Running head: CAMPAIGN MESSAGES AND MINORITY

Throughout history, the rights of stigmatized minority group members have been subject to popular debate and voter referenda. The impact of the resulting devaluing social discourse on the well-being of minority group members remains unknown. Most recently, exposure to the discourse leading up to decisions on same-sex marriage may have negative consequences for sexual minority individuals and same-sex couples. We examined the impact of exposure to same-sex marriage campaign messages (e.g., commercials, billboards, yard signs) on the psychological and relational well-being of couples living in the four states that had same-sex marriage voter initiatives in the 2012 general election. Sixty-two same-sex couples (N=124) completed a baseline survey and 10 daily diary reports during the month before the election. Daily exposure to negative campaign messages was associated with increased negative affect and decreased positive affect and relationship satisfaction. These associations persisted controlling for baseline levels of depression and daily fluctuations in general stress among both members of the couple. Exposure to a devaluing social discourse regarding the rights of same-sex couples represents a unique form of social stress resulting in negative consequences for the psychological and relational well-being of same-sex couples. Thus, the health of same-sex couples may be of particular concern in contexts where marriage policy decisions are pending and the subject of popular debate. CAMPAIGN MESSAGES AND MINORITY STRESS 3 Daily Exposure to Negative Campaign Messages Decreases Same-Sex Couples’ Psychological and Relational Well-Being Throughout history, the rights of minority groups with disadvantaged social status have been subject to popular vote and judicial decision-making by members of dominant majority groups. For example, in 1867, women’s right to vote in the United States (US) was first put to popular (male) vote in the form of the Kansas Suffrage Referendum. It was defeated. A century later, in the case of Loving v. Virginia (1967), the US Supreme Court ruled that laws prohibiting marriage between men and women of different races were unconstitutional. Although the methods and results of these important civil rights decisions varied, the decisions themselves were accompanied by extensive social debate, which called into question the social value of target minority groups (i.e., women, interracial couples), often in disparaging ways. Despite this, the focus of psychological research into the ways that policy change effects the lives of minority group members has been on the impact of changes in the policies themselves (e.g., Hatzenbuehler, 2014). However, the potentially negative psychological impact of the devaluing social discourse in which these important decisions are taking place has yet to receive sufficient empirical attention. Perhaps the most prominent contemporary example of such a policy decision and accompanying debates has concerned the legal status of same-sex relationships. In the new millennium, rights for same-sex couples in the US became a focal political and social issue, with policies being enacted in state after state to either restrict same-sex couples from marrying or to grant them the right. With the legal status of same-sex marriage in limbo, sexual minority individuals often found themselves and their relationships the topic of heated discussions within their communities. Such discourse, often devaluing, likely has negative impacts on the CAMPAIGN MESSAGES AND MINORITY STRESS 4 psychological and relational well-being of sexual minority individuals and same-sex couples. Although the Supreme Court’s decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry allowed same-sex couples in the US to marry, debates regarding the right to marry continue, and same-sex couples are still a target of a potentially damaging social discourse. Debates also continue internationally (e.g., Northern Ireland, Australia), where most countries do not provide access to marriage for samesex couples and where communities are in protracted debates about the status of sexual minority individuals and their relationships. Building on the minority stress framework (Meyer, 2003, Frost & Meyer, 2013), the current research examined individual and relational consequences of exposure to negative campaign messages surrounding marriage equality campaigns. The Role of Minority Stress in the Well-Being of Sexual Minorities Existing epidemiological research concludes that sexual minorities have higher rates of mental and physical health problems than their heterosexual peers (for reviews and meta-analysis see Institute of Medicine, 2011; King et al., 2008; Lick, Durso, & Johnson, 2013). These health disparities are not likely to be caused by or inherent to sexual minority identities in and of themselves. Instead, theory and research suggest that these health disparities are attributable to the fact that sexual minority individuals are exposed to more social stress than their heterosexual peers because of their stigmatized social status (DiPlacido, 1998; Hatzenbuehler et al., 2014; Herek & Garnets, 2007; Meyer, Schwartz, & Frost, 2008). Thus, excess exposure to social stress puts sexual minority individuals at heightened risk for negative health outcomes. Meyer (1995; 2003) refers to these stigma-related social stressors as minority stressors. In the minority stress theoretical framework, factors such as expectations of rejection, concealment of a stigmatized identity, internalization of negative social beliefs about one’s social groups or social identity, and experiences of discrimination (both acute events and chronic CAMPAIGN MESSAGES AND MINORITY STRESS 5 everyday mistreatment) constitute stressors. These factors stem from and reaffirm a hostile every-day environment for sexual minority men and women characterized by frequent exposure to minority stress. The minority stress framework organizes these stigma-related social stressors on a continuum of proximity to the self (Meyer, 2003). Stressors most distal to the self are objective stressors based primarily in the environment, such as discriminatory laws and policies, prevailing stereotypes, prejudice, and interpersonal discrimination. These lead to more proximal appraisals of the environment as threatening and resulting expectations of rejection. Most proximal to the self are one’s internalizations of negative social attitudes towards one’s minority group (e.g., internalized homophobia). Minority stressors have been hypothesized to create strain on individuals’ ability to adapt to and function in their everyday environments and are therefore associated with decreases in mental health and well-being (Fingerhut, Peplau, & Gable, 2010; Kuyper & Fokkema, 2011; Lehavot & Simoni, 2011; Mays & Cochran, 2001; Meyer, 1995). More recent research has identified non-event stressors—or stress that results from denial of opportunities and hoped for accomplishments that do not come to pass—as an additional source of minority stress given sexual minority individuals are more often blocked from achieving their life goals that heterosexuals because of their stigmatized status (Frost & LeBlanc, 2014; Frost, 2011; Meyer & Dean, 1998; Meyer, Ouellette, Haile, & McFarlane, 2011; Pearlin, 1999). Sexual minority individuals in same-sex relationships are potentially exposed to additional and unique forms of minority stress because they are not only stigmatized as individuals, but the status of their relationship is also disadvantaged relative to heterosexual relationships (LeBlanc, Frost, & Wight, 2015). At the structural and most distal level (i.e., laws and policies), same-sex couples are denied access to the same forms of legal relationship CAMPAIGN MESSAGES AND MINORITY STRESS 6 recognition that are afforded to heterosexual couples (i.e., marriage and its corresponding benefits) in the overwhelming majority of countries around the world. Thus the act of denying same-sex couples the right to marry and their accompanying exclusion from the rights of other (heterosexual) citizens, likely diminishes same-sex couples well-being (GLMA, 2008; Herdt & Kertzner, 2006; Michael King & Bartlett, 2006). Indeed, this structural stigmatization has been shown to have a negative impact on the health of sexual minority individuals in numerous studies (see Hatzenbuehler, 2014 for a review). To illustrate, Hatzenbuehler and colleagues (2010) analyzed the mental health impact of state-level passage of same-sex marriage bans during the 2004 and 2005 elections. They found that psychiatric disorders increased among sexual minorities (and not heterosexuals) living in states that passed same-sex marriage bans. Disorders among sexual minorities did not increase after the elections in states that did not pass marriage bans. Expanding the Minority Stress Universe The minority stress framework (Meyer, 2003) and recent conceptualizations of structural stigma (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2014) highlight the ways in which discriminatory social policies— such as bans on same-sex marriage—constitute social stress and can therefore negatively impact the well-being of sexual minority individuals. However, these conceptual frameworks do not adequately account for the degree to which exposure to a devaluing social discourse leading up to the passage or repeal of discriminatory policy may constitute minority stress and have an additional negative impact on sexual minority individuals’ and same-sex couples’ well-being. In other words, the attention of theory and research efforts has been on documenting the negative effect of discriminatory social policy after its passage. However, not only are same-sex couples barred from marrying in most countries throughout the world, they are reminded of this fact on a CAMPAIGN MESSAGES AND MINORITY STRESS 7 daily basis by debates among family and coworkers as well as in social and news media in countries and regions where the legality of same-sex marriage is contested (Herek, 2011). During the months leading up to a popular vote on same-sex marriage or pending judicial decision, same-sex couples encounter billboards, yard signs, and bumper stickers against equal access to marriage rights. They also are part of or witness to debates with family, friends, and coworkers about the rights of same-sex couples. These debates extend to popular news media, talk shows, and social media (e.g., Facebook). While scholars have pointed out the ways in which stigma-related stress may stem from exposure to this devaluing social discourse (e.g., Herek, 2011; Riggle, Thomas, & Rostosky, 2005; Russell, 2000; Russell & Richards, 2003) exposure to anti-same sex marriage discourse may represent a unique form of minority stress not yet accounted for in existing theoretical frameworks. Exposure to anti-same sex marriage discourse cannot be accurately described as structural stigma, because it is not always rooted in policy or differential access to participation in society. Indeed, exposure to anti-same sex marriage discourse may occur in contexts in which a marriage ban is under consideration but does not ultimately come to fruition in the form of discriminatory social policy. Furthermore, it does not fall neatly into the minority stress categories of event-based or chronic everyday discrimination because exposure to anti-same sex marriage discourse does not often involve direct disparagement or differential treatment by other people, but rather being party to or encountering overall condemnation for sexual minority individuals or same-sex couples in general, rather than oneself or one’s own relationship. Exposure to anti-same sex marriage discourse also does not constitute an expectation of rejection as conceived within the minority stress framework (Meyer, 2003), because it does not manifest in a sexual minority person’s fear that he or she will be discriminated against entering into a CAMPAIGN MESSAGES AND MINORITY STRESS 8 particular social situation. Thus, we contend exposure to anti-same sex marriage discourse constitutes a form of minority stress that occupies a place at the intersection of policy-based discrimination accounted for by frameworks of structural stigma (Hatzenbuehler, 2014) and distal forms of minority stress articulated within the minority stress framework (Meyer, 2003). Although it has not received adequate attention in these existing theoretical frameworks, some existing evidence suggests exposure to anti-same sex marriage discourse may indeed be experienced by sexual minority individuals as stressful and pose a threat to their well-being. When compared to individuals living in US states with no marriage-related ballot initiatives, individuals in states that passed amendments banning same-sex marriages reported significantly more exposure to stigma related to the negative public discourse around same-sex marriages, as well as significantly more psychological distress (Rostosky, Riggle, Horne, & Miller, 2009). Because these devaluing social discourses call into question the general value of intimacy and relationships in same-sex couples’ lives, their negative impact is likely to be felt regardless of couples’ desires to be legally married or publically committed to one another. The Relational Impact of Exposure to Anti-Same Sex Marriage Discourse Although previous research sheds some preliminary light on the psychological consequences of marriage amendments and the debates surrounding these amendments, more research is needed to understand its effects on both individual and relational well-being. The overwhelming majority of studies has focused solely on individual level outcomes and has yet to assess the effects of the same-sex marriage debates on same-sex couples and the quality of their relationships. It is ironic and unfortunate that we know very little about how debates about rights for same-sex couples actually affect couples. In one of the only studies to examine relationship outcomes in the context of same-sex marriage debates, Maisel and Fingerhut (2011) examined CAMPAIGN MESSAGES AND MINORITY STRESS 9 the effects that the Proposition 8 campaign—a voter initiative to approve a California same-sex marriage ban—had on their relationships with their partners. Participants reported both positive and negative effects. On one hand, the stress of the campaign made them irritable and short tempered with partners; and on the other hand, the visibility of the marriage question often made them appreciate their relationships even more. Thus, the complex effects of exposure to samesex marriage campaigns on same-sex couples’ psychological and relational well-being are deserving of additional empirical attention. Not All Stressors are Created Equal Even though same-sex couples experience unique social stressors as a result of their stigmatized social statuses, they also experience the same kinds of day-to-day stressors and hassles that all individuals and couples do, regardless of sexual orientation (LeBlanc et al., 2015). Research on daily hassles in the context of romantic relationships has shown that exposure to chronic stressors (e.g., hassles related to finances, work, home maintenance, parenting, and caretaking) is associated with decreased relationship quality, health, and psychological well-being (e.g., DeLongis, Folkman, & Lazarus, 1988; Harper, Schaalje, & Sandberg, 2000). Even further, research on the dyadic nature of stress has shown that one partner’s experience of stress can have a negative impact on not only his or her own well-being, but the well-being of his or her partner as well (e.g., Bolger, Delongis, Kessler, & Wethington, 1989). Minority stress is theorized to have an effect on well-being above and beyond the effect of general stress common to all couples (LeBlanc et al., 2015). This is potentially due to the fact that minority stress is more salient and disruptive because of its relevance to individuals’ identities and relationships. Although this premise has not been examined in the lives of sameCAMPAIGN MESSAGES AND MINORITY STRESS 10 sex couples, recent research has shown that minority stress in the form of stressful life events stemming from discrimination exerts a greater negative impact on health than general stressful life events (Frost, Lehavot, & Meyer, 2015). As a result, minority stress resulting from exposure to the negative social discourse surrounding same-sex marriage may exert a negative impact on well-being in couples above and beyond the negative impact of general chronic strain and daily hassles.