School engagement among LGBTQ high school students: The roles of safe adults and gay–straight alliance characteristics

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.07.021Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Examines predictors of student school engagement among LGBTQ high school students

  • The more types of safe adults at school, the greater the engagement of LGBTQ youth.

  • Presence of a Gay–Straight Alliance (GSA) did not predict student school engagement.

  • However, GSA size, visibility, activity and perceived support predict engagement.

  • Personal involvement in a GSA did not predict student school engagement.

Abstract

Student school engagement, or the person–environment fit between a student and the student's school, is a construct that has received increasing attention in the school psychology literature in recent years. However, little research has examined this construct among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and questioning (LGBTQ) students or analyzed whether factors such as access to safe adults, the presence of a Gay–Straight Alliance (GSA), characteristics of a GSA, or personal involvement in a GSA may connect to engagement. The current study used sequential multiple regression to examine data from a sample of LGBTQ high school students (N = 152) from Colorado and found that the greater the number of types of safe adults that a student has access to at school, the higher the student's school engagement. GSA presence was not significantly associated with student school engagement. However, among those students whose school had a GSA (N = 91), the larger, more active, more visible, and more supported a GSA was perceived to be, the more these students were engaged at school. Personal involvement in a GSA did not predict student school engagement. This article discusses implications for school-based practitioners and future research.

Introduction

Student school engagement, or the person–environment fit between a student and the student's school, is a construct that has received increasing attention in the school psychology literature in recent years (Hazel et al., 2014, Hazel et al., 2013). Student school engagement is a modifiable factor that can predict student academic outcomes such as grades, truancy, and dropping out, as well as non-academic outcomes such as depression, substance abuse, and delinquency (Fredricks et al., 2004, Hazel et al., 2013, Lam et al., 2014, Li et al., 2011, Wang and Fredricks, 2014, Wang and Peck, 2013). Engagement is theorized to act as a link between school contextual factors and school performance for youth and young adults (Lam et al., 2014). However, little research has examined this construct among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and questioning (LGBTQ) students, a subpopulation that faces increased risk factors (such as harassment, bullying, and a hostile school climate) that may affect academic performance and behaviors at school as well as mental health outcomes. Additionally, while researchers have previously examined school contextual factors—such as the presence of safe adults or a Gay–Straight Alliance (GSA)—in relation to academic and psychosocial outcomes for LGBTQ students, there is a dearth of research examining how such contextual factors may connect to student school engagement for this population. Further, most studies looking at outcomes for LGBTQ youth have measured GSAs in terms of simple presence, ignoring contextual details such as the GSA's size, level of activity, visibility, or degree of support within the school.

Using a sample of LGBTQ high school students from Colorado, the present study addresses these gaps in the literature, examining whether access to safe adults at school, presence of a GSA, characteristics of GSAs, and one's personal involvement in a GSA predict student school engagement. This paper will first provide an overview of the evidence base related to high school settings for LGBTQ youth, the roles of safe adults and GSAs, and student school engagement. This will be followed by a description of the present study's methods and results. The paper concludes with a discussion of findings, limitations, and implications for practitioners working within school settings.

Adolescence is a key period of development for LGBTQ youth, as many individuals in the U.S. begin to develop a sense of their sexuality and/or gender identity during this time of their lives. As reported by the Institute of Medicine (IOM, 2011), early research on LGBTQ young people has indicated that “coming out” during this time period can present many challenges due to the prevalence of societal homophobia and transphobia and their negative effects on adolescents. Since many youth go through adolescence and the associated developmental tasks while in high school, such settings are a key place of socialization and exposure to ecological factors that may affect the development of LGBTQ youth (Pearson, Muller, & Wilkinson, 2007).

Building from Bronfenbrenner's ecological perspective, Kosciw, Greytak, and Diaz (2009) assert that LGBTQ youths' feelings of safety or risks for victimization at school not only connect to the individual identities that they hold, but are also affected by factors within the larger social environment, including their school. These environmental factors can create differential experiences for sexual and gender minority students compared with heterosexual, cisgender1 students (Kosciw et al., 2009). The IOM (2011) points to how the research base about LGBTQ youth has focused on schools as a key setting of conflict and victimization for this population. A growing body of literature has indicated that middle school and high school climates are often hostile and unsafe for LGBTQ youth, with frequent occurrences of harassment, discrimination, and violence (see Institute of Medicine, 2011, Kosciw et al., 2009 for a review of related research). Some evidence suggests that the school climate may be particularly difficult for transgender and gender non-conforming youth, with a greater likelihood of experiencing assault, harassment, feeling unsafe, and missing days of school due to fear compared with LGB youth (Kosciw et al., 2012, Kosciw et al., 2014). Such risks within the school climate can deeply impact the interaction between individual students and the school setting, producing difficulties for LGBTQ youth that extend into adulthood (Pearson et al., 2007). LGBTQ students who experience victimization in school are more likely to have lower self-esteem, weaker grades, and a greater number of missed days of school, and they are at increased risk for suicide (Birkett et al., 2014, Goodenow et al., 2006, Kosciw et al., 2013, Kosciw et al., 2014).

As Kosciw et al. (2013) have stated, “A central challenge for educators and safe school advocates is how to identify and design supportive school climates that promote the positive development of LGBT and all students” (pp. 46–47). Research has begun to indicate a number of school-level factors that can counteract heterosexism and cisgenderism2 within schools and support the psychological and physical well-being and academic success of LGBTQ students. Examples include non-discrimination and anti-bullying policies inclusive of sexual orientation and gender identity, LGBTQ-inclusive curricula, changes to the physical environment of the school (e.g., gender-inclusive bathroom and locker room options), having a GSA at school, and having safe staff at school who students can talk to about their sexual orientation and/or gender identity (Chesir-Teran, 2003, Chesir-Teran and Hughes, 2009, Diaz et al., 2010, Kosciw et al., 2013, Sausa, 2005, Walls et al., 2010). This paper will be taking a closer look at what the literature has to say about two of these factors relevant to the present study: access to safe adults at school, and the presence of GSAs.

As previously detailed, school harassment and violence are commonplace for LGBTQ students in the U.S. A national survey conducted by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) found that while three quarters of LGBT students had been verbally harassed in their school, over half (57%) had failed to report the incident to school staff, mostly due to their not believing that any action would be taken (Kosciw et al., 2014). If harassment and victimization are not directly addressed, they can escalate into physical and sexual violence (Holmes & Cahill, 2004). Yet, school staff do not necessarily respond to reports of harassment and violence. In their study, GLSEN found that 62% of LGBT students who had reported such experiences were met with no response or action taken on their behalf by school staff (Kosciw et al., 2014).

Having access to a safe adult—whether a teacher, nurse, counselor, or principal—serves as an important component in the creation of a safe school for LGBTQ students (Kosciw et al., 2014). Schools with supportive adults and staff help create an environment where students feel more connected to their education, have a greater sense of school belonging, are more likely to attend activities of a GSA, and are less likely to experience victimization or miss school due to feeling unsafe (Diaz et al., 2010, Kosciw et al., 2013, Kosciw et al., 2014, Murdock and Bolch, 2005, Seelman et al., 2012). Such adults can have a role in providing safety by preventing harassment and violence. One study found that LGB students who could identify an adult in school they could talk to were about one third more likely to report being threatened or victimized at school compared with those without such an adult (Goodenow et al., 2006). For transgender students, having a connection to an adult in school is positively correlated with feeling safe in school, and supportive adults play an important role when navigating the school environment if the student is transitioning (McGuire, Anderson, Toomey, & Russell, 2010).

Research suggests ways that particular types of adults at schools—such as teachers (Murdock & Bolch, 2005) or school psychologists (Murphy, 2012)—can provide critical support to LGBTQ students. In their national study, Kosciw et al. (2014) examined students' experiences approaching different types of adults at school, with teachers and school-based mental health professionals (counselors, social workers, etc.) being among the adults approached most frequently and with the greatest level of comfort. Over half of this sample said they would be comfortable talking with a teacher or school-based mental health professional about LGBT issues, while only about one out of four would be comfortable approaching a principal or a librarian (Kosciw et al., 2014). While we did not find other studies that specifically looked at the relationship between number of types of safe adults and outcomes, the knowledge base suggests that knowing safe adults across multiple spheres of the school environment would provide the greatest level of support for LGBTQ students.

The emerging body of scholarship on the relationship between GSAs and psychosocial outcomes for LGBTQ youth and young adults is mixed depending upon the type of outcome examined and whether one is studying the presence of GSAs, membership in them, or school contextual factors that may influence the impact of GSAs. The presence of a GSA in a school or college tends to be associated with more positive outcomes for LGBTQ youth than actual membership or involvement in a GSA, although some mixed results do exist. Recent scholarship has started to examine contextual factors about the GSAs themselves and has added to a more nuanced understanding of these relationships.

Research indicates that having a GSA at school positively correlates with LGBTQ students' comfort with gender expression (Walls, Wisneski, & Kane, 2013), greater levels of being “out” (Heck, Lindquist, Stewart, Brennan, & Cochran, 2013), and greater self-esteem (Toomey, Ryan, Diaz, & Russell, 2011). Findings are, however, mixed on other mental health outcomes, with some associations with lower levels of depression (Heck, Flentje and Cochran, 2013, Toomey et al., 2011) and lower levels of general psychological distress (Heck, Flentje, & Cochran, 2013), but at least one study finds no differences in mental health outcomes (Heck, 2014). Relatedly, most studies have found a positive relationship with lower levels of suicidality (Poteat et al., 2013, Walls et al., 2008), but at least one study found no significant relationship with lifetime suicide attempts (Toomey et al., 2011).

Examining the relationship of GSA presence and victimization in schools, some studies have found no relationship (Poteat et al., 2013, Walls et al., 2010), while others have found a statistically significant relationship (Diaz et al., 2010, Greytak et al., 2013, Heck, Flentje and Cochran, 2013). With the exception of Poteat et al. (2013) and Diaz et al. (2010), most scholarship has confirmed a relationship between GSA presence and connections to school, whether measured as school belonging, decreased isolation, ability to identify safe adults, increased comfort and openness, or increased engagement (Fischer, 2011, Garcia-Alonso, 2004, Heck, Flentje and Cochran, 2013, Quasha, 2011, St. John et al., 2014, Toomey et al., 2012, Walls et al., 2010). A related consistent finding is the relationship between GSA presence and decreased truancy (Greytak et al., 2013, Poteat et al., 2013, Walls et al., 2010). A final area of mixed results is the relationship between GSA presence and school performance or educational attainment. Walls et al. (2010) found relationships with both grade point average and drop out status, but other studies have found no relationship (Poteat et al., 2013, Toomey et al., 2011).

Fewer studies have examined the relationship between membership or participation in GSAs and psychosocial outcomes, but what does exist has provided an inconclusive picture. On the positive side, findings have suggested a relationship between GSA participation and decreased suicidality (Walls et al., 2013), more positive feelings about one's sexual orientation (Hermann, 2010, Lee, 2002), better school and personal relationships (Lee, 2002), greater school connectedness (Diaz et al., 2010), and greater social maturity (Tamayo, 2008). Findings related to safety and victimization are mixed, with one study finding no relationship (Walls et al., 2010) and another finding a connection between involvement in a GSA and higher levels of victimization (Diaz et al., 2010). Finally, the results of studies looking at academic achievement and performance have been mixed (Hansen, 2009, Lee, 2002, Toomey et al., 2011, Walls et al., 2010). However, the most recent scholarship has suggested that GSA presence may matter more than personal involvement for academic and health outcomes (Toomey et al., 2011, Walls et al., 2010).

Some research has attempted to move beyond a dichotomous understanding of GSAs (i.e., present or not; member or not) and examined contextual factors such as GSA effectiveness, length of time of existence of the GSA, resistance to GSA development, geographical location/region, and administrative support. Contextual factors have been shown to be important in student decisions whether or not to join or participate in GSAs (Heck, Lindquist, Stewart, Brennan, & Cochran, 2013), faculty decisions on involvement as GSA sponsors (Graybill, 2011), responsiveness to and frequency of heterosexist remarks in schools (Fischer, 2011), decreased levels of depression (Toomey et al., 2011), greater sense of belonging (Fischer, 2011), increased levels of college-level educational attainment (Toomey et al., 2011), and resistance to the development of GSAs (Mayo, 2008). Some of the mixed findings of the relationships between GSAs and psychosocial outcomes may be a product of methodological failings to take into account contextual factors such as these (Poteat et al., 2014), indicating a need for research on GSA characteristics.

Next, we briefly review literature related to the theoretical framework of interest—school engagement theory—as it relates to LGBTQ high school students.

Although there are a number of different approaches and conceptualizations of the construct known as student engagement or school engagement (see Fredricks et al., 2004), we are using an understanding of student school engagement based on the work of Hazel et al. (2013) and Hazel et al. (2014) that defines this concept as a student's assessment of the person–environment fit between oneself and one's school. In this conceptualization, student school engagement encompasses three domains—aspirations, belonging, and productivity. Aspirations encompass a student's commitment to school, based on how worthwhile the student sees school as being for future goals (Hazel et al., 2014). Belonging reflects a student's congruence with school values and norms and feelings of membership within the school. Finally, productivity is one's demonstration of pro-school behaviors, such as doing schoolwork, engaging in tasks that make learning most effective, and connecting with family and other resources to help one achieve success at school (Hazel et al., 2014). Student school engagement is something that is modifiable (Fredricks et al., 2004, Hazel et al., 2013)—that is, the person–environment fit can be affected by various factors in the student's ecological systems.

Lam et al. (2014) have described student engagement as “a psychological process that mediates the effects of the contextual antecedents on student outcomes” (p. 215). In other words, this construct helps us better understand the link between setting-level factors (such as classroom structure and relationships with teachers) and academic outcomes. Such information is useful to capture for LGBTQ students who often face a difficult school environment. School engagement has been demonstrated to relate to academic achievement (Fredricks et al., 2004), and this finding has held in an international study of students in grades 7–9 across 12 different countries (Lam et al., 2014). Student school engagement has previously been shown to correlate with better attendance, lower likelihood of failing math or language arts, and lower risk of suspension among 8th graders (Hazel et al., 2013). In a study using latent profile analysis (Wang & Peck, 2013), high school students classified as either “highly engaged” or “emotionally disengaged” (had high cognitive engagement and moderate behavioral engagement, but low emotional engagement) had the highest GPAs. Other studies have documented that greater school engagement—particularly behavioral or emotional subdomains of the construct—predicts a lower likelihood of dropping out of school (Wang and Fredricks, 2014, Wang and Peck, 2013) and this has held true for students of various ethnicities (Fredricks et al., 2004). Wang and Peck (2013) found that students classified as “highly engaged” had the greatest likelihood of enrolling in college. School engagement also appears to have a relationship to non-academic indicators, such as decreased risk for depression (Wang & Peck, 2013), substance use, and delinquent behaviors (Li et al., 2011, Wang and Fredricks, 2014).

There is evidence that some features of the school environment can be antecedents of student school engagement. For example, in a review of the literature, Fredricks et al. (2004) detail how being in a small school or having students involved in school policy development can predict engagement. Li et al. (2011) call for more research investigating the school and classroom characteristics that might predict student school engagement.

Many studies on school engagement have focused primarily on White middle class students, and there is a need for further studying differences that may occur in engagement according to one's age, race, ethnicity, and other individual or cultural differences and how students from various backgrounds are affected by changes in the school context (Fredricks et al., 2004). There has been some evidence that engagement may differ by such individual differences. In a longitudinal study of a cohort of middle and high school students in the eastern U.S., Wang and Fredricks (2014) found that, in 7th grade, girls had higher scores on behavioral, emotional, and cognitive school engagement compared with boys. White students had lower emotional engagement than African American students in 7th grade, and those with a higher socioeconomic status (SES) had significantly higher cognitive and emotional school engagement scores compared with students with lower SES (Wang & Fredricks, 2014). Another study (Estell & Perdue, 2013) indicated that girls and students without disabilities had a significant greater behavioral and affective school engagement in fifth grade than boys and students with disabilities.

Few studies have focused on student school engagement among LGBTQ adolescents. In a study of 315 sexual minority youth, Seelman et al. (2012) found that higher student school engagement among high school and college students predicted a higher GPA, and this relationship was most pronounced among students whose school had a GSA. Additionally, findings indicated an interaction between student school engagement and feeling unsafe or afraid at school in predicting fear-based truancy: higher levels of student school engagement predicted less fear-based truancy among youth and young adults who felt unsafe or afraid at school most often (Seelman et al., 2012).

In a project analyzing data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health and the Adolescent Health and Academic Achievement study, Pearson et al. (2007) compared adolescents with same-sex and different-sex attractions and found that youth who had same-sex attractions in middle school were more likely to have lower grades in high school and more likely to fail a class. While the data did not include a measure of student school engagement, there were some items related to integration within one's school, including feeling close to others, being attached to teachers and disengaging from school. Those who had same-sex attractions in middle school were significantly less integrated or attached to the school, had greater disengagement, and were less attached to their teachers than youth with different-sex attractions. Boys showed the greatest difference in school performance between these two attraction groups, and this difference remained even when controlling for substance use and emotional distress, indicating that integration in the school plays an important role for these boys' academic outcomes (Pearson et al., 2007).

In a study of 101 LGB youth, Murdock and Bolch (2005) found that LGB exclusion in the high school environment was significantly associated with a lower sense of school belonging, even after controlling for teacher support and personal victimization at school. While sense of belonging (feeling valued) differs from school engagement, belonging is one of the three subdomains of Hazel et al.'s (2014) conceptualization of student school engagement and thus plays an important role in the construct. Diaz et al. (2010), who also examined the construct of school belonging (calling it “school connectedness”) among LGBT students, found that having a comprehensive anti-harassment policy at school that included LGBT people was associated with greater school connectedness.

Among the existing studies of student school engagement or school belonging among LGBT youth, very few include any subgroup analysis that examines differences by demographics such as race, ethnicity, gender identity, or social class. Such differences are likely important to student school engagement, as students who are in the minority in their school across multiple identities likely experiences less of a fit with the school and are therefore less engaged.

While the literature suggests that LGBTQ students benefit from having safe adults at school, and there is mixed research about psychosocial and academic outcomes of having a GSA at one's school, there is scant research about how contextual factors—such as GSA size, visibility, activity, or level of verbal support for a GSA in school—impact LGBTQ students. Such research could help us understand other dimensions of GSAs (beyond a simple presence/absence measure) that may impact LGBTQ students. Additionally, there have been mixed findings about whether participating in a GSA predicts various psychosocial and academic outcomes for LGBTQ youth, and more research can help explore the degree to which personal involvement matters for individual students.

Student school engagement has received increasing attention from researchers in recent years in terms of how it relates to students' academic achievement, behavior at school, and likelihood of graduating. Yet, little research has examined this construct among LGBTQ students, a subpopulation that faces increased risk factors (such as harassment, bullying, and a hostile school climate) that may affect academic outcomes and behaviors at school. Even fewer studies of LGBTQ youth have included a breakdown within their analyses by race, gender identity, or social class when it comes to engagement. While there have been some key studies looking at the connection between access to safe adults, GSA presence and participation, and sense of school belonging for LGBTQ students, there is little to no research investigating whether such factors, or the characteristics of a GSA, predict the broader construct of student school engagement. The present study addresses these gaps in the knowledge base.

Based on the review of the literature, this study tests the following hypotheses, controlling for demographic variables: (a) the greater the number of types of safe adults available at school with whom one could openly talk to about sexual orientation or gender identity, the higher the student's school engagement score will be; (b) the presence of a GSA in high school will be associated with higher student school engagement scores among LGBTQ students; (c) for LGBTQ youth whose school has a GSA, the characteristics of that GSA (size, visibility, verbal support, and activity) will predict student school engagement: the more strong, visible, well-supported, and active a GSA is perceived to be, the more LGBTQ students will be engaged at school; and (d) for LGBTQ youth whose school has a GSA, personal involvement in a GSA will not be a statistically significant predictor of student school engagement (null hypothesis). This final hypothesis, while perhaps counterintuitive to some readers, is based upon recent studies suggesting that while GSA involvement connects to some mental health outcomes (Hermann, 2010, Lee, 2002, Toomey et al., 2011, Walls et al., 2013) involvement might not be as important for academic outcomes as whether or not there is a GSA present at school in the first place (Toomey et al., 2011, Walls et al., 2010). We build our hypothesis from this evidence, and also investigate whether the particular characteristics of a GSA have a stronger association with student engagement than one's personal decision to be involved.

Section snippets

Sample recruitment and characteristics

The present sample was recruited through an LGBTQ community organization in Colorado. Participants in the study were part of a larger sample of LGBTQ youth and young adults who participated in an annual programmatic survey and needs assessment for the youth program within this organization or who attended social events sponsored by the organization and its partner organizations. The original sampling frame was designed to capture youth and young adults ages 13 to 25 who identified as LGBTQ or

Descriptive statistics

Participants ranged in age from 13 to 19, with an average age of 16.2 (SD = 1.25) and a median age of 16. The largest proportion of the sample was White (64.5%, n = 111), while 15.1% (n = 26) were Hispanic/Latino/a, 14% (n = 24) were biracial/multiracial, and 6.4% (n = 11) identified as some other race or ethnicity. Just over half of the sample (51.2%, n = 88) identified as female, 37.2% (n = 64) identified as male, 4.7% (n = 8) identified as gender variant/genderqueer, 2.9% (n = 5) identified as

Discussion

This study addresses a number of gaps in the literature about LGBTQ youth in high school settings, including an analysis of student school engagement among this population and the relationship between having access to safe adults and GSAs with student school engagement. Specifically, this study went beyond looking at simple GSA presence to examine the ways that GSA characteristics (size, activity, visibility, and support within a school) as well as personal involvement in a GSA relate to

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge and thank Corey Barrett, Moises Muñoz, numerous social work interns and program volunteers, and all of the youth and young adults from Rainbow Alley who took the time to complete this survey.

References (51)

  • J.A. Fredricks et al.

    School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence

    Review of Educational Research

    (2004)
  • P.M. Garcia-Alonso

    From surviving to thriving: An investigation of the utility of support groups designed to address the special needs of sexual minority youth in public high schools

    (2004)
  • C. Goodenow et al.

    School support groups, other school factors, and the safety of sexual minority adolescents

    Psychology in the Schools

    (2006)
  • E. Graybill

    Social justice advocacy trends related to gay/straight alliance advisors' experiences in schools

    (2011)
  • E.A. Greytak et al.

    Putting the “T” in “resource”: The benefits of LGBT-related school resources for transgender youth

    Journal of LGBT Youth

    (2013)
  • P. Griffin et al.

    Describing roles that Gay–Straight Alliances play in schools: From individual support to school change

    Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education

    (2004)
  • A. Hansen

    LGBT students and allies participating in a school-based support program: School performance, connectedness, and perceptions of school climate

    (2009)
  • C.E. Hazel et al.

    Evidence of convergent and discriminant validity of the Student School Engagement Measure

    Psychological Assessment

    (2014)
  • C.E. Hazel et al.

    Measuring aspirations, belonging, and productivity in secondary students: Validation of the student school engagement measure

    Psychology in the Schools

    (2013)
  • N.C. Heck

    Expanding, refining, and replicating research on high school gay–straight student alliances and sexual minority youth

    (2014)
  • N.C. Heck et al.

    Offsetting risks: High school gay–straight alliances and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth

    Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity

    (2013)
  • N.C. Heck et al.

    To join or not to join: Gay–straight student alliances and the high school experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youths

    Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services

    (2013)
  • N.A. Hermann

    A correlational study of gay–straight alliances and internalized homophobia

    (2010)
  • S.E. Holmes et al.

    School experiences of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender youth

    Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education

    (2004)
  • Institute of Medicine

    The health of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people

  • Cited by (39)

    • Growing up gay in a digital world: A double-edged sword for sexual minority young men in England

      2021, Children and Youth Services Review
      Citation Excerpt :

      The opportunities for sexual minority young men to find highly sexual content and settings so easily online puts the onus on educators to make classroom-based RSE relevant and affirming for them. Research from the US indicated that other factors such as the number of safe adults a student has access to and the presence of a large, active, visible and well-supported Gay Straight Alliance, the more likely LGBTQ students were to be engaged at school (Seelman, Forge, Walls, & Bridges, 2015). Affirmative representation of diverse sexualities and inclusive RSE, in both online and offline settings, would provide a more stable and balanced foundation for the sexuality explorations of sexual minority young men.

    • Gender minoritized students and academic engagement in Brazilian adolescents: Risk and protective factors

      2021, Journal of School Psychology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Perceptions of student-teacher relationships may be particularly important for gender minoritized students, as these students report less connection to and less caring relationships with adults at school as compared to their cisgender peers (Day et al., 2018; Eisenberg et al., 2017; Pampati et al., 2020). Furthermore, previous research with combined samples of sexual and gender minoritized students has suggested that students who reported supportive adults in school had better academic outcomes, including academic engagement (Kosciw et al., 2013; Seelman et al., 2015). Having teachers who were supportive or who had high expectations were associated with better school connection among samples exclusively consisting of gender minoritized students (Fenaughty et al., 2019; Ullman, 2017).

    • Effects of sexual orientation-based bullying on feelings of loneliness and sleeping difficulty among Brazilian middle school students

      2021, Jornal de Pediatria
      Citation Excerpt :

      Sexual orientation-based bullying appears to be linked to a differential level of targeting, as sexual orientation and gender expression are part of one's identity; therefore, targeting people on that basis can cause a sense of alienation and profound social exclusion,19–21 which can lead them to experience a feeling of loneliness. In the present sample of Brazilian middle school students, prevalence of sexual orientation-based bullying was relatively low compared to findings from other countries,3–5,19,31,32 probably because those who reported having experienced bullying by their schoolmates needed to choose only one option that best described the reason/cause of bullying. Therefore, it is possible that the prevalence of sexual orientation-based bullying would have been slightly higher and similar to that found in other countries, if Brazilian middle school students could have chosen more than one option of reason/cause of bullying, since that some of those who reported having experienced other causes of bullying could have also experienced sexual orientation-based bullying.

    • Frequencies and patterns of adverse childhood events in LGBTQ+ youth

      2020, Child Abuse and Neglect
      Citation Excerpt :

      Since the publication of the original ACE studies, there have been many empirical investigations noting that ACEs increase risk for psychiatric disorders (Kessler, David, & Kendler, 1997), smoking (Ford et al., 2011), overeating and severe obesity (Burke, Hellman, Scott, Weems, & Carrion, 2011), head injuries and visits to the emergency room (Schneeberger, Muenzenmaier, Battaglia, Castille, & Link, 2012). Several studies have noted that increased ACEs contribute to excessive alcohol and drug use (Dom, De Wilde, Hulstijn, & Sabbe, 2007; Lotzin, Haupt, von Schönfels, Wingenfeld, & Schäfer, 2016) with greater severity of alcohol dependence particularly correlated to childhood emotional abuse (Schwandt, Heilig, Hommer, George, & Ramchandani, 2013). A recent analysis of ACE data collected by health departments in 25 states concluded: “Those who experienced four or more types of adverse childhood experiences accounted for a disproportionate share of the preventable fraction of every health and socioeconomic outcome measured” (Merrick et al., 2019, p.1001).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text