority and hetero-
sexual youth. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 47, 48–56.
Hawkins, S. A. (2011). Family relationships and adolescent behavior: A look at families
headed by heterosexual, lesbian, and gay parents (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
The Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA.
Hays, D., & Samuels, A. (1989). Heterosexual women’s perceptions of their marriages to
bisexual or homosexual men. Journal of Homosexuality, 18, 81–100.
Heaton, T. B. (1990). Marital stability throughout the child-rearing years. Demography,
27, 55–63.
Hellen, K. A. (1999). Maternal attitudes and their influence on the creativity level of preschool
children. (Unpublished master’s thesis). West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.
106 Psychological Reports 0(0)

Henehan, D., Rothblum, E. D., Solomon, S. E., & Balsam, K. F. (2007). Social and
demographic characteristics of gay, lesbian, and heterosexual adults with and without
children. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 3, 35–79.
Hequembourg, A. (2004). Unscripted motherhood: Lesbian mothers negotiating incom-
pletely institutionalized family relationships. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 21, 739–762.
Hequembourg, A. (2007). Lesbian motherhood: Stories of becoming. New York, NY:
Harrington Park Press.
Herek, G. M. (1991). Myths about sexual orientation: A lawyer’s guide to social science
research. Law & Sexuality, 1, 133–172.
Herek, G. M. (2006). Legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States: A
social science perspective. American Psychologist, 61, 607–621.
Herek, G. M. (2014). Evaluating the methodology of social science research on sexual
orientation and parenting: A tale of three studies. University of California-Davis Law
Review, 48, 583–622.
Herek, G. M., & McLemore, K. A. (2013). Sexual prejudice. Annual Review of
Psychology, 64, 309–333.
Herek, G. M., Norton, A. T., Allen, T. J., & Sims, C. L. (2010). Demographic, psycho-
logical, and social characteristics of self-identified lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in a
US probability sample. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 7, 176–200.
Hetherington, E. M., & Stanley-Hagan, M. (2000). Diversity among stepfamilies. In D.
H. Demo, K. R. Allen & M. A. Fine (Eds.), Handbook of family diversity
(pp. 173–196). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Hicks, S. (2005). I gay parenting bad for kids? Responding to the ‘very idea of difference’
in research on lesbian and gay parents. Sexualities, 8, 158–168.
Hicks, S. (2013). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender parents and the question of
gender. In A. E. Goldberg & K. R. Allen (Eds.), LGBT-parent families: Innovations in
research and implications for practice (pp. 149–162). New York, NY: Springer.
Holtzman, M. (2013). GLBT parents’ rights during custody decision making: The influ-
ence of doctrine, statute, and societal factors in the United States. Journal of GLBT
Family Studies, 9, 364–392.
Huggins, S. L. (1989). A comparative study of self-esteem of adolescent children of
divorced lesbian mothers and divorced heterosexual mothers. In F. Bozett (Ed.),
Homosexuality and the family (pp. 123–135). New York, NY: Harrington Park.
Javaid, G. A. (1993). The children of homosexual and heterosexual single mothers. Child
Psychiatry and Human Development, 23, 235–248.
Jennings, S., Mellish, L., Tasker, F., Lamb, M., & Golombok, S. (2014). Why adoption?
Gay, lesbian, and heterosexual adoptive parents’ reproductive experiences and reasons
for adoption. Adoption Quarterly, 17, 205–226.
Johnson, S. E. (1991). Staying power: Long term lesbian couples. Tallahassee, FL: Naiad
Press.
Jones, B., Jarvis, P., Lewis, J. A., & Ebbutt, A. F. (1996). Trials to assess equivalence: The
importance of rigorous methods. British Medical Journal, 313, 36–39.
Joos, K. E., & Broad, K. L. (2007). Coming out of the family closet: Stories of adult
women with LGBTQ parent(s). Qualitative Sociology, 30, 275–295.
Schumm 107

Julien, D., Jouvin, E., Jodoin, E., l’Archeveque, A., & Chartrand, E. (2008). Adjustment
among mothers reporting same-gender sexual partners: A study of a representative
population sample from Quebec Province (Canada). Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37,
864–876.
Kalmijn, M., Loeve, A., & Manting, D. (2007). Income dynamics in couples and the
dissolution of marriage and cohabitation. Demography, 44, 159–179.
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and
stability: A review of theory, methods, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3–34.
Karney, B. R., & Crown, J. S. (2011). Does deployment keep military marriages together
or break them apart? Evidence from Afghanistan and Iraq. In S. M. Wadsworth &
D. Riggs (Eds.), Risk and resilience in U.S. military families (pp. 23–45). New York,
NY: Springer Science + Business Media.
Kindle, P. A., & Erich, S. (2005). Perceptions of social support among heterosexual and
homosexual adopters. Families in Society, 86, 541–546.
King, M. B., & Pattison, P. (1991). Homosexuality and parenthood. British Medical
Journal, 303, 295–297.
Kirkpatrick, M., Smith, C., & Roy, R. (1981). Lesbian mothers and their children: A
comparative survey. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 51(3), 545–551.
Kunin, J. D. (1998). Predictors of psychosocial and behavioral adjustment of children: A
study comparing children raised by lesbian parents to children raised by heterosexual
parents. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B. Science and Engineering,
59(06), 3094.
Kurdek, L. A. (1998). Relationship outcomes and their predictors: Longitudinal evidence
from heterosexual married, gay cohabiting, and lesbian cohabiting couples. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 60, 553–568.
Kurdek, L. A. (2004). Are gay and lesbian cohabiting couples really different from het-
erosexual married couples? Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 880–900.
Kurdek, L. A. (2005). What do we know about gay and lesbian couples? Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 251–254.
Kurdek, L. A. (2006a). The nature and correlates of deterrents to leaving a relationship.
Personal Relationships, 13, 521–535.
Kurdek, L. A. (2006b). Differences between partners from heterosexual, gay, and lesbian
cohabiting couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 68, 509–528.
Kuvalanka, K. A. (2013). The ‘second generation’: LGBTQ youth with LGBTQ parents.
In A. E. Goldberg & K. R. Allen (Eds.), LGBT-parent families: Innovations in research
and implications for practice (pp. 163–175). New York, NY: Springer.
Kuvalanka, K. A., & Goldberg, A. E. (2009). ‘Second generation’ voices: Queer youth
with lesbian/bisexual mothers. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 904–919.
Kweskin, S. L., & Cook, A. S. (1982). Heterosexual and homosexual mothers’ self-
described sex-role behavior and ideal sex-role behavior in children. Sex Roles, 8,
967–975.
Lamb, M. E. (2012). Mothers, fathers, families, and circumstances: Factors affecting
children’s adjustment. Applied Developmental Science, 16, 98–111.
Lansford, J. E. (2009). Parental divorce and children’s adjustment. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 4, 140–152.
108 Psychological Reports 0(0)

LaSala, M. C. (2004). Monogamy of the heart: Extradyadic sex and gay male couples.
Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 17(3), 1–24.
Lau, C. Q. (2012). The stability of same-sex cohabitation, different-sex cohabitation, and
marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 74, 973–988.
Lavner, J. A., Waterman, J., & Peplau, L. A. (2012). Can gay and lesbian parents pro-
mote healthy development in high-risk children adopted from foster care? American
Journal of Ortho-Psychiatry, 82, 465–472.
Leeman, R. F., Hoff, R. A., Kirshnan-Sarin, S., Patock-Peckham, J. A., & Potenza, M.
N. (2013). Impulsivity, sensation-seeking, and part-time job status in relation to sub-
stance use and gambling in adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 1, 7.
Lehrer, E. L. (2008). Age at marriage and marital instability: Revisiting the Becker-
Landes-Michael hypothesis. Journal of Population Economics, 21, 463–484.
Leung, P., & Erich, S. (2002). Family functioning of adoptive children with special needs:
Implications of familial supports and child characteristics. Children and Youth Services
Review, 24, 799–816.
Leung, P., Erich, S., & Kanenberg, H. (2005). A comparison of family functioning in gay/
lesbian, heterosexual, and special needs adoptions. Children and Youth Services
Review, 27, 1031–1044.
Lev, A. I. (2010). How queer! – The development of gender identity and sexual orienta-
tion in LGBTQ-headed families. Family Process, 49, 268–290.
Lick, D. J., Tornello, S. L., Riskind, R. G., Schmidt, K. M., & Patterson, C. J. (2012).
Social climate for sexual minorities predicts well-being among heterosexual offspring
of lesbian and gay parents. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 9, 99–112.
Lin, T. E. (1999). Social norms and judicial decision-making: Examining the role of
narratives in same-sex adoption cases. Columbia Law Review, 99, 739–794.
Lillard, L. A., & Waite, L. J. (1993). A joint model of marital childbearing and marital
disruption. Demography, 30, 653–681.
Logue, A. W. (2000). Self-control and health behavior. In W. K. Bickel & R.
E. Vuchinich (Eds.), Reframing health behavior change with behavioral economics
(pp. 167–192). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Lubbe, C. (2007). Mothers, fathers, or parents: Same-gendered families in South Africa.
South African Journal of Psychology, 37, 260–283.
Luntz, F. I. (2009). What Americans really want. . . really. New York, NY: Hyperion.
Lytle, M. C., Foley, P. F., & Aster, A. M. (2013). Adult children of gay and lesbian parents:
Religion and the parent-child relationship. The Counseling Psychologist, 41, 530–567.
MacCallum, F., & Golombok, S. (2004). Children raised in fatherless families from
infancy: A follow-up of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers at early
adolescence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 1407–1419.
Manning, W. D., Fettro, M. N., & Lamidi, E. (2014). Child well-being in same-sex par-
ented families: Review of research prepared for American Sociological Association
Amicus Brief. Population Research and Policy Review, 33, 485–502.
Manzi, J. (2012). Uncontrolled: The surprising payoff of trial-and-error for business, pol-
itics, and society. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Markey, K. (1998). An overview of the legal challenges faced by gay and lesbian parents:
how courts treat the growing number of gay families. New York Law School Journal of
Human Rights, 14, 721–755.
Schumm 109

Marks, L. (2012). Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of

the American Psychological Association’s brief on lesbian and gay parenting. Social
Science Research, 41, 735–751.
Matthews, A. K., Tartaro, J., & Hughes, T. L. (2003). A comparative study of lesbian and
heterosexual women in committed relationships. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 7,
101–114.
McCloskey, L. A., & Bailey, J. A. (2000). The intergenerational transmission of risk for
child sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 1019–1035.
Means-Christensen, A. J., Snyder, D. K., & Negy, C. (2003). Assessing nontraditional
couples: Validity of the Marital Satisfaction Inventory-Revised with gay, lesbian,
and cohabiting heterosexual couples. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 29,
69–83.
Meldrum, R. C., Barnes, J. C., & Hay, C. (2015). Sleep deprivation, low self-control, and
delinquency: A test of the strength model of self-control. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 44, 465–477.
Mendez, N. (2009). Lesbian families. In S. Loue (Ed.), Sexualities and identities of
minority women (pp. 91–104). New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media,
LLC.
Meyer, I. H., & Wilson, P. A. (2009). Sampling lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 23–31.
Micucci, J. A. (2010). Claiming a place at the family table: Gay and lesbian families in the
21st century. [Book review of A. E. Goldberg, Lesbian and gay parents and their
children: Research on the family life cycle. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association]. PsycCRITIQUES, 55, 7, article 1.
Millbank, J. (2003). From here to maternity: A review of the research on lesbian and gay
families. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 38, 541–600.
Miller, J. A., Mucklow, B. M., Jacobsen, R. B., & Bigner, J. J. (1980). Comparison of
family relationships: Homosexual versus heterosexual women. Psychological Reports,
46, 1127–1132.
Miller, C. L., & Price, J. (2014). The number of children being raised by gay or lesbian
parents. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract¼2497095
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Peake, P. K. (1988). The nature of adolescent competencies
predicted by preschool delay of gratification. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54, 687–696.
Moffitt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R. J., Harrington, H., . . .
Caspi, A. (2011). A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and
public safety. PNAS, 108, 2693–2698.
Monte, W. (2013). Where the Holy See and science agree: Children do best in stable
natural family. Ave Maria International Law Journal, 2, 217–250.
Murray, C. (2004). Same-sex families: Outcomes for children and parents. Family Law,
34, 136–139.
Murray, P. D., & McClintock, K. (2005). Children of the closet: A measurement of the
anxiety and self-esteem of children raised by a non-disclosed homosexual or bisexual
parent. Journal of Homosexuality, 49, 77–95.
Nazarinia Roy, R., Schumm, W. R., & Britt, S. L. (2014). Transition to parenthood.
New York, NY: Springer.
110 Psychological Reports 0(0)

Nichols, M. (1990). Lesbian relationships: Implications for the study of sexuality and
gender. In D. P. McWhirter, S. A. Sanders & J. M. Reinisch (Eds.), Homosexuality/
heterosexuality: Concepts of sexual orientation (pp. 350–386). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Nock, S. L. (2001). Sworn affidavit of Stephen Lowell Nock. Ontario Superior Court of
Justice. Between Hedy Halpern et al. and the Attorney General of Canada et al.: Court
File No. 684/00.
Norton, A. T., & Herek, G. M. (2013). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward transgender people:
Findings from a national probability sample of U.S. adults. Sex Roles, 68, 738–753.
O’Donnell, K. (1999). Lesbian and gay families: Legal perspectives. In G. Jagger &
C. Wright (Eds.), Changing family values (pp. 77–97). New York, NY: Routledge.
Oswald, R. F., Goldberg, A. E., Kuvalanka, K., & Clausell, E. (2008). Structural and
moral commitment among same-sex couples: Relationship duration, religiosity, and
parental status. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 411–419.
Parks, C. A., & Humphreys, N. A. (2006). Lesbian relationships and families. In D.
F. Morrow & L. Messinger (Eds.), Sexual orientation and gender expression in social
work practice (pp. 216–242). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Patterson, C. J., & American Psychological Association. Lesbian and gay parents and
their children: Summary of research findings. Lesbian & gay parenting (pp. 5–22).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Patterson, C. J. (2009a). Children of lesbian and gay parents: Psychology, law, and policy.
American Psychologist, 64, 727–736.
Patterson, C. J. (2009b). Lesbian and gay parents and their children: A social science
perspective. In D. A. Hope (Ed.), Contemporary perspectives on lesbian, gay, and
bisexual identities: Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 141–182). New York,
NY: Springer Science and Business Media.
Patterson, C. J. (2013a). Children of lesbian and gay parents: Psychology, law, and policy.
Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1(S), 27–34.
Patterson, C. J. (2013b). Family lives of lesbian and gay adults. In G. W. Peterson & K.
R. Bush (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (pp. 659–681). New York, NY:
Springer Science + Business Media.
Patterson, C. J., & Redding, R. E. (1996). Lesbian and gay families with children:
Implications of social science research for policy. Journal of Social Issues, 52, 29–50.
Patterson, C. J., Sutfin, E. L., & Fulcher, M. (2004). Division of labor among lesbian and
heterosexual parenting couples: Correlates of specialized versus shared patterns.
Journal of Adult Development, 11, 179–189.
Pennings, G. (2011). Evaluating the welfare of the child in same-sex families. Human
Reproduction, 26, 1609–1615.
Peplau, L. A., & Cochran, S. D. (1990). A relationship perspective on homosexuality. In D.
P. McWhirter, S. A. Sanders & J. M. Reinisch (Eds.), Homosexuality/heterosexuality:
Concepts of sexual orientation (pp. 321–349). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Peplau, L. A., & Fingerhut, A. W. (2007). The close relationships of lesbians and gay
men. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 405–424.
Peplau, L. A., Fingerhut, A., & Beals, K. P. (2004). Sexuality in the relationships of
lesbians and gay men. In J. H. Harvey, A. Wenzel & S. Sprecher (Eds.), The handbook
of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 349–369). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schumm 111

Perrin, E. C. (2002). Technical report: Coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex

parents. Pediatrics, 109, 341–344.
Perrin, A. J., Cohen, P. N., & Caren, N. (2013). Responding to the Regnerus study: Are
children of parents who had same-sex relationships disadvantaged? A scientific evaluation
of the no-differences hypothesis. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 17, 327–336.
Perrin, E. C., & Kulkin, H. (1996). Pediatric care for children whose parents are gay or
lesbian. Pediatrics, 97, 629–635.
Perrin, E. C., Siegel, B. S., Dobbins, M. I., Lavin, A., Mattson, G., Pascoe, J., &
Yogman, M. (2013). Technical report: Promoting the well-being of children whose
parents are gay or lesbian. Pediatrics, 131(4), e1374.
Ploderl, M., & Fartacek, R. (2009). Childhood gender nonconformity and harassment as
predictors of suicidality among gay, lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual Austrians.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 400–410.
Pommier, J. H., & Witt, P. A. (1995). Evaluation of an Outward Bound school plus
family training for the juvenile status offender. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 29,
86–103.
Potter, D. (2012). Same-sex parent families and children’s academic achievement. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 74, 556–571.
Power, J. J., Perlesz, A., Schofield, M. J., Pitts, M. K., Brown, R., McNair, R., . . .
Bickerdike, A. (2010). Understanding resilience in same-sex parented families: The
work, love, play study. BMC Public Health, 10(115), 1–10.
Puryear, D. (1983). A comparison of children of lesbian and single parent heterosexual
mothers on three measures of socialization (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The
California School of Professional Psychology, Berkeley, CA. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 40(07), 3418B–3419B.
Raley, J. A. (2010). Factors to explore in doing child custody evaluations involving gay
and lesbian parents. Journal of Child Custody, 7, 176–191.
Raley, J. A. (2013). Adolescents with same sex parents: Does it make a difference?
Adolescent Psychiatry, 3, 329–334.
Ray, D. W. (2009). The God virus: How religion infects our lives and culture. Bonner
Springs, KS: IPC Press.
Reczek, C., & Umberson, D. (2012). Gender, health behavior, and intimate relationships:
Lesbian, gay, and straight contexts. Social Science & Medicine, 74, 1783–1790.
Redding, R. E. (2001). Sociopolitical diversity in psychology: The case for pluralism.
American Psychologist, 56, 205–215.
Redding, R. E. (2008). It’s really about sex: Same-sex marriage, lesbigay parenting, and
the psychology of disgust. Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, 15, 127–193.
Redding, R. E. (2013a). Politicized science. Society, 50, 439–446.
Redding, R. E. (2013b). Scientific groupthink and gay parenting. The American
Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.aei.org/publication/scientific-groupthink-
and-gay-parenting/publication
Reed, R. (2013). Are the kids alright? Rawls, adoption, and gay parents. Ethical Theory
and Moral Practice, 16, 969–982.
Rees, R. (1980). A comparison of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers on
three measures of socialization (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). California School
of Professional Psychology, Berkeley, CA.
112 Psychological Reports 0(0)

Regnerus, M. (2012a). How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex
relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study. Social Science
Research, 41, 752–770.
Regnerus, M. (2012b). Parental same-sex relationships, family instability, and subsequent
life outcomes for adult children: Answering critics of the new family structures study
with additional analyses. Social Science Research, 41, 1367–1377.
Regnerus, M. (2012c). Response to Paul Amato, David Eggebeen, and Cynthis Osborne.
Social Science Research, 41, 786–787.
Reiss, I. L. (2014). Exploring the relation of values, power, and advocacy in American
sexual science. International Journal of Sexual Health, 26(1), 1–12.
Richardson, H. B., Moyer, A. M., & Goldberg, A. E. (2012). ‘You try to be superman
and you don’t have to be’: Gay adoptive fathers’ challenges and tensions in balancing
work and family. Fathering, 10, 314–336.
Riggs, D. W. (2006). Developmentalism and the rhetoric of Best Interests of the Child:
Challenging heteronormative constructions of families and parenting in foster care.
Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 2, 57–73.
Riggs, D. W. (2008). Lesbian mothers, gay sperm donors, and community: Ensuring the
well-being of children and families. Health Sociology Review, 17, 226–234.
Riggs, D. W., McLaren, S., & Mayes, A. S. (2009). Attitudes toward parenting in a
lesbian and gay community convenience sample. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental
Health, 13, 51–61.
Riggs, A. D., Rosenthal, A. R., & Smith-Bonahue, T. (2011). The impact of a combined
cognitive-affective intervention on pre-service teachers’ attitudes, knowledge, and
anticipated professional behaviors regarding homosexuality and gay and lesbian
issues. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 201–209.
Riley, M. (1975). The avowed lesbian mother and her right to child custody: A consti-
tutional challenge that can no longer be denied. San Diego Law Review, 12, 799–864.
Ritenhouse, D. (2011). What’s orientation got to do with it? The best interest of the child
standard and legal bias against gay and lesbian parents. Journal of Poverty, 15,
309–329.
Rith, K. A., & Diamond, L. M. (2013). Same-sex relationships. In M. A. Fine & F.
D. Fincham (Eds.), Handbook of family theories: A content-based approach
(pp. 123–144). New York, NY: Routledge (Taylor & Francis Group).
Ritter, M. J. (2010). Perry v. Schwarzenegger: Trying same-sex marriage. The Scholar, 13,
363–393.
Rivers, I., Poteat, V. P., & Noret, N. (2008). Victimization, social support, and psycho-
social functioning among children of same-sex and opposite-sex couples in the United
Kingdom. Developmental Psychology, 44, 127–134.
Roberts, A. L., Glymour, M. M., & Koenen, K. C. (2013). Does maltreatment in
childhood affect sexual orientation in adulthood? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42,
161–171.
Rodriques, A. E., Hall, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (2006). What predicts divorce and
relationship dissolution? In M. A. Fine & J. H. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of divorce
and relationship dissolution (pp. 85–112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rogers, J. L., Howard, K. I., & Vessey, J. T. (1993). Using significance tests to evaluate
equivalence between two experimental groups. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 553–565.
Schumm 113

Rohrbaugh, J. B. (1992). Lesbian families: Clinical issues and theoretical implications.

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23, 467–473.
Ronner, A. D. (2010). When courts let insane delusions pass the rational basis test: The
newest challenge to Florida’s exclusion of homosexuals from adoption. University of
Florida Journal of Law and Public Policy, 21(1), 1–85.
Rose, E., Hands, E., & Larkin, D. (2012). Reliability and validity of the self-perception
profile for adolescents: An Australian sample. Australian Journal of Psychology, 64,
92–99.
Rosenfeld, M. J. (2010). Nontraditional families and childhood progress through school.
Demography, 47, 755–775.
Rosenfeld, M. J. (2013). Reply to Allen et al. Demography, 50, 963–969.
Rosenfeld, M. J. (2014). Couple longevity in the era of same-sex marriage in the United
States. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76, 905–918.
Rosenfeld, M. J. (2015). Revisiting the data from the New Family Structure Study:
Taking family instability into account. Sociological Science, 2, 478–501.
Rosenfeld, M. J., & Thomas, R. J. (2012). Searching for a mate: The rise of the internet as
a social intermediary. American Sociological Review, 77, 523–547.
Rosnow, R. L., & Rosenthal, R. (1996). Computing contrasts, effect sizes, and counter-
nulls on other people’s published data: General procedures for research consumers.
Psychological Methods, 1, 331–340.
Ross, L. E., & Dobinson, C. (2013). Where is the ‘‘B’’ in LGBT parenting? A call for
research on bisexual parenting. In A. E. Goldberg & K. R. Allen (Eds.), LGBT-parent
families: Innovations in research and implications for practice (pp. 87–103). New York,
NY: Springer.
Rothblum, E. D. (2009). An overview of same-sex couples in relation ships: A research
area still at sea. In D. A. Hope (Ed.), Contemporary perspectives on lesbian, gay, and
bisexual identities (pp. 113–139). New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media.
Rothblum, E. D., Balsam, K. F., & Mickey, R. M. (2004). Brothers and sisters of les-
bians, gay men, and bisexuals as a demographic comparison group. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 40, 283–301.
Rothblum, E. D., Balsam, K. F., & Solomon, S. E. (2008). Comparison of same-sex
couples who were married in Massachusetts, had domestic partnerships in
California, or had civil unions in Vermont. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 48–78.
Rothblum, E. D., Balsam, K. F., Solomon, S. E., & Factor, R. J. (2006). Siblings and
sexual orientation: Products of alternative families or the ones who got away? In J.
J. Bigner (Ed.), An introduction to GLBT family studies (pp. 117–133). New York, NY:
Haworth Press.
Rouse, L. P. (2002). Marital and sexual lifestyles in the United States: Attitudes, behav-
iors, and relationships in social context. New York, NY: Haworth Clinical Practice
Press.
Rucker, D. D., Preacher, K. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2011). Mediation analysis
in social psychology: Current practices and new recommendations. Social and
Personality Psychology Compass, 5, 359–371.
Rudasill, K. M., & Callahan, C. M. (2008). Psychometric characteristics of the harter self-
perception profiles for adolescents and children for use with gifted populations. The
Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 70–86.
114 Psychological Reports 0(0)

Ruspini, E. (2016). Gay men as parents. In C. L. Shehan (Ed.), The Wiley Blackwell
encyclopedia of family studies (Vol. 2, pp. 893–896). Malden, MA: Wiley.
Ryan, S. (2007). Parent-child interaction styles between gay and lesbian parents and their
adopted children. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 3, 105–132.
Ryan, S., & Brown, S. (2012). Gay and lesbian adoptive parents: Stressors and strengths.
In D. M. Brodzinsky & A. Pertman (Eds.), Adoption by lesbians and gay men: A new
dimension in family diversity (pp. 184–203). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Ryan, S., & Cash, S. (2004). Adoptive families headed by gay or lesbian parents: A
threat. . . or hidden resource? University of Florida Journal of Law and Public Policy,
15, 443–466.
Ryan, S., & Whitlock, C. (2007). Becoming parents: Lesbian mothers’ adoption experi-
ence. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 19(2), 1–23.
Rye, B. J., & Meaney, G. J. (2010). Self-defense, sexism, and etiological beliefs: Predictors
of attitudes toward gay and lesbian adoption. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 6(1),
1–24.
Sarantakos, S. (1996a). Children in three contexts: Family, education, and social devel-
opment. Children Australia, 21, 23–31.
Sarantakos, S. (1996b). Same-sex couples: Problems and prospects. Journal of Family
Studies, 2, 147–163.
Sarantakos, S. (1998). Sex and power in same-sex couples. Australian Journal of Social
Issues, 33, 17–36.
Sarantakos, S. (2000). Same-sex couples. Sydney, Australia: Harvard Press.
Savin-Williams, R. C., & Esterberg, K. G. (2000). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual families.
In D. H. Demo, K. R. Allen & M. A. Fine (Eds.), Handbook of Family Diversity
(pp. 197–215). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Schlatter, E., & Steinback, R. (2013). 10 myths about gay men and lesbians: Dissecting the
claims used by the hard-line religious right to demonize the LGBT community.
Montgomery, AL: Southern Poverty Law Center.
Schulenberg, J. A. (1985). Gay parenting. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press.
Schumm, W. R. (2000). Psychology of the scientist: LXXXIII – An assessment of Herek’s
critique of the Cameron group’s survey studies. Psychological Reports, 87, 1123–1132.
Schumm, W. R. (2004a). What was really learned from Tasker and Golombok’s (1995)
study of lesbian and single parent mothers? Psychological Reports, 94, 422–424.
Schumm, W. R. (2004b). Differential risk theory as a subset of social exchange theory:
Implications for making gay marriage culturally normative and for understanding
stigma against homosexuals. Psychological Reports, 94, 208–210.
Schumm, W. R. (2005). Empirical and theoretical perspectives from social science on gay
marriage and child custody issues. St. Thomas Law Review, 18, 425–475.
Schumm, W. R. (2008). Re-evaluation of the ‘‘no differences’’ hypothesis concerning gay
and lesbian parenting as assessed in eight early (1979–1986) and four later (1997–1998)
dissertations. Psychological Reports, 103, 275–304.
Schumm, W. R. (2010a). Statistical requirements for properly investigating a null hypoth-
esis. Psychological Reports, 107, 953–971.
Schumm, W. R. (2010b). Children of homosexuals more apt to be homosexuals? A reply
to Morrison and to Cameron based on an examination of multiple sources of data.
Journal of Biosocial Science, 42, 721–742.
Schumm 115

Schumm, W. R. (2010c). How science is done. Marriage and Family Review, 46, 323–326.
Schumm, W. R. (2010d). Comparative relationship stability of lesbian mother and het-
erosexual mother families: A review of evidence. Marriage and Family Review, 46,
499–509.
Schumm, W. R. (2010e). Evidence of pro-homosexual bias in social science: Citation rates
and research on lesbian parenting. Psychological Reports, 106, 374–380.
Schumm, W. R. (2010f). ‘Adult attachment style dimensions in women who have gay or
bisexual fathers’: Response to Sirota. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 24, 371–372.
Schumm, W. R. (2011a). Child outcomes associated with lesbian parenting: Comments
on Biblarz and Stacey’s 2010 report. Journal of Human Sexuality, 3, 35–80.
Schumm, W. R. (2011b). Are two lesbian parents better than a mom and a dad? Logical
and methodological flaws in recent studies affirming the superiority of lesbian parent-
hood. Ave Maria Law Review, 10, 79–120.
Schumm, W. R. (2011c). Child outcomes associated with lesbian parenting: comments on
Biblarz and Stacey’s (2010) report. Journal of Human Sexuality, 3, 35–80.
Schumm, W. R. (2012a). Re-examining a landmark research study: A teaching editorial.
Marriage and Family Review, 48, 465–489.
Schumm, W. R. (2012b). Methodological decisions and the evaluation of possible effects
of different family structures on children: The New Family Structures Survey (NFSS).
Social Science Research, 41, 1357–1366.
Schumm, W. R. (2012c). Lessons for the ‘‘devilish statistical obfuscator’’ or how to argue
for a null hypothesis: A guide for students, attorneys, and other professionals.
Innovative Teaching, 1(2), 1–13.
Schumm, W. R. (2013). The intergenerational transfer of parental sexual orientation
and other ‘‘myths’’. International Journal for the Jurisprudence of the Family, 4,
267–434.
Schumm, W. R. (2014). Challenges in predicting child outcomes from different family
structures. Comprehensive Psychology, 3, 10.
Schumm, W. R. (2015a). Navigating treacherous waters – One researcher’s 40 years of
experience with controversial scientific research. Comprehensive Psychology, 4(24),
1–40.
Schumm, W. R. (2015b). Sarantakos’s research on same-sex parenting in Australia and
New Zealand: Importance, substance, and corroboration with research from the
United States. Comprehensive Psychology, 4(16), 1–29.
Schumm, W. R. (2016). A conservative’s view from the academic trenches: Reply to
Duarte, Crawford, Stern, Haidt, Jussim, and Tetlock (2015). Journal of Behavioral
and Brain Science, 6, 149–166.
Schumm, W. R., Akagi, C. A., & Bosch, K. R. (2008). Relationship satisfaction for
heterosexual women compared to lesbians and men in a sample of faith communities
from Topeka, Kansas. Psychological Reports, 102, 377–388.
Schumm, W. R., Bosch, K. R., & Doolittle, A. (2009). Explaining the importance of
statistical variance for undergraduate students. Psychology and Education – An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 46(3/4), 1–7.
Schumm, W. R., & Crawford, D. W. (2015). Violations of fairness in social science
research: The case of same-sex marriage and parenting. International Journal of
Jurisprudence of the Family, 6, 67–113.
116 Psychological Reports 0(0)

Schumm, W. R., Landess, M., & Williams, G. (2014). Assessing outcomes of same-sex
parenting. Paper presented at the Theory Construction and Research Methodology
Workshop, National Council on Family Relations, Baltimore, Maryland, November 18.
Schumm, W. R., Seay, M., McClish, K., Clark, K., Asiri, A., Abdullah, N., & Huang, S.
(2016). Assessing the history of exaggerated estimates of the number of children being
raised by same-sex parents as reported in both legal and social science journals. BYU
Journal of Public Law, 30, 277–301.
Schwartz, J. (1986). An exploration of personality traits in daughters of lesbian mothers
(Doctoral dissertation). California School of Professional Psychology, San Diego, CA.
Shapiro, J. (1996). Custody and conduct: How the law fails lesbian and gay parents and
their children. Indiana Law Journal, 71, 623–671.
Sipsma, H. L., Ickovics, J. R., Lin, H., & Kershaw, T. S. (2013). The impact of future
expectations on adolescent sexual risk behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-0082-7
Sirota, T. H. (1997). A comparison of adult attachment style dimensions between women
who have gay or bisexual fathers and women who have heterosexual fathers (Doctoral
dissertation). School of Education, New York University, Garden City, NY.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 58(01), 138B. (UMI No. 9718726).
Sirota, T. H. (2009). Adult attachment style dimensions in women who have gay or
bisexual fathers. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 23, 289–297.
Solomon, S. E., Rothblum, E. D., & Balsam, K. F. (2004). Pioneers in partnerships:
Lesbian and gay male couples in civil unions compared with those not in civil
unions and married heterosexual siblings. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 275–286.
Solomon, S. E., Rothblum, E. D., & Balsam, K. F. (2005). Money, housework, sex, and
conflict: Same-sex couples in civil unions, those not in civil unions, and heterosexual
married siblings. Sex Roles, 52, 561–575.
Stacey, J., & Biblarz, T. J. (2001). (How) does the sexual orientation of parents matter?
American Sociological Review, 66, 159–183.
Stark, R. (2012). America’s blessings: How religion benefits everyone, including atheists.
West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Press.
Stegner, B. L., Bostrom, A. G., & Greenfield, T. K. (1996). Equivalence testing for use in
psychosocial and services research: An introduction with examples. Evaluation and
Program Planning, 19, 193–198.
Stevens, M., Perry, B., Burston, A., Golombok, S., & Golding, J. (2003). Openness in
lesbian-mother families regarding mother’s sexual orientation and child’s conception
by donor insemination. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 21, 347–362.
Strasser, M. (2010). Adoption, best interests, and the Arkansas constitution. Arkansas
Law Review, 63, 3–29.
Strock, C. (2008). Married women who love women (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge,
Taylor & Francis Group.
Strohschein, L. (2010). Generating heat or light? The challenge of social address variables.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 23–28.
Sullins, D. P. (2015a). Child attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in same-sex
parent families in the United States: Prevalence and comorbidities. British Journal of
Medicine and Medical Research, 6(10), 987–998.
Schumm 117

Sullins, D. P. (2015b). Bias in recruited sample research on children with same-sex parents
using the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). Journal of Scientific Research
& Reports, 5(5), 375–387.
Sullins, D. P. (2015c). Emotional problems among children with same-sex parents:
Difference by definition. British Journal of Education, Society, and Behavioural Science,
7, 99–120.
Sullins, D. P. (2015d). The unexpected harm of same-sex marriage: A critical re-appraisal,
replication, and re-analysis of Wainright and Patterson’s studies of adolescents with
same-sex parents. British Journal of Education, Society, & Behavioural Science, 11(2),
1–22.
Sullivan, M. (2004). The family of women: Lesbian mothers, their children, and the undoing
of gender. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Sun, Y., & Li, Y. (2009). Parental divorce, sibship size, family resources, and children’s
academic performance. Social Science Research, 38, 622–634.
Sutfin, E. L., Fulcher, M., Bowles, R. P., & Patterson, C. J. (2008). How lesbian and
heterosexual parents convey attitudes about gender to their children: The role of
gendered environments. Sex Roles, 58, 501–513.
Swank, E., Woodford, M. R., & Lin, C. (2013). Antecedents of pro-LGBT advocacy
among sexual minority and heterosexual college students. Sexuality Research and
Social Policy, 10, 317–332.
Tan, T. X., & Baggerly, J. (2009). Behavioral adjustment of adopted Chinese girls in
single-mother, lesbian-couple, and heterosexual-couple households. Adoption
Quarterly, 12, 171–186.
Tasker, F. L. (2010). Same-sex parenting and child development: Reviewing the contri-
bution of parental gender. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 35–40.
Tasker, F. L. (2013). Lesbian and gay parenting post-heterosexual divorce and sep-
aration. In A. E. Goldberg & K. R. Allen (Eds.), LGBT-parent families:
Innovations in research and implications for practice (pp. 3–20). New York, NY:
Springer.
Tasker, F. L., Barrett, H., & De Simone, F. (2010). ‘Coming out tales’: Adult sons and
daughters’ feelings about their gay father’s sexual identity. The Australian and New
Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 31, 326–337.
Tasker, F. L., & Golombok, S. (1991). Children raised by lesbian mothers: The empirical
evidence. Family Law, 21, 184–187.
Tasker, F., & Golombok, S. (1995). Adults raised as children in lesbian families.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 65(2), 203–215.
Tasker, F., & Golombok, S. (1997). Growing up in a lesbian family: Effects on child
development. New York, NY: Guilford.
Tasker, F., & Golombok, S. (1998). The role of co-mothers in planned lesbian-led
families. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 2, 49–68.
Tasker, F., & Patterson, C. J. (2007). Research on gay and lesbian parenting: Retrospect
and prospect. Journal of GLBT Studies, 3, 9–34.
Telingator, C. J., & Patterson, C. J. (2008). Children and adolescents of lesbian and gay
parents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 47,
1364–1368.
118 Psychological Reports 0(0)

Thompson, J. M. (2002). Mommy queerest: Contemporary rhetorics of lesbian maternal

identity. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
Thomson, N. R., & Zand, D. H. (2002). The Harter Self-Perception Profile for
Adolescents: Psychometrics for an early adolescent, African American sample.
International Journal of Testing, 2, 297–310.
Tillman, K. H. (2007). Family structure pathways and academic disadvantage among
adolescents in stepfamilies. Sociological Inquiry, 77, 383–424.
Tobin, J., & McNair, R. (2009). Public international law and the regulation of private
spaces: Does the convention of the rights of the child impose an obligation on states to
allow gay and lesbian couples to adopt? International Journal of Law, Policy, and the
Family, 23, 110–131.
Torbati, M. (1997). The right of intimate sexual relations: Normative and social bases for
according it ‘‘fundamental right’’ status. Southern California Law Review, 70,
1805–1840.
Tornello, S. L., Farr, R. H., & Patterson, C. J. (2011). Predictors of parenting stress among
gay adoptive fathers in the United States. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 591–600.
Trickett, P. K., Noll, J. G., & Putnam, F. W. (2011). The impact of sexual abuse on
female development: Lessons from a multigenerational, longitudinal study.
Development and Psychopathology, 23, 453–476.
Tryon, W. W. (2001). Evaluating statistical difference, equivalence, and indeterminacy
using inferential confidence intervals: An integrated alternative method of conducting
null hypothesis statistical tests. Psychological Methods, 6, 371–386.
Tryon, W. W., & Lewis, C. (2008). An inferential confidence interval method of estab-
lishing statistical equivalence that corrects Tryon’s (2001) reduction factor.
Psychological Methods, 13, 272–277.
Turner, P. H., Scadden, L., & Harris, M. B. (1990). Parenting in gay and lesbian families.
Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy, 1, 55–66.
VanderLaan, D. P., Gothreau, L. M., Bartlett, N. H., & Vasey, P. L. (2011). Recalled
separation anxiety and gender atypicality in childhood: A study of Canadian
heterosexual and homosexual men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40,
1233–1240.
Van de Ven, P., Rodden, P., Crawford, J., & Kippax, S. (1997). A comparative demo-
graphic and sexual profile of older homosexually active men. Journal of Sex Research,
34, 349–360.
Vanfraussen, K., Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, I., & Brewaeys, A. (2002). What does it mean
for youngsters to grow up in a lesbian family created by means of donor insemination?
Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 20, 237–252.
Van Gelderen, L., Bos, H. M. W., Gartrell, N., Hermanns, J., & Perrin, E. C. (2012).
Quality of life of adolescents raised from birth by lesbian mothers: The US National
Longitudinal Family Study. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 33,
17–23.
Van Rijn-van Gelderen, L., Bos, H. M. W., & Gartrell, N. K. (2015). Dutch adolescents
from lesbian-parent families: How do they compare to peers with heterosexual parents
and what is the impact of homophobic stigmatization? Journal of Adolescence, 40,
65–73.
Schumm 119

Veldorale-Brogan, A., & Cooley, M. (2011). Child outcomes for children with LGBT
parents. NCFR Report, 56(4), F15–F16.
Verbakel, E., & Kalmijn, M. (2014). Assortative mating among Dutch married and cohabit-
ing same-sex and different-sex couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76, 1–12.
Victor, S. B., & Fish, M. C. (1995). Lesbian mothers and their children: A review for
school psychologists. School Psychology Review, 24, 456–479.
Wainright, J. L., & Patterson, C. J. (2006). Delinquency, victimization, and substance use
among adolescents with female same-sex parents. Journal of Family Psychology, 20,
526–530.
Wainright, J. L., Russell, S. T., & Patterson, C. J. (2004). Psychosocial adjustment, school
outcomes, and romantic relationships of adolescents with same-sex parents. Child
Development, 75, 1886–1898.
Waite, L., & Lillard, L. (1991). Children and marital disruption. American Journal of
Sociology, 96, 930–953.
Wald, M. S. (2006). Adults’ sexual orientation and state determinations regarding place-
ment of children. Family Law Quarterly, 40(3), 381–434.
Walsh, K., Latzman, N. E., & Latzman, R. D. (2013). Pathway from child sexual and
physical abuse to risky sex among emerging adults: The role of trauma-related intru-
sions and alcohol problems. Journal of Adolescent Health, 1, 7.
Ward, J. (2013). Get your gender identity off my childhood! Towards a movement for
children’s gender self-determination. In F. J. Green & M. Friedman (Eds.), Chasing
rainbows: Exploring gender fluid parenting practices (pp. 43–51). Bradford, Ontario:
Demeter Press.
Warner, R. M. (2013). Applied statistics: From bivariate through multivariate techniques.
Los Angeles: Sage.
Webb, S. N., & Chonody, J. (2014). Heterosexual attitudes toward same-sex marriage:
The influence of attitudes toward same-sex parenting. Journal of GLBT Family
Studies, 10, 404–421.
Wellek, S. (2003). Testing statistical hypotheses of equivalence. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman
& Hall/CRC.
Wells, J. (Ed.). (1997). Lesbians raising sons. Los Angeles: Alyson Books.
Welsh, M. G. (2011). Growing up in a same-sex parented family: The adolescent voice of
experience. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 7, 49–71.
Whitton, S. W., & Buzzella, B. A. (2012). Using relationship education programs with
same-sex couples: A preliminary evaluation of program utility and needed modifica-
tions. Marriage and Family Review, 48, 669–690.
Wichstrom, L. (1995). Harter’s self-perception profile for adolescents: Reliability, valid-
ity, and evaluation of the question format. Journal of Personality Assessment, 65,
100–116.
Wiik, K. A., Seierstad, A., & Noack, T. (2014). Divorce in Norwegian same-sex marriages
and registered partnerships: the role of children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76,
919–929.
Wilkinson, L., & The Task Force on Statistical Inference, APA Board of Scientific
Affairs. Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations.
American Psychologist, 54, 594–604.
120 Psychological Reports 0(0)

Wilsnack, S. C., Kristjanson, A. F., Hughes, T. L., & Benson, P. W. (2012).

Characteristics of childhood sexual abuse in lesbians and heterosexual women. Child
Abuse & Neglect, 36, 260–265.
Zink, Z. D. (2005). Adoptive homes and the meaning of family: Implications for gay and
lesbian prospective parents. Journal of Student Social Work, 3, 52–60.
Zuckerman, M. (2007). Sensation seeking and risky behavior. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.

Author Biography
Walter Schumm has served as a professor of family studies at Kansas State
University since 1979 and is a retired colonel, U.S. Army Reserve. He is a
Fellow of the National Council on Family Relations and has published over
250 refereed journal articles as well as numerous book chapters and technical
reports. He earned his PhD in family studies from Purdue University in 1979.
His recent military awards include the Legion of Merit, the Global War on
Terrorism Service Medal, and the National Defense Service Medal with two
bronze stars.