Promoting Youth Agency Through Dimensions of Gay–Straight Alliance Involvement and Conditions that Maximize Associations

Abstract

Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs) may promote wellbeing for sexual minority youth (e.g., lesbian, gay, bisexual, or questioning youth) and heterosexual youth. We considered this potential benefit of GSAs in the current study by examining whether three GSA functions – support/socializing, information/resource provision, and advocacy – contributed to sense of agency among GSA members while controlling for two major covariates, family support and the broader school LGBT climate. The sample included 295 youth in 33 Massachusetts GSAs (69% LGBQ, 68% cisgender female, 68% white; Mage = 16.06 years). Based on multilevel models, as hypothesized, youth who received more support/socializing, information/resources, and did more advocacy in their GSA reported greater agency. Support/socializing and advocacy distinctly contributed to agency even while accounting for the contribution of family support and positive LGBT school climate. Further, advocacy was associated with agency for sexual minority youth but not heterosexual youth. Greater organizational structure enhanced the association between support/socializing and agency; it also enhanced the association between advocacy and agency for sexual minority youth. These findings begin to provide empirical support for specific functions of GSAs that could promote wellbeing and suggest conditions under which their effects may be enhanced.

Gay‐Straight Alliances, Inclusive Policy, and School Climate:LGBTQYouths’ Experiences of Social Support and Bullying

“…LGBTQ youth in schools with a GSA also report more support from classmates, teachers, and administrators (Fetner & Elafros, ; Kosciw et al., ). Notably, with the exception of a few recent studies (Fetner & Elafros, ; Poteat, Calzo, & Yoshikawa, ; Poteat, Heck, Yoshikawa, & Calzo, ), most studies of GSAs do not distinguish between sexual orientation and gender identity. The recent change in name from the “Gay‐Straight Alliance Network” to the more inclusive “Genders and Sexualities Alliance” network encourages consideration for how these programs may provide differential support for LGB and transgender youth (GSA Network, ).…”

Person‐Environment Fit and Positive Youth Development in the Context of High School Gay–Straight Alliances

“…These studies often speak to the positive role of GSAs, yet associations are sometimes inconsistent across such studies, potentially because simple comparisons of the presence versus absence of a GSA—or GSA members versus non‐members—mask the variability of GSA experiences for youth involved in them. More recently, studies have examined GSAs with greater nuance by considering how youth, advisor, and structural characteristics relate to variability among members in their experiences and in their wellbeing (Heck, Lindquist, Stewart, Brennan, & Cochran, ; Poteat, Calzo, & Yoshikawa, 2016; Poteat, Scheer, Marx, Calzo, & Yoshikawa, ; Toomey & Russell, ; Watson, Varjas, Meyers, & Graybill, ). For example, advisors differ in their training backgrounds and how they approach their roles as advisors (Poteat, Scheer, Marx, Calzo, & Yoshikawa, ; Watson et al., ), and students vary in how they perceive their experiences in the GSA and participate in their GSA (Heck et al., ; Poteat, Calzo, et al., 2016; Toomey & Russell, ).…”

“…More recently, studies have examined GSAs with greater nuance by considering how youth, advisor, and structural characteristics relate to variability among members in their experiences and in their wellbeing (Heck, Lindquist, Stewart, Brennan, & Cochran, ; Poteat, Calzo, & Yoshikawa, 2016; Poteat, Scheer, Marx, Calzo, & Yoshikawa, ; Toomey & Russell, ; Watson, Varjas, Meyers, & Graybill, ). For example, advisors differ in their training backgrounds and how they approach their roles as advisors (Poteat, Scheer, Marx, Calzo, & Yoshikawa, ; Watson et al., ), and students vary in how they perceive their experiences in the GSA and participate in their GSA (Heck et al., ; Poteat, Calzo, et al., 2016; Toomey & Russell, ). Recent studies on GSAs within the Massachusetts GSA network have examined variability in the extent to which GSAs provide socializing and advocacy opportunities, and group‐ and individual‐level factors that contribute to this variability (Poteat et al., ).…”

“…Recent studies on GSAs within the Massachusetts GSA network have examined variability in the extent to which GSAs provide socializing and advocacy opportunities, and group‐ and individual‐level factors that contribute to this variability (Poteat et al., ). Additional research within the network has examined factors that predict greater student agency (Poteat, Calzo, et al., 2016) and level of active engagement in GSAs (Poteat, Heck, Yoshikawa, & Calzo, 2016), GSA advisor self‐efficacy to address issues affecting LGB youth of color and transgender youth (Poteat & Scheer, ), GSA member self‐efficacy to address issues around race/ethnicity and gender identity (Chong, Poteat, Yoshikawa, & Calzo, in press), and GSAs as a potential setting to discuss diverse health promotion topics (e.g., substance use, mental health, and sexual health; Poteat, Heck, Yoshikawa, & Calzo, ). As exemplified by these studies, GSAs are not homogenous, monolithic entities in what they do, nor do all youth members participate in their GSAs in the same way or have the same experiences.…”

Emerging Scholar Best Article Award, 2017

“…In fact, all of the articles selected from each journal issue are notable for their focus on relationships and their influence on development. Some focus on youth's social experiences in different social service systems (Baglivio et al 2016) and the nature of school environments (Bottiani et al 2016;Poteat et al 2016;Tanner-Smith and Fisher 2016). Others examined developmental influences of peers (Greischel et al 2016), romantic partners (Boisvert and Poulin 2016), the media (McLean et al 2016) and parents (Hannigan et al 2016;Korelitz and Garber (2016) as well as perceptions of being alone (Maes et al 2016) and of being involved in unwanted relationships (Festl and Quandt, 2016).…”