Gay-Straight Alliances Vary on Dimensions of Youth Socializing and Advocacy: Factors Accounting for Individual and Setting-Level Differences

• Published in: American journal of community psychology Vol. 55; no. 3-4; pp. 422 - 432
• Main Authors: Poteat, V. Paul, Scheer, Jillian R., Marx, Robert A., Calzo, Jerel P., Yoshikawa, Hirokazu
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York Springer US 01.06.2015; Blackwell Science Ltd
• Subjects: Advocacy; Behavioral Science and Psychology; Clinical Psychology; Community and Environmental Psychology; Female; Gay-Straight Alliances; Gays & lesbians; Health Psychology; Heterosexuality - psychology; Homosexuality - psychology; Humans; Individuality; Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender; Male; Massachusetts; Original Article; Personality and Social Psychology; Positive youth development; Psychology; Psychology, Adolescent; Public Health; Self Efficacy; Social Behavior; Social justice; Social Justice - psychology; Social psychology; Social support; Socialization; Youth programs; Massachusetts; United States > US; Advocacy; Positive youth development; Youth programs; Social justice; Gay-Straight Alliances; Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender; Social support
• ISSN: 0091-0562; 1573-2770
• DOI: 10.1007/s10464-015-9722-2

Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs) are school-based youth settings that could promote health. Yet, GSAs have been treated as homogenous without attention to variability in how they operate or to how youth are involved in different capacities. Using a systems perspective, we considered two primary dimensions along which GSAs function to promote health: providing socializing and advocacy opportunities. Among 448 students in 48 GSAs who attended six regional conferences in Massachusetts (59.8 % LGBQ; 69.9 % White; 70.1 % cisgender female), we found substantial variation among GSAs and youth in levels of socializing and advocacy. GSAs were more distinct from one another on advocacy than socializing. Using multilevel modeling, we identified group and individual factors accounting for this variability. In the socializing model, youth and GSAs that did more socializing activities did more advocacy. In the advocacy model, youth who were more actively engaged in the GSA as well as GSAs whose youth collectively perceived greater school hostility and reported greater social justice efficacy did more advocacy. Findings suggest potential reasons why GSAs vary in how they function in ways ranging from internal provisions of support, to visibility raising, to collective social change. The findings are further relevant for settings supporting youth from other marginalized backgrounds and that include advocacy in their mission.