The Elephant in the GSA: Associations Between Discussions of the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election and Mental Health Outcomes in Gender-Sexuality Alliances

Abstract

The 2016 U.S. Presidential election led to a rise in mental health concerns among marginalized youth. We consider how LGBTQ+ and ally youth responded in Gender-Sexuality Alliances (GSAs). In this secondary analysis, we used survey data to assess for associations between frequency of discussions of the election in GSAs and mental health outcomes. We found that youth in GSAs that discussed the election and its sequelae more frequently reported lower depressive symptoms at the end of the year, but this association held true only for White youth and not racial/ethnic minority youth and only in the 2016 to 2017 academic year and not the 2017 to 2018 academic year. Implications are discussed.

Keywords

mental health political behavior discrimination peer support extracurricular activity

Introduction

In recent years, political rhetoric has grown more vitriolic and violent, as discussions of prejudice and injustice have become more central. In 2015, the U.S. faced the death of Freddie Gray, the Charleston Church massacre, debates about same-sex marriage, and the impact of the Syrian refugee crisis. Similarly charged issues continue to come to the fore, from the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, to a global pandemic and related anti-Asian violence, and a national racial reckoning in 2020. With no signs of settling, this charged political rhetoric has touched every aspect of American life, yet has received limited attention from scholars regarding its impact on how youth, who are developing their worldviews in the midst of this political turbulence, perceive, respond to, and are impacted by these discussions.

In this study, we consider this question during and following the U.S. 2016 Presidential election. During his campaign, Trump supported North Carolina’s anti-trans “bathroom bill,” indicated that he supported “traditional marriage,” and ran on a platform that would deny queer and trans people’s rights (Ballotpedia, n.d.). In the days following the election, a Southern Poverty Law Center report documented a rise in student- and staff-reported anxiety, witnessed or reported derogatory language, and threats of violence in schools, as well as a negative impact on school climate and heightened anxiety among immigrant, Muslim, racially and ethnically diverse, and LGBTQIA+ students (Costello, 2016). The rhetoric that came to characterize the Trump administration and policies remains relevant to this day (Hodwitz & Massingale, 2021).

These events underscore the need for settings wherein youth can discuss political news, process their reactions, provide mutual support, and advocate for each other. Extracurricular groups may serve as such a space, especially as more school- and community-based groups explicitly address issues of social equity and justice (Ginwright, 2007; Poteat et al., 2017; Seider & Graves, 2020) and provide opportunities for youth to engage in conversation and action on sociopolitical issues (Ginwright, 2007; Pollock, 2017). We consider one such group: Gender-Sexuality Alliances (GSAs).

GSAs as a Setting to Discuss Sociopolitical Events

GSAs are school-based, social justice-oriented clubs for LGBTQIA+ youth and their allies. They are typically youth-led and adult-supported, and they usually meet once per week (Griffin et al., 2004). GSAs provide a place for socializing, peer support around LGBTQIA+-related as well as intersectional issues, resources around LGBTQIA+ identities, and advocacy to disrupt LGBTQIA+-related inequality (Griffin et al., 2004; Poteat et al., 2017). Often, GSAs devote time for youth to discuss major social stressors (e.g., discrimination, parent or peer rejection) and ways in which to garner support, cope, or collectively respond to them (Murchison et al., 2021; Poteat et al., 2019). Recent qualitative work documents that GSAs served as a space for members to discuss current events, such as the 2016 election and the subsequent political administration, and to process the trauma of the election for GSA members (Calzo et al., 2021). Quantitative research is needed to complement previous work, to explore the impact of these discussions on mental health among members, and whether this impact differed by identity.

Political Discussions and Mental Health

While there is a growing literature on the adverse impact of socio-politically charged events on the mental health of LGBTQIA+ individuals (Gonzalez et al., 2018; Kelly et al., 2020; Mueller et al., 2021), less is known about the risks and benefits of processing these events among marginalized youth in a youth-led, group setting. Dialog may be beneficial under certain conditions, including repeated and sustained conversations in a group that promotes mutual respect, self-reflection, and understanding different views (Shipherd, 2015). GSAs provide many of these favorable conditions. They aim to be places of safety, respect, and mutual support; they have an explicit intent to foster alliances, particularly between LGBTQIA+ youth and heterosexual, cisgender youth; meeting time is devoted to discussing shared issues of concern; and they hold regular, recurring meetings (Griffin et al., 2004; Poteat et al., 2017).

Conversely, it is also well-documented that rumination and co-rumination related to marginalizing experiences and stressful political events are associated with greater anxiety and depression (Kaufman et al., 2017; Pulice-Farrow et al., 2021). It is therefore also possible that in the absence of skilled facilitation, discussion of political events could exacerbate anxiety and depression among GSA members.

Further, studies have most often considered the benefits of dialog in terms of self-awareness, knowledge, and action for social justice (Dessel & Rodenborg, 2017; Nagda et al., 2009, 2018). Likewise, GSA research on youth’s discussions of oppression has focused on how these discussions relate to youth’s self-efficacy to address such issues (Chong et al., 2019). There has been less attention to whether dialog on major sociopolitical issues is associated with mental health outcomes.

Current Study

Although emerging evidence suggests that GSAs are a space for critical conversations about sociopolitical events, including the 2016 U.S. Presidential election (Calzo et al., 2021; Poteat et al., 2019), scholars have not yet focused specifically on the nature of GSA conversations about the Trump administration or how these discussions might affect GSA members. We draw from quantitative data gathered from GSA members during the 2016 to 2017 and 2017 to 2018 school years to consider the potential associations between political conversations and members’ reported depressive and anxiety symptoms, given the wide-scale reports of trauma among individuals in marginalized communities following the election and to this day (Hodwitz & Massingale, 2021). We address the following research question:

Is the frequency of sociopolitical discussion in the GSA associated with group mental health outcomes at the year’s end?

Do these associations differ by race/ethnicity of GSA members?

Do these associations differ between the 2016 and 2017 academic year and the 2017 to 2018 academic year?

We used the sample of GSA members and adult advisors to consider whether these discussions about the 2016 election and President Trump (as reported by advisors) predicted depressive and anxiety symptoms among youth members. We control for other experiences that may be important, including youth’s mental health at the beginning of the year, their victimization levels, and characteristics of the GSA that may affect the dynamics of these discussions, such as the GSA’s size, frequency of meetings, and group-level mental health.

Methods

Participants

Participants were 580 public secondary school students from 38 GSAs across Massachusetts. Survey data were collected at 2 time points (once in the fall and once in the spring). Half of the GSAs (n = 19) participated in the 2016 to 2017 academic year; the other half participated in the 2017 to 2018 academic year. This ensured that researchers could visit each GSA within a narrow time frame at each time point. Of the original 580 participants, 361 completed surveys at both time points and were included in the analyses. There were no significant differences in youths’ reported levels of victimization, depressive symptoms, or anxiety among youth who completed both time points and those lost to attrition. However, sexual minority youth were less likely than heterosexual youth to be lost to attrition (χ² = 19.54, p < .001), and racial/ethnic minority youth were more likely than White youth to be lost to attrition (χ² = 6.59, p = .01).

Procedures

We identified GSAs in consultation with the Massachusetts Safe Schools Program for LGBTQ Students. Among the schools were traditional public schools, charter public schools, and public vocational-technical schools. We purposively sampled GSAs across Massachusetts for geographic diversity, variable population density, and diversity in the size, racial, and socioeconomic composition of the schools. Procedures were approved by the primary institution’s IRB and each school.

At time 1, we distributed surveys at a GSA meeting. The survey took 30 minutes to complete. Each participant received a $10 gift card. The first visit occurred between mid-September and late-October. At time 2 (late April–late May), we followed identical procedures, and each participant received a $20 gift card.

Measures

Demographics and covariates

Youth reported their sexual orientation, gender identity, and race/ethnicity, with responses reported in Table 1. Because of the small representation of youth within sexual minority, racial/ethnic minority, and gender minority subgroups, we used binary indicators of sexual orientation (heterosexual or sexual minority), race/ethnicity (white or racial/ethnic minority) and gender identity (cisgender or gender expansive) in our analyses to avoid model estimation complications. There were no significant differences in sexual minority, gender minority, or racial/ethnic minority make-up between the year 1 and year 2 samples. At time 2, GSA advisors reported the total number of GSA meetings they had held since our visit at time 1.

Table 1.

Youth Demographics and Variable Descriptive Data.

Variable	2016	2017
	N (%)	N (%)
	M (SD)	M (SD)
Sexual orientation
Gay or Lesbian	32 (15.0)	29 (19.6)
Bisexual	51 (23.9)	29 (19.6)
Questioning	18 (8.5)	8 (5.4)
Heterosexual	35 (16.4)	17 (11.5)
Pansexual	41 (19.3)	34 (23.0)
Asexual	5 (2.4)	9 (6.1)
Queer	9 (4.2)	9 (6.1)
Other written-in response	22 (10.3)	10 (6.8)
Not reported	0 (0)	3 (2.0)
Gender identity
Cisgender male	36 (16.9)	21 (14.2)
Cisgender female	115 (54.0)	85 (57.4)
Transgender	16 (7.5)	15 (10.1)
Genderqueer	6 (2.8)	2 (1.4)
Gender fluid	4 (1.9)	3 (2.0)
Non-binary	13 (6.1)	8 (5.4)
Other written-in response	22 (10.3)	14 (9.5)
Not reported	1 (0.5)	0 (0)
Race or ethnicity
White, non-Hispanic	161 (75.6)	100 (67.6)
Black or African American	3 (1.4)	5 (3.4)
Asian or Asian American	6 (2.8)	4 (2.7)
Latino/a/x	18 (8.5)	20 (13.5)
Biracial or Multiracial	22 (10.3)	15 (10.1)
Native American	0 (0)	4 (2.7)
Middle Eastern or Arab American	1 (0.5)	0 (0)
Not reported	2 (0.9)	1 (1.2)
Level 1 variables
Depression W2	14.94 (5.60)	14.25 (6.16)
Depression W1	15.03 (5.56)	14.72 (5.73)
Victimization W1	2.03 (3.24)	2.40 (3.50)
Level 2 variables
Depression W1	15.27 (1.60)	14.41 (3.51)
Meeting frequency	4.71 (0.69)	4.58 (0.69)
President discussion	9.16 (3.76)	8.83 (3.94)

Note. W1 = wave 1; W2 = wave 2.

Depressive symptoms

Youth completed the 10-item Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (brief version; Radloff, 1991), a widely-used and validated measure to report depressive symptoms (e.g., “I felt lonely,” and “I felt depressed.”). Response options were rarely or none of the time (less than 1 day), some or a little of the time (1–2 days), occasionally or moderate amount of the time (3–4 days), and all of the time (5–7 days), which are scored 0 to 3 with two reverse-scored items. At both times, youth were asked to respond based on how they felt over the past week. Higher total scale scores indicate greater depressive symptoms. The coefficient alpha reliability estimate was α = .85 (year 1 time 1), α = .87 (year 1 time 2), α = .85 (year 2 time 1), and α = .87 (year 2 time 2).

Anxiety symptoms

Youth completed the 21-item Beck Anxiety Inventory (Beck & Steer, 1993), a psychometrically robust measure of anxiety symptoms over the past month (e.g., “heart pounding/racing,” and “shaky/unsteady”). Response options were not at all; mildly, but it didn’t bother me much; moderately, it wasn’t pleasant at times; and severely, it bothered me a lot (scored 0–3). Higher total scores indicate greater anxiety symptoms. The coefficient alpha reliability estimate was α = .95 at both times in year 1 and α = .94 at both times in year 2.

Frequency of presidential discussions

At time 2, GSA advisors reported how frequently their GSA had discussed the Trump presidency and administration since the beginning of that academic year on three topics: (a) race and ethnicity, (b) immigration, and (c) ways to respond to policies, legislation, or executive orders. Response options for each topic were never, 1 time, 2 times, 3 to 5 times, more than 5 times, which were scored 1 to 5. Higher total scale scores indicate more frequent group discussions in the GSA about how the Trump administration has affected marginalized youth. The coefficient alpha reliability estimate was α = .87 (year 1) and α = .75 (year 2).

Victimization

Youth completed the 4-item University of Illinois Victimization Scale (Espelage & Holt, 2001) on how often they had experienced peer-based victimization in the past 30 days (e.g., “other students called me names”). Response options were never, 1 or 2 times, 3 or 4 times, 5 or 6 times, and 7 or more times (scored 0–4). Higher total scale scores indicate greater peer victimization. The coefficient alpha reliability estimate was α = .88 (year 1) and α = .88 (year 2), similar to prior studies (Espelage & Holt, 2001).

GSA meeting frequency

Each year at time 2, advisors reported the frequency of GSA meetings over the year: no regular meetings, once or twice a semester, once/month, every other week, once/week, and more than once/week (scored 1 through 6).

Group-level depressive and anxiety symptoms

GSA members’ depressive and anxiety symptom levels respectively were aggregated to represent group-level mean depressive symptoms and anxiety symptoms. We include group-level depression at both times 1 and 2 in order to assess relative change in depressive symptoms within the GSA; we do the same with anxiety in a separate model.

Analytical Plan

We used mixed-effect general linear models in STATA, with students clustered within GSAs, to assess the association between the frequency of presidential discussions within the GSA over the year and depressive symptoms among members at the end of the year. At the individual level, we included youth’s initial levels of reported depressive symptoms and victimization, as well as demographic indicators of sexual orientation (0 = heterosexual, 1 = sexual minority), gender identity (0 = cisgender, 1 = transgender/nonbinary), and race/ethnicity (0 = white, 1 = racial/ethnic minority). At the group level, we included the frequency of GSA meetings and aggregated time 1 depressive symptoms of each GSA as covariates in order to isolate the predictive association between having these discussions throughout the year and levels of depressive symptoms within the GSA at time 2. All variables were left unstandardized in order to maximize interpretability, given the anchors provided to the response option values in the survey items.

We also included a cross-level interaction term between youth’s race/ethnicity (at level 1) and frequency of presidential discussions (at level 2) in order to assess whether the frequency of presidential discussions in the GSA predicted depressive and anxiety symptoms differentially for racial/ethnic minority youth relative to white youth. We analyzed our models separately for participants and GSAs in the first year of the project (2016–2017) and those in the second year of the project (2017–2018).

Because there was a significant presidential discussions × race/ethnicity cross-level interaction in year 1, we conducted a follow-up multilevel regression analysis separated by racial/ethnic minority status. These models used the same covariates listed above. The first model included only white GSA members, and the second included only GSA members who self-identified as a racial/ethnic minority.

Results

Table 2 contains all coefficient estimates, their standard errors, and confidence intervals for our models predicting depressive symptoms (Model 1 for youth and GSAs in 2016–2017; Model 2 for youth and GSAs in 2017–2018) and Table 3 contains the same for our models predicting anxiety symptoms (Model 3 for youth and GSAs in 2016–2017; Model 4 for youth and GSAs in 2017–2018).

Table 2.

Multilevel Models of Associations between Discussing Trump and Depression by Year.

Estimated paths	Coefficient	SE	95% CI
Model 1: Year 2016 W2 depression
President discussions	−0.307**	0.093	(−0.489, −0.125)
W1 GSA level depression	0.141	0.185	(−0.222, 0.505)
GSA meeting frequency	−0.166	0.422	(−0.993, 0.661)
W1 depression	0.609***	0.057	(0.497, 0.721)
W1 victimization	0.053	0.094	(−0.130, 0.237)
Sexual minority	−0.434	0.790	(−1.982, 1.114)
Gender minority	1.136^†	0.680	(−0.196, 2.468)
Racial/Ethnic minority	−6.039***	2.064	(−10.084, −1.995)
President discussions * racial/ethnic minority	0.533*	0.206	(0.128, 0.938)
Model 2 : 2017 W2 depression
President discussions	−0.043	0.138	(−0.314, 0.228)
W1 GSA level depression	0.250	0.165	(−0.073, 0.573)
GSA meeting frequency	−1.657**	0.477	(−2.593, −0.722)
W1 depression	0.638***	0.073	(0.493, 0.783)
W1 victimization	0.013	0.108	(−0.198, 0.224)
Sexual minority	2.334^†	1.220	(−0.058, 4.725)
Gender minority	0.022	0.832	(−1.610, 1.654)
Racial/Ethnic minority	1.278	2.001	(−2.544, 5.300)
President discussions * racial/ethnic minority	−0.113	0.216	(−0.536, 0.310)

Note. Values are unstandardized coefficient estimates, their standard errors (SE), and 95% confidence interval. W1 = wave 1; W2 = wave 2.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. ^†p < .10.

Table 3.

Multilevel Models of Associations between Discussing Trump and Anxiety by Year.

Estimated paths	Coefficient	SE	95% CI
Model 3: Year 2016 W2 anxiety
President discussions	−0.281	0.280	(−0.831, −0.268)
W1 GSA level anxiety	0.315	0.227	(−0.131, 0.760)
GSA meeting frequency	−1.564	1.294	(−4.101, 0.973)
W1 anxiety	0.776***	0.065	(0.650, 0.903)
W1 victimization	0.338	0.260	(−0.172, 0.847)
Sexual minority	−0.797	2.221	(−5.149, 3.556)
Gender minority	1.508	1.943	(−2.300, 5.317)
Racial/Ethnic minority	−14.158***	5.787	(−25.500, −2.817)
President discussions * racial/ethnic minority	1.039^†	0.574	(−0.087, 2.164)
Model 4: 2017 W2 anxiety
President discussions	−0.095	0.331	(−0.744, 0.553)
W1 GSA level anxiety	0.165	0.156	(−0.142, 0.472)
GSA meeting frequency	−1.620	1.196	(−3.964, 0.724)
W1 anxiety	0.833***	0.080	(0.676, 0.990)
W1 victimization	0.171	0.266	(−0.350, 0.692)
Sexual minority	2.205	2.858	(−4.658, 2.260)
Gender Minority	−0.699	2.020	(−4.658, 3.260)
Racial/Ethnic minority	−5.213	4.972	(−14.958, 4.531)
President discussions * racial/ethnic minority	0.610	0.528	(−0.424, 1.645)

Note. Values are unstandardized coefficient estimates, their standard errors (SE), and 95% confidence interval. W1 = wave 1; W2 = wave 2.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. ^†p < .10.

In Model 1, greater frequency of discussing the Trump Presidency within a GSA over the school year predicted residualized decreases in members’ depression levels at the end of the year (b = −0.307, p = .001). In Model 1, the main effects for sexual orientation and gender identity were not significant, and while the main effect for race/ethnicity was significant (b = −6.039, p < .001), it was qualified by a significant cross-level interaction with the frequency of presidential discussions (b = 0.533, p = .01). As a follow-up to this significant interaction effect, we tested the same model for White students and racial/ethnic minority students separately (see Table 4). Frequency of discussions was negatively associated with depressive symptoms for White students in the GSA at the end of the 2016 to 2017 school year (b = −0.310, p = .001), but not for racial/ethnic minority students (b = 0.200, p = .255).

Table 4.

Multilevel Models of Associations between Discussing Trump and Depression by Racial/Ethnic Minority Status in 2016.

Estimated paths	Coefficient	SE	95% CI
2016 W2 depression for white students
President discussions	−0.310**	0.095	(−0.497, −0.123)
W1 GSA level depression	0.133	0.215	(−0.289, 0.555)
GSA meeting frequency	−0.085	0.469	(−1.004, 0.834)
W1 depression	0.625***	0.066	(0.496, 0.754)
W1 victimization	0.097	0.112	(−0.1224, 0.316)
Sexual minority	−0.506	0.972	(−2.412, 1.400)
Gender minority	1.109	0.783	(−0.425, 2.643)
2016 W2 depression for racial/ethnic minority students
President discussions	0.200	0.175	(−0.144, 0.543)
W1 GSA level depression	0.110	0.375	(−0.626, 0.845)
GSA meeting frequency	−0.742	1.008	(−2.719, 1.234)
W1 depression	0.567***	0.126	(0.321, 0.813)
W1 victimization	−0.058	0.176	(−0.402, 0.287)
Sexual minority	−0.495	1.384	(−3.207, 2.217)
Gender minority	1.411	1.477	(−1.484, 4.306)

Note. Values are unstandardized coefficient estimates, their standard errors (SE), and 95% confidence interval. W1 = wave 1; W2 = wave 2.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

In the 2017 to 2018 school year, more frequent discussions of the Trump presidency were not associated with lowered reports of depressive symptom, nor were there any cross-level interactions between frequency of discussions and race/ethnicity.

Model 3 assessed for associations between frequency of presidential discussions and anxiety levels in the GSA at the end of the 2016 to 2017 academic year. Presidential discussions did not predict anxiety in this model (b = −0.281, p = .351). The only significant predictors of anxiety at the end of the year were an individual’s anxiety level at the beginning of the year (b = 0.776, p < .001) and race/ethnicity (b = −14.158, p = .014). The interaction between frequency of Trump administration discussions and race/ethnicity trended positive (b = 1.039, p = .071) but was not statistically significant. In Model 4, no associations were significant with the exception of time 1 anxiety.

Discussion

In the wake of a sociopolitical event such as the 2016 election, reports of stress, fear, and victimization among youth increased, especially youth facing marginalization (American Psychological Association, 2017; Costello, 2016). In the current study, more frequent discussions in GSAs of the 2016 election and its implications were associated with lower depressive symptoms among members at the end of the year in the 2016 to 2017 school year, but only among White members. There was no statistically significant association between frequency of discussions and anxiety.

Our finding that frequency of discussions of the Trump administration predicted lowered depressive symptoms at the end of the year adds to a growing literature on the benefits of dialog among youth in social justice settings. Scholars have increasingly pointed to evidence that dialog contributes to increased self-awareness, knowledge, and social justice action (Dessel & Rodenborg, 2017; Nagda & Zúñiga, 2003; Nagda et al., 2018; Spencer et al., 2008). While there is some literature connecting greater awareness, knowledge, critical consciousness, and social action to mental health outcomes (Aviles & Grigalunas, 2018; Godfrey et al., 2019), this study adds a direct association between sociopolitical dialog and mental health outcomes, though with important qualifications.

Giving Focus to Racial/Ethnic Minority Youth

Racial/ethnic minority youth did not appear to benefit from discussions of the Trump presidency in GSA settings to a comparable extent as White youth. This adds to growing literature that while GSAs are overall beneficial, they may be most beneficial for LGBTQIA+ students who hold other majority identities (Baams & Russell, 2021). Evidence suggests that youth with intersecting marginalized identities experience the greatest amount of identity-based discrimination (Price et al., 2019), which may have been exacerbated during the year of the election. Further, the impact of racial discrimination and homophobic victimization may be multiplicative (Mallory & Russell, 2021); the impact of election-based victimization and stigma may have been greater and interrelated for racial/ethnic minority youth in the GSA, in a way that may not have been addressed in GSA discussions.

In light of this finding, it will be important for GSAs to find ways of supporting its racial/ethnic minority members. A growing literature is giving focus to the development of self-efficacy in addressing topics of race in the GSA among both students and GSA advisors (Chong et al., 2019; Poteat & Scheer, 2016). GSAs vary in the level of diverse representations of race and immigration status among their members, as well as their motivation to address these issues. Indeed, evidence suggests that White students may avoid broaching issues of race and ethnicity out of fear, thus perpetuating silence around these issues in GSAs (Calzo et al., 2021). Practices to address these challenges may involve advisor-facilitated discussion on intersectionality of oppression and encouraging “brave space” discussion in which youth are encouraged to broach uncomfortable topics while supporting each other (Calzo et al., 2021). Evidence suggests that discussion of these topics may result in greater perceived support among racial/ethnic minority youth (Rosenbach et al., 2022).

The Value of Discussions over Time

It is notable that any benefits of more frequent discussions evident in the data appeared only in the year of the election, 2016 to 2017. This finding aligns with extant literature suggesting that continued rumination on a subject may negatively impact mental well-being (Borders & Wiley, 2020). GSAs that co-ruminate about that state of politics may continue to do so iteratively; this may result in a negative impact on members’ well-being or simply no longer bring the benefits that such discussions may have initially held. In contrast, a GSA that processes these issues effectively may move on from discussing the election explicitly, either because members have come to terms with their worries, or because the GSA has channeled this energy into activities, socializing, or advocacy.

This latter point on advocacy is an important one. Critical reflection alone (e.g., discussing and processing sociopolitical issues) may not benefit members’ mental health; without associated action, increased awareness and reflection on oppressive systems may serve to discourage youth rather than foster agency and advocacy (Godfrey et al., 2019). It is possible that 1 year out from the election, GSAs that devoted less of their time to discussions of the election and more time to engaging in advocacy fostered greater mental health among their members.

In light of these findings, it will be important for GSA members and advisors to reflect critically on the function of group discussions. Scholars distinguish between reflective processes that are self-immersed versus self-distanced, and those that focus on the “what” verses the “why” (Kross et al., 2005). GSA discussions that adopt a broader perspective beyond individual members of the GSA, and those that focus on meaning-making and understanding may be more beneficial to members than those that iteratively relay news stories and focus solely on how upsetting these stories are to members. Similarly, finding ways to turn discussions into action may facilitate members’ development of self-efficacy in facing difficult sociopolitical challenges and improve mental health outcomes (Godfrey et al., 2019).

Discussions and Anxiety

Discussions were not associated with the same benefits with regard to anxiety. We note that our measure of depressive symptoms captures hopelessness (e.g., “I felt depressed”) and interpersonal disconnection (e.g., “I felt lonely”) whereas our measure of anxiety symptoms captures primarily physiological reactions (e.g., “heart pounding/racing,” “shaky/unsteady”). The focus on social-emotional support in GSAs may be more conducive to addressing the former. Further, it is important to note that while the social support and dialog may be beneficial, it is not a fix-all. Discussions may be most beneficial when considered in tandem with other GSA activities such as engaging in advocacy and socializing (Poteat et al., 2015). The benefits of GSAs may also be considered.

In light of these findings, it will be important for GSA members and advisors to be intentional about the time they spend engaging in certain activities. Members may derive different benefits from various activities, including processing and dialoguing, socializing, learning more about identity, identifying outside resources, and engaging in advocacy (Calzo et al., 2021; Griffin et al., 2004). GSA members and advisors might benefit from checking with each other about what they’re getting out of these activities and what goals they have around their time in the GSA.

Limitations, Strengths, and Future Directions

We note a few limitations to our study. First, because it represents a secondary analysis of data collected for a larger project (Poteat et al., 2020), our analytical possibilities were limited. The 2 time points of data establish temporal precedence, but do not speak to causality. Additionally, due to the small number of youth with specific racial/ethnic, sexual orientation, and gender identities, we were unable to consider within-group differences. Finally, our measure of frequency of discussions was reported by advisors for the GSA as a whole. A measure reported directly by the students might have provided a more varied assessment of how they personally engaged in these conversations.

We also note several strengths to the study. We utilized multiple sources of information, including youth members and adult advisors. We used purposive sampling to enhance the representativeness of the sample. Further, this study took advantage of a naturally occurring event in between 2 time points of data collection to consider how GSAs grappled with a sociopolitical stressor through dialog. We used an innovative measure specific to this event to consider discussions that were directly relevant to the 2016 presidential election and GSAs. Finally, the 2 time points of data collection allowed us to consider how repeated discussions over time may subsequently predict mental health outcomes.

Following the 2016 election, examples of political division and widely impactful national political events have been ongoing, such as national debates about employment rights for LGBTQIA+ individuals, COVID-19, and a national racial reckoning in the summer of 2020. Therefore, it will be important to continue to consider the impact of these types of national events on youth, as well as how youth respond. Our findings point to several future research directions. First, research might consider whether discussing local sociopolitical events (vs. national events) may relate to changes in youth’s mental health, and with differential benefits (or costs) based on youth’s experiences of privilege or marginalization. Further, it would be beneficial to identify any longer-term implications of these discussions. Do sociopolitical discussions at the time of an event have a lasting impact on mental wellbeing beyond the period during which the event occurred? Future research could also explore the impact of discussing positive sociopolitical events, such as expanded protections for LGBTQIA+ students, on mental health. These findings could have implications for how advisors and youth leaders support members of GSAs and similar clubs in processing sociopolitical events.

Conclusion

Based on our findings, GSAs serve as potentially important places for LGBTQIA+ students and their allies to discuss sociopolitical events. GSAs intend to provide a safe space, but realizing this goal may be difficult as students bring a diversity of concerns to each meeting. GSAs may need to provide additional support to members who are students of color. Given ongoing political turmoil, such as the 2021 Capitol Riots, police violence, and extreme polarization in Congress, the implications of these sociopolitical discussions in youth social justice spaces are more relevant than ever and will likely resurge in future election cycles.

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: V. Paul Poteat; Co-Investigators: Jerel P. Calzo and Hirokazu 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

Michael D. O’Brien

Author Biographies

Michael D. O’Brien, MA is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Counseling, Development, and Educational Psychology at Boston College. He studies positive youth development for marginalized youth, particularly sexual and gender minority youth, and how youth perceive, respond, and are impacted by their sociopolitical context.

Robert A. Marx is an Assistant Professor of Child and Adolescent Development at Lurie College of Education at San José State University. Their research focuses on the family, school, and community supports that help queer and trans adolescents live rich, meaningful lives.

Dr. Jerel P. Calzo (he/him/his) is an Associate Professor in the Division of Health Promotion and Behavioral Science. He is a developmental psychologist. His current research interests include partnering with school and community-based programs to develop evidence-based practices to support positive youth development and resilience among LGBTQIA+ youth, and using survey and mixed method research designs to examine and address health inequities among LGBTQIA+ populations, particularly in the areas of eating disorders and substance use.

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

Christopher J. Ceccolini, PhD is a postdoctoral fellow in the Psychotic Disorders Division at Weill Cornell Medicine. His research examines relational mechanisms that promote positive development for socially marginalized youth and young adults, particularly sexual and gender minorities, as well as those experiencing serious mental illness.

References

American Psychological Association. (2017). Stress in America: Coping with change. Stress in America^™ survey. American Psychological Association.

Aviles

A. M.

Grigalunas

(2018). “Project Awareness:” Fostering social justice youth development to counter youth experiences of housing instability, trauma and injustice. Children and Youth Services Review, 84, 229–238.

Baams

Russell

S. T.

(2021). Gay-Straight alliances, school functioning, and mental health: Associations for students of color and LGBTQ students. Youth & Society, 53(2), 211–229.

Ballotpedia. (n.d.). Donald Trump Presidential Campaign, 2016/LGBTQ rights. Retrieved November 20, 2021, from https://ballotpedia.org/Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016/LGBTQ_rights

Beck

A. T.

Steer

R. A.

(1993). Beck anxiety inventory manual. Psychological Corporation.

Borders

Wiley

(2020). Rumination about discrimination mediates the unique association between anger and collective action intentions. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 23(7), 979–995.

Calzo

J. P.

Yoshikawa

Paul Poteat

Kieu

Pham

(2021). The substance and circumstances of race and immigration talk in high school gender and sexuality alliances. American Journal of Community Psychology, 68, 358–370.

Chong

E. S. K.

Poteat

V. P.

Yoshikawa

Calzo

J. P.

(2019). Fostering youth self-efficacy to address transgender and racial diversity issues: The role of gay-straight alliances. School Psychology, 34(1), 54–63.

Costello

(2016). After election day the Trump effect: The impact of the 2016 presidential election on our nation’s schools. Southern Poverty Law Center.

10.

Dessel

A. B.

Rodenborg

(2017). An evaluation of intergroup dialogue pedagogy: Addressing segregation and developing cultural competency. Journal of Social Work Education, 53(2), 222–239.

11.

Espelage

D. L.

Holt

M. K.

(2001). Bullying and victimization during early adolescence: Peer influences and psychosocial correlates. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2, 123–142.

12.

Ginwright

S. A.

(2007). Black youth activism and the role of critical social capital in black community organizations. American Behavioral Scientist, 51(3), 403–418.

13.

Godfrey

E. B.

Burson

E. L.

Yanisch

T. M.

Hughes

Way

(2019). A bitter pill to swallow? Patterns of critical consciousness and socioemotional and academic well-being in early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 55(3), 525–537.

14.

Gonzalez

K. A.

Ramirez

J. L.

Galupo

M. P.

(2018). Increase in GLBTQ minority stress following the 2016 US Presidential election. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 14(1–2), 130–151.

15.

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(3), 7–22.

16.

Hodwitz

Massingale

(2021). Rhetoric and hate crimes: Examining the public response to the Trump narrative. Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/19434472.2021.1936121

17.

Kaufman

T. M.

Baams

Dubas

J. S.

(2017). Microaggressions and depressive symptoms in sexual minority youth: The roles of rumination and social support. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 4(2), 184.

18.

Kelly

Lubitow

Town

Mercier

(2020). Collective trauma in queer communities. Sexuality & Culture, 24(5), 1522–1543.

19.

Kross

Ayduk

Mischel

(2005). When asking “Why” does not hurt distinguishing rumination from reflective processing of negative emotions. Psychological Science, 16(9), 709–715.

20.

Mallory

A. B.

Russell

S. T.

(2021). Intersections of racial discrimination and LGB victimization for mental health: A prospective study of sexual minority youth of color. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 50(7), 1353–1368.

21.

Mueller

Turner

Lipson

(2021). Emotional response to terrorism before and after the pulse nightclub shooting. Journal of Aggression Maltreatment & Trauma, 30, 1261–1274.

22.

Murchison

G. R.

Rosenbach

S. B.

Poteat

V. P.

Yoshikawa

Calzo

J. P.

(2021). Gender–sexuality alliance membership and activities: Associations with students’ comfort, confidence and awareness regarding substance use resources. Health Education Research.

23.

Nagda

B. R. A.

Gurin

Sorensen

Gurin-Sands

Osuna

S. M.

(2009). From separate corners to dialogue and action. Race and Social Problems, 1(1), 45–55.

24.

Nagda

B. R. A.

Gurin

Rodríguez

(2018). Intergroup dialogue: Education. In: Hammack

P. L.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of social psychology and social justice (p. 379). Oxford University Press.

25.

Nagda

B. R. A.

Zúñiga

(2003). Fostering meaningful racial engagement through intergroup dialogues. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6(1), 111–128.

26.

Pollock

(2017). Schooltalk: Rethinking what we say about and to students every day. New Press.

27.

Poteat

V. P.

Calzo

J. P.

Yoshikawa

Rosenbach

S. B.

Ceccolini

C. J.

Marx

R. A.

(2019). Extracurricular settings as a space to address sociopolitical crises: The case of discussing immigration in gender-sexuality alliances following the 2016 US presidential election. American Educational Research Journal, 56(6), 2262–2294.

28.

Poteat

V. P.

Scheer

J. R.

(2016). GSA advisors’ self-efficacy related to LGBT youth of color and transgender youth. Journal of LGBT Youth, 13(4), 311–325.

29.

Poteat

V. P.

Scheer

J. R.

Marx

R. A.

Calzo

J. P.

Yoshikawa

(2015). Gay-straight alliances vary on dimensions of youth socializing and advocacy: Factors accounting for individual and setting-level differences. American Journal of Community Psychology, 55(3), 422–432.

30.

Poteat

V. P.

Yoshikawa

Calzo

J. P.

Russell

S. T.

Horn

(2017). Gay-straight alliances as settings for Youth Inclusion and development: Future conceptual and methodological directions for research on these and other student groups in schools. Educational Researcher, 46(9), 508–516.

31.

Poteat

V. P.

Calzo

J. P.

Yoshikawa

Lipkin

Ceccolini

C. J.

Rosenbach

S. B.

O’Brien

M. D.

Marx

R. A.

Murchison

G. R.

Burson

(2020). Greater engagement in Gender-Sexuality Alliances and GSA characteristics predict youth empowerment and reduced mental health concerns. Child Development, 91, 1509–1528.

32.

Price

Polk

Hill

N. E.

Liang

Perella

(2019). The intersectionality of identity-based victimization in adolescence: A person-centered examination of mental health and academic achievement in a US high school. Journal of Adolescence, 76, 185–196.

33.

Pulice-Farrow

Gonzalez

K. A.

Lefevor

G. T.

(2021). LGBTQ rumination, anxiety, depression, and community connection during Trump’s presidency. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000497

34.

Radloff

L. S.

(1991). The use of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale in adolescents and young adults. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 20(2), 149–166.

35.

Rosenbach

S. B.

Sherwood

S. H.

Poteat

V. P.

Yoshikawa

Calzo

J. P.

(2022). Benefits for immigrant-origin and nonimmigrant-origin youth of discussing immigration in gender and sexuality alliances. Psychology in the Schools, 59(1), 152–180.

36.

Seider

Graves

(2020). Schooling for critical consciousness: Engaging Black and Latinx youth in analyzing, navigating, and challenging racial injustice. Harvard Education Press.

37.

Shipherd

J. C.

(2015). Defining competence when working with sexual and gender minority populations: Training models for professional development. Clinical Psychology Science and Practice, 22, 101–104.

38.

Spencer

M. S.

Brown

Griffin

Abdullah

(2008). Outcome evaluation of the intergroup project. Small Group Research, 39(1), 82–103.