A Mixed-Methods Examination of the Unique Associations of Gender-Sexuality Alliance Involvement and Family Support on Bravery in Sexual and Gender Minority Youth

Abstract

Research among sexual and gender minority (SGM) youth has suggested associations between Gender-Sexuality Alliance (GSA) involvement and better health. Emergent research has similarly demonstrated associations between family support and general well-being among SGM youth. However, the trait of bravery has received little attention in this literature, despite its relevance for youth in marginalized positions. We examined the association between level of GSA involvement, family support, and bravery among GSA members (n = 295; M_age = 16.07), and whether those associations differed based on sexual orientation or gender identity. We then conducted one-on-one interviews with SGM youth (n = 10), to understand how they understood bravery and experienced support in both GSA and family contexts. Greater GSA involvement significantly predicted greater bravery for all youth, whereas greater family support predicted greater bravery only for heterosexual youth. No significant moderation was found for gender minority youth. Our qualitative findings clarified how SGM youth conceptualized bravery and how they experienced it within their GSA and family settings. GSAs were associated with more frequent displays of explicit support for SGM identity, while families were perceived as providing less explicit support.

Keywords

positive youth development Gender-Sexuality Alliance lesbian gay bisexual transgender nonbinary questioning/queer youth family bravery

Introduction

Emergent research on thriving among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (sexual and gender minority [SGM]) youth has marked an important expansion in the SGM youth literature, from a focus on risk and disparities to positive development (Saewyc, 2011; Snapp et al., 2015). To counteract the negative health outcomes tied to discrimination, scholars have called for research into how certain social settings may promote thriving (Russell et al., 2011; Toomey & Russell, 2013). Yet one primary indicator of thriving, bravery, has received little attention in SGM-focused research. Within the positive psychology literature, bravery is construed as a trait that reflects one’s perceived ability to accomplish goals despite internal or external opposition (Park & Peterson, 2006). It also shares some conceptual overlap with constructs in the positive youth development (PYD) literature, including self-efficacy, confidence, and contribution (Lerner et al., 2005). Researchers in positive psychology, however, further emphasize concrete action in the face of opposition as evidence of bravery, extending beyond one’s perceived capacity or intentions to act (Kobau et al., 2011). This distinguishes bravery from aforementioned PYD attributes, which emphasize perceived capacity as opposed to action. Bravery has been associated with various indicators of well-being, such as connection with peers and hope (Bronk, 2012; Park & Peterson, 2009; Strachan et al., 2018). This makes bravery a particularly relevant facet of thriving to study and to promote.

Schools and families are two major social contexts wherein youth may receive support that cultivates bravery and other forms of thriving (Bouris et al., 2010; Shilo et al., 2015). Nevertheless, this work has been conducted largely among heterosexual youth samples. Because of the unique challenges that SGM youth can face in both of these settings due to discrimination and rejection (Ryan et al., 2009), it is unclear whether their experiences of any support within these settings might relate to their sense of bravery in the same manner as for their heterosexual and cisgender peers. In addition, we have a limited understanding of how SGM youth may understand their experiences in these settings as having a role in fostering their sense of bravery.

Bravery could carry particular value for SGM youth. Given that SGM youth often navigate social settings where they are silenced and where their sexual orientation or gender identity may not be supported by peers or adults (Ryan et al., 2009), understanding how bravery is conceived and fostered among SGM youth is important. For instance, the ability of SGM youth to draw upon this personal strength in unsupportive social contexts, whether in their schools or families, could empower them to voice their needs and advocate on behalf of themselves for support and other resources; these could include calling for more protective school policies for SGM students or increases in organized SGM-oriented programming. Indeed, research has shown self-efficacy and advocacy to be linked with an ability to challenge systemic oppression for marginalized youth within various settings (Doren & Kang, 2016; McCoy & Bowen, 2015). Given that bravery represents an important asset that can promote these and other positive outcomes for socially marginalized youth, we focus on how support from several settings may promote bravery among SGM youth.

First, within the broader school context, we focus our attention to the setting of Gender-Sexuality Alliances (GSAs; also referred to as Gay-Straight Alliances). GSAs are student-led clubs intended to provide a safe space in schools where SGM, along with heterosexual and cisgender allied youth can socialize, receive emotional support, and advocate for SGM-supportive policies and practices in the school (Griffin et al., 2004). As such, a major aim of GSAs is to support and empower youth in order to promote their positive development (Russell et al., 2009).

Second, we focus on the family context. Research on families has started to highlight ways that family-based support may promote positive development among SGM individuals, including greater life satisfaction and increased self-esteem in later adolescence and adulthood (Ryan et al., 2010; Snapp et al., 2015). However, most of this work has tended to focus on how support in schools or families relates to lower negative outcomes as opposed to outright attention to indicators of positive development. Furthermore, most of these studies have focused singularly on one setting rather than multiple settings.

To address the current limitations in the literature, we conducted the present mixed-methods study to examine how these two social settings may contribute to experiences of bravery among SGM youth and their heterosexual and cisgender allies. We also consider potential differences between SGM and heterosexual and cisgender youth in the extent to which support in these settings relates to their sense of bravery. First, we examine the association between youth’s perceptions of support from their GSAs and families and bravery for both SGM and heterosexual and cisgender youth. Second, in qualitative interviews, we consider how SGM youth may conceive of bravery as it applies to their unique experiences within school and family environments.

How Social Ecologies May Promote Thriving

Ecological systems theory provides a relevant framework to consider how multiple contexts contribute to youth development. The framework proposes that individuals develop within many contexts and are recursively impacted by proximal and distal factors in their environments (Bronfenbrenner, 2005). Schools and families represent two major proximal settings in which youth spend the bulk of their time. Whereas research focused on the social ecology of SGM youth frequently has identified how negative experiences in these settings may contribute to sexual orientation and gender-based health disparities (Saewyc, 2011), the general youth development literature has shown that positive interactions in these settings can promote thriving (Durlak et al., 2007). In particular, social support in both school and family settings is strongly related to markers of youth well-being, such as self-esteem and self-determination (Hong & Garbarino, 2012; Watson et al., 2010).

In line with ecological systems theory, PYD also posits that social contexts can provide opportunities and experiences that promote youth resilience (Lerner et al., 2005). Environments that explicitly name youth strengths and provide various forms of relational support (e.g., instrumental, emotional, and social) may foster positive characteristics for youth, especially those facing structural adversity (Lerner et al., 2005; Poteat, Calzo, Yoshikawa, Lipkin, et al., 2019). Characteristics such as interpersonal competence, compassion, and connection are viewed as social strengths that youth may build upon to thrive in adolescence (Bowers et al., 2010; Fredricks & Simpkins, 2012; Lerner et al., 2005). PYD-informed research has found that organized social support (e.g., involvement in school organizations) and active family support can help youth to cultivate such qualities and promote thriving. PYD research among SGM youth also has identified a number of attributes that can specifically help to improve SGM youth well-being in the face of systemic adversity. Greater advocacy efforts, civic engagement, and an awareness of how structural forces influence development can lead to broader behavioral changes with marginalized youth (Diemer et al., 2016). Cultivating these attributes and subsequent behaviors is particularly important in helping SGM youth to challenge social systems that have historically oppressed gender and sexual minorities (Poteat, Calzo, & Yoshikawa, 2018; Russell et al., 2009).

GSAs and Families as Sources of Support to Promote Bravery

Research has demonstrated the potential role of GSAs in promoting well-being (Saewyc et al., 2014; Toomey et al., 2011; Toomey & Russell, 2013). For example, SGM youth participation in GSAs is associated with a greater sense of agency, empowerment, civic engagement, and self-esteem (Poteat, Calzo, & Yoshikawa, 2018; Poteat et al., 2016; Russell et al., 2009; Toomey et al., 2011). Because school settings historically have excluded or actively discriminated against SGM youth, GSAs are in a unique position to promote bravery as a specific indicator of thriving for this population within an otherwise oppressive environment. Although emergent research has examined PYD strengths in SGM youth within schools, bravery has a unique potential to promote SGM youth well-being in the face of systemic challenges. Because bravery enables youth to stand for their needs in the face of external opposition, it could promote greater advocacy efforts in various oppressive settings. Given the potential for GSAs to foster thriving through positive social experiences and relational support, we expect that greater GSA involvement will be associated with greater bravery for SGM youth and their heterosexual and cisgender allies who are GSA members.

Greater GSA involvement may be associated with higher levels of bravery for both SGM and heterosexual as well as cisgender ally GSA members, but the strength of this association may differ between these groups. Although GSAs are intended to benefit all youth, they explicitly address issues faced by SGM youth, including sexual orientation- and gender identity-based marginalization (Poteat, Calzo, Yoshikawa, Rosenbach, et al., 2019; Poteat et al., 2015). As such, greater engagement in the GSA may be more strongly associated with bravery for SGM members than for heterosexual and cisgender members.

Given the marginalizing social contexts that SGM youth often navigate, families are well positioned to promote SGM youth thriving outside the home environment and to complement school-based promotion of bravery. However, research investigating the positive role of families in promoting health for SGM youth is limited. Some research suggests a strong association between family support and positive health outcomes for SGM youth (Ryan et al., 2010; Snapp et al., 2015; Watson et al., 2019). Within the general PYD literature, there is growing research on the association between supportive family practices and positive development as well as the protective role of families against negative health outcomes (Bean et al., 2006; Parker & Benson, 2004). In particular, perceived supportive parental relationships are associated with outcomes like social competence and self-efficacy (Youngblade et al., 2007). Furthermore, SGM-focused research has linked familial support with broader help-seeking behaviors, including self-esteem (Ryan et al., 2010; Snapp et al., 2015; Watson et al., 2019). Thus, we expect a similar significant association will exist between supportive parental relationships and bravery.

At the same time, family support could be more strongly associated with bravery for heterosexual and cisgender youth compared with their SGM peers. Although there is a growing literature on SGM youth and family support, other literature highlights that many SGM youth continue to face some degree of rejection or limited acceptance of their sexual orientation from their family (Halady, 2013; Klein & Golub, 2016). It is possible, then, that SGM youth may experience contradictory or mixed reactions from their family. This may diminish the extent to which perceptions of family support relate to bravery among SGM youth relative to their heterosexual or cisgender ally peers who may not experience such contradictory or mixed support.

A Need for Mixed Methods

Due to the paucity of research on bravery among SGM youth, it is unclear whether SGM youth experience or define bravery in a way that may not be fully captured in extant PYD research among heterosexual youth. Given that SGM youth may keep their sexual orientation or gender identity private due to concerns for safety, bravery may be expressed differently or more subtly compared with heterosexual and cisgender youth. Similarly, we know little about how SGM youth see their family or school context (in this case GSAs) promoting their sense of bravery. Understanding which contexts promote PYD strengths and how they do this is critical for helping youth to seek support from those settings and to identify what to seek in other possible supportive environments. Therefore, we take a mixed-methods approach in the current study to add a qualitative component to examine these issues for SGM youth in order to complement our quantitative analyses among SGM and heterosexual and cisgender youth. Qualitative methods can offer a rich and deeper perspective on the experiences of populations such as SGM youth who have been marginalized in society and underrepresented in research (Fine, 2013; Smith, 1990). For instance, qualitative research could help to explain potentially unexpected or contradictory findings among SGM youth or guide the development of new frameworks that are more inclusive or applicable to them (Levitt et al., 2017, 2018). Mixed-methods research is one way that quantitative and qualitative data—in this case data from self-report surveys and individual interviews—can complement one another to highlight current theoretical limitations and point to possible modifications.

Current Study

This study’s mixed-methods design aims to understand two overarching questions. First, are GSA involvement and perceived family support associated with SGM, as well as heterosexual and cisgender, youth’s sense of bravery? Does this association differ in magnitude for SGM and heterosexual and cisgender youth? Second, how do SGM youth in particular conceptualize bravery in both contexts, and how might their understandings of bravery inform the interpretation of our quantitative findings?

We hypothesize that more active engagement in the GSA and perceptions of greater family support will be associated with a greater sense of bravery. Second, we hypothesize that the magnitude of the association between GSA involvement and bravery will be stronger for SGM youth than heterosexual and cisgender youth. Third, we hypothesize that the magnitude of the association between perceived family support and bravery will be stronger for heterosexual and cisgender youth than for SGM youth.

Our qualitative analyses focus directly on SGM youth and address two questions regarding their experiences of bravery in their GSAs and families. First, how do youth define and describe what bravery looks like in both their GSA and family contexts? Second, what do they see as the unique practices in both contexts that promote bravery for them?

Method

Quantitative Data

Data were provided by the 2014 Massachusetts GSA Network statewide survey of GSA youth members. The data include students living in rural and urban locations, liberal and conservative districts, and low and high socioeconomic status (SES) areas. Youth volunteered to complete a short anonymous survey with consent from their GSA advisor. Adult consent was used over parent consent to avoid potential risks of inadvertently outing youth to parents, a method frequently used to protect youth safety and confidentiality (Mustanski, 2011). Youth were told that their responses would be anonymous and that data would be used for program evaluation and possible research purposes, such as articles or reports. Participating GSAs received reports that covered the topics of the survey. We secured Institutional Review Boards (IRB) approval for secondary data analyses.

Participants were 295 youth, aged 13 to 20 (M = 16.07, SD = 1.14) from 48 GSAs in Massachusetts. Youth were in Grades 8 through 12 (Grade 8: n = 4; Grade 9: n = 47; Grade 10: n = 90; Grade 11: n = 95; Grade 12: n = 55), and four youth did not report their grade. Two hundred identified as cisgender female, 66 as cisgender male, 10 as transgender male, one as transgender female, and 16 reported other gender identities; two youth did not report their gender identity. Two hundred and one youth identified as White, 16 as African American, 18 as Latino/a, 16 as Asian-American, four as Native American, 32 as multiracial, and five as other. Three did not report their race or ethnicity. There were 205 youth who reported their sexual orientation as lesbian, gay, bisexual and queer (LGBQ) and 87 as heterosexual; three did not report their sexual orientation.

Qualitative Data

Qualitative data were gathered and analyzed from interviews with another group of GSA members conducted between January 2017 and May 2018. Participants were GSA members from schools across the state of Massachusetts, representing schools located in areas that ranged from rural to urban, politically liberal to conservative, and low to high SES. Youth were selected based on their SGM identities. Youth volunteered to participate in a one-on-one interview, up to 1 hour in length, with one of three trained interviewers. As with the procedures followed in 2014, we used advisor consent over parent consent to avoid inadvertently outing youth to parents in order to protect participant safety and confidentiality. Youth were informed that their responses would be anonymous, and that researchers would be asking questions pertaining to their GSA participation as well as interactions with their family members. Participants were also told that data would be used for research purposes, such as articles or reports. Participants received a US$25 gift card for their participation. We secured IRB approval of this separate project.

Participants were 10 youth, aged 14 to 18, from seven GSAs in Massachusetts; at three GSAs, we interviewed two LGBQ-identified youth, while at four GSAs we interviewed one LGBQ participant. Youth were in Grades 9 through 12 (Grade 9: n = 3; Grade 10: n = 3, Grade 11: n = 2; Grade 12: n = 2). Four identified as cisgender female, two as cisgender male, three as transgender male, and one as transgender female. All participants identified their sexual orientation as LGBQ. Nine youth identified as White and one as Latina.

Quantitative Measures

Covariates

We controlled for time-unvarying covariates in order to address the possibility of reverse causality (i.e., that bravery might causally precede attending one’s GSA). Youth reported their age, grade, school, gender identity (male, female, transgender male or female, gender queer, or another written-in identity), sexual orientation (lesbian, gay, bisexual, questioning, or another written-in identity), and race/ethnicity (White, African American, Latino/a, Asian-American, Native American, multiracial, or another written-in identity). Because of the limited number of youth within each gender, racial and sexual minority category, we dichotomized the responses; for gender identity as cisgender or nonbinary/trans (0 = cisgender, 1 = nonbinary/trans), for race as White or non-White (0 = White, 1 = non-White), and for sexual orientation as heterosexual or LGBQ for the quantitative analyses (0 = heterosexual, 1 = LGBQ).

GSA involvement

The survey included five items that assessed youth’s level of involvement in GSA meetings (e.g., “I participate in conversations at GSA meetings,” “I help with events or projects in my GSA”). Response options were “never,” “rarely,” “sometimes,” “often,” and “all the time” (scored 1 to 5). Higher average scale scores represent greater GSA involvement. Coefficient alpha reliability was α = .89.

Family support

We combined four items from the survey that assessed youth’s perceptions of the nature of emotional and instrumental support they received from family members, taken from the Multidimensional Measure of Perceived Social Support (Zimet et al., 1988): (a) My family really tries to help me; (b) I get the emotional help and support I need from my family; (c) I can talk about my problems with my family; and (d) My family is willing to help me make decisions. Response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Higher average scale scores represent greater perceived emotional and instrumental family support. Coefficient alpha reliability was α = .93.

Bravery

Six items from the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) Big Five Factor Markers assessed youths’ self-perceived level of bravery. The IPIP was developed to assess various positive characteristics in adolescents, with this subscale aiming to assess the construct of bravery as outlined in PYD and positive psychology literature (Park & Peterson, 2006). Items included the following statements: (a) I have taken frequent stands in the face of strong opposition; (b) I do not hesitate to express an unpopular opinion; (c) I call for action while others talk; I can face my fears; (d) I speak up in protest when I hear someone say mean things; (e) I am a brave person (Gow et al., 2005). Response options ranged from 1 (very inaccurate) to 5 (very accurate). Higher average scale scores represent one’s greater sense of bravery. Coefficient alpha reliability was α = .86.

Qualitative Interview Questions

Youth were selected to participate by their GSA advisor, who was informed of the interview’s general queries. If youth verbally expressed interest, the first author set up a mutually available time for one of the interviewers to conduct the interview in person on site. Based on our criteria, we identified potential interviewees and then further consulted with advisors, which helped to minimize possible advisor selection bias.

Participants took part in a semi-structured interview that asked youth about their experience of bravery in their GSA and their family. Youth were asked several questions about their experiences of bravery. Questions included “How would you describe bravery?,” “how does your GSA help you be brave?,” “how do your family members help you be brave?,” and “what could your family do more of to help you be brave?” Interviewers typically asked youth follow-up questions, requesting examples of such behaviors in each setting. If youth were unable to identify any supportive practices, we asked youth what kind of practices they wished they experienced in either environment.

Analytic approach and researchers’ positionality

Interviews were transcribed and coded by a team of three graduate students in counseling psychology. All three coders identified as racially White. Two identified as cisgender men and one as a cisgender woman. One identified as heterosexual, one as gay, and one as bisexual. All three identified their SES as upper middle class and, at the time of coding, as graduate students (two master’s level, one doctoral level). Each transcript was first coded individually by a coder, using an open-coding, grounded theory approach where each coder identified salient themes. After coding each transcript individually, the three coders met to reconcile codes for every interview through a consensus approach. After initially coding all transcripts using this method, coders then reviewed all transcripts collectively to finalize a set of nine codes, which formed the basis of a codebook, which all three coders then applied to the interviews, using a consensus approach. Codes were analyzed using a phenomenological lens, with the intention to identify themes within and across interviews (Pietkiewicz & Smith, 2014). Several emergent themes were identified within the ten transcripts.

Results

Sexual Orientation Differences and Bivariate Correlations

We conducted a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to test for sexual orientation differences on the following variables: bravery, GSA involvement, and family support. Sexual orientation differences were significant, Wilks’ Λ = .965, F(3, 269) = 3.21, p < .05, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .035. Follow-up analysis of variance (ANOVA) results (see Table 1) indicated that sexual orientation differences were significant for GSA involvement, but not family support or bravery; sexual minority youth reported more extensive GSA involvement than heterosexual youth. We also conducted a MANOVA to test for gender identity differences on the same variables. Such differences were also significant, Wilks’ Λ = .960, F(3, 271) = 3.76, p < .05, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .04. Follow-up ANOVA results (Table 1) indicated that gender identity differences were significant for GSA involvement, but not family support or bravery. Bivariate correlations (see Table 2) indicated that several variables were significantly associated with one another. Of the independent variables of interest, greater GSA involvement was associated with greater bravery (r = .37, p < .001).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics.

Sexual orientation comparisons
Variables	Skewness	Heterosexual youthM (SD)	LGBQ youthM (SD)	F	$η_{p}^{2}$
Bravery	−0.32	3.35 (0.98)	3.50 (0.95)	1.22	.004
GSA involvement	−0.46	2.57 (1.02)	2.85 (0.98)	4.58*	.017
Family support	−0.14	4.63 (1.98)	4.14 (1.91)	3.79	.014
Gender identity comparisons
Variables	Skewness	Cisgender youthM (SD)	Trans/nonbinary youthM (SD)	F	$η_{p}^{2}$
Bravery	−0.31	3.43 (0.95)	3.75 (0.99)	2.78	.010
GSA involvement	−0.46	2.72 (0.99)	3.29 (0.90)	8.12*	.028
Family support	−0.14	4.32 (1.90)	3.85 (2.05)	1.44	.005

Note. Values represent the means and standard deviations (in parentheses) of scores for each demographic group. LGBQ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer; Bravery = youth reported bravery; GSA involvement = level of youth reported involvement in GSA activities; Family support = level of youth’s perceived family support; GSA = Gender-Sexuality Alliance.

p < .05.

Table 2.

Correlations.

Variables	1	2	3	4
1. Age	−
2. GSA involvement	.26***	−
3. Family support	.03	.10	−
4. Bravery	.24***	.37***	.11	−

Note. GSA = Gender-Sexuality Alliance.

***

p < .001.

Regression Models for Bravery

We conducted a regression analysis to test the extent to which each independent variable uniquely accounted for variability in youth’s levels of bravery. We included age, gender identity, race, sexual orientation, GSA involvement, and family support as independent variables and bravery as the dependent variable. The first model (see Table 3) which included the main effects of these variables accounted for a significant amount of variance (R² = .14, F = 8.49, p < .001). Only GSA involvement (β = .33, p < .001), however, was significantly associated with bravery, whereas the main effect for family support was not statistically significant.

Table 3.

Regression Models for Bravery.

Independent variables	Dependent variable: bravery
Independent variables	b	SE	B
Model 1 (main effects)
Age	.13	.05	.15
Gender	.11	.19	.03
Race	.16	.12	.07
Sexual orientation	.05	.12	.03
GSA involvement	.31	.06	.32***
Family support	.09	.05	.10
Model 2 (interaction of sexual orientation and involvement)
Age	.13	.05	.16
Gender	.11	.19	.03
Race	.15	.12	.07
Sexual orientation	.05	.12	.02
GSA involvement	.36	.10	.37***
Family support	.09	.06	.10
Sexual Orientation × GSA Involvement	−.07	.12	−.06
Model 3 (interaction of sexual orientation and family support)
Age	.12	.05	.15
Gender	.07	.18	.02
Race	.15	.12	.07
Sexual orientation	.11	.12	.05
GSA involvement	.31	.06	.33***
Family support	.42	.09	.44***
Sexual Orientation × Family Support	−.48	.11	−.41***
Model 4 (interaction of gender identity and involvement)
Age	.13	.05	.15*
Gender	.07	.21	.02
Race	.16	.12	.08
Sexual orientation	.06	.12	.03
GSA involvement	.30	.06	.32***
Family support	.09	.06	.10
Gender Identity × GSA Involvement	.07	.21	.02
Model 5 (interaction of gender identity and family support)
Age	.13	.05	.15*
Gender	.10	.19	.03
Race	.15	.12	.07
Sexual orientation	.05	.12	.03
GSA involvement	.31	.06	.32***
Family support	.10	.06	.11
Gender Identity × Family Support	−.06	.17	−.02

Note. Unstandardized coefficient estimates (b), standard errors (SE), and standardized coefficient estimates (β) are reported. Gender was dichotomized such that 0 = cisgender and 1 = trans/nonbinary. Race was dichotomized such that 0 = White and 1 = student of color. Sexual orientation was dichotomized such that 0 = heterosexual and 1 = LGBQ. Model 1: F(6, 263) = 8.49, p < .001, R² = .14. Model 2: F(7, 262) = 10.65, p < .001, R² = .15. Model 3: F(7, 262) = 12.47, p < .001, R² = .22. Model 4: F(7, 262) = 8.58, p < .001, R² = .16. Model 5: F(7, 262) = 8.57, p < .001, R² = .15. GSA = Gender-Sexuality Alliance; LGBQ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer.

p < .05. ***p < .001.

Next, we tested whether sexual orientation moderated the associations between GSA involvement, family support, and bravery. We tested two regression models, the first including the interaction between sexual orientation and GSA involvement, and the second with the interaction between sexual orientation and family support. We standardized the scores for GSA involvement and family support to include as main effects in their respective model to reduce potential multicollinearity effects. The sexual orientation × GSA involvement and sexual orientation × family support interaction terms were calculated using these standardized scores. In Model 2, the interactive term did not account for significantly more variance than the main effects model (R² = .15, F = 10.65, p < .001) yet did in Model 3 (R² = .22, F = 12.47, p < .001). Results of both models are presented in Table 3. Sexual orientation was a significant moderator of the association between family support and bravery (β = −.42, p < .001), but not the association between GSA involvement and bravery.

We then tested whether gender identity moderated the associations between GSA involvement, family support, and bravery. We followed identical procedures as those for the sexual orientation moderation models. Results are presented in Table 3. Neither interaction terms in Models 4 and 5 accounted for significantly more variance than the main effects model (Model 4: R² = .16, F = 8.58, p < .001; Model 5: R² = .15, F = 8.57, p < .001). Gender identity was not a significant moderator of the associations between bravery and either GSA involvement or family support.

To aid in the interpretation of the significant interaction between sexual orientation and family support, we followed up with stratified regression analyses to examine the association between family support and bravery separately for LGBQ and heterosexual youth. Whereas greater family support was significantly associated with greater bravery for heterosexual youth (β = .44, p < .001), it was not significantly associated with bravery among LGBQ-identified youth (β = −.07, p = .29).

Qualitative Results

Defining bravery

In line with current positive psychology models, SGM youth described bravery as a means to stand up to external stressors or oppressive forces across school and family contexts. Furthermore, they defined bravery along a variety of dimensions, focusing particularly on two ways of expressing the attribute: internally and externally.

Internal bravery was described by youth as ways to be brave without necessarily taking external action or directly communicating with others. One youth related this internal bravery to how she came out as queer to herself:

Any form of self-evaluation is brave because some people just don’t do it and they don’t want to think about what they’ve done, like trying to fight whatever their inner battle is. And that can be more dangerous than leaving it alone.

This youth understood bravery as something which is possible to express to oneself, in relation to internal obstacles faced (here, her decision to come out). Although these obstacles may have been instilled in this youth through external systems, she acknowledged the need to be brave in choosing to be honest with herself before opening up to others.

Building on this view, youth identified external bravery as an extension of internal bravery, wherein opposition to external forces could be expressed verbally and through actions. In response to a parent’s request for one youth to remain closeted at school, he said “I have a voice and I can tell my parents ‘no’ . . . I’ve been standing up, making my voice heard.” This youth’s acknowledgment of his own voice required being out to himself before being open with others.

Participants directly distinguished these two forms of bravery and acknowledged the role of external systems in which form they expressed. They especially cited how their perceived level of safety within a context directly informed their decision or ability to engage in one form of bravery or the other. As one participant described:

A lot of bravery comes from choosing what you want to do, ‘cause if you know you’re gonna be in a bad situation, don’t flaunt everything and look for a fight . . . I think a lot of bravery is stepping back and not doing something that will harm you . . . it’s much braver to step back from that and not say anything to make it a bigger problem . . . that’s just you being petty about things and wanting to get in a fight, that’s not being brave . . . a lot of bravery just comes from being proud of yourself.

This thought process delineates how youth often decided whether to be brave internally or externally. It emphasizes the role of perceived social safety in their decisions to stand against external forces through open or internal opposition. If open opposition was understood to risk physical or emotional harm, youth were more likely to practice internal bravery. One youth recounted a need to be internally brave with some peers: “I know what to not talk about around certain people so I don’t get attacked and fights don’t start [in school].” Yet when youth felt they would be emotionally supported in their bravery expression, whether at school or by family members, they expressed an ability to do so openly. One youth explained how the introduction of social support from friends and family changed how they felt able to express bravery. “I can say ‘this is who I am, I will face the consequences . . . Having [friends and family] remind you are valid, and you are your own person, and you are not wrong is very empowering.” Such social support enabled more open bravery, and greater feelings of empowerment in both school and outside social settings.

Bravery practices related to the GSA

SGM youth often endorsed a belief in their capacity to display external bravery within the school environment. Youth attributed their ability to express external bravery at school as directly linked to their GSA participation. Youth expressed a desire to help other peers speak out, which they linked to their GSA participation. According to one youth,

I started going . . . because I wanted a place where I could be with people who are like me . . . but now I see myself going more as to help others like the kids coming in . . . I make a conscious effort to make sure I’m giving and reaching out to kids [in the GSA and school] I know may not be having a good day or having a hard time being themselves.

Here, GSA participation helped this youth grow more comfortable in supporting other students facing possible challenges related to their sexual orientation and gender identity, while acknowledging the role of her open participation in supporting other youth. Another youth similarly described how membership in her GSA increased her capacity to promote well-being for other students:

[GSA] has definitely helped me talk to other people about being within the LGBT community. And it’s helped me reach out to invite others to join even if they’re not within the LGBT community . . . there’s just this energy that being in GSA gives you. And then you use the energy, you harness it, and you can, like, go out and talk to others, talk to yourself, figure out problems. It just energizes you.

In this context, bravery was instrumental in helping youth engage in SGM-related advocacy and connecting with others in the SGM community in order to promote well-being for similarly identified youth. This form of the construct especially aligns with PYD literature focusing on the character strength of confidence. Similar to this youth’s perspective, confidence is known to promote youth intention to advocate for themselves and others (Callina et al., 2014). This suggests that there is an overlap in how both constructs—confidence and bravery—capture SGM youth behavior in this particular context.

Bravery within the family setting was more frequently reflective of internal bravery, specifically youth’s ability to freely identify with their minority sexual or gender identity. Youth also described the relationship between GSA-supported bravery and displaying bravery in other settings, such as their home:

I feel like I’ve created [a] safe space within my home, while GSA kind of gave it to me. ‘Cuz when I first like came out it was very like my parents are both Catholic in a very push back-y way . . . At first, I never talked about it. Well, [my parents] didn’t want to. And I, like, kept it to myself . . . But I feel like I’ve now brought my parents to a place where they’re, like accepting . . . it was a process . . . it was just kind of like coming out and telling them I’m not going to change so you’re going to have to change.

At home, this youth was able to display greater external bravery over time, with initial responses to family discomfort characterized by an internal process of identifying as SGM. This aligns with how youth described internal bravery as often entailing a process of becoming honest or more secure with oneself before being able to act externally brave within their social context. Here, the youth linked their ability to create a “safe space” at home to GSA participation, with GSA involvement helping the student display more external bravery with their parents over time. It is possible that, through cultivating greater internal bravery through receiving explicit sexuality or gender identity support, youth could engage in more external bravery in other social settings, like with family. This highlights the possible recursive and overlapping influence between these contexts and development for SGM youth.

Family practices related to bravery

Participants described their families as providing various levels of support for youth to be brave, often dependent upon what aspects of youth’s identity were central to the immediate interaction. For example, when one youth discussed certain social issues with his parents, such as voting rights, they appeared supportive of that youth, helping him to further cultivate bravery. The youth quoted his father’s response to the 2016 election, saying, “we need to change things in the U.S. . . . what can you do to change things?” But when it came to the youth’s sexual orientation, this participant experienced a less progressive tone, and the youth perceived more ambiguous support. The youth’s parents told him, “you should be happy with how far you’ve come,” referring to the supposed lack of structural oppression SGM youth experience in the present sociohistorical context compared with past decades. Another youth described a similar set of experiences with parents:

My mom’s always supported me in school and in being outspoken . . . she’s taken me out to marches, like after the [2016 presidential] election . . . But she’s half-heartedly supportive of my trans-identity. She might have said she was supportive, but it was never in a concrete way that actually tried to help me.

In both examples, family members modeled a way for youth to engage in certain bravery practices but not in ways that specifically advocated for their sexual orientation or gender identity. This mixed experience of encouragement co-occurred with statements of diminished expressions of bravery within the family, school, or other settings. This mixed family support could manifest as youth perceiving high general or instrumental assistance (i.e., support with homework or after-school activities) coupled few affirming or outright rejecting actions surrounding their SGM identity.

Family practices that youth associated with their sense of bravery involved clear parental acceptance of their SGM identity, expressed through perceived genuine inquiry and unambiguous statements of support. One bisexual youth described her parents’ positive response to her coming out as bisexual:

[My parents] asked interesting questions. Like emotional check-ins and just being supportive. Like, when I first came out . . . [my mom] let me continue talking and I think that’s exactly what she needed to do in that situation, just keep talking . . . they didn’t do the whole ‘this might be a phase.’ They were so open and supportive.

In contrast to the previous examples of bravery among family members, this youth’s parents actively engaged with her sexual identity, asking questions without assumptions and with an intention toward helping the participant grow more comfortable in her newly disclosed sexual orientation. Such parental behavior contributed to youth feeling capable of acting brave in other contexts, with this participant further explaining that her parents’ support “makes me feel like I can help others [who are queer] with less support.” This unambiguous support for SGM identity appears to reflect GSA practices that center on SGM youth concerns and needs. These qualitative findings place some of our quantitative findings in context. In particular, they could expand our understanding of the association between family support and bravery for SGM participants, providing a broader contextual framework for the different strength of association for this population compared with heterosexual peers.

Discussion

Our study is among the first to examine bravery among SGM youth within the contexts of both school-based GSAs and family settings. The results of the current study indicate that greater involvement in GSAs is related to greater reported bravery for both SGM and heterosexual and cisgender youth. Notably, however, our results indicated that perceived family support was related to greater reported bravery for heterosexual youth but not sexual minority youth. Our qualitative results further elucidated these quantitative findings by highlighting different definitions of bravery and different ways that both contexts were associated with these different definitions. Bravery was often described as an external and an internal quality, which youth could express through both public actions as well as internal processes. Youth described their bravery in reference to their GSA involvement as reflecting greater expressions of external bravery, both within school and other contexts. Conversely, when they linked their sense of bravery to their family, they more often described internal processes, such as coming out to oneself. Youth also discussed ways that internal bravery could manifest as external bravery given particular social support in both contexts.

Bravery and GSA Involvement

Greater GSA involvement was associated with higher levels of bravery among youth overall. This finding aligns with previous research on GSAs linking youth involvement to other markers of PYD such as mastery and self-efficacy (Poteat et al., 2015; Russell et al., 2009). GSAs may help instill bravery in more involved youth through more frequent positive experiences with supportive peers. The finding adds to the extant PYD literature, suggesting that GSAs promote a wide range of PYD attributes upon which youth may build greater interpersonal efficacy, especially in the face of external opposition (Poteat, Calzo, & Yoshikawa, 2018; Toomey & Russell, 2013). In contrast to our hypothesis, sexual orientation and gender identity did not significantly moderate the relationship between GSA involvement and bravery. It is possible that youth who participate extensively in their GSA share similar social experiences, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, thus leading to comparable reported experiences of bravery.

Our qualitative findings expand these results, beginning with the way that interviewed youth linked their GSA involvement with bravery. Specifically, interviewed youth associated GSA involvement with more frequent external acts of bravery, wherein they took public action to promote well-being for themselves and classmates. Actions included participation in school outreach or greater community activism. Specifically, socialization with SGM-supportive individuals in their GSA helped SGM youth engage in more open, social acts of bravery with peers in their school and community. This aligns with a growing body of research on the mechanisms by which GSAs promote well-being, such as through discussions of SGM-related concerns (Poteat et al., 2015; Russell et al., 2009). It may be that involvement in GSA activities also impacts heterosexual youth’s sense of bravery, even though programming and activities primarily center on SGM-related concerns. Indeed, visible displays of SGM-related support and actions could reflect an inclusive and supportive setting, and thus encourage more frequent acts of external bravery in all youth.

Bravery and the Family Context

In line with our hypothesis, greater perceived family support was related to bravery for heterosexual youth but not for sexual minority youth. This result was reinforced in our qualitative findings pertaining to how SGM youth linked bravery to the family context. Family-based support was more often associated with internal bravery due to the less frequently reported family expressions of SGM-related support. Although there is less research examining SGM youth well-being in the context of families, this finding aligns with past research that has linked parent acceptance of youth SGM identity with increased well-being in adulthood (Ryan et al., 2010; Snapp et al., 2015; Watson et al., 2019). It also provides new information to the nascent body of research addressing family-based support with SGM youth, as it stands in contrast to most research on families and adolescent development (Davalos et al., 2005; Fuligni, 2001). It raises the possibility that SGM youth experience family support practices uniquely compared with their heterosexual peers.

SGM youth’s experiences of family support may be affected by increased concerns around SGM-specific proximal stressors endemic to the family environment; these may include acceptance of their sexual minority identity by family members, religious beliefs, and family members’ understanding of SGM-related marginalization (Page et al., 2013; Ryan et al., 2009). It could be that youth who do not experience explicit family support for SGM-related concerns (e.g., family knowledge of experiences of discrimination or SGM-specific health needs) may not feel comfortable expressing bravery openly with family members. Importantly for understanding our findings, youth noted how a lack of SGM-related support did not necessarily mean family members were totally unsupportive. Rather, such support was highlighted as particularly instrumental in facilitating external expressions of bravery. Because SGM youth often face contextual challenges pertaining to their sexual orientation or gender identity, otherwise supportive family behaviors may not reinforce expressions of bravery without explicit support for SGM identity. These findings underscore the need for increased research efforts directed at understanding the unique experiences of SGM youth within the family setting, particularly given the environment’s role in promoting health in adolescence (Youngblade et al., 2007).

It is notable that the moderated association between family support and bravery was significant based on sexual orientation but not gender identity. This finding adds to a growing body of research seeking to delineate the unique stressors that gender minority youth face and the need for support to be explicitly inclusive of both gender identity and sexual orientation (Poteat, Calzo, Yoshikawa, Miller, et al., 2018). However, in our qualitative interviews, participants’ answers pertaining to bravery and family support did not explicitly differentiate between support for their sexuality or gender identity. It appears that youth more often viewed their SGM identities as intersectional rather than distinct from one another. However, it is possible that family members understand or respond to youth sexual orientation differently than their gender identity, accounting for the more pronounced interaction of family support and sexual orientation.

A More Complex Understanding of Bravery

Our qualitative findings highlight an innovative understanding of SGM youth’s conceptualizations of bravery as well as their unique experiences of it in both GSA and family contexts. SGM youth distinguished between acting bravely externally and internally. To our knowledge, this distinction is new to the literature on bravery. Whereas existing definitions highlight internal or external challenges against which individuals can be brave (Park & Peterson, 2006), this has not typically highlighted individuals’ internal and external expressions of bravery. This nuance provides insight into how SGM youth may uniquely experience or demonstrate bravery.

While markers of externalized bravery are often used to indicate bravery in research (Park & Peterson, 2009), internal bravery, as described by interviewed youth, is not historically associated with the construct. This distinction is key to considering the unique ways SGM youth may cultivate and express bravery across contexts. Our measure of bravery frames the construct as it has been conceived within positive psychology, as an external characteristic. However, it may be that SGM youth, and potentially youth from other marginalized populations, must express bravery in nuanced ways that account for the possible systemic marginalization they face in society. According to interviewed youth, internal bravery can transform into external bravery through outward action, with this transition often tied to experiences of positive, SGM-related support in critical environments, such as school or a GSA.

SGM youth identity development is often characterized by increased stress related to sexual and gender identity disclosure, in comparison with heterosexual and cisgender youth who are not expected to come out (Cox et al., 2010). Recent research has noted, however, that SGM youth come out at earlier ages compared with previous generations (Dunlap, 2016). Bravery, both internal and external, could be critical in supporting SGM youth through this process and possibly in facilitating coming out earlier in development.

Interestingly, our findings suggest that settings providing less support may, for SGM youth, necessitate the cultivation of bravery in this population. For example, youth in communities or families exhibiting more conservative political ideologies may feel able to practice internal bravery. Yet increased experiences of internal bravery, coupled with sources of SGM-affirmation (like a school GSA), may enable these youth to foster more expressions of external bravery over time in less affirming settings.

These findings elucidate our quantitative findings in several ways. Internal bravery may be one way that SGM youth who lack SGM-related support (either from peers or family) are able to resist oppression privately. This may be especially necessary for marginalized youth who feel unsafe, emotionally or physically, in openly expressing their opposition to injustice (Diemer et al., 2016). Maintaining a sense of internal bravery could enable such youth to express to themselves their own resistance in order to maintain well-being and continue to persevere when facing especially difficult external challenges.

It also may be helpful to interpret our quantitative findings in the context of these more nuanced distinctions, which could account for the nonsignificant associations between family support and bravery for sexual minority participants. Because families were linked to more expressions of internal bravery in our qualitative findings, our quantitative measure may not have captured how these youth express bravery in that setting. Therefore, more research is needed on how youth experience bravery and similar indicators of thriving in their family setting.

Study Limitations, Strengths, and Implications

This study had several limitations. First, because this study used cross-sectional data, we can only identify the magnitude of associations between variables, not their directional influence on one another; for example, greater bravery may lead to more GSA participation. At the same time, our covariates of age, gender, race, and sexual orientation addressed some demographic selection factors that other research shows are associated with GSA participation (Poteat et al., 2015). Second, because youth were all from GSAs in Massachusetts, our findings may not necessarily generalize to other geographic areas of the United States. For example, past studies have noted geographic-based health disparities for sexual minorities in the United States, and that SGM individuals often face more frequent and overt experiences of marginalization in other regions of the country (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2009). Therefore, youth experiences of bravery in both school and family settings may be different for youth from regions that are more openly hostile toward SGM individuals. Third, our measure of family support did not distinguish between general forms of support and explicit support for SGM identity. Indeed, the role of family support that addresses sexual or gender identity, as distinct from other forms of support (e.g., emotional or instrumental), remains unclear in the literature on SGM youth well-being. It may be that SGM identity support is critical to understanding the relationship between family support and bravery, as well as other positive characteristics, in SGM youth.

Another limitation is that, because participants for our qualitative interviews were not drawn directly from that same sample as our quantitative data, with interviews conducted 3 to 4 years following the initial quantitative data collection, experiences of these youth may not necessarily be reflective of those faced by youth participating in the quantitative data collection. Also, because we were primarily interested in better understanding the experiences of SGM youth, our qualitative sample did not include any members who were both heterosexual and cisgender. This limited our ability to compare these experiences as we did in our quantitative sample.

There are several strengths to our study. Most studies examining SGM well-being in social contexts consider only one setting. Our study explicitly considered how two settings, GSAs and families, may foster well-being differently. The study is also strengthened by the use of qualitative interviews to provide a richer understanding of the relationship between SGM youth social experiences and bravery in various social contexts. Including SGM youths’ narratives of these processes helped to highlight their understanding and experiences of bravery. This is particularly true for SGM youth’s positive social experiences in the family environment, which has received limited attention in past research.

Our findings underscore the importance of understanding PYD characteristics as they are uniquely experienced by SGM youth in various social settings. Future research on how SGM youth may develop these characteristics in these settings should investigate whether youth express them differently based on how they perceive support for their sexual orientation and gender identity.

Given that adolescence is a period often marked by substantial sexual and gender identity development, our associations between these contexts and bravery, as well as our qualitative findings, may be unique to SGM adolescents. Future research should continue to explore how bravery may manifest differently for SGM individuals across the lifespan, as well as whether the concepts of internal and external bravery are also salient for SGM adults. Similarly, in light of recent trends in SGM youth to come out at earlier ages, new research should consider how both internal and external bravery may be relevant during other developmental periods or transposed to different developmental contexts (e.g., career settings or religious communities).

Finally, our findings provide a nuanced understanding of how youth may perceive support for their sexual orientation and gender identity within the family context. Family-based SGM-related support could be especially important in fostering positive development among SGM youth. Such efforts would allow investigators to consider ways in which various settings could promote positive SGM youth development and thriving.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Research reported in this publication was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities of the National Institutes of Health under award number R01MD009458 (Principal Investigator: Poteat; Co-Investigators: Calzo and Yoshikawa). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

ORCID iD

Christopher J. Ceccolini

Author Biographies

Christopher J. Ceccolini, MA, is a PhD candidate in counseling psychology at Boston College. His research examines the mechanisms by which families may promote positive development for marginalized youth and young adults, particularly sexual and gender minorities and those at risk of serious mental illness.

V. Paul Poteat, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Counseling, Developmental, and Educational Psychology at Boston College. His research on Gender-Sexuality Alliances (GSAs) has identified specific mechanisms by which GSAs promote mental health, well-being, and resilience among youth from diverse sexual orientations and gender identities.

Jerel P. Calzo, PhD, MPH, is an associate professor in the Division of Health Promotion and Behavioral Science at San Diego State University School of Public Health. His research examines the development of gender and sexual orientation health disparities in adolescence and young adulthood and evaluates school- and community-based programs to promote the health and positive youth development of gender and sexual minority adolescents and young adults.

Hirokazu Yoshikawa, PhD, is the Courtney Sale Ross University Professor of Globalization and Education at New York University’s Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development. He studies GSAs and their associations with youth development. In addition, he examines the effects of programs related to immigration, early childhood development, and poverty reduction on children and youth in the United States as well as in low- and middle-income countries.

Kasey Meyer, MA, is a mental health counselor at Rock Springs Hospital in Austin, Texas. Her research and clinical interests are in child and adolescent mental health, sexual and gender minority youth, and young adults with obsessive compulsive disorder.

References

Bean

R. A.

Barber

B. K.

Crane

D. R.

(2006). Parental support, behavioral control, and psychological control among African American youth: The relationships to academic grades, delinquency, and depression. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 1335–1355.

Bouris

Guilamo-Ramos

Pickard

Shiu

Loosier

P. S.

Dittus

Gloppen

Waldmiller

J. M.

(2010). A systematic review of parental influences on the health and well-being of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth: Time for a new public health research and practice agenda. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 31, 273–309.

Bowers

E. P.

Kiely

M. K.

Brittian

Lerner

J. V.

Lerner

R. M.

(2010). The five Cs model of positive youth development: A longitudinal analysis of confirmatory factor structure and measurement invariance. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 720–735.

Bronfenbrenner

(2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human development. SAGE.

Bronk

K. C.

(2012). The exemplar methodology: An approach to studying the leading edge of development. Psychology of Well-Being: Theory, Research and Practice, 2, 5–14.

Callina

K. S.

Johnson

S. K.

Buckingham

M. H.

Lerner

R. M.

(2014). Hope in context: Developmental profiles of trust, hopeful future expectations, and civic engagement across adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 869–883.

Cox

Dewaele

Van Houtte

Vincke

(2010). Stress-related growth, coming out, and internalized homonegativity in lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. An examination of stress-related growth within the minority stress model. Journal of Homosexuality, 58, 117–137.

Davalos

D. B.

Chavez

E. L.

Guardiola

R. J.

(2005). Effects of perceived parental school support and family communication on delinquent behaviors in Latinos and white non-Latinos. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 11, 57–68.

Diemer

M. A.

Rapa

L. J.

Voight

A. M.

McWhirter

E. H.

(2016). Critical consciousness: A developmental approach to addressing marginalization and oppression. Child Development Perspectives, 10, 216–221.

10.

Doren

Kang

H. J.

(2016). Autonomy, self-realization, and self-advocacy and the school and career-related adjustment of adolescent girls with disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 39, 132–143.

11.

Dunlap

(2016). Changes in coming out milestones across five age cohorts. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 28, 20–38.

12.

Durlak

J. A.

Taylor

R. D.

Kawashima

Pachan

M. K.

DuPre

E. P.

Celio

C. I.

Berger

Dymnicki

A. B.

Weissberg

R. P.

(2007). Effects of positive youth development programs on school, family, and community systems. American Journal of Community Psychology, 39, 269–286.

13.

Fine

(2013). Echoes of Bedford: A 20-year social psychology memoir on participatory action research hatched behind bars. American Psychologist, 68, 687–698.

14.

Fredricks

J. A.

Simpkins

S. D.

(2012). Promoting positive youth development through organized after-school activities: Taking a closer look at participation of ethnic minority youth. Child Development Perspectives, 6, 280–287.

15.

Fuligni

A. J.

(2001). Family obligation and assistance during adolescence: Contextual variations and developmental implications. Jossey-Bass.

16.

Gow

A. J.

Whiteman

M. C.

Pattie

Deary

I. J.

(2005). Goldberg’s “IPIP” Big-Five factor markers: Internal consistency and concurrent validation in Scotland. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 317–329.

17.

Griffin

Lee

Waugh

Beyer

(2004). Describing roles that gay-straight alliances play in schools: From individual support to school change. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education, 1, 7–22.

18.

Halady

S. W.

(2013). Attempted suicide, LGBT identity, and heightened scrutiny. The American Journal of Bioethics, 13, 20–22.

19.

Hatzenbuehler

M. L.

Keyes

K. M.

Hasin

D. S.

(2009). State-level policies and psychiatric morbidity in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations. American Journal of Public Health, 99, 2275–2281.

20.

Hong

J. S.

Garbarino

(2012). Risk and protective factors for homophobic bullying in schools: An application of the social ecological framework. Educational Psychology Review, 24, 271–285.

21.

Klein

Golub

S. A.

(2016). Family rejection as a predictor of suicide attempts and substance misuse among transgender and gender nonconforming adults. LGBT Health, 3, 193–199.

22.

Kobau

Seligman

M. E.

Peterson

Diener

Zack

M. M.

Chapman

Thompson

(2011). Mental health promotion in public health: Perspectives and strategies from positive psychology. American Journal of Public Health, 101, e1–e9.

23.

Lerner

R. M.

Almerigi

J. B.

Theokas

Lerner

J. V.

(2005). Positive youth development a view of the issues. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 25, 10–16.

24.

Levitt

H. M.

Bamberg

Creswell

J. W.

Frost

D. M.

Josselson

Suárez-Orozco

(2018). Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. American Psychologist, 73, 26–46.

25.

Levitt

H. M.

Motulsky

S. L.

Wertz

F. J.

Morrow

S. L.

Ponterotto

J. G.

(2017). Recommendations for designing and reviewing qualitative research in psychology: Promoting methodological integrity. Qualitative Psychology, 4, 2–22.

26.

McCoy

Bowen

E. A.

(2015). Hope in the social environment: Factors affecting future aspirations and school self-efficacy for youth in urban environments. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 32, 131–141.

27.

Mustanski

(2011). Ethical and regulatory issues with conducting sexuality research with LGBT adolescents: A call to action for a scientifically informed approach. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, Article 673.

28.

Page

M. J.

Lindahl

K. M.

Malik

N. M.

(2013). The role of religion and stress in sexual identity and mental health among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23, 665–677.

29.

Park

Peterson

(2006). Moral competence and character strengths among adolescents: The development and validation of the Values in Action Inventory of Strengths for Youth. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 891–909.

30.

Park

Peterson

(2009). Character strengths: Research and practice. Journal of College and Character, 10(4), 1–10.

31.

Parker

J. S.

Benson

M. J.

(2004). Parent-adolescent relations and adolescent functioning: Self-esteem, substance abuse, and delinquency. Adolescence, 39, 519–531.

32.

Pietkiewicz

Smith

J. A.

(2014). A practical guide to using interpretative phenomenological analysis in qualitative research psychology. Psychological Journal, 20, 7–14.

33.

Poteat

V. P.

Calzo

J. P.

Yoshikawa

(2016). Promoting youth agency through dimensions of gay–straight alliance involvement and conditions that maximize associations. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 1438–1451.

34.

Poteat

V. P.

Calzo

J. P.

Yoshikawa

(2018). Gay-Straight Alliance involvement and youths’ participation in civic engagement, advocacy, and awareness-raising. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 56, 13–20.

35.

Poteat

V. P.

Calzo

J. P.

Yoshikawa

Lipkin

Ceccolini

C. J.

Rosenbach

O’Brien

M. D.

Marx

R. A.

Murchison

G. R.

Burton

(2019). Greater engagement in Gender-Sexuality Alliances and GSA characteristics predict youth empowerment and reduced mental health concerns. Child Development. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13345

36.

Poteat

V. P.

Calzo

J. P.

Yoshikawa

Miller

S. J.

Ceccolini

C. J.

Rosenbach

Mauceri

(2018). Discussing transgender topics within gay-straight alliances: Factors that could promote more frequent conversations. International Journal of Transgenderism, 19, 119–131.

37.

Poteat

V. P.

Calzo

J. P.

Yoshikawa

Rosenbach

Ceccolini

C. J.

Marx

(2019). Extracurricular settings as a space to address sociopolitical crises: The case of discussing immigration in Gender-Sexuality Alliances following the 2016 U.S. presidential election. American Educational Research Journal, 56, 2262–2294.

38.

Poteat

V. P.

Yoshikawa

Calzo

J. P.

Gray

M. L.

DiGiovanni

C. D.

Lipkin

Mundy Shephard

Perrotti

Scheer

J. R.

Shaw

M. P.

(2015). Contextualizing Gay-Straight Alliances: Student, advisor, and structural factors related to positive youth development among members. Child Development, 86, 176–193.

39.

Russell

S. T.

Muraco

Subramaniam

Laub

(2009). Youth empowerment and high school gay-straight alliances. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 891–903.

40.

Russell

S. T.

Ryan

Toomey

R. B.

Diaz

R. M.

Sanchez

(2011). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender adolescent school victimization: Implications for young adult health and adjustment. Journal of School Health, 81, 223–230.

41.

Ryan

Huebner

Diaz

R. M.

Sanchez

(2009). Family rejection as a predictor of negative health outcomes in white and Latino lesbian, gay, and bisexual young adults. Pediatrics, 123, 346–352.

42.

Ryan

Russell

S. T.

Huebner

Diaz

Sanchez

(2010). Family acceptance in adolescence and the health of LGBT young adults. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 23, 205–213.

43.

Saewyc

E. M.

(2011). Research on adolescent sexual orientation: Development, health disparities, stigma, and resilience. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 256–272.

44.

Saewyc

E. M.

Konishi

Rose

H. A.

Homma

(2014). School-based strategies to reduce suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and discrimination among sexual minority and heterosexual adolescents in Western Canada. International Journal of Child, Youth & Family Studies, 5, 89–112.

45.

Shilo

Antebi

Mor

(2015). Individual and community resilience factors among lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer and questioning youth and adults in Israel. American Journal of Community Psychology, 55, 215–227.

46.

Smith

K. P.

(1990). Qualitative research. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 31, 91–112.

47.

Snapp

S. D.

Watson

R. J.

Russell

S. T.

Diaz

R. M.

Ryan

(2015). Social support networks for LGBT young adults: Low cost strategies for positive adjustment. Family Relations, 64, 420–430.

48.

Strachan

McHugh

T. L.

Mason

(2018). Understanding positive youth development in sport through the voices of indigenous youth. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 40, 293–302.

49.

Toomey

R. B.

Russell

S. T.

(2013). Gay-straight alliances, social justice involvement, and school victimization of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer youth: Implications for school well-being and plans to vote. Youth & Society, 45, 500–522.

50.

Toomey

R. B.

Ryan

Diaz

R. M.

Russell

S. T.

(2011). High school gay–straight alliances (GSAs) and young adult well-being: An examination of GSA presence, participation, and perceived effectiveness. Applied Developmental Science, 15, 175–185.

51.

Watson

L. B.

Varjas

Meyers

Graybill

E. C.

(2010). Gay–straight alliance advisors: Negotiating multiple ecological systems when advocating for LGBTQ youth. Journal of LGBT Youth, 7, 100–128.

52.

Watson

R. J.

Grossman

A. H.

Russell

S. T.

(2019). Sources of social support and mental health among LGB youth. Youth & Society, 51, 30–48.

53.

Youngblade

L. M.

Theokas

Schulenberg

Curry

Huang

I. C.

Novak

(2007). Risk and promotive factors in families, schools, and communities: A contextual model of positive youth development in adolescence. Pediatrics, 119, S47–S53.

54.

Zimet

G. D.

Dahlem

N. W.

Zimet

S. G.

Farley

G. K.

(1988). The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 30–41.