Coming Out Conversations Inve

ABSTRACT OF THESIS
COMING OUT CONVERSATIONS:

INVESTIGATING THE TYPOLOGIES OF COMING OUT NARRATIVES
This study reinvestigates and extends theory developed by Manning (2006)

regarding the types of narratives used by LGBTQ individuals in the act of coming
out. Non-probability sampling produced 102 written narratives to an online
survey investigating face-to-face and mediated coming out communications.
Manning's original work identified seven distinct typologies, but questioned the
inclusion of mediated communication. Manning's original protocol was modified
to better investigate mediated communication as a typology. Results of the
author's qualitative analysis show clear support for mediated communication as a
narrative typology. Data was further analyzed using emotional coding to
determine similarities or dissimilarities in the self-defined emotions of the narrator
and narrative recipient. A grounded theory analytical process was used resulting
in a new theory of sender-receiver shared emotional responses to the coming out
communication.
Richard Wagar
August 24, 2010
By
Richard Wagar
Jimmie Manning, Ph.D., Committee Chair

Andrea Lambert, Ph. D., Committee Member
Jacqueline Irwin, Ph. D., Committee Member
___________________________
Thesis
___________________________
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Communication
at Northern Kentucky University
By
Richard Wagar
Highland Heights, Kentucky
Dr. Jimmie Manning

Associate Professor of Communication
Highland Heights, Kentucky

UMI Number: 1482916
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 1482916
Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
DOCUMENT RELEASE
___X___ I authorize Steely Library to reproduce this document in whole or in part

for purposes of research.
_______ I do not authorize Steely Library to reproduce this document in whole

or in part for purposes of research.
Signed: Richard D. Wagar
Date: October 15, 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1
COMING OUT CONVERSATIONS: INVESTIGATING 01
THE TYPOLOGIES OF COMING OUT NARRATIVES
Developing a Sexual Identity 03
On Coming Out 06
Theory 10
Overview of the study 12
CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY 14
CHAPTER 3
RESULTS 17
CHAPTER 4
A REEXAMINATION OF MANNING'S THEORY OF COMING OUT 19
COMMUNICATIONS
Mediated Conversations 20
Pre-Planned 28
Emergent 31
Coaxed 33
Confrontational 36
Romantic/Sexual 38
Educational/activist 39
CHAPTER 5
EMOTIONAL ASPECTS OF COMING OUT CONVERSATIONS 40
Pre 41
During 43
Post 45
Causal 50
Reaction 51
CHAPTER 5
Limitations 53
Discussion 54
IRB CERITFICATIONS 64
REFERENCES 67
VITAE 72
iii
Coming Out Conversations:
Investigating the Typologies of Coming Out Narratives
Forms of interpersonal communication have changed significantly since
the invention of the telephone in 1876. Where we once communicated face-to-
face or by letter, we now have the ability to communicate by telephone, text
message, email, online chat, personal blogs, and video conference, with new
formats seemingly developed every day. The Pew Internet and American Life
Project (2010) reports that 74% of American adults use the Internet.
Demographically, 93% of persons age 18-29 are online, as are 81% of those 30-
49, 70% of persons 50-64, and 38% of adults 65 and older (Pew Internet and
American Life Project, 2010). Clearly, Internet usage cuts across generational
lines and has become an important part of our communication process. Just as
the Internet has impacted interpersonal communication processes, so has it had
an effect on the development of one's sexual identity (McKenna, Green & Smith,
2001) and the communicative act of disclosure of that identity (Joinson, 2001;
McKenna & Bargh, 1998; Munt, Bassett & O'Riordan; Tidwell & Walther, 2002).
A study of adolescent friendship formation posited that "the Internet may
enable introverted people to compensate for their weaker social skills" (Peter,
Valkenburg & Schouten, 2005, p.423). If, as Peter, et al (2005) suggest, the
Internet's anonymity and limited audio and visual cues create a safe environment
for introverted teens to express themselves, can the same be said for
adolescents or teens marginalized by their sexual orientation? It is apparent to
many scholars that the Internet is increasingly important in the lives of persons
marginalized by sexual orientation (McKenna, et. al., 2001; Subrahmanyam,
Greenfield & Tynes, 2004; Subrahmanyam, Smahel & Greenfield, 2006). The
formation of online relationships and their effect on the participant's daily life has
been the focus of numerous studies (Bargh, McKenna & Fitzsimmons, 2002;
Sanders, 2008; Whitty & Gavin, 2001; Wildermuth & Vogl-Bauer, 2007). As
McKenna and Bargh (1998) assert, "through participation in an Internet group
that shares a marginalized aspect of one's identity, that part of the self is
transformed, becoming more acceptable . . . and allows the individual to be more
open about that aspect with important others, such as family and friends" (p.
692).
The Internet, or more specifically gay teen chatrooms, may be useful in
reducing the concerns and stress of coming out by providing a window of self-
exploration and discovery (Joinson, 2001; McKenna & Bargh, 1998; Munt, et al,
2002). McKenna, et al, (2001) conclude that "those important online
relationships which are associated with important aspects of one's online identity
will tend to be brought into one's face-to-face life" (p. 310). Some critics argue
that the Internet's anonymity and lack of visual and auditory cues provide a poor
substitute for face-to-face communication (see, for instance, Dubrovsky, Kiesler
& Sethna, 1991; Flaherty, Pearce & Rubin, 1998; Rice, 1993). A study of student
preferences for Internet or face-to-face communication concluded that most
students ". . . viewed the face-to-face context as the most preferred way to fulfill
communication needs" and that ". . . computer-mediated communication
channels are not functional alternatives for face-to-face channels for most
interpersonal needs" (Flaherty, et al., 1998, p. 264).
Flaherty, et al.'s research was conducted at a time when Internet use was
not as widespread in United States culture. Recent research, which included
newer technology and devices, supports the contention that the Internet has
become a useful tool for exploring an identity that generally remains hidden due
to fear of social condemnation (Gross, 2004; Lenhart & Madden, 2007; Lenhart,
Rainie & Lewis, 2001; Maczewski, 2002; Valkenburg & Peter, 2008). In their
study of email use among college students, Keaten and Kelly (2008)
demonstrated that "higher levels of fear of negative evaluation . . . have more
positive affect for mediated channels such as email than for face-to-face
communication" (p. 420). In a 1998 study of Internet newsgroup users, McKenna
and Bargh noted that "virtual groups operate the same way as real-life groups"
and that virtual group membership and participation had a significant impact on
real-life relationships that may lead participants to share a "previously hidden
identity" (p. 692). Turkle (1995) demonstrated that Internet group participation,
and the corresponding anonymity, allows one to explore previously hidden
2
identities "which can lead to a more multifaceted and richer self-concept"
(McKenna & Bargh, 1998, p. 692).
Developing a Sexual Identity
One of the largest decisions facing Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual,
Transgendered, and Questioning (LGBTQ) persons is whether to come out of the
closet, or whether or not to reveal a non-dominant sexual orientation or gender
identity. The Internet may "have an impact on the coming out process; that is to
say one can come-out in the safe and anonymous virtual world before disclosing
one's sexual identity in real life" (Tikkanen & Ross, 2000, p. 606). It also may be
said that the act of coming out is two-fold: the journey of identity development
(Cass, 1979, 1984a, 1984b; Troidan, 1989; Harrison, 2003) and the actual
coming out communication that accompanies the revelation of the identity
(Chirrey, 2003; D'Augelli, Grossman & Starks, 2005; D'Augelli, Hershberger &
Pilkington, 1998; Floyd & Stein, 2002; Manning, 2006; Schope, 2002). Although
later work has refined her initial conceptualization of homosexual identity
formation, Cass' (1979) research presented a six stage model of identity
development based on her clinical work with lesbian and gay individuals.
The six stages observed by Cass (1979) are Identity Confusion, Identity
Comparison, Identity Tolerance, Identity Acceptance, Identity Pride, and Identity
Synthesis. The distinctions between stages are based on the individual's
perceptions and behavior based upon those perceptions (Cass, 1979). At any
time during the development process the individual may engage in Identity
Foreclosure, choosing to end development and forego any further stage
development (Cass, 1979). The model is based on a theory of interpersonal
congruencies, proposing that the individual develops in response to the
incongruencies in their environment (e.g. accepting a private gay identity while
projecting a public heterosexual identity) and further, that growth occurs when
one attempts to resolve those inconsistencies (Cass, 1979).
1. Homosexual as a descriptive term, once widely used in research, has more recently been
abandoned by most psychological researchers due to its association with negative stereotypes
and pathology.
3
Cass (1979) notes that development begins when an individual has a
"conscious awareness that homosexuality has relevance to themselves and their
behavior" (p.222). It is not enough to become informed on homosexuality, or be
labeled as homosexual, for the individual to begin the development process. The
development process can only begin when the individual is able to say "my
behavior may be called homosexual" (Cass, 1979, p. 222). The age at which
one begins the development process is disputed in subsequent research.
Whereas Cass (1984a) is not specific about the age of first awareness, stating
"early stages of homosexual identity development usually involve cognitive
processing of self-information against a symbolically held image of the
'generalized other'" (p. 111), other researchers take a more definitive approach.
For example, Troidan (1989) states the sensitization stage – the individual's first
awareness of difference – occurs prior to puberty. For Troidan, at this stage
"most lesbians and gay males do not see homosexuality as personally relevant"
(1989, p. 50, emphasis in original). This is echoed by Harrison's (2003)
assertions that stage one includes "sensitization or Early Awareness where,
around age 10, a child experiences same-sex attraction and feelings of
difference" (p. 107).
Just as there is disagreement in the onset of early stage sexual identity
development, so is there disagreement in the construction of stage theories.
Cass' early work was prompted by the work of others that "focused on
delineation of types of homosexual identities (Bell, 1973; Williams & Weinberg,
1974) and identification of the types of problems encountered by homosexuals1
in managing their homosexual identity (Warren, 1974; Williams & Weinberg,
1971)" (Cass, 1979, p 219). Her six stage model underwent revision and
refinement by Troidan (1989) who advocates a four stage model.
The reassessment and restructuring of Cass' theory resulted in a workable
four stage model of identity development and coming out: Sensitization, Identity
Confusion, Identity Assumption, and Commitment (Troidan, 1989). As defined,
Sensitization is "characterized by generalized feelings of marginality, and
perceptions of being different from same-sex peers" (Troidan, 1989, p. 50).
4
Identity Confusion follows as recognition that the individual can no longer
assume her heterosexuality as unquestioned, but she has "yet to develop
perceptions of (herself) as homosexual" (Troidan, 1989, p. 53). During the
Assumption stage the individual accepts his or her sexual orientation and may
engage in limited disclosure (Harrison, 2003). Troidan (1989) describes this as a
time in which lesbian and gay individuals begin to accept and present a gay self-
identity, at least to their gay and lesbian peers. Commitment is the last stage of
the coming out process and is characterized as one where individuals adopt
"homosexuality as a way of life" (Troidan, 1989, p. 63).
Troidan is quick to point out that his four-stage model describes "only
general patterns encountered by committed homosexuals" (1989, p. 47). Cass
conceptualized her stage model as a linear progression ultimately resulting in a
'coming out', in which the individual presents "a fully integrated identity" and "the
presentation of a homosexual self-image to both homosexual and heterosexual
others" (1984a, p. 111). She also states that a "homosexual identity cannot
completely evolve" if "the homosexual self-image is withheld" (Cass, 1984a, p.
111). Thus, in Cass' view, "a fully developed sense of self as 'a homosexual'
requires accord between self-perception and imagined views of self held by all
others constituting the individual's social environment" (1984a, p. 111).
Troidan agrees with Cass when he says that homosexual identities "are
most fully realized . . . in situations where self-identity, perceived identity, and
presented identity coincide" (1989, p. 46). For Troidan, the four stages represent
general patterns of experiences as described by committed homosexuals1. In
expanding that definition, Troidan states the "often repeated themes in the
histories of lesbian and gay males, clustered according to life stages, provide the
content and characteristics of each stage" (1989, p. 47). This is to say, there are
many similarities in the stories of lesbians and gay males, but their experiences
are neither identical, nor chronological in their occurrence. Further, it is those
same similar, non-chronological, historical accounts that are used to define the
stages observed by Cass, Troidan, Harrison and others.
5
The stages in Troidan's model appear to be fluid and self-defining, not as
rigid and specific as Cass' model, with individuals capable of backward as well as
forward movement through stages that "overlap and recur in somewhat different
ways for different people" (Troidan, 1989, p. 47). Additionally, Troidan (1989)
acknowledges a shifting effect in the development of a sexual identity that allows
some individuals to drift away, that is, not complete the journey. In recognizing
the ability of individuals to drift away from a queer sexual identity, Troidan also
expresses a belief in the fluidity of human sexual responses when he states "only
a small portion of all people who have homosexual experiences ever adopt
lesbian or gay identities and corresponding lifestyles" (Troidan, 1989, p. 47).
One thing that is common to Cass and Troidan's stage models, and in fact
common to most stage theories of sexual orientation development, is the final act
of coming out.
These studies focused on the psychological and sociological aspects of
the coming out experience. Until recently, little attention has been paid to the
communicative act of coming out. Research has examined development of one's
sexual orientation in an online community, the anonymity of online sexual
orientation exploration, and the practicality of the Internet in declaring one's
sexuality. Chirrey (2003) considers coming out to be a communicative act that
varies in the way it is delivered and received but stops short of defining the
specific types of communication employed by the LGBTQ person. This study
seeks to better understand the forms of the coming out communication – first by
re-examining Manning's (2006) theory of coming out conversation typologies,
and second by exploring the similarities in experience for both the sender and
receiver of that conversation.
On Coming Out
As indicated by the previous discussion, one does not come lightly to the
decision to come out. Arguably, the journey of discovery of one's sexual
orientation begins in childhood and can continue well into adulthood. Once a
nonheterosexual orientation has been accepted, the individual now faces the
decision to come out to one's family and/or friends. The communicative act of
6
coming out may be seen by some as a political statement, as a confrontation of a
heteronormative society, or as a fundamental means of completing the formation
of one's sexual identity; and still others view coming out as a performative act
that has implications for both the speaker and hearer (Chirrey, 2003, Speer &
Potter, 2000). Regardless, the decision to come out is not reached easily; nor is
it without fear of negative responses that can range from shock and surprise, to
estrangement, and physical abuse (D'Augelli, et al., 1998).
One study of LGB youth aged 15-19 years demonstrated that on average
respondents were aware of same-sex attractions at about 10 years of age, and
first disclosed those feelings to someone – family or friend – at about 14.5 years
(D'Augelli, et al., 2005). Approximately three-quarters of those disclosing their
identity did so to a friend first (D'Augelli, et al., 1998). Parent reactions to coming
out communications were almost evenly split between positive and negative (e.g.
for mothers, 55% positive and 45% negative) (D'Augelli, et al., 2005). Both boys
and girls stated similar reasons for choosing not to disclose their sexual identity:
fear of rejection or eviction, not having close relationship with parent(s), and
general fear or hesitancy (D'Augelli, et al., 2005).
Whether or not one decides to come out to a parent is a particularly
difficult decision as it could irreparably damage a critical relationship, leading
many gay men and women to remain silent if they fear disclosure means losing a
parent (Schope, 2002). A study of 443 gay men with a mean age of 40 showed
that "individuals disclose their sexual orientation in some settings while not
disclosing in other settings" (Schope, 2002, p. 17). This same study indicates
almost all were out to friends, but 25% were closeted at work and with siblings,
while more than 33% had still not come out to one or both parents (Schope,
2002).
Questions regarding sexual identity development and reasons for
disclosure or non-disclosure have resulted in a wealth of research. What is less
examined is the communicative act itself. Chirrey (2003) states coming out is
generally regarded as one of "two types of activity: there is coming out to oneself
and there is coming out to others" (p. 26). In defining coming out to oneself as
7
"recognition, acknowledgment and acceptance of same-sex desire within the
self" (2003, p.26), Chirrey equates coming out to what various stage-models refer
to as Identity Synthesis (Cass, 1979), Commitment (Troidan, 1989), and Identity
Consolidation (Harrison, 2003). For Chirrey, the act of coming out to oneself is a
performative act in that it opens the individual to new perceptions of her life, a life
where "possibilities that previously existed now cease to be, and where new
possibilities become available" (2003, p. 27).
While Chirrey considers it difficult to define the act of coming out to
oneself as speech, she discusses coming out to others as a speech act that can
vary in both the way the coming out statement is delivered and in which it is
received. In stating that possibilities cease to be and new possibilities are
opened, Chirrey is acknowledging the impact and effect of the coming out
locution upon both the speaker and the hearer. Chirrey then asks us to consider
"the diversity of the illocutionary force" (2003, p 30) of coming out from the
perspective of the varied circumstances in which the act takes place. Among
those varied circumstances, occasions, and situations are coming out to parents,
work colleagues, friends – gay, lesbian, and heterosexual – a communicative
experience that is not bounded by age or life stages (Chirrey, 2003).
Similarly, other authors have investigated coming out from various
perspectives and theoretical foundations. One recent study, focusing primarily
on the experiences of minority adolescents, examined the similarities and
differences in experiences of minority adolescents who had come out to parents
in relation to white adolescents who had come out. The study indicated the fear
of weakening the parental relationship was the number one fear expressed by
both minority and non-minority adolescents (Potoczniak, Crosbie-Burnett &
Saltzburg, 2009). The authors also found that disclosure rates to parents were
similar across racial lines, even though minority adolescents may risk "not only a
source of social support but also a source of self-identification and association
within their community" (Potoczniak, et al., 2009, p. 200).
Other authors, employing empirical methodologies, have studied coming
out from standpoints of social constructionism (Rust, 1993) and the factors
8
influencing coming out to parents (Waldner & Magruder, 1999). For Rust,
coming out "is the process of describing oneself in terms of social constructs
rather than a process of discovering one's essence" (1993, p. 68). Racial-ethnic,
geographic, or political differences may signal differing social constructs that can
alter one's construction of sexuality, resulting in the individual using "different
construct to accurately describe her social location within different cultural
contexts" (Rust, 1993, p. 69). By example, a woman may describe herself as a
lesbian when talking to her mother but refer to herself as queer in a more
politically situated communication (Rust, 1993).
Surveying 172 adolescents age 14-18 led Waldner and Magruder (1999)
to conclude that coming out to one's parents "is affected by perceptions of
available pro-gay resources, identity expression, and perceptions of "getting
along" (family relations)" (p.95). Supplemental resources can ease the coming
out experience by providing sources of information and approval for what may be
viewed as an alternative lifestyle. Thus, "when the balance of support exceeds
the perceived costs of rejection, hurt, and disappointment, the adolescent will
disclose" (Waldner & Magruder, 1999, p. 98). What is missing in these
discussions and in most coming out research is a discussion of the narrative
possibilities, or typologies, of coming out communications.
In what may be groundbreaking work, Manning (2006) has identified
seven distinct narrative scripts as operational during coming out conversations:
Pre-planned, Emergent, Coaxed, Confrontational, Romantic/sexual,
Educational/activist, and Mediated. Pre-planned scripts are a conscious prior
decision to come out, whereas Emergent scripts are those disclosures that are
not planned but are a natural progression of the discourse (Manning, 2006).
Coaxed communications are not planned and the disclosure is a result of hinting
or direct questioning (Manning, 2006). By contrast, Confrontational
communications represent an information exchange demanded by the recipient
(Manning, 2006). Romantic disclosures are typically a side effect of the
individual's expressed desire for another and Educational scripts are those
conversations that occur in the context of a panel discussion or other similar
9
organized activities (Manning, 2006). Mediated conversations are those that
take place by means other than Face-to-Face (FtF) communication (Manning,
2006).
In analyzing his data, Manning (2006) identified seven specific typologies
of coming out statements. Yet given the history of communication devices, their
development and uses, as a means of sending a message from one party to
another, is it safe to accept mediated communication as a distinct typology?
Manning himself questions the data stating more exploration is needed to
"elaborate upon what it contains and whether that can be classified into a single
type of coming out conversation" (Manning, 2006, p. 143).
In typifying coming out communications through a study of narratives
offered by LGBTQ individuals, Manning provided rich data and exemplars to
support his argument, save in the area of mediated communication.
Acknowledging that categorizing "mediated revelations into one category belies
the complexity and differences" (Manning, 2006, p. 81) of the collected mediated
conversations, he nevertheless offers no examples of those conversations. This
oversight serves to weaken the case, as he notes later, for mediated
communication as a separate typology. Thus there is a logical expectation that
mediated communication may not prove to be a separate typology, but rather a
means of communicating one of the other six narrative scripts.
Theory
Prior to coming out, one's sexual identity is usually a carefully protected
secret that is frequently associated with guilt and the fear of discovery (D'Augelli,
et al., 2005; D'Augelli, et al., 1998; Schope, 2002; Waldner & Magruder, 1999).
Petronio (2002) points to society's inability to find acceptance for openly gay
lifestyles as one deterrent for those desiring to disclose their sexual orientation.
The secret sexual identity, or rather the protecting of the secret, can result in a
dialectical tension in which the individual balances her need to come out with the
compulsion to remain silent (Petronio & Durham, 2008). The individual
conceptualizes private information as a possession with rights of control granted
10
to the owner. It is then the owner's decision to disclose the information or keep it
private, whichever is in the owner's best interest (Petronio & Durham, 2008).
The conceptualization of private information as a possession that may be
shared cautiously is perhaps best explained through an understanding of the
system of boundary management that is at the heart of Communication Privacy
Management (CPM). Petronio (2002) conceives information, in this case one's
sexual orientation, as being held within tightly managed boundaries. The
decision to disclose information is based upon one's expectations of acceptance,
fear of rejection, and need to build or improve relational stability.
CPM offers a framework of privacy rules that individuals use to guide their
choices in whether or not to disclose and are developed using the following
criteria: cultural, gendered, motivational, contextual, and risk-benefit (Petronio,
2002). Privacy rules may be learned through socialization or acquired through
experience and are subject to gender influences in their construction and
application (Petronio, 2002). CPM as a communication theory is less concerned
with the means of communication than it is with how individuals manage their
communication. Communication Privacy Management works well as an
underlying theory when considering how LGBTQ persons reach the decision to
come out.
In reaching a decision to come out, the individual also acknowledges the
necessity in confronting "what Speer and Potter describe as the 'cultural' and
'psychological heterosexism' that characterizes a society in which gay and
lesbian lives and identities are generally either ignored, denied or stigmatized"
(Chirrey, 2003, p. 24). As previously stated, the decision to come out may be
aided by computer mediated communication (CMC) in the form of roll play and
anonymous interaction in various online settings (i.e. chatrooms, listserves,
blogs, newsgroups, etc.) (Manning, 2007; Peter, et al, 2005; Harrison, 2003).
Research has shown that "it is quite difficult for a person to effect changes in his
or her self-concept when the surrounding social environment . . . remains static"
(McKenna & Bargh, 2000, p. 62). The expectations of one's family and peer
group can present an effective barrier to the development and disclosure of an
11
alternative sexual identity. Online "an individual is in effect gaining a new peer
group that is unrelated to those he or she knows in the non-Internet world"
(McKenna & Bargh, 2000, p. 63). Thus the individual's engagement in online role
play in a more accepting social environment allows for the nurturing of one's
sexual identity and the testing of coming out communications. Having
established the effectiveness of Internet exploration in the development of one's
sexual identity, can we then find a correlation to Face-to-Face (FtF)
communication in the construction and delivery of coming out communications?
Literature suggests that, lacking specific and individualized information
about those persons with whom we react online, we will form relationships based
on the social group to which we believe those persons belong (Walther, 1996).
This statement might also refer to the process of coming out via computer
mediated communication to cyber friends, or to family members and close
friends. LBGTQ individuals tend to come out to someone they consider "safe",
usually a family member and frequently a sister or brother (Harrison, 2003). It
appears this dialectic discursive form allows the individual to reduce the amount
of relational ambiguity brought about by disclosure while managing the release of
heretofore private information. By choosing a partner to the discourse that the
individual believes places high value in the relationship, the individual seeks to
reduce the potentially adverse reaction to the coming out communication.
Individuals who use the Internet as a means of disclosing an alternative sexual
identity place time and distance between the communicants, but what is the
nature of the communication itself?
Overview of the study
The understanding of motivations for coming out and types of coming out
narratives employed in these communications is significant for those involved in
this experience. Consequently, it is equally important to fully understand the role
of mediated communication in coming out narratives, an understanding that
provides the basis for the first research question: Is mediated communication a
separate typology of coming out narratives? As demonstrated earlier, the
Internet has provided a user friendly platform for exploring one's sexual identity
12
and for coming out in a safe, controlled and non-threatening environment
(Glover, Galliher & Lamere, 2009; Joinson, 1999; McKenna & Bargh, 1998;
McKenna, et al., 2001; Munt, et al. 2002). Logically, then, it stands to reason that
mediated communication as a typology would be equally effective in providing a
user friendly platform for coming out in a safe, controlled, and non-threatening
environment.
Manning's (2006) analysis of coming out narratives identified 10 narratives
among the 92 participants that mention the use of mediated communications.
Considering participants were asked to provide narratives describing positive and
negative coming out experiences, the number of mediated responses represents
less than 6% of all narratives reported. This number seems low when one
considers that 74% of American adults use the Internet and 93% of persons age
18-29 are online (Rainie, 2010). The current study will attempt to clarify the role
and usefulness of mediated forms of coming out statements by asking: How and
why do LGBTQ persons use mediated forms of communication in their coming
out narratives?
In order to corroborate Manning's original study, the remaining research
questions are borrowed directly from Manning's initial study. Manning's research
was the first to effort a full understanding of the communicative act of coming out.
The resulting data could prove useful in support of those contemplating coming
out as well as those communicative partners on the receiving end of the
communication. Although many of the narratives in Manning's study indicate
positive experiences, the literature indicates that many LGBTQ persons fear
coming out due to the potential for relationship disintegration, and that many
receivers of coming out communications react negatively (D'Augelli, et al. 2005;
D'Augelli, et al. 1998; Potoczniak, 1999; Schope, 2002; Waldner & Magruder,
1999). Thus we seek to reinvestigate Manning's original work to substantiate his
findings by offering the following three questions: 1) What are common elements
of coming out conversations? 2) What do LGBTQ individuals consider to be
helpful and unhelpful communicative behaviors in coming out conversations? 3)
How are coming out conversations viewed by LGBTQ persons as impacting their
13
relationships? (Manning, 2006, p. 58). The methodology of this qualitative study
is explored further in the following section.
Methodology
Manning's original research employed a six question protocol that asks
respondents to describe their most recent positive and negative coming out
experiences. As noted earlier, the protocol did not specifically request mediated
coming out experiences and supplied scant responses in this regard. The
current research protocol was designed along the same lines as Manning's
original and, in fact, employed many of the same questions. In order to unpack
the depth and dimension of mediated communication in the coming out process,
the protocol was modified to specifically ask for the most recent positive and
negative mediated coming out experiences. Data was collected via
SurveyMonkey, an online research tool, over a three month period from January,
2010 through March, 2010. The mediated questions were rotated in and out of
the protocol resulting in a six question survey that was structured in one of the
following sequences: positive and negative non-mediated experiences, positive
non-mediated and negative mediated experiences, positive mediated and
negative non-mediated experiences. Each sequence was online for
approximately two weeks and was used twice for a total exposure of four weeks.
Upon receiving IRB approval, the first round protocol – positive/negative
non-mediated – was posted in early January and a research call was posted on a
research bulletin board at a medium-sized Midwestern university. Students at
this university enrolled in communication studies classes are required to
participate in at least one research project as a class assignment and thus are a
readily available population. Additional respondents were solicited via a snowball
technique that utilized a Facebook friends mailing list, word of mouth, and
research calls posted on several web discussion threads that specifically address
LGBTQ issues. Advertisements were also placed with online editions of two
student newspapers, as well as an online service that features material of
specific interests to university populations nationally.
14
The protocol yielded a total of 102 responses of which 67 responses
(66%) were complete in that the respondent provided a narrative for each
question or noted the question did not apply to their experiences. The remaining
35 responses (34%) were deemed to be partial in that the respondent dropped
out of the survey without completing all questions, which usually resulted in a
lack of demographic data as well. When 'not applicable' responses were
factored out there were 404 individual specific responses in the form of narratives
ranging in length from one or two sentences to several paragraphs.
SurveyMonkey does not recognize individual participants nor collate
responses when a respondent drops out of the survey. This required a first step
of collating the data based on time stamps so that individual participant
responses were correctly attributed to each participant. This step allowed the
researcher to become familiar with the data or as Clarke (2005) termed it,
"digesting and reflecting" (p. 84) on the data set, prior to the actual coding
process.
Saldana (2009) defines Initial Coding, also known as Open Coding, as
"appropriate for virtually all qualitative studies" (p. 81). Initial Coding was
employed as a first cycle coding method in this study. It is an "open-ended
approach to coding the data" (Saldana, 2009, p. 81) that enables the researcher
to build upon the period of reflection and begin categorizing and analyzing the
data. Narratives were broadly categorized into six categories that closely
resembled the Manning (2005) model and one category – miscellaneous – that
did not appear in the Manning study.
Subsequent to the first round of coding, the data in each category was
then more closely analyzed with the aim of identifying and refining specific
themes within each category. Particular attention was paid to the Mediated and
Miscellaneous response categories to determine whether the data included was
accurately reflective of the category, or whether the response belonged in a
different category altogether. Upon further reflection it was determined that the
responses initially placed in the Miscellaneous category were more appropriate
to other categories. These two rounds of coding were used to probe the veracity
15
of Manning's theory. The results and corresponding analysis are discussed in
the following section.
Data was then subjected to two additional rounds of coding based on an
Emotional Coding format as discussed by Saldana (2009). There is little in
human action and interaction that is not defined by or driven by emotion, and a
close analysis of the narrative data can provide "deep insight into the
participant's perspectives, worldviews, and life conditions" (Saldana, 2009, p.
86). Multiple readings of the narratives, collating the data, and the initial two
rounds of coding yielded five tentative categories of emotional responses or
precipitators in the coming out event: Pre, During, Post, Causal, and Reaction.
The early development of these categories is supported conceptually by Lindlof
and Taylor's (2002) assessment that "a strong current of inductive thinking
stimulates the development of categories; that is, a category begins to form only
after the analyst has figured out a meaningful way to configure the data" (p. 215).
The Pre, During, and Post categories refer to emotional responses experienced
by the actor immediately prior to, during, and immediately following the coming
out event. The Causal and Reaction categories are directly connected to
triggering events and the emotional reaction of other individuals central to the
coming out event as related by the actor.
Lindlof and Taylor (2002) note that "the core purpose of coding is to mark
the units of text as they relate meaningfully to categories (concepts, themes,
constructs)" (p. 216). The first round of Emotional Coding was conducted to
identify and categorize emotional responses, triggering events, and other's
reactions into concepts and themes common to a specific category. Several
themes were present in more than one category (i.e. nervous as a theme was
present in both Pre and During categories). Once initial round of Emotional
Coding was completed the data themes were analyzed and compared for
commonalities that might not have been apparent in the first round. This second
round of Emotional Coding reduced the total number of themes as similar
emotional responses and triggers were collated and condensed. As themes
were analyzed, several sub-categories or thematic groupings became apparent
16
and will be discussed in detail in the following section. It is important to note at
this point that while the initial categories were determined prior to the first round
of Emotional Coding, careful consideration was given to the appropriateness,
applicability, and sufficiency in the number of the categories. The data did not
support any revisions or additions to the original list of five categories.
Following two rounds of Emotional Coding, the data underwent a final
round of analysis in the form of Theoretical Coding, a methodological approach
that "functions like an umbrella that covers and accounts for all other codes and
categories formulated thus far in the grounded theory analysis" (Saldana, 2005,
p. 163). As defined by Saldana (2005) Theoretical Coding is the final step in the
integration and analysis of the previously determined categories resulting in the
development of new theory. Saldana (2009) further states that "a Theoretical
Code specifies the possible relationships between categories and moves the
analytic story in a theoretical direction" (p. 164). Applying a grounded theory
approach to the data serves to reexamine Manning's theories from a fresh
perspective with the potential to expand upon those theories in a manner that
may lead to a practical application of coming out communicative theories.
Results
One of the facts of life when using internet survey mechanisms is the
researcher's lack of control over the data collection process. In one-on-one
interviews the researcher is generally more successful in eliciting demographic
data, whereas on-line data collection offers the opportunity for the participant to
exit the survey at any time. In regards to the current survey, the collection of
demographic data is less than 100%. Acknowledging that shortfall should not be
construed to mean no important information can be derived from the data
collected. Of the 102 respondents, 92 (90%) provided demographic data related
to race, biological sex, and preferred gender identification, while 50% provided
their age and country of residence (52 and 51 participants respectively).
The racial make-up of the participants was 2.2% African-American/Black;
2.2% Asian-American/Pacific Islander; 79.3% European-American/White; 4.3%
Latino-American/Hispanic; 2.2% Native-American/American Indian; 5.4%
17
Multiracial; 4.3% identified as Other. Based on the 2000 U. S. Census, it is
readily apparent that some racial groups are underrepresented while others are
overrepresented. Specifically, Blacks and Hispanics are significantly
underrepresented in that the 2000 Census shows that Blacks make up 12.06%
and Hispanics 12.55% of the U. S. population (CensusScope, 2010). Similarly,
White Americans are overrepresented in this survey by approximately 10%.
Baxter and Babbie (2003) point out that one limiting factor to convenience
sampling is that participants who are referred to researchers by other participants
are usually "members of the nominator's social network" (p. 313). The snowball
technique used in this survey is a non-probability technique that "is appropriate
when the members of a special population are difficult to locate" (Baxter &
Babbie, 2003, p. 135). The overrepresentation of Whites may have contributed
to the underrepresentation of minority participants.
Other possible contributing factors to the underrepresentation of minorities
is a cultural reticence to disclose sexual orientation and distrust of research
studies in general. Research has shown that there is a higher incidence of
bisexuality among Black and Latino men "in comparison to their White
counterparts" yet "Black and Latino bisexual men have also been found to be
less likely to disclose their same-sex behaviors" (Sandfort & Dodge, 2008,
p.677). Millet, Malebranche, Mason & Spikes (2005) reported on several studies
that contend "black MSM [men seeking men] were less likely than white MSM to
be open about their homosexuality" (p. 54S). Yet another study demonstrated
that "as education levels increased, white men were more likely and black men
substantially less likely to disclose their sexuality" (Millet, et al., 2005, p. 54S).
Also of possible significance in contributing to minority underrepresentation is a
2002 survey of 1000 participants that established "important differences by race
in aspects of trust that may be associated with willingness to participate in
research" (Corbie-Smith, Thomas & St. George, 2002, p. 2460).
Participants were also asked to provide data regarding their biological sex,
gender identification, state and country of residence, and age. Of those
participants reporting their biological sex, there are 30 females (32.6%) and 62
18
males (67.4%). Gender identification showed a small increase in the number of
participants identifying as male – 63 or 68.5% - while 28 participants identified as
female (30.4%) and one respondent identified as neither. Survey data was
international in scope with 38 participants reporting residence in the United
States, representing 17 states. There are seven Canadians residents, two from
the United Kingdom, and one each residing in Australia, India, Ireland, and
Japan. Respondents range in age from 18 years to 63 years. The single largest
age group is 21 year-olds with seven followed by 19 year-olds with five. There
are 24 participants age 19 to 24 representing 46% of all participants who
reported their age.
As previously noted, not all narratives were accompanied by complete
narrative data. Every effort has been made to note the biological sex, age, and
geographic location of the contributor. The lack of demographic data contributed
to this survey was not considered cause for deletion of the narrative as an
exemplar. Narratives that were associated with incomplete demographic data
are so noted.
A Reexamination of Manning's Theory of Coming Out Communications
The first research question asked: Is mediated communication a separate
typology of coming out narratives? This question was posed in part as a
response to Manning's (2006) assertion that "one of the categories in the
taxonomy – mediated coming out conversation – will need more exploration in
order to elaborate upon what it contains and whether that can truly be classified
into a single type of coming out conversation" (p. 143). In Manning's original
study 10 of the 92 participants reported engaging in some form of mediated
coming out conversation. In the current study, which specifically asked about
positive and negative mediated coming out conversations, 28 participants – 27%
of the total – provided 42 responses acknowledging the use of a mediated form
of communication. When examined, the 42 responses combined to form seven
distinct groupings that were individually centered around a common theme.
19
Mediated Conversations
The seven mediated narrative groups are Social networking sites, instant
messaging, distance, telephone/emergent, personal comfort, fear/avoidance, and
non-specific. Inclusion in any specific group was determined by the principal
reason expressed by the narrator for her choice of mediated form. For example,
distance was often one factor in choosing to engage in a mediated conversation,
but inclusion in the distance group was limited to those narratives that specifically
mention distance.
One consideration in examining mediated coming out conversations as a
specific typology in Manning's theory was that of intent. The respondents to this
survey clearly chose or engaged in mediated conversations for the reasons to be
discussed and without regret for their choice. That said, there were nine
respondents who expressed regret over using mediated communication, whether
or not the experience was positive. Typical of the regret statements are:
I would have come out slower and more quietly instead of on
Facebook.
Male, 21, Maryland, USA
I wished I could have done it in person, but he lives in Japan and I

live in the United States, so that was basically impossible.
Male, 28, Tennessee, USA
Facebook and other social networking sites represented the single largest
group with 12 reports of this form of mediated communication. Of the 12
responses, 11 informants reported intentionally posting, or hinting to, their sexual
orientation as a means of reaching the greatest number of persons in the
shortest amount of time. One participant offered the following narrative of his
reason for using Facebook as a means of coming out:
I have known I was gay since middle school. However, I never
outright told anyone that I was gay, nor did I attempt to date other
men. Eventually the urges to be myself grew stronger and I found
myself facing a dilemma. I could either 1.) keep acting straight and
deal with it or 2.) come out. I chose to make it as quick as I could.
Usually I'd imagine you tell your closest friends and work from
there. Subtly is not my forte you see. When I decided to come out, I
20
just posted it on my Facebook. 600 of my friends found out
together.
Male, 21, Pennsylvania, USA
While the majority of respondents in this thematic group report positive

experiences, several responses demonstrated that mediated forms of coming out
statements do not insure acceptance and understanding:
I came out to the world via Facebook. I was bombarded with emails
and comments 99% negative that were mostly about me going to
hell, or linked me to ex-Gay Ministries.
Male, 21, Maryland, USA
When I changed my "Interested In" status on Facebook to "Men," I

do feel that this had a negative impact on my family. They all of
sudden seemed concerned with "how many people will know," "how
employers will feel about this," and other concerns about how my
sexual orientation - now public knowledge - might affect my future.
This put strains on those interpersonal relationships - my desire to
"be out" and their desire to "protect me" from the harsh reality that
existed met each other with great conflict.
Male, 20, Georgia, USA
The popularity of texting and instant messaging is reflected in the second
largest grouping of narratives. Of the nine people who supplied narratives in this
category, three imply or state that the coming out communication was planned,
while five indicate the coming out disclosure emerged from the conversation. In
each case, the text messaging format seems to have supplanted the telephone
as the preferred method of communication, with only one respondent expressing
a preference for face-to-face communication. The following narrative describes
the coming out event, as well as the participant's reason for non-disclosure:
The last positive coming out experience occurred about 6 months
ago on my birthday. It was an old friend from high school, who I had
recently re-connected with. She is my friend on Facebook and IM'd
me. She asked how my birthday was going and what plans I had.
We got to talking about what we had been up to in the 10 years
since high school. Eventually the conversation turned to asking
about whether we had boyfriends/husbands. Usually I don't
announce my sexuality, unless it comes up. If I think there is a
possibility they will be hurtful to me, I simply say I do not have a
boyfriend or am not married. If, like in this case, I feel they will not
be hurtful to me, I expand on that to include the fact that I am a
21
lesbian. Of course no matter what, I always feel nervous, so I was
relieved that she didn't even hesitate when she said "that's cool".
I really like when people treat me as if there isn't an "otherness"
about me. I cannot stand being "tolerated".
Female, 28, Kentucky, USA
The following is a similar text message based communication related by a young

man who, like the previous respondent, found the experience positive:
I am a 23 year old male and my most recent coming out was to a
male friend via text message. He would sometimes refer to
attractive guy as hot just to be funny and the dynamic of our
relationship was to pretend we were gay for each other. When I told
him he had no problem with it, and continues to be comfortable
making the gay joke between us. It was very positive and
unremarkable.
Male, 23, New York, USA
The following narrative, related by a 20-something female college student

is a representative example of how the coming out conversation emerges in the
course of another, unrelated communication:
I have a friend who I have known about 2 years but recently we
became closer and were spending more time together because she
lives in my apartment building. I go to a Christian university so here
everybody pretty much assumes everyone is straight and since I
don't really fit into many lesbian stereotypes, most people here
assume I'm straight and I don't always have the courage to correct
them. We were talking over AIM and this guy came up in
conversation and I just said "he's not my type," hoping it might open
up the conversation for me to come out to her. She said something
like, "don't worry, he's not my type either!" The conversation kind of
drifted off there and neither of us said anything. About 20 minutes
later I finally worked up the courage to say, "GOSH. You know why
John isn't my type? 'Cause I'm gay." It's one of those things where I
just typed it and closed my eyes and hit "send." I knew that once I
came out to her I would feel better, and that she was not the type of
person to judge me. But for me, it's always about finding the right
time and then working up the courage to come out in the first place.
I knew that if I did not come out to her then, then I would never be
able to do it.
Demographic data unavailable
The same female respondent expresses some regret over an impersonal but
effective online experience:
22
I wish that I would have been able to come out to her in person
rather than online (even though I saw her in person shortly after we
spoke online). I have come out to a few people online simply
because it is easier for me. It may be impersonal, but it "gets the
job done" so to speak. But sometimes I feel that working up the
courage to come out in person is something I just need to do. Every
time I say "I'm gay" out loud to someone for the first time, it makes
me stronger, and it makes coming out a little easier.
Of special interest in this narrative is the respondent's reference to talking via a

text messaging format. This colloquial use of the term talking in reference to a
text based communication is evidence of the pervasive nature of mediated
communication in U. S. society and the user's consideration of text messaging as
speech.
The physical or emotional distance between respondents was frequently
mentioned as the primary reason for engaging in mediated coming out
conversations and was the salient theme in the formation of the third major
group. Several of the narratives describe writing letters, making a phone call, or
sending a text message as a means of bridging the distance between sender and
receiver. All of the seven examples in this grouping were planned coming out
conversations:
I came out as a gay man to my cousin over Facebook in October
2009. It was a personal message. I told him that I'm gay and that I
had known my entire life that I was different. I went on to tell him
that I had known about my sexuality since puberty and that I could
not and would not hide it anymore. He messaged me back and the
very first line was "Good for you!" He told me how proud he was of
me and how hard it must have been for me to come out. I didn't
expect him to react negatively, but I didn't expect how positive he
would be about it either. He really did make me feel like family in
that instant. I wished I could have done it in person, but he lives in
Japan and I live in the United States, so that was basically
impossible.
A less positive experience was related by this respondent:

I came out via instant message to a male friend of mine who was
serving in Afghanistan. He is a diehard conservative but I did not
believe him to be a social conservative on gay issues or
homosexuality. Initially he seemed very supportive but I have
23
sensed a growing distance and I believe him to have a
condescending attitude toward me, so I no longer make an effort to
remain friends.
This group also generated the largest number of individuals expressing

regret over the use of mediated communication. Clearly for these individuals the
decision to use mediated communication was predicated solely on the distance
between the parties to the communication as attested to by this female
participant:
I most recently came out to one of my best friends. We live in
different states so we only see each other about once a year. I felt
like even though I wasn't ready to come out to her, I owed it to her
to tell her because we kind of had a pact about openness.
Originally, I was planning to take a trip and fly to where she lives so
we could have the conversation in person. But then I decided I
couldn't wait that long, so I would tell her over the phone. Well we
played phone tag for a few days and were both really busy, and I
was losing my patience and my courage, so I finally just emailed
her and told her I was bisexual and that I had been dating another
girl. It was a Monday around 2pm when I sent that email. She did
not email me back that day (or ever). Later that night, around 10 pm
I sent her a text message. She responded and told me that she
couldn't talk to me right now and that she needed time.
I wish I had been able to tell her in person. I wish I had not been so
blunt and so certain when I told her and maybe had softened it a
little. I wish that she had responded to my email message. I wish
that she had called me sooner than she did. I wish that she hadn't
sounded so mad when we talked on the phone.
A male respondent echoed the same sentiment when he wrote:

The only thing I would have changed was the medium. I would
have rather done in person rather than on the phone.
The fourth grouping was determined by the informant's mention of a

specific instrument for conveyance of the coming out conversation – a telephone.
The narratives were evenly split between positive and negative experience, yet
only one participant expressed regret over the choice of mediated over face-to-
24
face communication. The following is typical of the narratives expressing
satisfaction with their choice:
I came out to my best mate in high school 47 years ago and
learned he was gay too. I have come out to very few, but this one
had a very positive outcome. I came out to him over the phone as
part of a general catch up of friends at Christmas. He had just
broken up with his partner of two years and is going through a
complicated grieving process. I have been glad to support him
when I can.
Male, 63, Queensland, Australia
Here, as in the distance themed group, the narratives might easily have
been assigned to a different group. The conversations are either planned or
emergent, and definitely are based on distance. What differentiates the
narratives in this thematic group is the narrator's specific choice and mention of
the telephone. While we cannot know the specific rationale for the choice, it is
possible the narrator felt the telephone allowed for a more personal conversation
than for instance an email.
The next themed grouping is represented by three participants all of whom
mentioned a degree of personal comfort in their decision to use a mediated form
of coming out conversation. None of the three contributors expressed regrets in
this area. While each participant had different needs, they were consistent in
their desire to avoid face-to-face conversations:
The last time I came out to someone was via letter- I simply placed
the note under my friend's door, and he later came and told me he
was okay with everything. I thought things went pretty well. I tend
to stutter and choke up when talking in person, so communication
through a letter was definitely a good choice.
Male, 20, Maine, USA
I told one of my close friends over Facebook message, and his

reaction was very positive, one of the best I've gotten. I decided to
use this method because it not only allowed me to say exactly what
I needed to, but also gave him a chance to think things over before
responding which I thought was really the fairest way. Ideally, I
would rather never have used electronic communication to come
out. But I think it is important to just get it out there, and any way
that a person is able to do so is a valid way. It's just not exactly
ideal because it is so... indirect? That is the best way to put it.
Male, 19, Arizona, USA
25
The narratives in this grouping make reference to various mediated
communicative forms. The decision determining to which grouping a response
was assigned was based upon the most salient reason provided by the author.
The above narrative for example makes reference to the use of Facebook and
could have been included in the Social Networking group. Its inclusion here is
based on the author's stated desire to compose his thoughts and words so that
his communication was put forth in the best manner possible. The execution of
the communication in the chosen mediated form resulted in a level of comfort
that was not available in a face-to-face setting.
Fear/Avoidance was the motivating factor for two respondents who chose
mediated forms of coming out conversations. Both authors expressed a fear of
their parents' reaction and the desire to avoid a face-to-face confrontation. Both
authors understood the family dynamic and were correct in their assessment that
the coming out conversation would not go well. A male college student offered
this description of his coming out experience and the reasons for his decision to
write his parents a letter:
I came out to my parents via postal mail. I was originally planning
on not telling them until I was out of college, out of fear they would
stop funding my education. My brother is gay and out to them, but
he was always the favorite, at least until he came out. Over break I
was determined to tell them. I received a job offer for the spring
semester however, and had to get a car and drive it out. I couldn't
tell them without risking them losing focus on the car issue, I didn't
want to see my mom cry again, and I wanted to avoid the awkward
20 hour car ride back to school with my father. When i returned to
school i drafted up a letter telling my parents about my issues with
depression and suicide, and the fact that I am gay. My father tried
to convince me I was neither depressed nor gay. My mother took
some time to call me and though she accepted the depression,
avoided the issue of my being gay. She never brought it up, and
when I did she just said she would never understand and hoped I
would go back to girls after I was done "experimenting." I wish I
could have told my parents in person though. They are the only
important people who didn't find out in person. I couldn't stand
watching my mom cry though, and I know I couldn't have made all
of my issues clear without her breaking down.
26
Another male participant related this story of his choice to telephone his parents
with the news that he was gay:
When I came out to my parents it was over the phone. It was New
Years Eve and I had chickened out of my first plan to tell them in
person, so instead I went to another friends house for christmas
(sic) break over a 100 miles away and then called my parents. I told
my mom that I wanted to start the new year off right without any
lies. According to my dad I made my mom cry. I was also told
repeatedly "How can you be a gay?" I definitely would have called
at a better time. I think I ruined their New Year's. I would have
hoped for better understanding.
Male, 27, Kentucky, USA
The above narrative is another example of the potential to assign

narratives to more than one group. The decision to assign this narrative to the
Fear/avoidance group is based on the stated wish to avoid an emotional
confrontation. That the informant chose a telephone for his conversation was
determined to be secondary to the wish to avoid the emotionality of the family
dynamic.
The final grouping in the Mediated typology is that of Non-specific. There
were six reported mediated coming out conversations in which the authors did
not state a specific reason for their decision. Typical of these unstated narratives
is this description of the outcome of an emailed disclosure:
i haven't had a particularly negative experience. closest to it was
my bro. he said he's okay with it, and it doesn't bother him (i believe
him). but i can sense that he expects me to become a stereotypical
queen (which i'm not).
As a thematic group, Non-specific may seem to be a catch-all grouping for

narratives that do not fit elsewhere within the mediated conversation typology.
The previous six thematic groups were determined by the participant's stated or
implied reason for choosing mediated communication. The participant narratives
in the Non-specific theme make mention of the mediated form but are not specific
as to rationale. This survey did not ask the informants to state their reason for
choosing a specific mediated form. It asked that they relate mediated coming out
27
experiences, thus in some narratives it is impossible to determine the factors for
choosing one form over another. The lack of rationale for their action does not
detract from the fact that the choice was intentional rather than an impromptu
decision to come out by the most expedient and accessible medium.
To review, the initial investigation was prompted by a question as to the
accuracy of Manning's inclusion of Mediated conversations in his initial
typologies. There are 42 narratives provided by 28 individuals that specifically
discuss the use of, and reasons for engaging in, mediated coming out
conversations. The reasons vary, indeed some respondents do not supply a
reason, but it is clear that based on an analysis of the narrative data acquired in
this investigation, the concept of Mediated coming out conversations can be
supported.
Having demonstrated the appropriateness of including Mediated
conversations in the typology, will the data support the existence of Manning's
other six typologies? Manning identified six additional typologies: Pre-planned,
Emergent, Coaxed, Confrontational, Romantic/Sexual, and Educational/Activist.
There were no predetermined typologies in the current research, yet responses
fell naturally into the typologies identified by Manning with one notable exception.
There were five narratives that could not be easily or accurately categorized as to
typology due to a lack of sufficient detail provided by the author. That the author
did not, or could not, discern the motivation for her coming out communication
does not render the narrative suspect, simply unidentifiable. One can assume
there was motivation for the act of coming out. It is however, beyond the scope
of this interpretative study to determine such motivators. In most cases, the
narratives identified both positive and negative coming out experiences present
within the typologies.
Pre-Planned
Manning (2006) defines pre-planned events as those in which the person
coming out "makes a decision in advance that he or she is going to reveal his or
her sexual orientation" (p. 69). As in Manning's study, informants mentioned
planning to have a talk with one or more important persons in their lives, and
28
frequently opened the conversation with such statements as "I have something to
tell you that is going to shock you", "I have been wanting to tell you this for a long
time", and "So, I told him I had to talk to him, and after a bit finally told him".
Respondents reported planning the conversation over a period of time – or in a
matter of a few hours prior to the event – but the point of cohesion is in planning
the act of coming out.
Pre-planned conversations represented the largest group of narratives
after mediated conversations. Those experiencing positive outcomes expressed
no regrets save such comments as "I wish I would have done it sooner", "I wish I
wouldn't have been so shy or embarrassed", and "I would have liked to use the
words 'I'm gay' instead of im (sic) not straight". Several authors expressed
feelings of liberation and freedom as related in this narrative:
I came out to my close friends. I was scared and even when telling
them I was afraid. After managing to get the words out I felt....
liberated. It's like you're Atlas but you are having the world lifted
from your shoulders. I wouldn't change anything. I think a lot of
people envision how they would like it to happen but that plan
almost never actually happens. Coming out is a unique expierence
(sic) in and of itself. I guess that is what makes it the expierence
(sic) it is.
Male, 20, Prince Edward Island, Canada
Similarly, this participant describes in detail his journey to reaching a decision to

come out to his mother, and his experience in that event:
I came out fully in August of 2009. It wasn't until July, right after my
birthday that I was ready to tell my first person. The most important
person in my life, my mom. I was so scared. She had asked me in
the past and I had denied it several times. I turned around, my
heart was pounding. I knew this was it but I had to make myself do
it, not for her or anyone else but for myself. My heart was pounding
hard in my chest. I thought to myself on the third pound just say it.
On the third pound I took a deep breath and changed my life.
"Mom, I'm gay." I said. I knew she would accept it, accept me. The
rush I got was the best high I ever had in my life. It was like a
boulder that I had been shouldering through all my life had been
lifted. I felt so light and free. I knew once I told her I wanted to tell
everyone. I know one day I will have to face it [a negative reaction]
but the strength I received from my friends and family has given me
29
the strength to face it. I can honestly say I have never been happier
in my life and have made tons of new and true friends.
Reasons for planning and actually coming out to friends or family were
varied. Some narratives expressed being tired of hiding while others stated the
need to be honest with co-workers. One participant described his feelings of
fear, despondence, and constant nervousness over living a lie:
i came out when i was 19 to my mum.(my dad died when i was 11)
I have an elder brother who doesnt (sic) know anything about me
being gay. i came out of the closet primarly (sic) because i was
always scared dissatisfied and it was taking the best of me now. i
felt lonely and it felt as if i was living a lie. everybody who i knew
talked to me, thinking that i am straight. so, basically what drove me
to come out was the constant nervousness. despondece (sic) and
pensiveness that consumed most of me and my then aberrrant (sic)
lifestyle. the way i came out to my mum was that i sat her down one
day, and i told her that i had something to tell her. something that
would shock her. then, i suddenly went blank! after dinner, we were
in her room and i was shitting in my pants! then i just let out after
half an hour of not so required weeping! she took it very well. she
told me that she was perfectly fine with me being gay. and that she
would support me come what may.
Male, 20, Chandigarh, India
Not all pre-planned conversations go according to plan, or result in a

positive experience for both parties. The following examples illustrate that
coming out to friends and loved ones who one might otherwise expect to be
supportive can result in an unexpected response:
When i told my brother i was a lesbian he threatened to slap me
across the face, and then he continued to tell me that i was not gay
and that he refused to accept it. he told me that it was just a phase i
was going through and that in a few years i would be married to a
guy with two kids. i tried to explain to him that this was not going to
change. when i refused to go out with his friend because i was gay
he said fine but i do not want you to speak about it to me anymore. i
do not want to even hear about any relationship you might be in
with a girl
Female, 19, Illinois, USA
I wanted to tell a friend who was extremely religious. He is Islamic

(sic). When i told him, he looked at me quite shocked before
remarking that it would make life very tough for my parents. Then
30
he just kinda avoided the subject and didnt (sic) want to talk about
it. I later heard that when i went to teh (sic) toilet he told my other
friend how his wife would not like it at all and he doesn’t (sic) agree
with homosexuality
Male, 28, London, United Kingdom
Coming out as a bisexual to my parents was the hardest. They

were understanding but telling me it was a phase. I just didnt (sic)
argue with them about it. They didnt (sic) care when i had my
girlfriends over or went to gay bars, but i knew deep down they
disliked it. I decided to come out to them because I had a girlfriend
and i felt as if i should be honest with them I could feel the tension
sometimes between us when i had my girlfriend around. They
thought she was a nice girl and like her, but they didnt (sic) like how
we felt towards one another. They accepted it though.
Female, 21, Ohio, USA
Emergent
As the name implies, "these coming out conversations were not
necessarily planned, but instead happened in a seemingly natural (at least to the
person coming out) progression of the conversation" (Manning, 2006, p. 70). As
was true in Manning's study, many of the respondents reported disclosing their
sexual orientation as a part of a larger conversation about relationships and/or
dating. Manning's data also showed that most of his respondents planned to, or
would have likely, come out to the receivers, a fact that is supported by the
current data as well. The narratives in this typology overwhelmingly document
positive experiences, which may be largely due to the comfort felt by the LGBTQ
individual in these situations. However, one of the most harrowing experiences
was related by this woman:
I had just come back from a night club with a friend and I didn't feel
awake enough to drive home (over an hour away) so she said we'd
crash at her guy friends. So we went to chat with him. We were
talking about dating and he asked if I had a nice boyfriend. I shook
my head and said that I was gay (a lesbian). He became rather
angry (granted he was drunk but still..) and asked why I didn't like
**** (male genitalia). He said that if he knew a 'dyke' was coming
over he would have slammed the door in my face and made me
sleep outside where I belong. He even got to the point where he
was able to strip down to nothing but my friend stopped him and
pulled him into another room to talk to him and calm him down.
31
Female, 22, British Columbia, Canada
Based on the limited number of coming out narratives that expressed

violence or the threat of violence, these occurrences would appear to be in the
minority. Several narratives relate the use of alcohol, which may have been a
contributing factor to the willingness to come out, as it appears to have been in
the following experience:
This experience has been my only experience (To date) of coming
out to someone in person. It took place in a pub (Bar) a few weeks
ago. I had been drinking for a number of hours. I cannot say why I
came out at the exact time I did but the people I came out to were
the people I planned to tell first. I just remember having an urge to
tell him (A guy friend) and blurting it out. He was great about it and
was happy that I had chosen him to come out to. I then told his wife
as we were walking across the car park. Later that night I had a
more detailed conversation about things and also explained how I
had struggle a lot with being gay. All in all though it was a positive
reaction and I am glad I blurted it out when I did although being
quite drunk probably wasn't the best idea.
Male, 28, Belfast, Ireland
Several other respondents reported coming out in the course of discussions

about relationships. The following examples are demonstrative of the types of
relationship conversations that can trigger a coming out conversation:
Me and my sister where spending time together and we where (sic)
talking about her past relationships, i have only ever had one
boyfriend in my whole life and she asked me if i had a crush on any
other boy, so i replied no but i do have a crush on this girl, she went
silent for a bit then asked me if i was a lesbian i simply replied yes
and she started to laugh and said i knew it.
Female, 19, Illinois, USA
I came out to a woman that I was involved with several years ago. It
was in a round about (sic) way, where we were going through one
of those "kink tests" on the internet. When we reached a point
where there were questions about same sex experiences, I was
honest with her. She was so happy that I trusted her enough to tell
her all about it. It became part of our sex play for some time after, I
would whisper her a story of something that had happened while
making love to her, she found it extremely arousing.
Male, 36, Ontario, Canada
32
The last person I came out to was my close group of friends, about
15 people, and they took it much better than I thought they would.
They were all surprised, but took it with grace and appreciate that I
am comfortable with myself. It was at school, when a friend was
trying to force me to go out with a male in my class. I told her I
didn't want to, because I'm a lesbian, and the rest of my friends
were there as well. I was simply tired of being seen as straight, and
I wanted people to know who I really am.
Female, 19, Ontario, Canada
The current study contains all of the elements of emergent conversations

originally discussed in Manning's 2006 work. Various scenarios for emergent
coming out conversations were elucidated by respondents in both surveys –
scenarios such as disclosure growing out of relational conversations, first
establishing trust with the receiver, and matchmaker scenarios in which straight
friends try to 'set up' their non-disclosing gay friends with straight partners. This
survey also documented the use of alcohol as a precipitating device in several of
the coming out stories. While there is no suggestion that alcohol is a useful tool
in setting up a receptive scenario, it does appear to have provided liquid courage
for some respondents. As in Manning's study, Emergent conversations were the
second most common typology in this study.
Coaxed
The five responses in this typology were all positive and those that
expressed regrets focused on the timing of the event or specific after coming out
complications. Manning (2006) defined coaxed face-to-face coming out
conversations as those "that involve one person nudging, hinting, or even asking
another to come out to them" (p. 73). Central to this concept is the decision
faced by the LGBTQ individual as to whether or not they will reveal their sexual
orientation:
I wish I could have waited longer in telling my mother, simply
because my father had just passed away a few months prior. It was
a rough time for her and my coming out made it more rough. but I
had just had my first boyfriend break up with me. She knew I was
upset about something and asked what was wrong. So...I came
clean and told her everything.
Male, 42, Ohio, USA
33
Rebecca called me on Christmas eve asking what was wrong, and I
told her I would tell her later. She kept pestering me though and
made a couple guesses as to what I had to tell them which were all
wrong, then she said, "Are you gay?" and I said, "Don't tell anyone,
not even Tammi." She was really happy about it and she promised
not to say anything, but she was glad that I told her.
Male, 19, Ohio, USA
Occasionally the LGBTQ individual is asked directly as a result of a

misguided attempt at matchmaking or is coaxed by a friend to come out to a third
party, as is the case in the following narrative recounted by a male college
student:
I was on a night out with my best friends who I'd known since
school, 2 of which knew, and 1 who didn't. My closest friend
encouraged me to tell the 1 who didn't know, because he felt I
needed to get a bit of practice at coming out. He was confident that
our friend would react well, but I wasn't sure. He had to prod me a
few times to encourage me to come out, so after a few drinks, we
all sat down for a new round, and my friend egged me on by saying
'don't you have news?' So I said the truth, avoiding eye contact, in a
very quick and swift way - 'right 2 things, 1 i'm gay, and 2 i have a
boyfriend', before quickly taking a drink. He very quickly said cool,
to which my other friend said 'see, i told you he'd be fine.'
Often the coaxed disclosure is the result of an unsuccessful attempt at

matchmaking:
When we went to Avatar, I was told he would be coming with us.
So, being curious I looked at his facebook (sic) page only to
discover that he was gay too. On the ride home he (my friend) said
"Okay, I dont (sic) mean to offend you or for this to be weird, but
can I ask you a personal question?" and I said "sure" and then he
just asked if I was gay. This was the first time I had not lied to
someone when asked and I told him that, Yes, I am gay, but not to
tell my roommates as they dont konw (sic) yet. He had been trying
to set me up with his friend, though I wasn't really that into him. I
felt REALLy (sic) good about the situation because I had been
wondering how I could tell him . . .
Male, 21, Massachusetts, USA
On the surface, emergent and coaxed conversation appear to be one and

the same. Determining which responses fit a specific typology is based on the
34
individual's intent to disclose and steerage of the conversation in a direction that
promotes disclosure. While some of the respondents in this typology express a
prior interest in disclosing their sexual orientation, it is obvious from the
narratives that the sender was not intending to disclose at that time.
Regardless of the circumstances in which the LGBTQ individual is coaxed
to disclose their sexual orientation, they must still decide whether or not the
circumstances favor a positive outcome. Attaining a certain level of comfort and
trust is an integral part of the decision to voluntarily come out. Petronio (2002)
discusses disclosure paradoxes in which it is generally more difficult to disclose
to another in a close relationship than to someone in a less committed
relationship. Thus, while this paradox is at work in all of the conversation
typologies, it is particularly salient in coaxed and emergent conversations. Unlike
the other typologies discussed herein, coaxed and emergent conversations
require the narrator to quickly and accurately assess the risk-reward aspects of
the disclosure.
Recognizing that the stakes are higher in a significant relationship than in
a stranger interaction or in a less committed relationship, leads the discloser to
engage in calibrating the relational privacy boundaries at work in the relationship
(Petronio, 2002). Too much information, or information the receiver is not ready
to hear, can have consequences detrimental to the relational pair. Petronio
(2002) notes that while disclosure is an expectation of the relational partner,
"when they are not ready to hear the information or if they perceive there is an
implicit demand that they are not able or willing to address, the boundary
coordination process is compromised" (pg. 141). Thus, while the relational
partner may have coaxed the narrator into disclosing, the narrator must quickly
weigh the risks in order to preserve the integrity of the relational privacy
boundaries. Obviously, the respondents in this typology weighed the risks and
demonstrated that the coaxed coming out conversations in this study usually
result in positive outcomes. This is not the case in the typology discussed next.
35
Confrontational
Manning's (2006) original study classified all of the confrontational
narratives as taking place between parent and child, involving a discovery by the
parent that led to the confrontation. The current study expands upon that
classification to include employers, military relationships, and friends. In all,
there were 11 separate narratives describing a variety of confrontational coming
out conversations three of which had positive outcomes, two were initially
positive but left the sender dissatisfied with the eventual outcome, and six were
negative involving angry, but not violent, reactions by the recipient.
More so than previous typologies, the negative narratives in this typology
illustrate an emotional/cultural undercurrent at play in the relational dynamic that
drives the confrontation. Authors related stories of confrontations fueled by
religious beliefs, traditional or conservative families, and past or current physical
and emotional abuse. Although the following narrative is more extreme than
other examples, it is explicit in the dynamics of the parent-child relationship prior
to and following her coming out conversation:
My coming out to my parents was not voluntary. While I was
struggling with my own sexuality I seriously thought I had a
personality disorder. I was confused, my relationship with my
parents was already unstable, and my parents really knew nothing
about me to begin with. My mother found a letter I had written to my
gf at the time, and was completely disturbed. She confronted me
and I denied it. I said I was not gay, that I thought I had a mental
problem and blamed it on my lack of emotional relationship with my
parents. I came home to my mother and her church friends, and I
felt like something was not right. Yep, it was some kind of
intervention. A prayer intervention. Actually, some kind of
excorcism (sic). I was horrified, humiliated, and just scared. I fought
with my mom and my parents. I then was forced into Christian
counseling. He confronted me through email, and weary of having
to lie again... I told him the truth. Hell broke loose. I was kicked out
of my housing (which he paid for), told me to leave the car (he
would call the police and tell them I stole it if I was still driving it),
and cut off my bank accounts. I was homeless, broke, with nowhere
to go. My Aunt was getting married and she invited me to her
wedding. I was sitting at the wedding and my mother walked in. The
first things she said to me was "I don't understand, you are so
beautiful, why don't you want a wedding like this?" I was
36
uncomfortable and hurt. I was screaming from the inside. I wanted
to die. During the reception, my parents cornered me in the room,
and confronted me again. I confirmed that I was gay and they made
a scene. My mother grabbed my arm so hard it left bruises. My
father told me that he rather me be dead, and that I was no longer
part of the family. I was numb. I was torn apart. And we are all still
struggling, this is the biggest part of my sadness. That I have not
received any acceptance from my mother and father. We hardly
communicate anymore. Although my relationship with my parents
was never a close, deep, emotional one. I just did as I was told, and
that made them happy.
Female, 24, North Carolina, USA
Other narratives along this line recount the reaction to a young Latino
woman's decision to move out of the family home and the resultant coming out
conversation, a planned coming out conversation that led to a confrontation with
an emotionally and physically abusive parent, and the experience of a woman
who was outed to her parents.
The only negative coming out experience I've had is with my
parents. They are very conservative. I didn't tell them myself, but
someone else told them. I remember walking in the door after not
having seen them for several days and my dad just looked at me
like I had done something horrible, like he didn't even know me. It
really freaked me out. Anyway, they sat me down and my dad said,
"so we heard that you told some of your friends that you think
you're gay? Is this true?" All I could think was, "oh my gosh, it's
happening... this thing I have dreaded my entire life." Yet somehow
I felt really really (sic) calm. I just said "yes."
Unlike Manning's study, the current study supplied several positive

examples of confrontational coming out conversations. There is an emotional
undercurrent to these narratives that is, as might be expected, different from that
present in the negative examples. There is evidence that familial love and
support, or a deep commitment to brotherhood is operating to make these
conversations a positive experience for the sender and recipient, as the following
narrative demonstrates:
I am in the U.S. Marine Corps. Currently I am serving in Okinawa, Japan
and had not been able to find any other persons of a non-heterosexual
nature, so I turned to my favorite Japanese bartender and asked if she
37
new anyone who might want to hang out. I guess she didn't think that me
being gay was something that needed to be kept secret, so shortly after
asking, I was at her bar with a couple of co-workers when she said she'd
found me a man. One of the co-workers was my roommate, and he didn't
care . . . but I new (sic) the other to be slightly homophobic. It actually took
a minute for him to realize what had actually happened, that I'd been
outted, but he turned to me and said that I was his brother no matter what.
This particular coming out experience wasn't necessarily something I did
on purpose, but I found that once it was upon me, I had to roll with it and
be open. If I hadn't been honest with my friends/co-workers, I think that the
whole thing would have ended a lot differently. Once in the situation, trust
and honesty were a must, or I know I would have lost the respect and
friendship of my co-workers.
Male, 23, Okinawa, Japan
Although there were examples of positive outcomes in this typology, it is

evident that there is an emotionality, or anxiety, at work in nearly all of the
conversations. This is sometimes expressed as a feeling of awkwardness, or of
being trapped, while other contributors described a vulnerability, humiliation, and
deep hurt. Most of the respondents in this survey described some form of
tension prior to coming out, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the
event. However, none of the authors of those narratives describe the same level
of emotional distress as do those authors discussing confrontational
conversations with negative outcomes. While the data supports Manning's
theory of typologies, the emotional impact of coming out on both the sender and
receiver is discussed in greater detail later in this article.
Romantic/Sexual
This is perhaps the most troublesome typology to support in regard to the
current survey and collected data. Manning (2006) discusses this typology by
describing a scenario in which the LGBTQ individual expresses "affection or
desire to another when the other is not aware (or has not confirmed) an LGBTQ
identity" (p. 78). There were no narratives that accurately fit this definition.
Several narratives mention having dates arranged for them from well-meaning
friends that eventually resulted in the individual coming out, but those same
narratives were found to be a better fit in another typology. Only one brief
narrative stands out as a possible fit to this typology if the definition of the
38
typology is broadened to include romantic approaches to others who have in
some manner made known their sexual orientation as in this example:
The only positive coming out experience that I have had was to my
current boyfriend whom I met on Craigslist - I'm almost ashamed to
say - all other experiences have been very negative. It was kinda
essential for me to find someone I love, and I just got really lucky.
I've only come out to individuals who I knew were gay and who I
knew I would never meet again. i.e. someone in a club in another
city, dates arranged online.
Male, 27, North Carolina, USA
Although the data in support of this typology is scarce, there is no

adequate reason to disregard or negate the typology from the original theory. In
the same way that mediated communication was underrepresented in the original
theory, the structure of the current survey may have contributed to a dearth of
romantic/sexual stories. A lack of evidence is not sufficient to disprove this
typology, but is reason to further investigate its verity.
Educational/activist
As in the previous typology, the evidence from the current survey supports
a broader definition than Manning offered. In the narratives examined for this
study, the authors provide accounts of actions or speech that clearly are
designed to educate, or espouse a positive perspective for an LGBTQ
orientation. An example of this is provided by a woman from the Midwest:
I am a Director at my university, and am also on the University's
2009-2010 NCORE (National Conference on Race and Ethnicity)
team. I disclosed my bisexuality at our initial team meeting last
summer, and everyone was happy to hear it. I had recently become
married to a man (I'm female), and I did not want to be invisible as
a queer person.
Female, 45, Minnesota, USA
Another example of activism was discussed by a woman who was wearing

a "Jesus Loves Queers" t-shirt during an encounter with her landlord, while an
openly gay male from San Francisco expressed his objection to a t-shirt
promoting his dance community that he felt romanticized bisexuality and "subtly
reinforces the experimental and promiscuous aspects of (the) bisexual
experience". These attempts to educate are at the heart of personal activism
39
and while expanding the definition of the typology, never the less support the
original theory.
Emotional Aspects of Coming Out Conversations
In coding, analyzing, and interpreting the survey data for support of
Manning's theory of typologies a number of emotional similarities across varying
typologies was discovered. This prompted a further investigation and re-coding
of the data using an Emotion Coding scheme derived from Saldana. Emotion
Coding is well suited for use in interpreting "multiple interview transcripts in which
each participant describes the same process" (Saldana, 2009, p. 87).
Acknowledged as universal to human existence, emotions are ever present and
their inclusion in research can provide "deep insight into the participant's
perspectives, worldviews, and life conditions" (Saldana, 2009, p. 86).
As a starting point, five broad categories were determined as potentially
covering the elemental stages of coming out. As their designations indicate, the
categories were used for grouping the recognized emotions of the participants, or
those triggering events that resulted in a strong emotional response. The five
initial categories were defined as Pre, During, Post, Causal, and Reaction. The
first three designations referred to those emotions felt by the LGBTQ individual
as a direct response to the events leading up to, during, and immediately
following the coming out conversation. The last two designations were used to
categorize the triggering events and resultant emotional responses of the
receivers of the coming out communication, as interpreted and related by the
sender.
The 102 narratives yielded 319 individual emotional codes that were
assigned to one of the five initial categories, examined for similarities and
grouped accordingly into 60 sub-units representing emotional responses
attributed to positive and negative outcomes. Coding and unitizing the data did
not produce any additional categories but did illuminate emotional responses that
were present in more than one category, albeit for different triggering factors.
The 60 sub-units were then condensed into 35 units that best defined the theme
of the combined emotional codes. In refining the responses into 35 units, no
40
differentiation was made based on the outcome of the coming out conversation –
a calm pre-event emotional state might precede a positive or negative outcome
and still be placed in a calm-comfortable unit. Somewhat unexpectedly, the
causal category, defined as events that created an emotional response in the
recipient, produced references to causative factors attributed to the recipient as
well as the actor.
Pre
Informants discussing their pre coming out emotions registered 66
emotional codes in five identifiable units – honesty, calm-comfortable, nervous-
fear, loneliness, and timidity – with each unit having both positive and negative
outcomes. Typical of the responses in this category are the following:
The most recent coming out experience for me was my mother. It
was approximently (sic) 7 months ago, after I was tired of hiding
who I was to her, as we're very close.
Male, 18, Prince Edward Island, Canada
Of course no matter what, I always feel nervous, so I was relieved

that she didn't even hesitate when she said "that's cool".
I was extremely lonely and very closeted. I had never actually told
another individual (who i wasn't hooking up with) that I was gay.
Male, 47, Virginia, USA
When I came out to my parents it was over the phone. It was New
Years Eve and I had chickened out of my first plan to tell them in
person . . .
Male, 27, Kentucky, USA
The majority of the respondents who discussed their emotional state prior
to disclosure also related positive outcomes to the coming out conversation.
Emotion references that were included in the calm-comfortable unit included
such terms as comfortable, confident, safe, and unashamed. Also included in
the calm-comfortable unit but preceding a negative outcome were the terms
accepted and comfortable.
The calm-comfortable and honesty units, despite containing references to
negative outcomes, can be considered positive emotional states. Informants
41
mentioned no longer "living a lie", "not hiding anymore", and the need to be
honest with friends and family. All but one reference was in regard to a positive
coming out experience. Typical of this unit is the following contribution:
I told him that I'm gay and that I had known my entire life that I was
different. I went on to tell him that I had known about my sexuality
since puberty and that I could not and would not hide it anymore.
Unlike the respondents mentioning emotional responses in the above two

units, informants in the remaining units were less likely to accurately assess the
potential outcome of their coming out experience. Of the 66 emotional codes, 45
are included in what can be considered negative emotional units. Those units -
fear, loneliness, and timidity – overwhelmingly represented positive outcomes to
the coming out conversation. Such was the case for the for the respondent in
this narrative:
(It was) right after my birthday that I was ready to tell my first
person. The most important person in my life, my mom. I was so
scared. She had asked me in the past and I had denied it several
times. I had been thinking about it a lot lately. I was driving and I
passed Walmart (sic). She asked why and I said I needed to think. I
turned around, my heart was pounding. I knew this was it but I had
to make myself do it, not for her or anyone else but for myself. My
heart was pounding hard in my chest. I thought to myself on the
third pound just say it. On the third pound I took a deep breath and
changed my life. "Mom, I'm gay."
Other writers recall being afraid of being judged, of suffering humiliation, of

rejection, and of being outed. Similarly, those informants discussing their timidity
at having the coming out conversation misjudged the reception of their
orientation, which again was overwhelmingly positive.
Many participants related feelings of loneliness, depression, and
abnormality (the latter two included in the loneliness unit). There were 12 such
references and all of the disclosures were met with a positive response:
i felt lonely and it felt as if i was living a lie. everybody who i knew
talked to me, thinking that i am straight. so, basically what drove me
to come out was the constant nervousness. despondence (sic) and
pensiveness that consumed most of me and my then aberrant
42
lifestyle. the way i came out to my mum was that i sat her down one
day, and i told her that i had something to tell her. something that
would shock her. she took it very well. she told me that she was
perfectly fine with me being gay. and that she would support me
come what may.
The same author offered this assessment of the dynamics of the coming out
conversation:
i guess this applies to everyone who wants to come out. being
whimsical helps, rather than being calculative. besides how well the
news is taken solely depends upon the person who you are coming
out to. so all your preparations can go down the drain if that person
has had a bad day!
Whether or not the reception is dependent on what kind of day the recipient had
is debatable. What can be concluded from this discussion is an understanding
that coming out is highly stressful for LGBTQ individuals, and all too often the
fears associated with the anticipated reaction are greater than the reality of the
experience.
During
Five units make up this category and describe the feelings and emotions
of the informant during the act of coming out. Of the four units – Euphoric,
Scared/nervous, Awkward, and Trapped/argumentative – only the euphoric unit
can be considered to be positive in nature. The other three units can be
considered negative although they contain references to outcomes that are both
positive and negative. Like respondents in the pre category, respondents in this
category also experienced predominately negative emotions in spite of relating
positive coming out stories.
The following two examples illustrate how similar emotions are active in
both positive and negative coming out experiences:
I came out to my close friends. I was scared and even when telling
them I was afraid. After managing to get the words out I felt....
liberated. It's like you're Atlas but you are having the world lifted
from your shoulders. We used to sometimes keep secrets from
43
each other but now we share everything and with no judgement
(sic). I think it stregthened (sic) our bond.
Male, 20, Lethbridge, Canada
I was horrified, humiliated, and just scared. I fought with my mom

and my parents. I tried to drive out the driveway, but my mother ran
in front of my car in every direction, keeping me from leaving . . .
We hardly communicate anymore.
Both participants describe being afraid to come out, albeit in situations with
widely divergent outcomes. Respondents also describe feelings of
awkwardness, belittling, and of being uncomfortable in situations that result in
positive and negative outcomes:
It almost made me feel like a kid and that there was a right and
wrong way to be, when I know there's not. I love both of these
people that made these comments, but I definitely would have
preferred the, "OK, great" or something like that. Something that
tells me it's not going to change their opinion of me. She is still one
of my best friends. It really hasn't affected our relationship at all. If
anything, it's made her more inquisitive about LGBTQ folks. If she
wants to ask me something, she knows she can.
At the time it made things a lot worse. I felt very distant, and I
wasn't sure if he'd told anyone. He didn't want to bring it up
because he thought I was uncomfortable, and I didn't want to bring
it up because I thought he'd be uncomfortable. We became quite
distant for a few months and it's taken a few years with gradual
improvements in our communication before I can say it's no longer
an issue between us.
Male, college student
The last example from a negative unit is related by a young man who was outed
by friends to friends, and while having a positive outcome, he never the less felt
trapped:
I just felt so trapped because it wasn't my decision to come out to
the others yet and though I am okay with them knowing it took me
off guard. I would have told people in MY terms and plan it the way
I wanted to do it. But it's no big deal now.
Male, 21, Massachusetts, USA
44
Several informants mentioned feelings of euphoria that were described in
such terms as exhilaration, weightlessness, or as this narrative explains, the
"best high" ever:
The rush I got was the best high I ever had in my life. It was like a
boulder that I had been shouldering through all my life had been
lifted. I felt so light and free. I knew once I told her I wanted to tell
everyone.
As in the previous category there are more units with negative connotations than
positive, yet positive outcomes to the coming out conversation outnumber
negative outcomes by a 3:1 ratio. Although, as will be demonstrated shortly,
respondents recall significantly more positive emotions after the coming out
conversation than prior to, those same respondents tend to focus on negative
emotions prior to and during the communication experience. The reason for this
dichotomy may be beyond the scope of this study, but it would appear that post
coming out emotions are stronger, or more meaningful, to the sender and have a
significant impact on the sender's emotional well-being.
Post
The Post category registered the largest number of emotion codes and
was the first category to have code units organized into sub-categories. The two
sub-categories – positive emotional characteristics and negative emotional
characteristics – have five and six units respectively. The sub-category of
positive emotional characteristics included the code units of Bonding/trust,
Comfortable/relief, Normality, Freedom, and Honesty. The six units of the
negative emotional characteristics sub-category are Awkward/superior,
Depression, Fear, Outrage/anger, Separation/loss, and Tension/insecurity.
Positive emotional characteristics outnumbered negative and as in the previous
two categories, some units in each sub-category contained references to both
positive and negative outcomes to the disclosure of the informant's sexual
orientation.
The most frequently mentioned post coming out emotional response was
a feeling of closeness, bonding, or trust. The bonding/trust unit accounted for
45
approximately 25% of all responses in the category, and nearly half of the
responses in the sub-category. As might be expected, there were no negative
outcomes referenced by the informants to this unit. Informants in this unit
consistently characterized their feelings with comments such as:
I feel closer to all 3 of those mentioned (big sis, lil sis and mom). I
don't have to keep this part of me hidden and lie about it . . . I'm a
lot closer and totally honest with all of them now.
I feel closer to the two people I came out to though and I expect
they also feel a bit closer to me.
I also stressed that he was one of the first on the inner circle, and I
didn't want it to be public knowledge yet. I knew I could trust him,
and at the same time, being a social being he would want to talk.
Interestingly, the second author projects a shared feeling of closeness onto the
recipients of his message while the third contributor acknowledges a certain
weakness in his recipient. In as much as the second example was drawn from a
narrative with a positive outcome it is likely that the recipients shared the author's
feeling of closeness.
However, the third example speaks directly to Petronio's theory of
Communication Privacy Management. As Petronio (2002) discusses, the nature
of private information is fundamentally changed as soon as a person discloses
that information to another. Once information is shared between two or more
people it can no longer be considered private to the original holder, nor can the
sharer control when and how that information may be further disseminated.
Hence, while the third author may trust his information to his confidant he is also
cognizant of his confidant's need to share further, thus creating a new emotional
response rooted in anxiety.
In earlier work, Petronio defined two dimensions necessary for self-
disclosure to occur: prerequisite conditions (setting, receiver, sender, and
relationship characteristics) and anticipated ramifications of the coming out
disclosure (Petronio, Martin & Littlefield, 1984). The two dimensions work in
46
tandem to function as boundary regulators and "self-disclosure is the mechanism
through which we adjust our privacy boundaries" (Petronio, et. al., 1984, pg.
268). As the exemplars demonstrate, once the informant has reached a level of
comfort with the prerequisite conditions and anticipated ramifications, disclosure
will occur.
Another emotional response unit is this sub-category that registered no
negative outcomes is that of comfortable/relief. Respondents frequently
discussed feeling relieved that they were out, or the recipient was supportive, or
comfortable with their acknowledged orientation. A female student at a Christian
college described her post coming out relationship with a friend this way:
I am glad I did it and while I don't think we are necessarily "closer,"
it makes me more comfortable around her. Now I feel like she
knows the "real" me and now when others assume I'm straight or
ask me who my boyfriend is, I can look at her and roll my eyes and
know that she gets it.
The woman recognized that her relationship may not have changed and she
appears content with that knowledge, perhaps because she is more comfortable
with herself now that she has come out and feels she can be "real". A Canadian
woman expressed a similar sentiment regarding her coming out experience:
. . . they took it much better than I thought they would. They were
all surprised, but took it with grace and appreciate that I am
comfortable with myself.
Female, 19, Ontario, Canada
A young man from the mid-south described his comfort level in terms of no
longer needing to hide and a sense of freedom:
Now, I can have an honest relationship with him that I couldn't
before. I [no longer] feel like I hav (sic) to wear some mask that
hides me under a heterosexual shield. I feel free.
Responses in the remaining units in this sub-category were expressed as

"helped me feel validated and positive about my bisexuality", "after managing to
get the words out I felt liberated", and "helped my self-esteem".
47
The other end of the emotional spectrum is represented in the units within
the negative emotional characteristics sub-category. As might be expected there
is a dearth of positive outcomes chronicled in this sub-category, only four of the
emotional references are related to positive coming out events. Most of the
responses dealt with post coming out emotions experienced by the informant and
described as depression, tension, lower self esteem, and insecurity, falling into
two broad units labeled depression and tension/insecurity. One woman
recounted this tale of coming out to her father:
He told me he was born to fight against deviance, therefore he was
born to fight and to hate me because I am gay. I was numb. I was
torn apart. I fell into the deepest depression after that point.
A gay male college student offered this account of coming out via text message
to a friend who had been trying to arrange a blind date with a co-ed for the
respondent:
After the night had ended and I was walking home, I sent him a text
apologising (sic) saying I couldn't go out with her because I was
gay. I didn't get a reply that night, I stayed up the whole night an
absolute wreck, unable to think, or do anything besides shaking. I
seem to remember falling asleep in a ball on the kitchen floor.
Yet another example of the depression and tensions often at work before, during,
and after coming out is related by this respondent:
As to why I came out I can only say it is a secret I held for 36 years
and never acted on. I reached a point in my progressing depression
when I realized I wouldn't be able to medicate my way to
wholeness.
Male, 47, Arizona, USA
Other respondents recall the coming out conversation as "really stressful", or

coming out as a direct result of their "issues with depression and suicide", while
another recalls feeling "the tension sometimes between us (her parents)"
whenever her girlfriend was visiting the family.
Not all responses recalled feelings of depression or tension, some express
outrage, anger, and shock at the reception their disclosure engenders from family
48
or friends. One participant who experienced hate speak and physical threats in
reaction to being openly gay in an online environment described his reaction:
At first I was angry, and then I was scared and sad. I was sad
because I have heard such hate speech though I have never been
a part of it. It hurt me because I never took up for other when I
heard it and sometimes joined in, before I came out. That was more
shame than anything else. I have never been threatened in a way
that has made me scared like I felt.
A young woman recalled her reaction to an acquaintance's comments upon

learning she was a lesbian:
At this point I became silent in shock that he felt it was appropriate
to say those things to me. I said I thought it was hateful and weird
that he would say that . . . I felt very embarassed (sic) and a bit
disgusted. I do not lie about my sexuality but usually only come out
if I either feel like I can trust the person or if I am asked directly . . . I
thought he would be ok, but I was obviously mistaken.
Other respondents spoke of the fear of loss, either of a loved one, or of

total abandonment by one's family. One female respondent expressed her fear
of abandonment if she were to further upset her mother:
She asked "are you gay?" I said yes. She would not speak to me
for 3 months. I went to her house and she had taken all the pictures
of me down, even the ones of me as a child. She was not
comforting and did not understand what I was going through. I feel
like I can't completely trust her. I am never myself around her. I feel
like if I make her mad again she'll kick me out of her life for good.
She's all the family I have left.
Still other informants supplied narratives detailing threats of being disowned, or

receiving the "silent treatment", and being treated as a pariah due to an
unfounded fear of AIDS. There are many positive coming out stories in the data
generated in this survey, but it is obvious that while the respondents perhaps
remember more good emotions than bad, the negative emotions are a
significant, and perhaps life altering, aspect of the coming out process.
49
Causal
The narratives in this category do not represent emotional characteristics
or responses but rather define the events triggering an emotional response in the
message receiver. Triggering events were defined as actor initiated or receiver
initiated. As might be expected, most of the narratives collected specifically
referred to the actor initiated triggering event of coming out. The remaining
narratives described being outed, or confronted about a queer sexual orientation,
or discussed coming out experiences without specifically referring to the event as
coming out.
Although coming out or being outed are the most numerous references,
other triggering events described included a wedding, matchmaking attempts,
and moving out of the parental home. Some actors referred to coming out
conversations that were triggered by the recipient's abusive or controlling
personality. A 27 year-old female respondent recalled coming out at age 17 to
an abusive parent in an attempt to build a closer relationship:
The first person I came out to as a bisexual woman was my mother,
a controlling and physically and emotionally abusive woman. I was
probably 16 or 17 at the time . . . I informed my mother that I was
bisexual . . . Her response was to ask me if I had had sexual
intercourse with a woman. I replied no. Her final response was
"then you're NOT bisexual". In an effort to bring myself closer to my
mother, I was ultimately scorned and dismissed . . .
Clearly there are strong emotions evident in both the sender and receiver, but it
is the mother's abusive personality that triggered the coming out communication.
Whether the described coming out is truly an effort to build a bridge, or is the
woman's own attempt to hurt the mother, is unclear. What is clear is that the
mother's angry response was founded in her personality, which ultimately was
responsible for the respondent's need to come out. This same writer describes
coming out as a "vulnerable time" filled with fears of rejection and humiliation. As
will be shown in the next section, coming out is a stressful time for the receiver
as well.
50
Reaction
The narratives in this category describe the receiver's emotional state, or
reaction, to the coming out conversation as observed and related by the
participant. Although the strongest emotions registered can be characterized
as negative, respondents also relate many of the receivers as happy, accepting
or supportive, proud, loving, and compassionate. Respondents used the
greatest number of descriptive words in this category, which supports earlier
indications that the actors tend to remember post coming out event emotions
more so than pre event emotions.
Negative reactions to coming out conversation ran an emotional gamut
from disbelief, denial, and indifference to sorrow, shock, and anger. Typical of
the responses are such phrases as:
My best Friend from high school didn't believe me at first. She kept
saying "Really?"
. . . I just decided I had to tell them because I was tired of hiding

things. They were shocked and we have not talked about it since
then even though I am in college to have a career involving LGBTQ
issues.
Male, 29, Illinois, USA
Some narratives speak to a response that seems more concerned with the
impact of the disclosure on the family, or a sense of familial guilt, than to the well-
being of the LGBTQ individual. A Latina woman recalled her decision to move
out, the resultant coming out conversation, and the reaction of her family:
When i came out to my parents. It was a few days prior that i told
them i was moving out and when i told them with whom, they got
furious and demanded to know why, latin (sic) girls only leave home
to get married, certaintely (sic) not to move in with another woman.
They insisted that i tell them the truth. I did and they were in shock,
they wanted me to see a priest, a counselor, how could i do this to
them, where did they go wrong. My mother didn't speak to me for 6

months. 31 years later, my mother still has a hard time introducing
my partner to others.
51
A young man recalled how he changed his opinion of his coming out experience:
When I came out initially, I told the most important people in my life
in person, face-to-face. Only after I had done that did I come out via
Facebook. However, when I changed my "Interested In" status on
Facebook to "Men," I do feel that this had a negative impact on my
family. They all of sudden seemed concerned with "how many
people will know," "how employers will feel about this," and other
concerns about how my sexual orientation - now public knowledge -
might affect my future. This put strains on those interpersonal
relationships - my desire to "be out" and their desire to "protect me"
from the harsh reality that existed met each other with great
conflict.
In both examples the family takes a "what about me?" attitude to the
coming out disclosure. The Latino family seeks to understand where they went
wrong in bringing up a daughter who is a lesbian. The same family also appears
to be more concerned with the hurt inflicted upon them by the daughter, than in
showing compassion for her. In a similar vein, the family of the young man asks
"how many people will know", implying their son's sexual orientation is only
acceptable if no one outside the family knows about it.
Some responses were more dramatic than these examples and resulted in
total lifestyle rejection, isolation, and abandonment of the LGBTQ individual.
One female respondent recalls visiting her mother after coming out and
discovering her mother had removed all of the woman's photographs from the
home. A man who works for an agency assisting adults with developmental
disabilities describes friends who cut off all communication after learning he was
gay. The story of a 22 year-old male is typical of several who recounted being
disowned after coming out to a care giver:
Coming out to my aunt, who has been my caregiver since I was about 12
years old, was a pretty difficult experience. I was 17 or so when it
happened. She told me that I needed to undergo therapy for it, and when I
refused, she told me I had to leave her house.
Positive emotional responses, also present in this category, described

receivers of the coming out message as happy, accepting or supportive, proud,
52
loving, and compassionate. The following anecdotes are typical of the comments
in this category:
. . . i said i had something to tell her. I then said i wasn't straight and she
looked at me for a split second before saying it's ok. What made it positive
was that i knew she would let me tell my story and wait before giving her
reaction. I needed that chance for someone to listen to me.
Male, 28, London, United Kingdom
He messaged me back and the very first line was "Good for you!"
He told me how proud he was of me and how hard it must have
been for me to come out. I didn't expect him to react negatively, but
I didn't expect how positive he would be about it either.
Or this story of coming out to a former housemate:

I've known him for 25 years, and apparently was quite convincing
as a closeted individual. His reaction was a mix of shock and
compassion. And being happy for me, and as understanding as he
could be.
These positive stories demonstrate the ability of the receiver to project not only a
compassionate and caring temperament, but to have a positive effect on the
LGBTQ person's well-being.
Limitations
There are several limitations in this research, not the least of which is the
survey mechanism. As a survey tool, Surveymonkey.com is cumbersome for the
collection of personal narratives, and resulted in the loss of some demographic
data. The survey tool seems well suited for use with Likert-type instruments; but
online narrative data collection is dependent on a completed form, which could
not be controlled by either the instrument or the researcher.
Data collection, which was dependent on convenience sampling for
respondents, was not consistent in the numbers of respondents for each round of
questions. Thus some rounds had as many as 25 respondents while others had
considerably fewer. Whether this fluctuation had a detrimental effect on the data
cannot be determined, but consideration should be given to a more consistent
sampling technique in future research of this nature.
53
Finally, the survey instrument, in its specificity, may have had a
detrimental effect on data collection. Many respondents did not complete the
survey because they had not had a coming out experience that related to the
question. While the responses for the mediated questions provided significantly
more data than was presented in Manning's original study, they also represented
the greatest number of incomplete narratives. Future research in this area
should seek to elicit complete responses by refining the instrument to better
unpack coming out narratives.
Discussion
This study began by asking the question: Is mediated communication a
separate typology of coming out narratives? An online survey tool, based upon
Manning's original survey and modified to better investigate the question,
resulted in a total of 102 respondents of which 27% provided evidence of the use
of mediated communication in their coming out conversation. In order to further
investigate the question, a coding scheme was employed to determine whether
the use of mediated forms of communication was intentional. With the exception
of those persons who indicate the coming out communication emerged during an
unplanned conversation, the LGBTQ individuals in this survey expressed specific
reasons for their use of email, text messaging, IM, and social network sites for
disclosing their sexual orientation.
A total of 42 individual responses included specific references such as "I
came out to the world on Facebook", "we were talking over AIM", and "I came out
. . . via letter". Respondents did not always supply a reason for their choice or
use of a mediated form of communication; but whether their use was intentional
or not, there were few expressions of regret. Those who did state regrets
generally indicated they would have preferred to use face-to-face communication
but physical distance made that impossible, or the respondent was hesitant to
engage in a face-to-face conversation for personal reasons. The data clearly
and substantially supports Manning's original theory of mediated communication
as one of the seven coming out communication typologies.
54
Having arrived at this conclusion, the next step was to corroborate or
refute the remaining six typologies theorized by Manning. In addition to
supporting mediated communication as a typology, the data was also found to
support five of the remaining six coming out typologies as defined by Manning;
pre-planned, emergent, coaxed, confrontational, and educational/activist. There
was a lack of significant data for the romantic/sexual typology. The only support
for the seventh typology derived from the survey data required an expansion of
the typology's definition in order to find a fit. However, a lack of data in this case
should not be construed as invalidating the typology. Future research is needed
to provide additional substantiation for the theory and to determine the efficacy of
this seventh typology. As it stands, there is sufficient evidence to support
Manning's theory of coming out conversation typologies.
Consideration must be given to the applicability of the underlying theory of
communication privacy management. Petronio (2002) notes that since the
discloser is the original owner of the information, "he or she often feels a right to
determine a set of rules that should be used in third-party disclosures" (pg. 77).
In such cases the expectations for information control are clearly stated. Still,
research has demonstrated that both senders and receivers expect information
to be forwarded, regardless of any explicitly stated rules to the contrary (Petronio,
2002). Certainly this is true of those informants who choose to disclose their
sexual orientation via a social networking site. One can hardly expect managed
control of heretofore private information once that information has been posted to
an open Internet forum. Yet there are examples in this survey of just that –
informants dismayed over the reaction to their non-heterosexual orientation once
posted online.
Informants' expectations of privacy and control of private information
would seemingly diminish once that information is posted on the internet. The
fact that those expectations remain strong is fertile ground for exploration. Has
communication via the internet become so routine as to engender the same
expectation of privacy as a face-to-face conversation? Or is it that, as Petronio
55
(2002) states, "individuals may become so accustomed to the privacy rules they
use that these rules serve as the basis for routine actions" (pg. 79).
Traditionally, gay men and lesbians have established tight boundaries
related to the management of private information and may in fact have more
rules in place because of the risk disclosure represents (Petronio, 2002).
Weighing the risk-benefit of disclosure involves what Altman (1993) has termed
an "intra-individual dialectical process" defined as the "dialectical process of
openness/closedness, individuality/communality, and autonomy/connection [that]
function in the minds of individuals in a relationship" (pg. 28). If, as Petronio
suggests, privacy boundaries are more tightly held by LGBTQ persons, then by
what intra-individual dialectical process does the individual resolve the conflict
between privacy and openness represented by disclosing a non-heterosexual
orientation on a social networking site?
The remaining research questions asked 1) what are the common
elements of coming out conversations, 2) what do LGBTQ individuals consider
helpful and unhelpful communication behaviors, and 3) how do LGBTQ persons
view coming out conversations as impacting their relationships? The answer to
these questions was found in the emotional responses unpacked in the third and
fourth rounds of coding. More than 300 emotional codes were identified,
organized by themes, and the themes organized into sub-categories under one
of the original five emotional response categories. Several similar sub-categories
were identified across a number of categories in the process of coding,
condensing, and organizing the data.
Fear was an emotion identified by respondents and present in the pre,
during, and post coming out categories. Fear, also variously described as
nervousness, apprehension, and scared, in this case was used by respondents
to describe their emotional state regardless of the outcome to their coming out
conversation. During the pre-coming out build-up respondents often spoke of
being afraid to come out, afraid of the reaction the disclosure might receive, and
fear of separation or loss of family due to adverse reactions. The individual's fear
56
of the consequences of coming out often went unrealized or were mitigated by
the recipient's positive reaction to the coming out conversation.
Although many expressing a fear of consequences in fact experienced a
positive outcome to their disclosure, that is not to say the fears were unfounded.
Many of the respondents recalled family and friends who were verbally abusive;
some were expelled from the home or had support cut off, while others reported
receiving a "cold shoulder" or "silent treatment". Whether the individual's fears
were well-founded, or baseless, is not the salient factor. Pre coming out fears
are in many ways self-fulfilling, or a form of "perception is reality" in that if the
LGBTQ person believes there is a reason to be afraid, then they will be afraid.
Many of the respondents used such phrases as "irrational fear", "uncomfortable
only because I let it be", and "I misjudged her" in reevaluating their pre coming
out emotional state. Knowing that the reception would be positive did nothing to
mitigate the fears experienced by the individual:
I was so hopeless . . . I was so scared . . . my heart was pounding
. . . I had to make myself do it . . . I took a deep breath and changed
my life. "Mom, I'm gay." I said. I knew she would accept it, accept
me.
Often the fears experienced in the pre coming out build-up are carried
over and continue to affect the individual during the coming out conversation. A
conscious or sub-conscious knowledge that the fear is unsubstantiated is no
more effective at alleviating the fear in this phase than it is in the pre phase. One
informant described his feelings by saying "I was scared and even when telling
them I was afraid". Other respondents recall being scared, terrified, or nervous
as was this contributor, saying "I was a bit nervous but also excited as I was
doing it". The above descriptions describe face-to-face coming out conversations
where there is a reasonable expectation of feedback for the sender. In such a
situation the sender knows almost immediately if her fears were un-founded.
The fear of a negative reaction to coming out is made very real when there is no
immediate feedback.
57
Speaking to the asynchronous dimension of mediated communication,
several contributors offered narratives detailing coming out conversations that
included very real fears prompted by delayed responses from the receiver. One
woman described her coming out experience as negative based on the length of
time that elapsed waiting for a response to an email and follow-up text message.
Another contributor, waiting on a response to his text message, described his
night as "hellish". The following example is typical of those discussing fear
brought about by asynchronous communication:
So I texted, "I want you to help me come out." I waited for the
longest 2 minutes of my life, panting, sweating, literally pacing
around work, and scared as hell to what she would say. She said, "I
love you".
Individuals fearful of negative outcomes may "have more positive affect for
mediated channels such as email than for face-to-face communication" (Keaton
& Kelly, 2008, pg. 420). This same research concludes that "higher levels of fear
of negative evaluation are associated with more agreement that e-mail reduces
anxiety" (Keaton & Kelly, 2008, pg. 420) by providing the ability to carefully
prepare and construct the communication. Pew Internet & American Life
researchers Lenhart, Rainie, and Lewis (2001) showed that instant messaging is
a fundamental component of the social life of many American youth and that
"intimate conversations sometimes seem easier than those that take place face-
to-face" (pg. 16).
As previously demonstrated, many contributors specifically chose to use a
form of mediated communication for their coming out conversation. Yet many
respondents to this survey also indicated the asynchronous nature of mediated
communication resulted in a greater level of anxiety than might have been
experienced in a face-to-face setting. It is likely the senders did not consider the
effect of delayed feedback upon their emotional state. Disclosing one's sexual
orientation can be, and often is a stressful experience. It is difficult to understand
using a communicative form that simultaneously reduces and increases anxiety
58
in the discloser. Future research might explore this seemingly paradoxical
attribute of mediated communication.
Respondents also report feeling fearful following the coming out
conversation. One informant, having just experienced a positive response to his
disclosure, discussed his fear of coming out to others and his fear of being
rejected by family in the future. Another respondent spoke to his fear of social
and professional consequences as a result of his mostly negative experiences
with a former employer. The survey respondents also noted other emotional
responses that were duplicated in several of the established categories.
A sense of calm, often described as being comfortable or a lack of
tension, was expressed by a number of informants as present in the pre coming
out phase. This same emotional state was described as being present in the
post coming out phase. Reports of pre coming out calm were generally
associated with a level of internal acceptance of a queer sexual orientation and
was a contributing factor to drama-free coming out conversations. Similarly, it
was a drama-free coming out experience that created a post coming out
calmness in other respondents. Typical of the description of a post coming out
state of calm is "[being out] makes me more comfortable around her".
Feeling awkward is another response experienced across categories, but
in this case it is not only reported by respondents in the during and post
categories, it is also attributed by respondents to recipients in the reaction
category. During and post coming out awkwardness was reported using such
phrases as "I felt pretty good but awkward" and "kind of relieved but also feeling
kind of awkward". Similar feelings of awkwardness were contributed by a young
man coming out to his parents when he recalled, "My dad is more open, but the
situation made it awkward for him, so his reaction was not his normal sort of
reaction".
These emotional reactions to the act of coming out, regardless of the
typology, demonstrate several commonalities of coming out conversations. Fear,
which appears to be the largest emotional theme, is represented in nearly all of
the typologies. The fear of coming out is represented in several ways, from fear
59
of facing family and friends to the fear associated with delayed responses in
asynchronous communication technologies. Other commonalities exist in the
form of calm/comfortable and to a lesser or more tenuous extent, honesty and
outrage/anger.
RQ3 asked what LGBTQ individuals consider to be helpful or unhelpful
communicative behaviors in coming out conversations? Many respondents to
the survey mentioned respect, or a lack of it, in the reaction of their
communication partner. LGBTQ individuals do not expect acceptance from
everyone they come out to, but almost universally they are seeking respect –
respect for who they are, respect as a human being, and respect for the courage
to come out as a queer person.
Secondarily the respondents spoke to feedback or the lack of feedback to
the coming out disclosure. Several respondents told of being subjected to
prolonged periods in which the recipient refused to talk to or acknowledge the
LGBTQ individual. Others discussed the length of time, from minutes to days,
before they received a response to a mediated coming out communication. As
with respect, informants were cognizant that not all of their communications
would be met with acceptance, but recognized that without communication there
could be no healing. The following comment by a 23 year-old female exemplifies
the feelings of many respondents to the survey:
. . . my sisters accept me for who I am and I get along with them . . .
They may not understand my choices, but they do not love me any
less.
One respondent expressed the understanding reached through open

communication with a friend:
In particular, one online encounter stands out as a negative
experience. A high school friend who is involved with a number of
evangelical groups IMed me and attempted to persuade me that
"homosexuality" was sinful and that I would go to hell for "practicing
homosexuality." I worked hard to make this an educative (sic)
experience for my friend and, in the long run, I believe I succeeded.
60
Months after our original online discourse, he sent me a message
apologizing and expressing that he realizes now it's not "a choice."
Reception is the third factor mentioned by the informants in this survey.

To a degree, reception is inclusive of respect and communication, but goes
further with the desire for recipients to treat the LGBTQ individual as just another
person. The respondents in this survey did not see themselves as special,
deviant, unorthodox people – just people who have a different sexual orientation
and deserving of living their life without prejudice. A number of respondents
noted their Christianity and the lack of charity exhibited by other people of faith.
This comment best exemplifies that desire for normality:
It is amazing how nice it is when someone treats it as if it is a normal
thing to them. No rude comments or questions, just "that's cool".
The last research question sought to understand how coming out

conversations are viewed by LGBTQ persons as impacting their lives.
Regardless of the outcome of the sexual orientation disclosure, persons in this
survey expressed feelings of relief, happiness, and freedom at the prospect of
living an open and honest life. Time after time the narratives included such
comments as "I could be me", "honest relationship", and "completely accepted".
Even disclosures that had negative outcomes were often characterized as having
a positive effect on the LGBTQ individual:
It has had a detrimental affect overall but I do feel more free about
coming out to people I feel comfortable with.
Finding acceptance is important, but equally so is the realization that in coming

out there is an empowerment that is essential to personal validation.
The current research confirms and corroborates Manning's theory of
coming out conversation typologies. Both Manning and this researcher
questioned the appropriateness of including mediated communication in the
typology structure, but clearly the data supports that inclusion. The data in
support of the romantic/sexual typology is limited and would benefit from a re-
61
examination of the question. Future research might examine the applicability of
the typology theory to other coming out narratives or personal disclosures (i.e.
atheism, marital affairs, sexual activities or fetishes, etc).
The current study also demonstrates that many of the emotions working
on the queer side of the dialog are also present and affecting the emotional well-
being of heterosexual parties to the coming out conversation. One recurring
theme across nearly all of the narratives was the role open lines of
communication played in creating a positive outcome to the coming out
conversation. The LGBTQ individuals in this survey that were able to
communicate freely prior to and during the coming out conversation reported a
greater level of acceptance than other respondents.
Many of the informants when describing negative outcomes spoke to the
lack of communication between the partners as a significant factor in the
breakdown of the relationship. This lack of communication took several forms
including delayed feedback as a function of the asynchronous nature of mediated
communication. Research has demonstrated that text based mediated
communications have the ability to reduce anxiety related to expectations of
negative outcomes. The current survey indicates the potential for increased
anxiety-related delayed feedback in text based communications. Here again,
research might promote a better understanding of the paradox of differing anxiety
levels related to coming out using some forms of mediated communication.
Finally, future research might address the privacy boundary conflicts
associated with coming out via a social networking site such as Facebook.
Research has established that LGBTQ persons tend to construct tighter privacy
boundaries related to the disclosure of their sexual orientation. Upon disclosure,
the information is no longer private, but is co-owned and subject to rules implied
or stated by the discloser and agreed to implicitly or explicitly by the receiver
(Petronio, 2002). That this is true in a dyadic or small group communication is
not questioned, but it is difficult to understand how these same rules apply to
mass disclosure through a social networking site. This call is not intended to
dispute or question Petronio's privacy management theory, but rather to expand
62
and build upon her theory through a better understanding of how LGBTQ
individuals resolve disclosure paradoxes created by the pervasiveness of new
technologies.
63
NOTICE OF APPROVAL
IRB EXPEDITED REVIEW
DATE: December 15, 2009
TO: Richard Wagar, College of Communication
CC: Jimmie Manning, College of Communication
FROM: Phil Moberg, IRB Chair
RE: IRB Protocol Titled: Coming Out Communications
IRB Protocol # 10-062
APPROVAL DATE: December 11, 2009
The NKU Institutional Review Board (IRB) has reviewed and approved the research protocol
referenced above. As the principal investigator of this study you assume the following reporting
responsibilities:
CONTINUING REVIEW: You are required to apply for renewal of approval at least once a year
for as long as the study is active. All projects will automatically receive a continuing review notice
from the IRB. This study is approved from December 11, 2009 to December 10, 2010.
AMENDMENTS: Investigators are required to report on these forms ANY changes to the
research study (such as design, procedures, consent forms, or subject population, including size).
To apply for IRB approval for protocol revision, complete the IRB Application first two pages,
indicating that you are seeking to revise your approved study. Attach to this sheet a copy of the
proposed revisions. The new procedure may not be initiated until IRB approval has been given.
DATA RETENTION: Investigators are required to retain all data for three years after the end of
the study per HHS 45 CFR 46.115(b). Research involving HIPAA personal health identifiers must
be retained for six years after the end of the study per HHS 45 CFR 164.528
AUDIT OR INSPECTION REPORTS: Investigators are required to provide to the IRB a copy of
any audit or inspection reports or findings issued to them by regulatory agencies, cooperative
research groups, contract research organizations, the sponsor, or the funding agency.
COMPLETION: You are required to notify the IRB office when your study is completed (data
analysis finished). You can find the Continuing Review/Termination Report form on the Research,
Grants & Contracts website.
CONSENT FORMS & STUDY INFORMATION SHEET: All subjects should be given a copy of the
approved study information sheet or consent form, if using. You must retain signed consent
documents for at least three years past completion of the research activity.
We suggest you keep this letter with your copy of the approved protocol. Please refer to the exact
project title and protocol number in any future correspondence with our office. All correspondence
must be typed.
Enclosure: Documentation of Review and Approval
Federal Wide Assurance #FWA00009011
64
65
66
References
Altman, I. (1993). Dialectics, physical environments, and personal relationships.

Communication Monographs, 60(1), 26-34
Bargh, J. A., McKenna, K. Y. A. & Fitzsimons, G. M. (2002). Can you see the real
me? Activation and expression of the "True Self" on the Internet. Journal
of Social Issues, 58(1), 33-48
Baxter, L. A. & Babbie, E. (2003). The Basics of Communication Research.

Boston: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning
Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal

of Homosexuality, 4(3), 219-235
Cass, V. C. (1984a). Homosexual identity: A concept in need of definition. In J. P.

DeCecco & M. G. Shively (Eds.), Origins of Sexuality and Homosexuality,
(p. 105-126), New York: Harrington Park Press, Inc.
Cass, V. C. (1984b). Homosexual identity formation: Testing a theoretical model.

The Journal of Sex Research, 20(2), 143-167
CensusScope. United States population by race (2000). Retrieved May 23, 2010
from CensusScope Web site:
http://www.censusscope.org/us/chart_race.html
Chirrey, D. A. (2003). I hereby come out: What sort of speech act is coming out?
Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(1), 24-37
Corbie-Smith, G., Thomas, S. B. & St. George, D. M. M. (2002). Distrust, race,

and research. Archives of Internal Medicine, 162, 2458-2463
D'Augelli, A. R., Grossman, A. H. & Starks, M. T. (2005). Parents' awareness of

lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths' sexual orientation. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 67, 474-482
D'Augelli, A. R., Hershberger, S. L. & Pilkington, B. A. (1998). Lesbian, gay, and

bisexual youth and their families: Disclosure of sexual orientation and its
consequences. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68(3), 361-371
Dubrovsky, V. J., Kiesler, S. & Sethna, B. N. (1991). The equalization

phenomenon: Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face
decision-making groups. Human-Computer Interaction, 6, 119-146
Flaherty, L. M., Pearce, K. J. & Rubin, R. b. (1998). Internet and face-to-face

communication. Communication Quarterly, 46(3), 250-268
67
Floyd, F. J. & Stein, T. S. (2002). Sexual orientation identity formation among
gay, lesbian, and bisexual youths: Multiple patterns of milestone
experiences. Journal of Research on Adolescents, 12(2), 167-191
Glover, J. A., Galliher, R. V. & Lamere, T. G. (2009). Identity development and

exploration among sexual minority adolescents: Examination of a
multidimensional model. Journal of Homosexuality, 56, 77-101
Gross, E. F. (2004). Adolescent Internet use: What we expect, what teens report.
Applied Developmental Psychology, 25, 633-649
Harrison, T. W. (2003). Adolescent homosexuality and concerns regarding

disclosure. Journal of School Health, 73(3), 107-113
Joinson, A. N. (2001). Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The

role of self-awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 31, 177-192
Keaten, J. A. & Kelly, L. (2008). "Re: We really need to talk": Affect for
communication channels, competence, and fear of negative evaluation.
Communication Quarterly, 59(4), 407-426
Lindlof, T. R. & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative Communication Research

Methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Lenhart, A. & Madden, M. (2007). Teens, privacy & online social networks: How
teens manage their online identities and personal information in the age of
MySpace. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project
Lenhart, L., Rainie, L. & Lewis, O. (2001). Teenage life online: The rise of the
instant-message generation and the Internet's impact on friendships and
family relationships. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life
Project
Maczewski, M. (2002). Exploring identities through the internet: Youth

experiences online. Child & Youth Care Forum, 21(2), 111-129
Manning, J. (2006). Exploring coming out narratives: Toward a communicative

theory of coming out. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest Information and Learning
Company
McKenna, K. Y. A. & Bargh, J. A. (1998). Coming out in the age of the Internet:
Identity "demarginalization" through virtual group participation. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology, 75(3), 681-694
68
McKenna, K. Y. A. & Bargh, J. A. (2000). Plan 9 from cyberspace: The
implications of the Internet for personality and social psychology.
Personality & Social Psychology Review, 4(1), 57-75
McKenna, K. Y. A., Green, A. S. & Smith, P. K. (2001). Demarginalizing the

sexual self. Journal of Sex Research, 38(4), 302-312
Millet, G., Malebranche, D., Mason, B. & Spikes, P. (2005). Focusing "Down
Low": Bisexual Black men, HIV risk and heterosexual transmission. Journal
of the National Medical Association, 97(7), 52S-59S
Munt, S. R., Bassett, E. H. & O'Riordan, K. (2002). Virtually belonging: Risk,

connectivity and coming out on-line. International Journal of Sexuality and
Gender Studies, 7(2/3), 125-137
Peter, J., Valkenburg, P. M. & Schouten, A. P. (2005). Developing a model of

adolescent friendship formation on the Internet. CyberPsychology &
Behavior, 8(5), 423-430
Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of Privacy. Albany, NY: State University of New

York Press
Petronio, S. & Durham, W. T. (2008). Communication Privacy Management

Theory. In L. Baxter & D. Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging theories in
interpersonal communication (p. 309-322), Los Angeles: Sage
Petronio, S., Martin, J. & Littlefield, R. (1984). Prerequisite conditions for self-
disclosing: A gender issue. Communication Monographs, 51(3), 268-273
Potoczniak, D., Crosbie-Burnett, M. & Saltzburg, N. (2009). Experiences

regarding coming out to parents among African American, Hispanic, and
white gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and questioning adolescents.
Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 21, 189-205
Rainie, L. (2010) Internet, broadband, and cell phone statistics. Washington, DC:
Pew Internet and American Life Project.
Rice, R. E. (1993). Media appropriateness: Using social presence theory to

compare traditional and new organizational media. Human
Communication Research, 19(4), 451-601
Rust, P. C. (1993). "Coming out" in the age of social constructionism: Sexual

identity formation among lesbian and bisexual women. Gender & Society,
7(1), 50-77
Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London: Sage
69
Sanders, J. (2005). A down low dirty shame. In Stombler, M., Baunach, D. M.,
Burgess, E. O., Donnelly, D. & Simonds, W. (Eds), Sex Matters (2nd ed.,
pp. 382-385). Boston: Pearson
Sanders, T. C. (2008). M4M chat rooms: Individual socialization and sexual

autonomy. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 10(3), 263-276
Sandfort, T. G. M. & Dodge, B. (2008). "…and then there was the Down Low":
Introduction to Black and Latino male bisexualities. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 37(5), 678-682
Schope, R. D. (2002). The decision to tell: Factors influencing the disclosure of

sexual orientation by gay men. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services,
14(1), 1-22
Speer, S. A. & Potter, J. (2000). The management of heterosexist talk:

Conversationalist resources and prejudiced claims. Discourse and
Society, 11, 543-572
Subrahmanyam, K., Greenfield, P. M. & Tynes, B. (2004). Constructing sexuality

and identity in an online teen chat room. Applied Developmental
Psychology, 25, 651-666
Subrahmanyam, K., Smahel, D. & Greenfield, P. (2006). Connecting

developmental constructions to the Internet: Identity presentation and
sexual exploration in online teen chat rooms. Developmental Psychology,
42(3), 395-406
Tidwell, L. C. & Walther, J. B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication effect

on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations. Human
Tikkanen, R. & Ross, M. W. (2000). Looking for Sexual Compatibility:

Experiences among Swedish Men in Visiting Internet Gay Chat Rooms.
CyberPsychology & Behavior, 3(4), 605-616
Troidan, R. R. (1989). The formation of homosexual identities. Journal of

Homosexuality, 17(1), 43-74
Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New
York: Simon & Schuster
Valkenburg, P. M. & Peter, J. (2008). Adolescent's identity experiments on the

Internet: Consequences for social competence and self-concept unity.
70
Waldner, L. K. & Magruder, B. (1999). Coming out to parents: Perceptions of
family relations, perceived resources, and identity expression as
predictors of identity disclosure for gay and lesbian adolescents. Journal
of Homosexuality, 37(2), 83-100
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal,

interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research,
23(1), 3-43
Whitty, M. & Gavin, J. (2001). Age/sex/location: Uncovering the social cues in the
development of online relationships. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 4(5),
623-630
Wildermuth, S. M. & Vogl-Bauer, S. (2007). We met on the Net: Exploring the

perceptions of online romantic relationship participants. Southern
Communication Journal, 72(3), 211-227
71
Richard Wagar
__________________________________________________________
EDUCATION
MA, Communication Expected December, 2010
Northern Kentucky University
B. Sc., Communication May, 1978

Ohio University, Athens
RESEARCH
Coming Out Conversations: Investigating the Typologies of Coming Out
Narratives
Master of Arts in Communication Thesis; July, 2010
PRESENTATIONS
Halloween to hallelujah: The Chick tract plan for defeating Satan
Panel: Heart, Mind, and Soul: Jack Chick and Religious Connection Through
Comics; Central States Communication Conference, St. Louis, MO, April 4, 2009
Straight men seeking sex with men: A discourse analysis of Craigslist personal
ads; Northern Kentucky University Celebration of Research and Creativity,
April 9, 2009
PRACTICA
Guest Lecturer:
Michigan State University, Television Programming, 1985
The Ohio Center for Broadcasting, Television Production & Programming,
1999-2002
University of Cincinnati, Television Programming, 2007-08
SPECIAL APPOINTMENTS
Faculty Search Committee, Communication Department, Northern Kentucky
University, June 2009
AFFILIATIONS
Golden Key International Honor Society
1040 Crown Pointe Parkway, Atlanta, GA, 30338
Central States Communication Association, Graduate Student Member

333 Moore Hall, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, MI 48859-0001
National-Vocational Technical Honor Society, Alumni Member

P.O. Box 1336, Flat Rock, NC, 28731
72
VOCATIONAL EDUCATION
Northern Kentucky Technical College
1995 – 1997
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE – BROADCASTING

WKRC-TV, Cincinnati, Ohio 1988-2008
Program Manager 2004-2008
Production Manager 1999-2004
Operating Engineer 1988-1999
• Led programming effort for digital start-up station CinCW, the
fastest growing all digital station in the U.S.
• Created and managed Programming Department of
Cincinnati's #1 television station
• Reorganized and brought stability to station's production staff
WLNS-TV, Lansing, Michigan 1984-1987

Commercial Producer 1986-1987
Program Manager 1984-1986
• Station's first full-time Program Manager, also developed and
managed production staff
• Managed station's commercial/field production department
WANE-TV, Ft. Wayne, Indiana 1983-1984

Program Manager
• Executive Television Producer for Miss Ft. Wayne Pageant
• Hired, developed and managed production staff
• Co-Executive Producer for two highly successful television
specials featuring area high school football teams
WISH-TV, Indianapolis, Indiana 1983-1983

Production Manager
WKID-TV, Hollywood, Florida 1981-1983

Operations Manager
WPTY-TV, Memphis, Tennessee 1978-1981

Production Manager 1980-1981
Producer/Director 1979-1980
Operating Engineer 1978-1979
WOUB-TV, Athens, Ohio 1974-1978

Producer – Director
Technical Director
73

Coming Out Conversations Inve

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Coming Out Conversations Inve

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ABSTRACT OF THESIS

COMING OUT CONVERSATIONS:

This study reinvestigates and extends theory developed by Manning (2006)

Jimmie Manning, Ph.D., Committee Chair

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the

Dr. Jimmie Manning

Highland Heights, Kentucky

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

___X___ I authorize Steely Library to reproduce this document in whole or in part

_______ I do not authorize Steely Library to reproduce this document in whole

Signed: Richard D. Wagar

Date: October 15, 2010

I wished I could have done it in person, but he lives in Japan and I

While the majority of respondents in this thematic group report positive

When I changed my "Interested In" status on Facebook to "Men," I

The following is a similar text message based communication related by a young

The following narrative, related by a 20-something female college student

Of special interest in this narrative is the respondent's reference to talking via a

A less positive experience was related by this respondent:

This group also generated the largest number of individuals expressing

A male respondent echoed the same sentiment when he wrote:

The fourth grouping was determined by the informant's mention of a

I told one of my close friends over Facebook message, and his

The above narrative is another example of the potential to assign

As a thematic group, Non-specific may seem to be a catch-all grouping for

Similarly, this participant describes in detail his journey to reaching a decision to

Not all pre-planned conversations go according to plan, or result in a

I wanted to tell a friend who was extremely religious. He is Islamic

Coming out as a bisexual to my parents was the hardest. They

Based on the limited number of coming out narratives that expressed

Several other respondents reported coming out in the course of discussions

The current study contains all of the elements of emergent conversations

Occasionally the LGBTQ individual is asked directly as a result of a

Often the coaxed disclosure is the result of an unsuccessful attempt at

On the surface, emergent and coaxed conversation appear to be one and

Unlike Manning's study, the current study supplied several positive

Although there were examples of positive outcomes in this typology, it is

Although the data in support of this typology is scarce, there is no

Another example of activism was discussed by a woman who was wearing

Of course no matter what, I always feel nervous, so I was relieved

Unlike the respondents mentioning emotional responses in the above two

Other writers recall being afraid of being judged, of suffering humiliation, of

I was horrified, humiliated, and just scared. I fought with my mom

Responses in the remaining units in this sub-category were expressed as

Other respondents recall the coming out conversation as "really stressful", or

A young woman recalled her reaction to an acquaintance's comments upon

Other respondents spoke of the fear of loss, either of a loved one, or of

Still other informants supplied narratives detailing threats of being disowned, or

. . . I just decided I had to tell them because I was tired of hiding

them, where did they go wrong. My mother didn't speak to me for 6

Positive emotional responses, also present in this category, described

Or this story of coming out to a former housemate:

One respondent expressed the understanding reached through open

Reception is the third factor mentioned by the informants in this survey.

The last research question sought to understand how coming out

Finding acceptance is important, but equally so is the realization that in coming

DATE: December 15, 2009

TO: Richard Wagar, College of Communication

CC: Jimmie Manning, College of Communication

FROM: Phil Moberg, IRB Chair

RE: IRB Protocol Titled: Coming Out Communications

IRB Protocol # 10-062

_X_ I authorize Steely Library to reproduce this document in whole or in part