University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Braver together: exploring the communicative and psychological experiences of LGBTQ youth and families

(USC Thesis Other)

Braver together: exploring the communicative and psychological experiences of LGBTQ youth and families

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

BRAVER TOGETHER: EXPLORING THE COMMUNICATIVE AND

PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPERIENCES OF LGBTQ YOUTH AND FAMILIES

by

Traci K. Gillig

______________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(COMMUNICATION)

August 2019

Copyright 2019 Traci K. Gillig
ii
DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to the founders and directors of Brave Trails. This work
would not have been possible without your dedication to building a positive space for LGBTQ
youth and families.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First, I would like to thank my advisor Dr. Larry Gross for his support and guidance
throughout this project. His keen insights have prompted new ways of thinking and seeing for
me, and I’m immensely grateful for his generosity with his time and resources. I am also very
thankful for Dr. Lynn Miller’s guidance, particularly during the pilot phase of this work. When I
was just starting to find my footing as a researcher, she always took the time to answer my many
questions and to help me grow as a scholar. Finally, Dr. Lourdes Baezconde-Garbanati’s ongoing
support and presence as a kindred spirit in community collaboration has been deeply valued.
I also give a huge thanks to the staff of Brave Trails for collaborating in this research,
particularly Jessica Weissbuch for recognizing the value of research early in the formation of
camp. Thank you to Coby Pfaff for his technical support as our collaboration has evolved.
This work would not have been possible without Courtney Cox, who took a chance
collaborating on what started as a small, but ultimately informative endeavor – the pilot study.
Many thanks to Jared Macary for collaborating in coding the family data.
I am so grateful for my family and friends within and outside of academia who have
shared listening ears, helping hands, and comradery. Special thanks to my parents for
encouraging my doctoral goals and for always sending me back to Los Angeles from Chicago
with a suitcase full of homemade food! Also, a big thank you to Rob Bruno who has spent
countless hours brainstorming and giving emotional support, always with a dash of humor.
This research was enabled by funding from USC Annenberg. The contents are the sole
responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of USC Annenberg or Brave
Trails.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication ii

Acknowledgments iii

List of Tables v

List of Figures vi

Abstract vii

Chapter 1: Introduction 1
A Community-Based Approach 1
Research Objectives and Organization of the Dissertation 3

Chapter 2: Evaluating a Camp Intervention for LGBTQ Youth 5
Theoretical Framework 10
Methods 13
Results 17
Discussion 23
Limitations and Future Directions 24

Chapter 3: Social Media Use and Depressive Symptoms Among LGBTQ Teens 27
Theoretical Framework 29
Methods 30
Results 33
Discussion 36
Limitations and Future Directions 37

Chapter 4: Identity Management Strategies of LGBTQ Families 39
Theoretical Framework 41
Methods 46
Results 51
Discussion 55
Limitations and Future Directions 58

Chapter 5: Conclusion 60

References 61

Appendix 1: Pilot Survey Instruments 80

Appendix 2: Youth Survey Instruments 91

Appendix 3: Family Survey Instruments 100
v
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1. Descriptive statistics for campers 19

Table 1.2. t-test results comparing pretest and posttest camper outcomes 20

Table 1.3. Descriptive statistics for parents 22

Table 1.4. Additional exemplar parent responses 23

Table 2.1. Sociodemographic characteristics and outcomes 34

Table 3.1. Descriptive statistics for LGBTQ parents 48

Table 3.2. Contexts of challenge and enacted identity management strategies 54

Table 3.3. Proposed identity management strategies 57

vi
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1. Mediation model for the relationships between changes in identity 21
affirmation, hope, depression, and resilience

Figure 2.1. Moderation model depicting the influence of baseline social media use
(hours/day) on the relationship between depressive symptoms (days/week) 36
at Time 1 and Time 2

vii
ABSTRACT
This dissertation extends scholarly knowledge of the communicative and psychological
experiences of LGBTQ adolescents and families in the United States. The project includes three
studies. The first is a pilot study that evaluated the impact of a novel intervention for LGBTQ
youth – Camp Brave Trails 2016 – using pre-post camper surveys (N = 56) and a follow-up
survey of campers’ parents (N = 54). Results show campers experienced increases in identity
affirmation and hope and a reduction in depressive symptoms. Findings from the parent survey
were consistent with camper survey results. The second study examines the influence of LGBTQ
teens’ frequency of social media use on their depressive symptoms over time. Youth ages 12-18
(N = 190) were surveyed before and immediately after attending Camp Brave Trails 2018, which
represents a "social media-free" experience for participants. Moderation analyses showed a
significant interaction between social media use prior to attending the program and depressive
symptoms, such that depressive symptoms at Time 1 predicted depressive symptoms at Time 2
for teens with low levels of prior social media use. For those with high levels of social media
use, depressive symptoms at Time 1 did not significantly predict symptoms at Time 2. Youth
with the highest social media use tended to have the fewest depressive symptoms at Time 2,
regardless of their baseline symptoms. The third study analyzes open-ended responses from 15
LGBTQ parents attending the first annual Brave Trails Family Camp. Results indicate social
contexts tend to make family identity difference salient for LGBTQ parents, primarily prompting
negative emotions and use of the external strategy of labeling and the internal strategy of
narrating. Practical and theoretical implications are discussed.

1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
There will not be a magic day when we wake up and it's now okay to express
ourselves publicly. We make that day by doing things publicly until it’s simply the
way things are. (Senator Tammy Baldwin, 2000)
LGBTQ people – youth and adults alike – face ongoing challenges in openly expressing
their identity in the United States. Despite decades of advocacy efforts aimed at improving
public opinion, LGBTQ youth today still experience elevated rates of bullying at school (Russell
& Horn, 2016), challenges obtaining support at home (Acosta, 2010; Verduzco, 2016), and
unaccommodating public spaces (Kosciw et al., 2013). Such compounding challenges can strain
their psychological well-being as they grow and develop (Hatzenbuehler, 2009). Similarly,
LGBTQ adults face lingering discrimination in the workplace (Badgett et al., 2007) and –
particularly for historically less visible identities, such as bisexual, transgender, and non-binary
people – ongoing misconceptions and stereotypes (Bartelt et al., 2017; Norton & Herek, 2013).
LGBTQ parents in particular must manage additional stressors as they navigate institutions and
cultural practices that assume heterosexuality in the family context (Suter, 2014). The adverse
consequences of such challenges are apparent in the health disparities that have remained
entrenched in the population. While significant progress has been made in recent years, including
major federal policy changes (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015), much work remains to be done and
can benefit from being informed directly by LGBTQ individuals from a range of backgrounds
and experiences.
A Community-Based Approach
Scholarly work engaging directly with LGBTQ individuals and elevating their voices is
critical for achieving a deep and nuanced understanding of the current opportunities and
2
challenges emerging from our shifting social and political landscape. Community-based
participatory research (CBPR) – an alternative research paradigm integrating education and
social action to improve health and reduce disparities (Wallerstein & Duran, 2006) – provides a
path for such scholarship. The approach calls for shifting the power and control of decision
making from the hands of researchers, where it has traditionally resided, into the hands of
community members (Maguire, 1987).
Although I worked in a volunteer capacity with LGBTQ youth work prior to starting my
dissertation project, I recognized that the knowledge of my community partners, Brave Trails,
pertaining to the specific needs and characteristics of LGBTQ youth surpassed my own in many
ways. Thus, in the research described in my dissertation project, I strived to place the needs,
perspectives, and goals of my community partner on an equal, if not higher, level than my own.
To guide my approach, I turned to the foundational writings of Nyden and Weiwel (1992) and
Strand and colleagues (2003), which set forth guidelines for effectively conducting CBPR.
Nyden and Weiwel (1992) gave principles for successful CBPR partnerships. They encouraged
researchers working with community partners to strive to 1) reach agreement about goals and
strategies at the beginning of a partnership, 2) communicate clearly and maintain flexibility
throughout the partnership and 3) seek to meet the immediate needs of the community partner,
keeping long-term goals in mind. Similarly, Strand and colleagues (2003) described the
characteristics of a successful partnership as being one in which the researcher and community
organization are equal partners, where the researcher contributes technical expertise and
community leader contributes knowledge of community needs and perspectives, and where
everyone involved is considered to be both a teacher and learner. The CBPR approach often calls
for creativity and resourcefulness to meet at times conflicting considerations and interests
3
(Stoecker, 2004). In conducting the current work, I aimed to generate research that was both
academically rigorous and useful for the community organization Brave Trails and (ideally)
policymakers, activists, educators, and others.
Research Objectives and Organization of the Dissertation
To address the aforementioned research gaps using a community-based participatory
research approach, this dissertation was conducted in collaboration with the nonprofit
organization Brave Trails. The research objectives of this project are:
- To pilot test the impact of a novel camp intervention on identity- and health-related
outcomes for LGBTQ youth over time
- To explore the influence of mediated (i.e., social media) and face-to-face interaction
on the psychological well-being of LGBTQ youth over time
- To understand current social challenges faced by LGBTQ families and the
communicative strategies enacted by parents with non-family members and their
children
This dissertation is organized as follows:
Chapter Two describes a pilot study that evaluated the impact of Camp Brave Trails 2016
on participants through use of pre-post camper surveys (N = 56) and a follow-up survey of
campers’ parents (N = 54). Findings of the camper survey show campers experienced increases
in identity affirmation and hope and a reduction in depressive symptoms. Parent survey results
were consistent with camper survey results.
Chapter Three extends the pilot study to understand the social media use of LGBTQ
youth and its influence on their experience in the camp program. The study examines the
influence of LGBTQ teens’ frequency of social media use prior to attending the "social media-
4
free" camp experience on their depressive symptoms over time. Youth ages 12-18 (N = 190)
were surveyed before and immediately after camp. Moderation analyses showed a significant
interaction between depressive symptoms and social media use prior to attending the program,
such that depressive symptoms at Time 1 predicted depressive symptoms at Time 2 for teens
with low levels of prior social media use. For those with high levels of prior social media use,
depressive symptoms at Time 1 did not significantly predict symptoms at Time 2. Youth with the
highest levels of prior social media use tended to have the lowest levels of depressive symptoms
in the absence of social media (at Time 2), regardless of their baseline depressive symptoms.
Chapter Four examines a different population, LGBTQ families, describing a pilot study
conducted in partnership with Brave Trails. Content analysis by two independent coders was
conducted on open-ended responses from 15 LGBTQ parents attending the first Brave Trails
Family Camp. Results indicate social contexts tend to make family identity difference salient for
LGBTQ parents, primarily prompting negative emotions and use of the external strategy of
labeling and the internal strategy of narrating.
Chapter Five concludes by discussing the combined implications of the three studies of
this dissertation. The chapter also offers recommendations for future research with LGBTQ
youth and families as well as interventions addressing challenges within these groups.

5
CHAPTER 2: EVALUATING A CAMP INTERVENTION FOR LGBTQ YOUTH
Introduction
“[My son’s] first year at Brave Trails was truly a game-changer. He was so
empowered and confident when he came home. He said it was the first time in his
whole life where he felt 100% completely comfortable being his true self. [Camp]
broadened his perspective about what he could do after he graduates high school.”

“Someone in group mentioned that [my son’s] voice seems louder. It’s almost
surreal. He used to talk in a lower, shy tone. It’s amazing how confident he
became in 2 weeks.”

“[My daughter] really seemed a more whole person when I picked her up. Like
she had connected with a piece of herself.”

“She finally smiles. . . For real.” (Quotes from parents of youth who attended
Camp Brave Trails 2016)

For one organization founded to help LGBTQ youth, “We can change the world by being
brave” is a mantra. The nonprofit organization Brave Trails seeks to help LGBTQ youth develop
the confidence, social connectedness, and skills needed to achieve personal wellbeing and foster
a climate of acceptance in their local communities. In this study, we review a key health disparity
experienced by LGBTQ youth (depression), discuss the limitations of traditional social and
psychological support opportunities for LGBTQ youth, and provide an overview of prior
literature exploring the effects of summer camp participation. Then we outline the current study:
an evaluation of the effectiveness of a novel camp program in improving identity- and health-
related outcomes among LGBTQ youth. Finally, we discuss the implications of our findings and
the potential for such programming to have an impact that extends beyond campground
boundaries.
Challenges of Growing Up LGBTQ
LGBTQ youth (i.e., those who select the sexual orientation or gender identity labels of
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, or other related terms) face unique
6
challenges growing up in a society that often marginalizes them (Russell & Horn, 2016). An
increasing proportion (7% of Americans ages 18–35) of young Americans identify as lesbian,
gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT; Public Religion Research Institute [PRRI], 2015), and
many experience stressors that can lead to adverse mental health consequences (Hatzenbuehler,
2009). One particularly damaging outcome is depression. In 2015, about three million teenagers
ages 12 to 17 in the United States reported having at least one depressive episode in the past year
(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [HHS], 2016). LGBTQ youth experience
higher rates of depression than their non-LGBTQ peers (Fish & Pasley, 2015), and early
psychological distress often predicts long-term negative health outcomes (CDC, 2011).
Opportunities for LGBTQ youth to obtain affirming social and psychological support
historically have been limited. Schools—the primary social institution youth access—do not
consistently validate LGBTQ identities (Snapp et al., 2016). Bullying and less perceived school
connectedness, teacher caring, and safety remain relatively common for LGBTQ youth (Cohn &
Leake, 2012; Eisenberg & Resnick, 2006; Russell & Horn, 2016; Saewyc et al., 2009). Yet
school-based interventions related to gender identity and sexuality may be difficult to implement
in some places, due to stigma and restrictive laws/policies (Russell & Horn, 2016).
Outside of school, regional differences may affect youth’s access to support groups,
resources, and role models. Many major cities have community centers focused on gender and
sexuality, which offer programming for LGBTQ youth. However, nationwide, most lesbian, gay,
and bisexual (LGB) youth do not have, or do not attend, identity-focused groups or services
(Kosciw & Diaz, 2006). As such, youth often turn to online outlets for affirmation and support
(Gross, 2007; Hillier, Mitchell, & Ybarra, 2012; Macintosh & Bryson, 2008). However, the
positive effects of digital interactions may have limits. Some research has found screen time with
7
peers to be detrimental to youth’s psychological wellbeing (Pea et al., 2012), and having an
inaccessible, mediated role model is associated with psychological distress among LGBTQ youth
(Bird, Kuhns, & Garofalo, 2012). To address these limitations, Brave Trails was established.
Summer Camps: An Evidence-Based Approach
Since emerging in the late 1800s (Gershorn, 2016), summer camps have become a major
recreational activity in the United States. An estimated 8,400 resident (overnight) camps and
5,600 day camps operate across the country (American Camp Association [ACA], 2017). Camp
programs often involve a range of outdoor activities (e.g., swimming, wilderness trips), skill-
building exercises (e.g., camping skills, farming/ranching/gardening), and community-building
endeavors (e.g., teambuilding, community service). Research has found attending summer camp
can improve the wellbeing and skills of youth. One large evaluation of camp programming
surveyed 3,395 families whose child attended one of 80 U.S. summer camps for at least one
week (Thurber et al., 2007). Camps in the sample were accredited by the American Camp
Association—a nonprofit organization accrediting more than 2,400 U.S. camps (ACA, 2017)—
and the programs served “normally developing children” ages 8–14. Results showed camp
attendance was associated with pre-post improvements in youth’s self-esteem (η
2
= .09) and
social skills (η
2
= .08), among other outcomes. Many programs in the evaluation were open to all
youth, regard- less of demographics or life experience. However, some camp programs are
designed to address the needs of youth from targeted populations, such as youth experiencing a
chronic illness or those residing in a low socioeconomic status (SES) community. Such programs
have also been found to improve campers’ psychological wellbeing (Kirschman et al., 2010;
Woods et al., 2013). Only one known study, which took place in Belgium, has evaluated the
impact of a summer camp for LGBTQ individuals. Vincke and van Heeringen (2004) assessed
8
the effects of a five-day camp program for LGB people ages 15 to 26, finding participants
experienced increases in the quantity and quality of their friendships, perceived social support,
and self-esteem, as well as reductions in depressive symptoms.
While camp practitioners have begun to acknowledge the importance of inclusion
practices aimed at supporting LGBTQ campers, they may not be personally equipped to foster
inclusion, and their physical camp spaces may not be accommodating to diversity (Theriault,
2017). For example, gendered spaces are a common feature of traditional camps (e.g., cabins and
bathrooms are often male-only or female-only). Such limitations have contributed to the
development of camps designed for LGBTQ youth both in the United States (e.g., Camp
OUTdoors in Arizona and Queer Oriented Radical Days of Summer (QORDS) in North Carolina
(Camp OUTdoors, 2017; QORDS, 2017)) and internationally (e.g., Camp fYrefly in Canada;
Grace & Wells, 2007). Yet the effectiveness of such programs has been largely unexplored.
A Novel Camp Intervention
The nonprofit organization Brave Trails (which approved the inclusion of their name in
this study) was founded in 2014, establishing the first summer camp in the western United States
for LGBTQ youth (Brave Trails, 2017). About 40 campers attended the inaugural camp
experience in 2015, and around 90 participated in 2016. Enrollment was capped at 115 campers
for summer 2017. That year, the American Camp Association recognized Brave Trails with a
Program Excellence Award. This section provides an overview of Brave Trails’ camp
programming, staffing, and physical and social environment.
The directors of Brave Trails have designed their camp experience to function as both a
prevention intervention and community-building endeavor (J. Weissbuch, personal
communication, October 6, 2017). The camp schedule is structured around four types of
9
programming: free-choice programs, workshops, build-on programs, and brave trails’ linchpin
social entrepreneurship course. Free-choice programs represent recurring activities such as
swimming, archery, and hiking and are led by counselors. Workshops are one-time events,
typically facilitated by visiting volunteers, that address a range of topics, such as self-care and
meditation (“Self-Love 101”) and sexual health/safety (e.g., “Queering Sex Ed”; signed parental
permission is required for campers under age 18 to attend the latter workshop). Build-on
programs are classes that occur over multiple days. They guide campers in initiating and
completing projects (e.g., creating a film, writing a skit, or making a “zine,” i.e., a magazine or
fanzine), which are ultimately showcased at camp. Finally, the social entrepreneurship course
represents an exercise in public narrative, that is, articulating a “story of self” to promote social
change or advocacy goals (Ganz, 2011). The course begins with a staff member presenting their
personal story as an exemplar before campers break into small groups to reflect on and write
about their own experiences. In another meeting of the course, campers have the opportunity to
present their stories to the entire camp. In addition to affirming identities through programming,
camp staff members themselves validate campers’ identities. Nearly all Brave Trails staff
identify as LGBTQ, providing campers with a direct example of LGBTQ adults engaging in
positive, healthy behaviors. This modeling of positive behavior may be compelling for all
campers, and especially so for those who do not have an LGBTQ adult role model in their local
community, perhaps generating a sense of possibility for their own futures. Staff members
contribute to an environment that validates all identities, including through gender-free physical
spaces and communication practices.
The entirety of Brave Trails’ campgrounds is gender-free, including bathrooms, cabins,
and rules/policies (e.g., all campers are required to wear a shirt or bathing suit top at the pool,
10
regardless of gender identity or birth sex). LGBTQ youth often feel most unsafe in gendered
spaces such as bathrooms and locker rooms (Kosciw et al., 2013). The Brave Trails camp
environment removes such stressors. Beyond physical space, communication practices at camp
guide campers to not assume the identities of others based on appearances. Programming is often
started with introductions where campers and staff state their name and preferred pronouns (i.e.,
she/her, he/him, they/them, etc.). Individuals at camp often refer to others using gender-neutral
pronouns if they do not know someone’s pronoun preferences. Thus as both a physical and social
space, the camp in this study seeks to validate all gender identities and sexual orientations by
removing traditional gender-based practices.
Theoretical Framework
This pilot study conducts an initial evaluation of the effects of Brave Trails’ camp
programming on youth, analyzes the links between identity- and health-related outcomes, and
explores the influence of camp programming features.
Identity Affirmation and Psychological Well-Being
Identity-affirming programming has long been used in clinical psychology (Grzanka &
Miles, 2016) and social work (Crisp & McCave, 2007) to help individuals accept and celebrate
LGBTQ identity (Pachankis & Goldfried, 2013). Such strategies also are used beyond the
context of gender identity and sexuality. Research has shown that across a variety of populations,
an affirmed identity is a protective factor against depression (Cruyws et al., 2014). Research in
this vein typically measures participants’ sense of validation or self-worth regarding a salient
identity, such as race/ethnicity. In social psychology, emerging research has indicated the
potential for “self-affirmation interventions” to influence people’s behaviors (e.g., increase
student achievement; Cohen & Garcia, 2008) or improve responsiveness to health messaging
11
(see Epton et al. (2015) for a meta-analysis)). Such work conceptualizes self-affirmation as a
psychological mechanism protecting self-worth in the face of a threat (Steele, 1988) and
typically operationalizes it as self-esteem (i.e., experiencing a positive attitude and pride in one’s
self; Rosenberg, 1965). If self-affirmation can counteract fleeting feelings of low self-worth from
a specific, immediate threat, it may follow that it can help ameliorate chronic feelings of low
self- worth, such as those experienced with depression; see Sowislo and Orth (2013) for a meta-
analysis. Clinical research supports this hypothesis, particularly in contexts of gender identity
(Nuttbrock et al., 2012) and sexuality (Ross et al., 2007). Additionally, recent studies have found
self-affirmation can buffer against stress responses (Bonanno, Wortman, & Nesse, 2004;
Creswell et al., 2013). Likewise, Sherman and Cohen (2006) suggested it may bolster resilience,
a protective factor against mental and emotional distress (Wingo et al., 2010). Resilience and
depression
Studies examining resilience have often conceptualized it as a stable personality trait or
ability that protects individuals from the negative effects of adversity. However, researchers are
increasingly regarding resilience as a dynamic, evolving process (Olsson et al. , 2003). This
study conceptualizes resilience as adaptive coping and the ability to bounce back from negative
life events—skills and tendencies that can change over time. Wingo et al. (2010) demonstrated
the moderating effect of resilience on the relationship between childhood trauma and later-life
depression and called for studies testing the potential for resilience to be externally manipulated,
thus providing a target for interventions. Although studies in social work and psychology have
begun to assess the effects of resilience interventions (e.g., Steinhardt & Dolbier, 2008), such
research is sparse (Campbell-Sills, Cohan, & Stein, 2006). Just as research has demonstrated that
12
resilience can buffer against depression (Wingo et al., 2010), hope has been found to protect
against psychological distress.
Hope as a Protective Factor and a Process
Experiencing hope—a future-oriented expectation of attaining meaningful goals
(Schrank, Stanghellini, & Slade, 2008)—is critical for people struggling with depressive
symptoms, as hope promotes positive, future-oriented thinking (Synder, 2002). Reviews indicate
that interventions enhancing positive emotions such as hope can account for 9% of the variance
in participants’ reduced depression (Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009). Indeed, Ilardi and Craighead
(1994, 1999) suggested that most reported clinical improvement in depression may be due to
changes in hope induced by interventions. In the socio- psychological context, Prestin (2013)
found media narratives evoking hope generated motivation for goal pursuit among young adults,
with hope staying elevated for up to three days after narrative exposure. Similarly, recent
research points to a link between hope and identity affirmation (Adelabu, 2008; Brady et al.,
2016). Gillig and Murphy (2016) found that viewing a media portrayal of two gay teens evoked
hope among LGBTQ youth and predicted more positive subsequent self-oriented attitudes. And
yet just how hope promotes wellbeing is not well understood. The construct has been shown to
play a mediating role in some studies and a moderating role in others. For example, Visser and
colleagues (2013) found that hope moderated the relationship between negative life events and
depression among youth, demonstrating that hope can be a protective factor. Hope also has been
shown to mediate psychological pathways underlying wellbeing (e.g., the relationship between
developmental processes and adult mental health (Shorey, Snyder, Yang, & Lewin, 2003)). This
study examines hope as a potential mediator of change in wellbeing.
The Current Study
13
Grounded in the aforementioned theoretical background and the researchers’
understanding of Brave Trails, along with input from Brave Trails’ staff, the current study
obtains initial estimates of program effectiveness and examines underlying psychological
processes through a two-phase approach: (1) a pretest-posttest evaluation of camper outcomes
and (2) a cross-sectional survey of campers’ parents. First, the following research questions were
posed to explore camper outcomes:
RQ1: From pre- to post- camp intervention, do campers experience changes in identity
affirmation, hope, depressive symptoms, and resilience?
RQ2: How do changes in identity affirmation, hope, depressive symptoms, and
resilience influence each other in the camp context?
Next, to understand the influence of key program features, we asked the following:
RQ3: How are key features of the camp experience (aspirational identification with
counselors, identification with campers, and empowerment) related to camper
outcomes (i.e., identity affirmation, hope, depressive symptoms, and resilience)?
Last, the following question sought to understand parents’ perceptions regarding their
children:
RQ4: What changes do parents observe in their child from pre- to post-camp?
Method
This evaluation was implemented in conjunction with Brave Trails staff certified by the
Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) for human subjects research. The process
was approved by the relevant Institutional Review Board.
14
Camper survey procedure. The first study phase was a pre-post survey of campers
conducted online using Qualtrics Survey Software, with Brave Trails and the researchers
collaborating in its administration.
Consent. Three weeks prior to the start of camp, Brave Trails contacted campers and
parents through the secure online portal Camp Site, informing them of the research opportunity
and providing consent information and a link to the first questionnaire. Campers were assured
that their choice regarding participation in the study would not affect their role in camp.
Research participants were able to enter a drawing for a $100 Visa gift card. Both camper
consent and parental permission were obtained online.
Data collection. For consenting campers, questionnaires were administered prior to and
after camp. The pretest opened three weeks before camp and closed on the first day of camp. The
posttest was administered on-site by the researcher, and campers were able to use iPads to
complete the posttest in a location where other campers and staff could not see their responses.
Additionally, campers staying for only the first week (n = 10; all other campers stayed for two
weeks) were provided 30 minutes to complete the questionnaire on their last day of camp.
Matching and incentive. To match participants across waves, each was asked to provide
the last four digits of their primary phone number, followed by their number of siblings.
Participants wishing to enter the gift card drawing were redirected at the end of the survey to a
second questionnaire, prompting them to provide their name and e-mail address. Participants
completing both questionnaires were eligible for the drawing. Parent survey procedure
Two weeks after camp, Brave Trails notified campers’ parents about the parent survey
and provided consent information and a link to the questionnaire. Parents were assured that their
15
choice regarding participation would affect neither their nor their child’s relationship with Brave
Trails. The survey remained open for four weeks. No incentive was offered to parents.
Camper survey measures. In collaboration with Brave Trails, the lead author developed
measurement tools and procedures for both the camper and parent surveys. Practical
considerations, such as the age-appropriateness of language for campers, were weighed. Brave
Trails staff drew on their years of experience working with youth to identify areas in which
language needing adjusting to meet the needs of their expected participants.
Dependent variables. Principle components analysis was conducted for each scale, and
reliability scores are provided. Hope was assessed with six items from the State Hope Scale
(Snyder et al., 1996), posed on an 8-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (definitely false) to 8
(definitely true), including, “I can think of many ways to reach my current goals.” Items loaded
on one factor and had high reliability (Cronbach’s α = .76). Identity affirmation was ascertained
with three items derived from the Multidimensional Measure of Sexual Minority Identity (Mohr
& Kendra, 2011), as LGBTQ identity was the salient identity affirmed in the intervention. Rated
on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), items included, “I feel comfortable
with people knowing I am an LGBTQ person.” Items loaded on one factor and had high internal
reliability (Cronbach’s α = .72). Depressive symptoms were assessed with a version of Center for
Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D-4; Lewinsohn et al., 1997) adapted for youth.
Participants indicated on how many days during the past week they experienced each of four
emotions or behaviors, including sadness. Items loaded on one factor and had high internal
consistency/reliability (Cronbach’s α = .84). Resilience was measured with nine items from the
Resilience Scale (Wagnild & Young, 1993). Rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree), items included, “I can get through difficult times because I’ve experienced difficulty
16
before.” Two items were removed to improve reliability. The remaining seven items loaded on
two factors: Positive Outlook (four items) and Self-Determination (three items). The factors were
significantly positively correlated (r = .77, p < .001) and aligned with traditional
conceptualizations of resilience (Wagnild & Young, 1993), so they were combined into one
factor that had high reliability (Cronbach’s α = .86).
Program feature variables. Aspirational identification with counselors was measured
with Hoffner and Buchanan’s (2005) aspirational identification scale. The scale was adapted to
use the word “counselors” instead of “characters.” On a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree), five items asked the extent to which campers aspired to be like Brave Trails’
counselors and included, “I wanted to follow the example of the counselors” (Cronbach’s α =
.91). The impact of identification with campers was assessed using Cohen’s (2001) identification
scale. The scale was adapted to read “campers” instead of “characters.” Rated from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), five items assessed the extent to which participants related to
their fellow campers and included, “I wanted the other campers to succeed in achieving their
goals” (Cronbach’s α = .77). The effect of Brave Trails’ skill-building programming was
assessed using a scale derived from Gullan et al.’s (2013) measure of empowerment in a study of
a school-based community service program. Items were selected based on their fit with Brave
Trails’ programming. Rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), seven items
assessed the extent to which campers enacted skills and saw results, including, “I learned how to
bring people together to accomplish goals” (Cronbach’s α = .86).
Parent survey measures. Parents were asked, “What changes in your child, if any, have
you noticed since your child attended Brave Trails?,” as well as other questions and demographic
17
items. They were provided space to write a paragraph in response to the open-ended item about
perceived changes.
Camper characteristics. Participants in the sample represented a diverse group of
LGBTQ youth. Regarding gender identity, approximately half of campers (51.7%) were
cisgender, 27.6% identified as gender nonconforming, and 17.2% were trans- gender. About one
third of campers identified as gay or lesbian (31.0%), one third bisexual or pansexual (i.e.,
experiencing romantic and/or sexual attraction to two or more gender identities; 31.0%), 19.0%
queer, 13.8% unsure/ questioning, and 5.2% straight/heterosexual. (Of note, campers who
identified as straight/heterosexual also identified as transgender or gender non- conforming.)
Campers ranged in age from 12 to 20, with an average age of 15.4 years. Most campers were
White (77.2%) and students in a public school (69.0%). The sample tended to be nonreligious
(44.8%). See descriptives in Table 1.1.
Parent characteristics. Parents were an average age of 47 (M = 47.3, SD = 5.80),
ranging from 35 to 56 years old. Most were cisgender female (85.7%) and straight/heterosexual
(82.9%). The majority were White (72.7%), followed by Latino/a (15.2%). The sample tended to
be religious (44.2%). Regarding education, most held a bachelor’s degree or higher (76.5%).
More than half of parents reported a total annual household income of $100,000 or more
(57.2%), with about one third indicating less than $100,000 (31.7%), the rest preferring not to
respond (11.4%; see Table 1.2).
Results
Camper Survey
Matching of identification numbers resulted in 56 matched campers (see Table 1.1).
Analyses were conducted using SPSS v. 24. First, to address RQ1, paired-sample t tests were
18
conducted to assess pre-post differences in campers’ identity affirmation, hope, depressive
symptoms, and resilience. Results found significant increases in identity affirmation (t(51) =
3.27, p = .002) and hope (t(54) = 3.87, p < .001), as well as a significant decrease in depressive
symptoms (t(53) = −3.79, p < .001). No significant change in resilience was found (see Table
1.2).
To allow for analysis of the processes underlying pretest-posttest changes (RQ2),
unstandardized residualized change scores were obtained for each outcome (identity affirmation,
hope, depressive symptoms, resilience), by regressing posttest values on pretest values
(Christensen et al., 2013). PROCESS, an SPSS macro using ordinary least squares regression
models, and bootstrap estimation of 10,000 samples was used (Hayes, 2013). A serial mediation
analysis assessing relationships between changes in identity affirmation, hope, depressive
symptoms, and resilience (RQ2) showed that a change in identity affirmation predicted a change
in depressive symptoms in the expected direction (b = -.76, SE = .39, p = .06, 95% CI [−1.55,
.03]). The relationships between mediators were also assessed and revealed a link between
depressive symptoms and identity affirmation (b = -.12, SE = .06, p = .04, 95% CI [-.23, -.002]),
such that larger increases in identity affirmation corresponded with greater reductions in
depressive symptoms. No significant relationship existed between identity affirmation and hope,
nor between hope and depressive symptoms (see Figure 1.1). Given prior research indicating the
moderating role of hope, baseline hope and change in hope were tested as moderators between
the relationships of all other outcome variables (identity affirmation, depressive symptoms,
resilience). Neither baseline hope nor change in hope had a significant moderating effect on
these relationships.

19
Table 1.1. Descriptive statistics for campers (N = 56)
______________________________________________________________________________

Age 15.38(1.79)

Gender identity
Male 20.7%
Female 31.0%
Transgender male 13.8%
Transgender female 3.4%
Gender non-conforming 27.6%
Unsure/Questioning 3.4%

Sexual orientation
Gay/lesbian 31.0%
Bisexual/pansexual 31.0%
Queer 19.0%
Unsure/Questioning 13.8%
Straight/heterosexual 5.2%

Race/ethnicity
White 77.2%
Latino 15.8%
Other 7.1%

Religion
Religious 19.0%
Non-Religious 44.8%
Unsure/Questioning 31.0%
Other 5.2%

Education
Student (public school) 69.0%
Student (private school) 20.7%
Non-student 6.9%
Other 3.4%
______________________________________________________________________________

20
Table 1.2: t-test results comparing pretest and posttest camper outcomes (N = 56)
______________________________________________________________________________
Time 1 Time 2
_____________ _____________
M SD M SD t d
______________________________________________________________________________
Identity Affirmation 6.04 1.00 6.54 .49 3.27** .48

Hope 5.80 1.07 6.23 .91 3.87*** .54

Depression 2.70 1.98 1.79 1.66 -3.79** -.52

Resilience 5.33 .77 5.44 .70 1.46 .19
______________________________________________________________________________
p** < .01, p*** < .001

Finally, the relationship between campers’ experience of key aspects of camp
programming (RQ3)—aspirational identification with staff members, identification with
campers, and experiencing camp programming as empowering—and changes in their depressive
symptoms from pre- to post-camp were examined. Analysis of the correlations between the three
program feature variables revealed them to be highly correlated: Aspirational identification and
camper identification (r = .70, p < .001), aspirational identification and empowerment (r = .79, p
< .001), empowerment and camper identification (r = .69, p < .001). Principle components
analysis with varimax rotation indicated the three variables loaded on one factor, and reliability
analysis found high internal consistency for a scale including these variables (Cronbach’s α =
.91). Therefore, scores from aspirational identification, camper identification, and empowerment
were summed to create a compo- site variable: program experience. Next, a series of regressions
were conducted to assess the relationship between program experience and each outcome
variable. Program experience predicted a change in depressive symptoms in the expected
direction (F(1, 41) = 3.79, p = .06, R
2
= .09), such that higher scores for experience were
21
associated with greater reductions in depressive symptoms. Program experience did not predict
changes in hope, identity affirmation, and resilience.

Figure 1.1. Mediation model for the relationships between changes in identity affirmation, hope,
depression, and resilience. Dashed lines represent non-significant paths. *p < .05, **p < .01,
***p < .001

Parent Survey
To understand parents’ perceptions of changes in their child (RQ4), parents’ responses to
open-ended survey questions were analyzed for themes. (See Table 1.3 for parent descriptives.)
The first step in data analysis was a reading of open-ended responses to increase familiarity with
the data. I then independently analyzed the responses, as did another trained coder (Field &
Mattson, 2016). Each coder made notes, developed preliminary thematic codes based on initial
patterns seen, and categorized passages into these preliminary codes. Then the coders compared
codes, generated one list of initial codes, and reexamined the data to ensure the validity of each
code. Responses were recoded when necessary (see Harper, Brodsky, & Bruce, 2012).

22
Table 1.3: Descriptive statistics for parents (N = 54)
______________________________________________________________________________

Age 47.29(5.80)

Gender identity
Male 5.7%
Female 85.7%
Other 13.6%

Sexual orientation
Straight/heterosexual 82.9%
Other 17.2%

Race/ethnicity
White 72.7%
Latino 15.2%
Other 12.2%

Religion
Religious 44.2%
Non-religious 29.4%
Other 26.5%

Education
BA or higher 76.5%
Some college or lower 23.6%
______________________________________________________________________________

Nearly all parents noted one or more changes in their child. Main themes that emerged
were increased wellbeing (e.g., happier, less anxious, less angry, thinking more positively about
the future), with 47.1% of parents reporting observing this in their child. The next most common
theme was improved communication (e.g., child was more vocal, assertive, and open in talking;
47.1% of parents). Parents also noted changes in their child’s leadership capabilities (e.g., taking
on leadership roles, teaching parents or family members, displaying more independence; 35.3%).
Additionally, increased identity affirmation was observed (e.g., child seems more comfortable
with self, is ready to share their identity with others; 20.6%). Only one respondent reported a
23
potential negative shift, stating their daughter seemed sad to be home, as she described camp as
“the greatest week of her life.” The findings of the parent survey tended to align with those from
the camper survey (see Table 1.3 for exemplar responses).

Table 1.4: Additional exemplar parent responses
______________________________________________________________________________

My child is ready to share with family members his identity. He is determined to enter his new
school next year as a trans boy.
We feel our son has always been confident, but there is a new maturity to his confidence now.
When we picked my daughter up she was (and still is) beaming from her experience, and it
brings tears to my eyes to just think about the amazing experience she had.
Just very happy, peaceful, talkative. Nice for a teenager to act this way! (And she's the baby out
of 5 kids, so I know a thing or two about teenager behavior!)
She TALKS and laughs and smiles.
______________________________________________________________________________

Discussion
This study offers the first known evaluation of the effectiveness of a summer camp for
LGBTQ youth in the United States. The evaluation used a pre-post survey to assess changes in
campers’ identity affirmation, hope, depressive symptoms, and resilience from pre- to post-camp
and to explore the linkages between outcomes. Further, a second survey assessed parents’
perceptions of post-camp changes in their child, increasing the external validity of camper survey
findings. Here, we discuss the demonstrated camp outcomes and consider insights pertaining to
camper and parent demographics before addressing implications for theory and practice.
Results of this study show campers experienced immediate improvements in identity
affirmation and hope and a reduction in depressive symptoms from the camp experience.
Additionally, regression analyses found that these immediate changes in identity affirmation
corresponded with changes in resilience. These findings support previous literature
demonstrating that an affirmed identity can defend against depression (Cruyws et al., 2014).
24
Findings regarding hope—that it increased from pre- to post-camp but was not predicted by
changes in identity affirmation—suggest that exploration of potential protective (possibly
moderating) effects is warranted. The study also provides initial evidence confirming Sherman
and Cohen’s (2006) prediction that self-affirmation bolsters resilience. Further, our analyses of
key camp features indicate that counselors, fellow campers, and programming influence
depressive symptoms among youth. This points to the potential for camp interventions to durably
improve the wellbeing of LGBTQ youth. Indeed, parent observations revealed outward
manifestations of positive change in campers’ wellbeing and social skills persisted after the camp
experience. As such, this pilot study provides a promising framework for future interventions.
In addition to learning a great deal about the impact of camp programming from
analyzing identity and health outcomes, an examination of the demographics of campers and
parents provided insights into the reach of the current program. Campers and their parents tended
to be White, religiously diverse, and educated. Most were likely also of middle-class SES;
however, this is difficult to precisely determine, given the wide geographic dispersion of camper
households. This raises considerations regarding whether youth from other backgrounds would
experience similar benefits. Statistical power was too low in this sample to explore potential
subgroup effects. Further, the demographic information prompts questions of how to reach youth
whose families come from backgrounds associated with less support for LGBTQ identities (e.g.,
lower education, higher religiosity; Pew Research Center, 2017))—families who may not be able
or inclined to send their child to such a program.
Limitations and Future Directions
This study afforded an initial evaluation of a novel camp program, testing of survey
measures/procedures, assessment of recruitment strategies, and gauging of parents’
25
responsiveness. Limitations include little racial/ethnic diversity across the camper and parent
samples. Participants were mostly White, making our findings less informative regarding
LGBTQ youth of color. Given that the national median household income is below $60,000
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2017), the sample also lacks significant representation from participants of
lower SES. Additionally, a limitation of the camper surveys was that there was no appropriate
control comparison, preferably with random assignment to condition. This limited our ability to
make causal inferences about intervention effects. Data collection was attempted for a control
group, as well as a third time point, but a low response rate led to insufficient statistical power
for analyzing this data. Given the small sample size, it will be important to cross-validate with
larger samples, particularly regarding the effects of program features. Only 41 campers
responded to these questions, resulting in low power for the corresponding regression analyses.
However, existing work examining interventions for LGBTQ youth is scarce and often involves
small samples, with few studies examining the processes influencing wellbeing and resilience.
Regarding the parent survey, it is possible that parents seeing little or no change did not reply.
Parents may also have exhibited confirmation or social desirability biases in their appraisal of
their child’s improvement, after dedicating resources (e.g., financial, emo- tional) to sending
their child to camp and investing in the belief that the program would have a positive impact.
LGBTQ youth face higher rates of depression and subsequent negative health outcomes.
Identity-affirming opportunities for them remain scarce, and programs such as Brave Trails help
fill a gap for youth who cannot access support in their local communities. The findings of this
study can inform continued improvement of Brave Trails’ current programming and outreach
efforts, as well as potential future programming for LGBTQ youth. Our results also have
theoretical implications, helping enhance scholarly understanding of the linkages between
26
identity- and health-related variables. The psychological processes and responses to program
features tested in this study may apply to other populations, and future studies seeking
replication would help determine generalizability. This work provides a foundation for future
scholarship contributing to our understanding of the impact of identity-affirming youth
programming. In fact, work is already underway to expand on this study in collaboration with
Brave Trails, incorporating a larger group of campers, a comparison group, follow-up data
collection, and observational data. Finally, this study demonstrates the collaborative possibilities
at the intersection of research and practice. Brave Trails’ directors and the researchers
collaborated in the development and implementation of this study, as well as in understanding its
results. This pilot evaluation indicates that, ultimately, through teaching that “We can change the
world by being brave,” a novel camp intervention is noticeably improving the lives of a growing
group of LGBTQ youth from across the United States.

27
CHAPTER 3: SOCIAL MEDIA USE AND DEPRESSIVE SYMPTOMS
AMONG LGBTQ TEENS
Social media is ubiquitous in the lives of adolescents today. Nearly all (95%) teens ages
13 to 17 in the United States have access to a smartphone, 90% say they go online numerous
times each day, and a growing proportion (45%) are online “almost constantly” (Pew Research
Center, 2018). The proportion of youth who use social media multiple times per day has doubled
over the past six years (Rideout & Robb, 2018). On average, youth may now spend at least one
to two hours per day using social media, plus four to eight hours engaging in online activities
like messaging and web browsing (Twenge, Martin, & Spitzberg, 2018; Rideout, 2018). Yet
many adolescents (45%) believe social media has neither a positive nor negative effect on people
their age (Pew Research Center, 2018). In fact, the large majority say social media does not
affect whether they feel depressed (81%) or lonely (72%) (Rideout & Robb, 2018). While most
empirical research suggests increased time spent on social media is associated with greater
depressive symptoms among teens ages 13 to 18 (Woods & Scott, 2016; Barry et al., 2017;
Twenge et al., 2018) and young adults ages 19 to 32 (Lin et al., 2016; Primack et al., 2017;
Shensa et al., 2017), research testing a causal relationship between social media and distress is
sparse.
Scholars have suggested multiple means by which social media may negatively influence
users’ psychological well-being. First, people may substitute social media for face-to-face
interactions that have a greater potential to foster well-being (Baek, Bae, & Jang, 2013; Marar,
2012). Almost half (42%) of adolescents say social media has taken away from time they could
be spending with friends in person, and young people are increasingly preferring online
communication with friends to in-person interaction (Rideout & Robb, 2018). Second, exposure
28
to highly curated, unrealistic portrayals on social media may prompt feelings of low self-worth
and social isolation (Shensa et al., 2016). The term FOMO – added to the Oxford English
Dictionary in 2013 and standing for “fear of missing out” – emerged in the popular lexicon with
the proliferation of social media platforms (Barker, 2016). Further, increased use of social media
may result in multitasking, which is associated with increased depressive symptoms (Becker,
Alzahabi, & Hopwood, 2013). Social media platforms are also engineered to keep users engaged
and continually online (Bowles, 2018), leading to addiction for some.
The field of social media addiction, or problematic social media use (PMSU), is young
(for a review, see Ryan et al., 2014). Yet, growing empirical evidence has indicated that
compulsive social media use is a rising mental health problem, particularly among adolescent
smartphone users (Van Rooij & Schoenmakers, 2013). PMSU is a maladaptive social media use
pattern characterized by addictive components, including an excessive concern about social
media, being driven by a strong motivation to use social media, and devoting so much time and
effort to it that it impairs other social activities, studies/job, interpersonal relationships, and/or
psychological health and well-being (Schou Andreassen & Pallesen, 2014). Large-scale surveys
have found that about 7 to 12% of teens experience disordered social media use (Lam et al.,
2009; Van den Eijnden, Lemmens, & Valkenburg, 2016). Emerging research has tested the
effects of youth “taking a break” from using screen-based technology, finding positive social
effects from screen-free time (Uhls et al., 2014). However, despite the well-documented negative
outcomes, social media can also provide opportunities for positive connection.
Social media platforms can facilitate social interaction; idea sharing; formation and
maintenance of relationships; and development of a personal presence, reputation, and identity
(Kietzmann et al., 2011). These capabilities may enhance users’ perceived connectedness to
29
others, through keeping in touch with friends, family, etc. and forging new connections (Pew
Research Center, 2018). Among youth who experience loneliness or depressive symptoms,
indirect formats like online messaging may increase their comfort in interacting with others
(Shaw & Grant, 2002). Rideout and Robb (2018) found that teens with lower socio-emotional
well-being perceived their time spent on social media to reduce their feelings of depression and
loneliness. Teens experiencing marginalization in their local communities may find opportunities
through social media to connect with supportive, affirming peers and role models. For example,
research has shown that LGBTQ teens, who tend to experience elevated levels of marginalization
and victimization (Russell & Horn, 2016), report online platforms as sites where they can
develop friendships with similar peers and find social support (Hillier, Mitchell, & Ybarra,
2012). However, young social media users risk encountering negative comments about their
identity online. A notable 64% of teen social media users say they “often” or “sometimes” come
across sexist, homophobic, or racist content (Rideout & Robb, 2018). The potential for social
media to both facilitate positive connections and generate psychological distress raises questions
about the influence of youth’s usage patterns on their well-being over time.
The current study examines baseline social media use as a moderator of changes in
depressive symptoms occurring in the context of a “social media-free” summer camp program
for LGBTQ teens (described in the following).
Theoretical Framework
Aligning with the self-medication hypothesis and escape mechanism (Cappell & Greeley,
1987), Hsieh and colleagues (2016a, 2016b)

proposed that high usage of the Internet may be a
maladaptive/dysfunctional form of a coping strategy for children experiencing trauma and
victimization to reduce their psychological distress and escape from real-life problems. Seeking
30
comfort and support online can subsequently increase youth’s risk of addiction to online
activities. Research has found stress and trauma in youth’s immediate surroundings, such as from
family dissatisfaction (Lam et al., 2009) and parental shaming (Hsieh et al., 2018), is associated
with increased online activity and psychological distress among adolescents.
Based on the self-medication hypothesis and prior literature demonstrating a link between
social media use and depressive symptoms and the benefits of “social media breaks” for youth,
we posed the following hypothesis:
H1: Baseline social media use will moderate the relationship between depressive
symptoms before and after attending a social media-free camp program, such that
less social media use will correspond with a stronger relationship between pre-
and posttest depressive symptoms.
Method
The data used in this study are drawn from a longitudinal study of youth participating in a
camp program for LGBTQ youth during summer 2018.
Design, Participants, and Setting
The non-profit organization [name redacted] was founded in 2014 to address the needs of
LGBTQ youth (citation redacted). The organization hosts an annual summer camp program for
youth ages 12 to 18, featuring identity-affirming activities, staff role models, and a gender-
neutral physical environment. The program was designed to serve as a prevention intervention
and community-building endeavor (citation redacted). Particularly important to the current study
is the program’s technology policy. The research site represents a social media-free environment,
as participants are required to relinquish their smartphones and other technology at the start of
31
the program. Devices are stored in a locked location until the last day of the program. See
[citation redacted] for additional information about the program.
Two months prior to the start of the program, [organization redacted] contacted youth and
parents through a secure, online program administration portal, informing them of the research
and providing consent information and a link to the first questionnaire. Youth were assured that
their choice regarding study participation would not affect their role in the program. Research
participants could enter a drawing for a $100 Visa gift card. Both youth consent and parental
permission were obtained online.
For consenting youth, questionnaires were administered online prior to and on the last
day of the program, which lasted one week or two weeks, depending on the session in which
youth were enrolled. The pretest opened when youth and parents were informed of the research
two months before camp started, closing on the first day of the program. The researcher
administered the posttest on-site, and participants used Samsung tablets to complete the
questionnaire in a location where other youth and staff would not see their responses. Four
program sessions occurred, and the procedure for data collection was identical for each. Youth
participating in multiple program session were invited to take the posttest during their final
session.
To match participants across waves of data collection, each was asked to write their name
with their responses. Participants choosing to enter the gift card drawing were asked at the end of
the survey to provide an email address. Youth completing both waves of questionnaires were
eligible for the drawing. The research procedure was implemented in conjunction with program
staff certified by the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) for human subjects
research. The process was approved by the Institutional Review Board of [university redacted].
32
Measures
Participants completed online survey items including depressive symptoms, social media
use, and covariates. Demographic data, social media habits, and support from family and friends
were assessed at pretest. Depressive symptoms were measured at both waves of data collection.
In the pretest, participants were asked to their gender identity (i.e., male, female,
transgender male, transgender female, intersex, gender nonconforming, or other, please specify).
Participants were also asked to select the race/ethnicity best describing them (i.e., White (non-
Hispanic), Latino/a/x, Black, Asian, Pacific Islander, Middle Eastern, Native American, Other,
please specify). These were recoded to white, Latinx, black, multiracial, and other, based on
responses. Age was typed as a digit. Response options for religion were Protestant, Catholic,
Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, agnostic, atheist, unsure, and other, please specify. These
responses were recoded to Christian, Jewish, agnostic, atheist, unsure/questioning, and other.
Sexual orientation options included: Gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, queer,
questioning/unsure, straight/heterosexual, and other, please specify. For education, options were:
Student, not a student, and other, please specify.
Social media use. Social media use was measured at pretest through an item asking
participants to indicate the social media platforms they had used in the past week (i.e., Instagram,
Snapchat, Facebook, and Other (please specify)). Specifically, participants were asked, “In the
past week, how many hours each day did you typically spend using the following social media
platforms/apps? Select all that apply.” They were prompted to select each platform used, then
type the number of hours as a digit. Responses for each platform were summed to create an
overall social media use score.
33
Depressive symptoms. At both waves of data collection, depressive symptoms were
measured using a version of Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D-4)
(Lewinsohn et al., 1997) adapted for youth. Participants selected on how many days during the
past week they experienced each of four emotions or behaviors, including sadness. Principle
components analysis showed items loaded on one factor. Reliability testing found removing one
item yielded highest reliability (Cronbach’s α = .86). The three items were averaged to create one
depressive symptoms score for each participant.
Covariates. Social support from immediate family and friends was assessed with the
question, “How many people in each of these groups do you feel you can talk to if/when you
need support (including affirmation, advice, or just someone to listen)? Please write your answer
as a number/digit.”
Data Analysis
Of 209 youth eligible for the study, 190 completed both pre- and posttest questionnaires.
Both the attrition rate (9.1%) and the subgroup without matching data (n = 19) were small.
Little’s Missing at Random Test was used to assess the nature of pre-post depressive symptoms
data. Results were non-significant (χ
2
= 1.29, p = .53), indicating data were missing at random.
A preliminary repeated measures ANOVA conducted using in SPSS v25 showed a main
effect of time on depressive symptoms (F(1, 185) = 94.5, p < .001), such that depressive
symptoms decreased from 2.68 days per week (SD = 2.01) to 1.29 days per week (SD = 1.24) for
the sample.
Results
A total of 190 participants were included in the analyses. The young sample (average age
of 15.2 years) represented a range of gender identities (30.0% transgender male, 21.1% female,
34
15.0% gender nonconforming) and sexual/romantic orientations (38.3% bisexual/pansexual,
28.9% gay/lesbian, 13.1% queer). The majority of participants were White (79.2%), then
multiracial (11.6%), and Latinx (6.6%). Almost all (97.8%) were students. On average,
participants reported having two family members (1.86) and five or six friends (5.64) they felt
they could turn to if they needed social support. The average number of hours spent using social
media each day was four (3.99). Depressive symptoms were moderate at Time 1 (2.68 days per
week of symptoms), and low at Time 2 (1.29 days per week). All descriptives are included in
Table 2.1.

Table 2.1. Sociodemographic characteristics and outcomes (N = 190)

Age 15.2 (1.72)

Gender identity
Male 7.2%
Female 21.1%
Transgender male 30.0%
Transgender female 5.6%
Gender nonconforming 15.0%
Unsure 8.3%
Other 12.8%

Sexual orientation
Straight/heterosexual 2.2%
Gay/lesbian 28.9%
Bisexual/pansexual 38.3%
Queer 13.1%
Unsure 5.5%
Other 12.0%

Race/ethnicity
White 79.2%
Latinx 6.6%
Asian 3.9%
Black 1.7%
Multiracial 11.6%
35
Other 3.3%

Education
Student 97.8%
Not a student 1.6%
Other 0.5%

Family support 1.86 (1.31)

Friend support 5.64 (8.86)

Social media use 3.99 (4.56)

Depressive symptoms – Time 1 2.68 (2.01)

Depressive symptoms – Time 2 1.29 (1.24)

To test our hypothesis (H1), a moderation analysis was conducting using the PROCESS
macro (Hayes, 2013) in SPSS v25. The moderating effect of social media use on the relationship
between depressive symptoms at Time 1 and Time 2 was assessed. Results showed a significant
interaction between depressive symptoms and social media use (b = -.02, SE = .01, p = .03, 95%
CI = [-.04, -.002]), such that depressive symptoms at Time 1 was a significant predictor of
depressive symptoms at Time 2 for participants who had lower baseline levels of social media
use (b = .25, SE = .06, p < .001, 95% CI = [.12, .37]), while it was not a significant predictor of
depressive symptoms at Time 2 for youth who reported higher levels of prior social media use (b
= .07, SE = .06, p = .30, 95% CI = [−.06, .19]). The covariates family support (b = -.06, SE = .07,
p = .44, 95% CI = [-.19, .08]) and friend support (b = .01, SE = .02, p = .39, 95% CI = [-.02, .05])
did not have a significant effect. See Figure 2.1.
36

Figure 2.1. Moderation model depicting the influence of baseline social media use (hours/day)
on the relationship between depressive symptoms (days/week) at Time 1 and Time 2.

Discussion
While depressive symptoms at Time 1 predicted depressive symptoms at Time 2 for teens
with lower levels of prior social media use, the relationship was non-significant for youth
reporting high levels of social media use. In fact, participants with high prior social media use
tended to have an “across the board” reduction in depressive symptoms, resulting in low levels of
depressive symptoms at Time 2 regardless of symptoms at Time 1. The covariates of family and
friend support had no significant effect. Due to the nature of the data, multiple explanations for
the findings warrant exploration. The first is that some youth engaging in high levels of social
media use experienced depressive symptoms due to their online activity, and the removal of
social media access at camp caused depressive symptoms to lessen for these youth. Another
37
explanation is that youth using social media the most were doing so in an attempt to ameliorate
psychological distress, perhaps due to a lack of fulfilling social connections in their immediate
surroundings. In this way, the development of satisfying social bonds and/or obtaining of
emotional support and affirmation in the camp setting caused a depressive symptom reduction
for these youth.
The findings have practical implications. Efforts by parents, educators, and others to
encourage teens to reduce their time spent on social media time and to increase their face-to-face,
in-person interactions have the potential to improve youth’s psychological well-being. While
research has found that youth today report not valuing face-to-face communication with friends
as much as they did in the past (Rideout & Robb, 2018), young people may be unaware that in-
person interactions can be more beneficial for their well-being than online communication. The
findings bolster the argument for parents restricting children’s access to social media. By
introducing social media into children’s media diets at older ages, and perhaps implementing
time constraints around online activities, children may develop habits that do not revolve around
social media. Such habits may be retained to at least some extent when children start using social
media. The findings also provide evidence for the positive effects of identity-affirming
interventions for marginalized youth, particularly those that help youth develop positive social
connections in-person with supportive peers. For youth lacking satisfying connections and
support in their local environment, programming helping them identify friends, role models, and
other support either within their community or within an environment characterized by face-to-
face interactions, such as summer camp, can improve their well-being.
Limitations and Future Directions
38
While the current study extends literature examining the role of social media use in the
lives of adolescents and its potential influence on their psychological well-being, several
limitations should be mentioned. First, participants primarily self-selected into a summer
program and may not be representative of the general LGBTQ youth population. The study also
relies on self-reports of social media use. A more direct assessment (e.g., log data) of social
media use may be more accurate. However, research has shown that asking survey participants to
report use of specific online and video-sharing platforms (as was the case in this study) tends to
be one of the more accurate approaches for measuring duration of online activity (Sharkow,
2016). Finally, both family and friend support measures captured the quantity of social support
but did not directly assess its quality. Participants with high baseline social media use may have
had numerous sources of support from friends and family but found the support to be unfulfilling
in some way.
Promising directions for future work are apparent. Additional longitudinal and
experimental studies are needed to test for a causal relationship between social media use and
psychological distress. Determining the “how, when, and why of” social media’s impact on
users’ mental health should be a focus of future studies. Similarly, examining the impact of
psychological, social, and other factors on youth’s outcomes from social media use are
warranted. For example, examining whether youth from traditionally marginalized groups, who
may be seeking support online due to challenges in their local community, are affected
differently than youth more broadly warrants scholarly attention.

39
CHAPTER 4: IDENTITY MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES OF LGBTQ FAMILIES
As many as six million American children and adults have an LGBTQ parent (e.g.,
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or other related identity) (Gates, 2013). This estimate
is based on the 2010 United States Census count of households led by unmarried same-sex pairs,
since the Census does not directly measure LGBTQ identity. While two-parent families
consisting of a husband-wife pair raising their biological offspring in a shared residence was
previously the numerical norm among American households, the prevalence of such families
dropped below 50% in 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). In contrast, LGBTQ families (i.e.,
families headed by an LGBTQ parent or parents) have increased in prevalence (Gates, 2012,
2013). This follows a broader trend of more Americans openly identifying as LGBTQ (Public
Religion Research Institute (PRRI), 2015) and policies and attitudes pertaining to LGBTQ
people generally becoming more affirming.
Historically, LGBTQ families faced major political and legal challenges, such as
exclusion from traditional marriage and divorce laws, barriers to adoption, and lack of access to
affirming reproductive healthcare (Stacey, 1999; Patterson & Riskind, 2010). LGBTQ parents
have often had to navigate social situations that do not accept or that misunderstand their family
structure, as well as institutions with exclusionary practices (Lott-Whitehead & Tully, 1993;
Suter, 2014). A 2009 nationwide survey found that 91% of lesbian and gay adoptive parents in
the U.S. experienced identity-related challenges in contexts like their children’s schools (Brown
et al., 2009). Federal recognition of marriage for same-sex couples in 2015 represented a
milestone for LGBTQ families (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015). The U.S. Supreme Court decision
made more than 1,000 federal benefits and protections accessible for same-sex couples (Pawelski
et al., 2006). Yet, federal recognition has not always translated into local rights (Zarembka,
40
2015). Adoption rights are in flux in many states (Fortin, 2018). While Americans’ attitudes
toward LGBTQ people had been steadily improving for decades (Andersen & Fetner, 2008), a
nationwide survey suggested Americans’ comfort with LGBTQ people saw a backslide in 2017
(GLAAD & The Harris Poll, 2018). The shift coincided with the election of a U.S. Presidential
administration that has taken steps to remove protections for LGBTQ individuals and families
(Meixler, 2018; Pear, 2018).
Millions of children in the U.S. have an LGBTQ parent or parents (Gates, 2013). Yet
relatively little research – in both family communication and the broader field of family studies –
examines these families, particularly those in which parents identify as bisexual or transgender
(Ross & Dobinson, 2013; Haines, Ajayi, & Boyd, 2014; Farr, Tasker, & Goldberg, 2017). Early
studies explored topics such as gay father identity (Bozett, 1980), lesbians’ psychological
challenges (Green et al., 1986), and parental coping strategies (Levy, 1992). While West and
Turner called in 1995 for more communication research examining lesbians and gays as family
members, output in the field did not accelerate for nearly fifteen years. The wave of more recent
work was perhaps encouraged by the highly visible battle over Proposition 8 in California – a
2008 state Constitutional amendment that made same-sex marriage illegal but was later
overturned by a federal judge (Reid, 2014). Recent studies have primarily examined the identity-
related experiences of lesbian parents, including their communication with children about family
identity (Breshears, 2010, 2011), strategies for managing family identity with non-family
members (Koenig Kellas & Suter, 2012), and discourses about the meaning of motherhood
(Suter et al., 2015). This work has established family communication in the LGBTQ context as
an emerging area of study, opening many potentially fruitful research paths for scholars today.
41
The current study seeks to extend family communication literature by investigating the
identity management strategies enacted by a diverse group of LGBTQ parents. The goals of this
study are 1) to empirically pilot test an identity management typology grounded in prior
literature and 2) to extend the descriptive base shedding light on LGBTQ families’
communicative experiences. The following sections outline our theoretical framework, describe
our methodology, present our findings, and discuss practical and theoretical implications.
Theoretical Background
We take a social identity approach to studying communication in this study and draw
from stigma communication research and literature theorizing family identity as discourse-
dependent. The following sections review social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), stigma
management communication (Meisenbach, 2010), and family identity management (Galvin,
2006). We integrate these perspectives to describe and pilot test an family identity management
typology.
Social Identity Theory
Social identity theory (SIT) posits that individuals tend to categorize themselves and
others based on perceived “lines of difference” between social identities/groups (Tajfel &
Turner, 1979). Subsequently, belonging to a social group tends to become a source of self-worth
for individuals. However, a social identity can also cause shame and reduced self-worth,
particularly in contexts of stigma. Stigma has traditionally been defined as an identity-
discrediting mark on someone of questionable moral status (Goffman, 1963). More recently,
stigma has been called “a simplified, standardized image of the disgrace of certain people that is
held in common by a community at large” (Smith, 2007, p. 464). Stigmatized individuals are
often looked down upon as outcasts in a society. Belonging to a stigmatized group can cause
42
people to experience decreased self-esteem in contexts when the relevant identity is made salient.
For example, LGBTQ people have historically been framed as deviant or sinful in the U.S., and
research has found LGBTQ individuals experience lower self-esteem than their non-LGBTQ
peers, resulting in entrenched health disparities (Hatzenbuehler, Phelan, & Link, 2013).
However, salience of a stigmatized identity does not always prompt negative
psychological effects. A stigmatized identity, like any other social identity, can build group
solidarity by delineating group insiders from outsiders (Falk, 2001). Because people are typically
motivated to enhance their view of their in-group (Tajfel & Turner, 2004), they often engage in
strategies to protect their perception of a salient identity (thus their self-esteem) (Hogg et al.,
2004). In this way, group cohesion around a stigmatized identity can lead people to draw self-
worth from the identity, regardless of outsiders’ perspectives.
Viewing the family through a social identity lens, scholars generally conceptualize the
family as an in-group for individual family members, though each member possesses identities
not necessarily shared by the whole family (Soliz & Harwood, 2006). In this way, salience of a
family identity (e.g., as non-normative), can influence the psychological experiences of
individual family members, either positively or negatively, depending on individual and
contextual factors (Cameron, 2004).
Based theory and research establishing the influence of social identity on individual self-
worth, including in contexts of stigma and the family, as well as the evolving social and political
landscape experienced by LGBTQ people, the following research question was posed:
RQ1: When LGBTQ parents perceive family difference, does it tend to prompt positive
emotions, negative emotions, or no emotions?
External Family Identity Management Strategies
43
As the visibility of non-traditional family structures increases, ties binding family
members may be increasingly unclear to outsiders. For example, visual differences between
family members (such as parents and their children being of different races/ethnicities), as well
as similarities (like co-parents being of the same apparent gender), may cause uncertainty among
outsiders trying to deduce family structure. In such situations, family members may be prompted
to address their collective identity. In this way, family identity can be dependent on members’
communication about their familial connections.
Based on the conceptualization of family identity as discourse-dependent, Galvin (2006)
proposed a typology for the strategies that family members may rely on for their presentation of
family identity to individuals outside of the family. The following are the proposed external
boundary management practices: labeling, explaining, legitimizing, and defending. Labeling is
conceptualized as identifying the familial tie, titles, or positions when introducing or referring to
another person (e.g., “She is my daughter.”). The practice orients familial relationships and
establishes expectations about roles. Explaining seeks to generate understanding about a labeled
family relationship, such as giving reasons for it or sharing how it works, perhaps in response to
outsider questions about family ties or identities. Legitimizing invokes the sanction of law or
customs, positioning a relationship as conforming to recognized standards, often in situations
where relational ties are questioned. Finally, defending refers to shielding the self or relationship
from attack, justifying it, or maintaining its validity against opposition (usually a response to a
direct challenge or hostility).
Galvin’s (2006) typology sought to organize scholarly thinking around identity
management among “non-traditional” families. It is important to recognize that the experiences
of “non-traditional” families may not fully overlap with those of stigmatized families. Thus, the
44
authors turned to theorizing of stigma management to identify additional strategies potentially
enacted by stigmatized families, with the goal of developing a comprehensive typology of
identity management strategies for empirical pilot testing with LGBTQ families.
Stigma Communication Management
To explain how individuals communicate to manage their own stigmatized identity,
particularly in the workplace, Meisenbach (2010) proposed a model of stigma management
communication (SMC). SMC organizes stigma management strategies into four quadrants based
on 1) the individuals’ intent to challenge or maintain public perception of the stigma and 2) their
perception of the stigma’s applicability to the self. The quadrants are Accepting, Avoiding,
Evading, and Denying. Each quadrant represents a cluster of distinct strategies. For example, the
Avoiding quadrant includes the strategies of hiding/denying the stigma attribute, avoiding stigma
situations, and distancing the self from the stigma. According to the model, individuals will
choose an Avoiding strategy if they 1) accept the public’s understanding of the stigma and 2)
want to challenge that the stigma applies to the self.
In reviewing SMC’s proposed strategies, two strategies emerged as relevant to the family
context and building upon Galvin’s (2006) typology. The first is Ignoring/Displaying. In
situations where a stigmatized identity is salient, individuals may choose to not engage in
identity-related communication. Thus, the identity management typology tested in the current
study includes the strategy of ignoring. Another strategy, categorized in the SMC model as a
sub-strategy of Accepting – using humor to ease comfort – also fulfilled our criteria. Humor may
help individuals deal with a stigma-related social challenge by managing the mood/atmosphere
of a situation and shifting the focus away from the identity and/or salient social divide. This may
be particularly relevant in the family context, as parents may perceive themselves to be modeling
45
actions/behaviors for their children. As messages other than humor can have the same intent – to
attempt to shift the focus away from the identity and/or salient social divide without denying it –
the authors propose de-escalation as a strategy potentially enacted by parents to manage family
identity with non-family members.
Drawing from the aforementioned family identity management typology and the SMC
model, the following research question was posed:
RQ2: How do LGBTQ parents communicate with individuals outside the family in
contexts of salient family difference?
Internal Family Identity Management Strategies
Just as families must navigate external identity-related communication, they may
communicate about identity within the family, serving to define, reconfigure, and solidify family
identity. Galvin (2006) proposed a typology of internal boundary management strategies:
naming, discussing, narrating, and ritualizing. Naming involves selecting names or terms/labels
for both individual family members (e.g., children’s first and last names, labels for non-
biological family members) and for the family (e.g., a single or combined surname). Discussing
involves identifying issues as they arise and attempting to resolve them within the family. This
may involve negotiating how and what information to disclose to extended family members,
planning future milestones, managing daily business, and having age-appropriate conversations
with a developing child. Narrating involves telling stories that give meaning to the family, often
bringing together memories, emotions, and opinions. They reveal how family members view
themselves and the collective group. Ritualizing refers to developing recurring celebrations,
traditions, and routines that may generate a feeling of family closeness. Finally, aligning with our
extension of the external identity management typology, we tested ignoring as an internal
46
strategy in the current study. This strategy refers to avoiding or declining to address a situation
within the family.
To test the current internal identity management typology with LGBTQ parents, the
following research question is posed:
RQ3: How do LGBTQ parents communicate with their children in situations involving
family difference?
Method
This study analyzes the open-ended written responses of LGBTQ parents, collected in
partnership with a nonprofit organization serving LGBTQ youth and parents. Here we describe
the scientific and practical considerations influencing our methodology and our procedure,
measures, and analysis of data.
Procedure
Our methodology was developed in partnership with the nonprofit organization [name
redacted] and reflects both practical and scientific considerations. [Name redacted] is a Los
Angeles-based organization serving both LGBTQ youth ages 12 to 18 and LGBTQ parents
through a variety of programming. Activities include an annual summer camp for LGBTQ youth,
an annual family camp for LGBTQ parents and their children, and year-round youth
programming. See [citation redacted] for additional program details. The current study emerged
from an ongoing partnership between the organization and the lead researcher of this study.
In developing this study, the needs of [organization redacted] were first considered. The
project required researcher access to a closed, private setting with parents and their children ages
18 and younger. While the directors were able to set aside time on the last day of camp for
research, a number of factors were unclear at the time of study planning. As the family camp was
47
the first hosted by the organization, camp attendance and families’ openness to participating in a
research project were uncertain. Thus, gathering written responses via an online questionnaire
was chosen as our methodology because it afforded families the opportunity to participate
privately either on-site or off-site right after the program, depending on their needs.
The family camp at which study recruitment took place was hosted April 13 to 15, 2018
at a campground in the Angeles National Forest. Promotion for the camp was conducted through
Gay Parent Magazine and on Facebook. Camp programming for parents represented a mix of
educational activities (e.g., workshops on parenting techniques) and social experiences (e.g., a
parent-only social hour where a movie was filmed for children under the supervision of camp
staff). Most programming involved both parents and children and included traditional camp
activities (e.g., crafts, carnival/sports games) and experiences typically associated with the
LGBTQ community (e.g., drag makeup).
A total of 14 families, representing 24 parents and 20 children, attended the camp.
Information about the study was shared in person by the first author during the last morning of
camp, immediately prior to check out. Participants were given the option to access the survey on-
site using their personal Wifi-enabled devices, such as cell phones and tablets, or to complete the
survey at a later time. After check out, a link to the online survey was sent to the email addresses
provided at the time participants registered for the program. Consent information was provided at
the start of the online survey in Qualtrics. No incentive was given for participation. The
procedure was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the [university redacted].
Measures
The surveys collected responses to open-ended questions and demographic data. Open-
ended questions were prefaced with the statement, “The following questions ask about your
48
experiences before coming to [program redacted].” Items included, 1) “Please think of a time
when you felt like your family was just like any other family. Please describe this
situation/experience,” 2) “Think of a situation when you felt like your family was different from
other families. Please describe this situation/experience,” 3) “How did this situation/experience
make you feel?” 4) “If this situation involved another person (or group of people), did you
address the situation with them? If so, please describe what you said or did,” and 5) “Did you
talk to your child (or children) about this situation, or interact with them in any way regarding
it? If so, please describe.”
Participant Characteristics
Participants were 15 parents (including three couples), comprising 10 females, three
males, one transgender male, and one gender nonconforming individual. Ages ranged from 24 to
55, with an average age of 39.5 years. Parents were mostly white (73.3%, n = 11), followed by
Latinx (13.3%, n = 2). The plurality identified as atheist (33.3%, n = 5), followed by two parents
each identifying as Christian, Agnostic, Spiritual (no affiliation), and Unsure. The majority were
politically liberal (86.7%, n = 13) and half were highly educated, having obtained a graduate or
professional degree (53.4%, n = 8). Seven parent participants attended the program with one
child, and eight attended with two children. Nine children were adopted (52.9%), and seven were
the biological child of the participant or their partner (41.2%). See Table 1.1 for complete
descriptives.
Table 3.1. Descriptive statistics for LGBTQ parents (N = 15)
______________________________________________________________________________

Age 39.5(9.46)

Gender identity
Male 20.0% (n = 3)
Female 66.7% (n = 10)
49
Transgender male 6.7% (n = 1)
Gender nonconforming 6.7% (n = 1)

Sexual orientation
Gay/lesbian 60.0% (n = 9)
Bisexual 13.3% (n = 2)
Queer 13.3% (n = 2)
Straight/heterosexual 6.7% (n = 1)
Asexual 6.7% (n = 1)

Race/ethnicity
White 73.3% (n = 11)
Latinx 13.3% (n = 2)
Multiracial 6.7% (n = 1)
Native American 6.7% (n = 1)

Religion
Atheist 33.3% (n = 5)
Christian 13.3% (n = 2)
Agnostic 13.3% (n = 2)
Spiritual, no affiliation 13.3% (n = 2)
Unsure 13.3% (n = 2)
Jewish 6.7% (n = 1)

Political ideology
Liberal 86.7% (n = 13)
Conservative 6.7% (n = 1)
Neither 6.7% (n = 1)

Education
Graduate or professional degree 53.4% (n = 8)
Bachelor’s degree 20.0% (n = 3)
High school diploma 26.7% (n = 4)

Annual household income
More than $150,000 60.0% (n = 9)
$100,000 to $149,999 13.3% (n = 2)
$50,000 to $99,999 20.0% (n = 3)
Less than $49,999 6.7% (n = 1)

Marital/relationship status
Married or domestic partnership 53.3% (n = 8)
Other 46.7% (n = 7)

Child status
Biological child 41.2% (n = 7)
50
Adopted 52.9% (n = 9)
Other 5.9% (n = 1)
______________________________________________________________________________

Coding Categories
To empirically test our typology, we conducted a deductive (quantitative) content
analysis of participants' written responses to open-end questions (qualitative data). This
integrated methodological approach allows for the testing, validation, and extension of
theoretical frameworks (Hsieh & Shannon 2005; Elo & Kyngäs, 2008) and provides insight to
research problems via “discovery-oriented research” (Srnka & Koeszegi, 2007). First, we created
a code book to four sets of inquiries. The first set related to contexts of similarity for families
that identified as LGBTQ in relation to other families. Contexts of similarity included education
(e.g., school), LGBTQ community, healthcare, religious (e.g., church), travel (e.g., vacation),
recreation (e.g., restaurants and parks), local (e.g., one’s home, neighborhood or city),
workplace, holidays (e.g., Mother’s Day), camp, and not applicable or undefined. The second set
of inquiries related to contexts prompting feelings of family difference, which were attributed the
same codes as contexts of similarity. To contexts of difference, researchers added an assessment
of emotional valence of experiences reported by respondents (i.e., positive, negative, and not
applicable). The third set contained codes for Galvin’s (2006) external boundary management
practices (i.e., labeling, explaining, legitimizing, and defending). The researchers added
additional codes to the typology (i.e., de-escalating, ignoring/declined to address, and not
applicable). The fourth set contained codes for Galvin’s (2006) internal boundary management
practices (i.e., naming, discussing, narrating, ritualizing) with the researchers’ additions (i.e., de-
escalating, ignoring/declined to address, and not applicable).
Data Analysis
51
Content analysis of open-ended written responses was conducted by two independent
coders (i.e., the first and second authors). Before coding the data, the authors developed a set of
mutually exclusive categories to classify participants' responses. Categories were drawn from the
theoretical framework and research findings previously described. Given the small sample,
coders attained intercoder agreement by independently coding the entire data set (Riffe, Lacy &
Fico, 2014) then resolving disagreements through discussion.
Nominal data was uploaded to ReCal2: Reliability for 2 Coders. Krippendorff’s alpha
was used to determine percent reliability between coders and categories. Tests revealed high
reliability and initial agreement of 80% or higher for the independent coding of each category:
similarities (α = .76), differences (α = .80), emotional response (α = 1.00), external boundary
management practices (α = .91), internal boundary management practices (α = .73). In each case
of disagreement, responses were discussed until agreement was reached, resulting in 100%
agreement on all final coding.
Results
Here, we begin by describing the situations in which families reported feeling similar to
and different from other families, in order to provide context for the findings emerging from our
research questions. Then, we share our main findings and exemplar responses for each coding
category. Finally, we discuss the theoretical and practical implications of our findings.
The plurality of parents (40.0%, n = 6) did not, or were not able to, report contexts in
which they felt similar to other families. Example segments of responses include: “We live in
Burbank, CA and have for 7 years. I have never seen a family IRL [in real life] that looks like
mine,” and “I hadn’t ever felt like my family was like other families.” These quotes illustrate the
ongoing perception of family difference experienced by many LGBTQ parents. Of parents who
52
did report similarity experiences, three felt similarities in their local community, at times noting
the city or town in which they live as an explanation for the experience. For example, the
response, “Because we live in West LA, we generally feel like any other family” reflects parental
use of naming a town commonly viewed as progressive to rationalize feelings of inclusion.
Another three parents described recreational contexts, such as visits to amusement parks like
Disneyland, as prompting such feelings. Two parents described contexts organized specifically
for LGBTQ people and/or families, including LGBTQ pride events and closed events for
LGBTQ-parent families. Finally, one parent noted educational contexts. The participant
described how her child’s Montessori school “didn’t skip a beat” when she mentioned her female
partner and did not ask for “mom and dad information.”
Nearly all parents (80.0%, n = 12) described social contexts that prompted feelings of
difference. Five parents (33.3%) reported feeling different in their local community (RQ1b).
Responses included: “If I am out with just my son, people will always assume that I have a wife
when talking to them,” and “Any time I take my children out in public I get that feeling. Living
in a deep red state and being an LGBT parent pretty much automatically being [sic, brings] this
sense on.” Such comments illustrate the pervasive salience of family identity difference among
LGBTQ parents. Four parents (26.0%) cited travel as prompting feelings of difference (e.g.,
being the only visible gay family on a vacation, traveling outside of their home city to smaller
cities or certain U.S. regions). Three parents (20.0%) did not provide a context, though they may
have noted feelings of difference (e.g., “I feel like this often. I never feel like our family is just
like any other family.”). One parent each reported the contexts of educational, workplace, and
holiday settings.
53
To answer our first research question (RQ1), we coded for whether parents reported
feeling positive or negative emotions in situations of salient family difference. The large majority
of parents (80.0%, n = 12) experienced negative emotions in such situations. Specifically, they
used descriptors such as self-conscious, sad, lonely, isolated, scared, annoyed, disappointed,
uncomfortable, exhausted, angry, and anxious to portray their experiences. One example
includes, “It feels incredibly isolating. The judgement and condescension can be overwhelming
at times.” This depicts the feelings of stigmatization generally experienced among participants.
Two parents reported positive responses, saying. “It’s weird, but I get excited when they do it. It
is my chance to inform them that not all families are male-female couples,” and “[I feel] like I
am showing the world you can create a family in ways other than mainstream heteronormative
ways.”
Next, we examined the external identity management strategies used by parents to
communicate with non-family members (RQ2). Five parents (33.3%) that experienced
differences used the external strategy of labeling. Specifically, they reported correcting
assumptions/comments, often by stating familial ties (e.g., “my daughter,” “my husband”).
Others (one parent each) used the strategies of defending, de-escalating, and ignoring. One
parent reported saying to a non-family member, “Yes, he has two mommies. Is that an issue? Or
are we going to have a problem because I’d rather have you tell me now?” (defending). Another
said, “I generally try to approach situations with facts and humor. When people stare at my
family I will usually kiss my wife and tell people to take a picture as it will last longer” (de-
escalating). For four parents (28.6%), communicating with an external party was not applicable
to the situation they described. Three parents (21.4%) did not respond to the item.
54
Finally, we sought to understand how parents communicate with their children about
family identity challenges (RQ3). Six parents (40.0%) relied on narrating. For example, one
parent said, “We talk about our family and that there are different kinds of families such as
families with two dads, or two moms, or one mom, or one dad, or a grandma as parent etc.” Five
parents (33.3%) used ignoring, stating that their child was too young to understand. Three
parents used the strategy of discussing, referring to “frank” conversations. See Table 3.2 for
results.
Table 3.2. Contexts of challenge and enacted identity management strategies
______________________________________________________________________________

Contexts - similarities
Local 20.0% (n = 3)
Recreation 20.0% (n = 3)
LGBTQ 13.0% (n = 2)
Education 6.7% (n = 1)
Not applicable 40.0% (n = 6)

Contexts - differences
Local 33.0% (n = 5)
Travel 26.0% (n = 4)
Not applicable 20.0% (n = 3)
Education 6.7% (n = 1)
Holiday 6.7% (n = 1)
Workplace 6.7% (n = 1)

Emotional outcome of differences
Negative 80.0% (n = 12)
Positive 13.0% (n = 2)
Not applicable 6.7% (n = 1)

External strategies
Labeling 33.0% (n = 5)
Defending 6.7% (n = 1)
De-escalating 6.7% (n = 1)
Not applicable 28.6% (n = 4)
No response 21.4% (n = 3)

Internal strategies
Narrating 40.0% (n = 6)
55
Ignoring 33.0% (n = 5)
Discussing 20.0% (n = 4)
Not applicable 6.7% (n = 1)
______________________________________________________________________________

Post Hoc Analysis
While our sample was not sufficient for empirically testing for subgroup differences,
examining parental emotional responses in the context of family difference paired with their
demographic information revealed that the only two parents reporting positive emotional
responses to perceived family difference were white, cisgender, partnered, and of high
socioeconomic status (SES) – characteristics associated with high social capital/status in the U.S.
(Nieminen et al., 2008). Additionally, they resided in the Greater Los Angeles Area – a
politically liberal, diverse geographic region (California Secretary of State, 2013).
Discussion
The current study, drawing from theorizing of identity management in contexts of family
and stigma, elucidated the communicative and emotional experiences of diverse American
LGBTQ families and empirically pilot tested a family identity management typology. This study
examines a sample representing parents of many racial/ethnic backgrounds, gender identities,
and sexual orientations. Findings indicated that LGBTQ families tend to have more social
experiences that evoke feelings of family difference, rather than those that prompt feelings of
similarity. Feelings of similarity are fostered by some local communities, as well as recreational
activities and events organized specifically for LGBTQ people and families. However, many
participants (40.0%) did not or could not report situations where they felt similar to other
families. In contrast, the large majority of parents (80.0%) readily described contexts where they
perceived family differences. A primary context prompting feelings of difference were local
56
communities. These findings provide evidence for Miller and Kaiser’s (2001, p. 74) claim that
“for many stigmatized people, the context in which they are devalued is pervasive.”
Overwhelmingly, parents felt negative emotions when differences were salient (80.0%, n
= 12). Only two parents had positive responses, and their identities suggested they may have
high social capital/status, particularly in the diverse, liberal geographic region in which they
lived. To manage challenges externally, parents tended to use the strategy of labeling. Internally,
they relied on narrating to discuss family identity with their children.
These findings extend scholarly knowledge on multiple fronts. First, our results bolster
the descriptive base for LGBTQ family communication that has grown incrementally since West
and Turner (1995) established a foundation. Second, our extension of Galvin’s (2006) typology
and the testing of it in its entirety casts initial light on the relative use of each strategy among
LGBTQ families. Studies referencing Galvin’s (2006) strategies have tended to focus on the
nuances of individual strategies, leaving the relative frequency with which families of various
structures, and parents of different identities, enact each strategy unclear. That the LGBTQ
parents in this study tended to rely on labeling suggests the importance of normative framing in
contexts of social identity difference. The emergence of narrating as parents’ go-to strategy for
addressing family identity challenges with their children aligns with Breshear’s (2010) findings
with LGBTQ parents and with literature demonstrating storytelling as a critical form of sense-
making in the family context in general. Further, this study helps identify opportunities for
optimizing typologies of identity management strategies.
In coding parental responses, the researchers had difficulty identifying the strategy of
discussing, as based on Galvin’s (2006) description. Specifically, the coders interpreted the term
“discussing” as encompassing actions such as general conversation, posing/answering questions,
57
sharing information, and expressing emotions, while Galvin’s (2006) definition focused on
managing daily family business and identifying and solving family issues. We propose renaming
the prior category of discussing as problem-solving and retaining Galvin’s (2006) definition. See
Table 3.3 below.

Table 3.3. Proposed identity management strategies
______________________________________________________________________________
Strategy Description
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

External strategies

Labeling Identifying the familial tie, titles, or positions when introducing or
referring to another person.

Explaining Seeking to generate understanding about a labeled family
relationship, such as giving reasons for it or sharing how it works.

Defending Shielding the self or relationship from attack, justifying it, or
maintaining its validity against opposition, usually a response to a
direct challenge or hostility.

Legitimizing Invoking the sanction of law or customs, positioning a relationship
as conforming to recognized standards.

De-escalating Reducing the intensity of a situation by using humor or commentary
to lighten or soften the atmosphere/mood.

Ignoring Avoiding or declining addressing a situation.

Internal strategies

Naming Selecting names or terms/labels for both individual family members
and for the family as a whole.
s
Narrating Telling stories that give meaning to the family, often bringing
together memories, emotions, and opinions.

Problem-solving Identifying issues and attempting to resolve them. Negotiating and
planning approaches and tactics to manage identity-related
challenges.

Ritualizing Developing recurring celebrations, traditions, and routines.
58

Ignoring Avoiding or declining addressing a situation.
______________________________________________________________________________

From a practical standpoint, our findings suggest the need for contexts and programming
affirming LGBTQ family identity. These can provide parents with a respite from ubiquitous
social challenges and can demonstrate to children with LGBTQ parents that many other families
like theirs exist. The study’s results also confirm the importance of social policies recognizing
and protecting LGBTQ parents, as these parents tend to face pervasive feelings of difference and
stigmatization: compounding stressors that can negatively impact their well-being and that of
their children.
Limitations and Future Directions
Several limitations to this pilot study must be noted. First, the sample size is small but
aligns with prior studies of LGBTQ parents in the U.S. (e.g., Breshears, 2010, 2011) and with
analyses of open-ended responses that do not attempt generalization (Hill, 1998). The sample is
mostly female, aligning with the general population of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) parents
in the U.S, but represents a higher SES group than the general LGB parent population (Pew
Research Center, 2013). Regarding the methodology, the collection of written responses to a
questionnaire did not allow for follow-up questions, as in-depth interviews and focus groups
would; however, these alternative approaches were not feasible given the camp schedule and
resource considerations. Additionally, conducting qualitative analysis of responses would have
allowed for identification of emergent themes, but this approach did not align with our goal of
empirically testing an identity management typology informed by prior literature. In developing
the codebook, the researchers sought to create a framework inclusive of the experiences of
LGBTQ families as well as stigmatized families more broadly. Also of note, the study captures
59
family experiences at one time point. Future longitudinal research with LGBTQ families would
allow for assessment of the relative effectiveness of identity management strategies in promoting
family cohesion and individual psychological well-being. Finally, while the researchers had
prepared open-ended questions for the children in the program, only two children were old
enough to be eligible for the study. Thus, we did not seek to draw conclusions from these
responses. Future studies would benefit from including the voices of children.
In conclusion, the current study explored when and how a diverse group of LGBTQ
parents experienced feelings of similarity and difference regarding family identity, as well as
how they managed challenges externally and internally. It also tests an identity management
typology that seeks to provide a nuanced understanding of family identity-driven communication
patterns. Through investigating the commentary of LGBTQ parents, this study provides a
window into the lives and social experiences of American LGBTQ families today. In the 1990s,
changes to family structure, increased visibility, and the emergence of the field of LGBTQ
studies (see Gross (2005) for an overview) helped put LGBTQ families on the family
communication map. Yet, while these families are no longer new to the scholarly and public eye,
they are often still on the periphery, posing communicative challenges that warrant further
elucidation and theorizing.

60

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
The current studies with LGBTQ youth and families illustrate the ongoing challenges
facing these groups, as well as the potential for affirming spaces and interactions to improve
well-being and reduce health disparities. The pilot study evaluating a novel camp program for
LGBTQ youth shows how positive connections with similar peers and role models, as well as
identity-affirming programming, can improve the well-being of LGBTQ teens from a broad
range of backgrounds. The study also suggests the potential for gender-inclusive spaces to reduce
ongoing, daily stressors facing these youth, subsequently improving their outlook. A follow-up
study delving into the impact of social media use patterns on depressive symptoms among
LGBTQ youth indicates efforts by parents, educators, and others help LGBTQ teens build
satisfying connections and support in their local environment to reduce their reliance on
mediated contact, which is potentially not as beneficial for their mental health. Finally, the pilot
study of family camp programming reveals the ubiquitous salience of family identity difference
facing LGBTQ parents. Spaces affirming their family identity can reduce stressors (if only
temporarily) and help parents forge supportive social connections. Further, social policies
recognizing and protecting non-traditional family identities can reduce the need for LGBTQ
parents to constantly explain and/or defend their family. Taken together, these findings suggest
that the “magic day when we wake up and it's now okay to express ourselves publicly” has yet to
arrive for LGBTQ people, and as Senator Baldwin suggested, may never arrive, but efforts to
create affirming spaces can have a significant positive impact on the lives of youth and parents
today.
61
REFERENCES
Acosta, K. (2010). “How could you do this to me?”: How lesbian, bisexual, and queer Latinas
negotiate sexual identity with their families. Black Women, Gender & Families, 4(1), 63-85.
Adelabu, D. H. (2008). Future time perspective, hope, and ethnic identity among African
American adolescents. Urban Education, 43, 347–360. doi:10.1177/0042085907311806
American Camp Association. (2017). ACA facts and trends. Retrieved from https://www.
acacamps.org/press-room/aca-facts-trends
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(DSM-5®). American Psychiatric Pub.
Andersen, R., & Fetner, T. (2008). Cohort differences in tolerance of homosexuality: Attitudinal
change in Canada and the United States, 1981–2000. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 311–
330.
Badgett, M. V., Lau, H., Sears, B., & Ho, D. (2007). Bias in the workplace: Consistent evidence
of sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination. The Williams Institute. Retrieved
from: https://cloudfront.escholarship.org/dist/prd/content/qt5h3731xr/qt5h3731xr.pdf
Baek, Y. M., Bae, Y., & Jang, H. (2013). Social and parasocial relationships on social network
sites and their differential relationships with users' psychological well-being.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(7), 512-517.
Baldwin, T. (2000, April 30). Never Doubt. C-Span. Retrieved from: https://www.c-
span.org/video/?c4469705/never-doubt-speech-tammy-baldwin
Barker, E. (2016, June 27). This is the best way to overcome fear of missing out. Time. Retrieved
from http://time.com/4358140/overcome-fomo/
62
Barry, C. T., Sidoti, C. L., Briggs, S. M., Reiter, S. R., & Lindsey, R. A. (2017). Adolescent
social media use and mental health from adolescent and parent perspectives. Journal of
Adolescence, 61, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.08.005
Bartelt, E., Bowling, J., Dodge, B., & Bostwick, W. (2017). Bisexual identity in the context of
parenthood: An exploratory qualitative study of self-identified bisexual parents in the
United States. Journal of Bisexuality, 17(4), 378-399.
Becker, M. W., Alzahabi, R., & Hopwood, C. J. (2013). Media multitasking is associ- ated with
symptoms of depression and social anxiety. Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social
Networking, 16(2), 132-135. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0291
Bird, J. D., Kuhns, L., & Garofalo, R. (2012). The impact of role models on health outcomes for
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 50(4), 353–
357.
Bonanno, G. A., Wortman, C. B., & Nesse, R. M. (2004). Prospective patterns of resilience and
maladjustment during widowhood. Psychology and Aging, 19, 260. doi:10.1037/0882-
7974.19.2.260
Bowles, N. (2018, October 12). A dark consensus about screens and kids begins to emerge in
Silicon Valley. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/style/phones-
children-silicon-valley.html
Bozett, F. W. (1980). Gay fathers: How and why they disclose their homosexuality to their
children. Family Relations, 173-179.
Brady, S. T., Reeves, S. L., Garcia, J., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Cook, J. E., Taborsky-Barba, S., &
Cohen, G. L. (2016). The psychology of the affirmed learner: Spontaneous self-
affirmation in the face of stress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(3), 353.
63
Brave Trails. (2017). Media & news. Retrieved from www.bravetrails.org
Breshears, D. (2010). Coming out with our children: Turning points facilitating lesbian parent
discourse with their children about family identity. Communication Reports, 23(2), 79-
90.
Breshears, D. (2011). Understanding communication between lesbian parents and their children
regarding outsider discourse about family identity. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 7(3),
264-284.
Brown, S., Smalling, S., Groza, V., & Ryan, S. (2009). The experiences of gay men and lesbians
in becoming and being adoptive parents. Adoption Quarterly, 12, 229 246. doi:10.1080/
10926750903313294
Camp OUTdoors. (2017). Retrieved from http://outdoorsgaycamp.com/
California Secretary of State. (2013). Report of registration as of February 10, 2013: Registration
by political subdivision by county. Retrieved from:
https://web.archive.org/web/20131103114419/http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ror/ror-
pages/ror-odd-year-2013/political-sub.pdf
Cameron, J. E. (2004). A three-factor model of social identity. Self and Identity, 3(3), 239-262.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13576500444000047
Campbell-Sills, L., Cohan, S. L., & Stein, M. B. (2006). Relationship of resilience to personality,
coping, and psychiatric symptoms in young adults. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44,
585–599. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2005.05.001
Cappell, H., & Greeley, J. (1987). Alcohol and tension reduction: An update on research and
theory. In H. T. Blane, & K. E. Leonard (Eds.), Psychological theories of drinking and
alcoholism (pp. 15e54). New York, NY: Guilford.
64
Christensen, J. L., Miller, L. C., Appleby, P. R., Corsbie-Massay, C., Godoy, C. G., Marsella, S.
C., & Read, S. J. (2013). Reducing shame in a game that predicts HIV risk reduction for
young adult men who have sex with men: A randomized trial delivered nationally over
the web. Journal of the International AIDS Society, 16, 3. doi:10.7448/IAS.16.3.18716
Cohen, J. (2001). Defining identification: A theoretical look at the identification of audiences
with media characters. Mass Communication & Society, 4, 245–264. doi:10.1207/
S15327825MCS0403_01
Cohen, G. L., & Garcia, J. (2008). Identity, belonging, and achievement: A model, interventions,
implications. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(6), 365–369.
Cohn, T. J., & Leake, V. S. (2012). Affective distress among adolescents who endorse same-sex
sexual attraction: Urban versus rural differences and the role of protective factors.
Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 16, 291–305. doi:10.1037/a0026684
Creswell, J. D., Dutcher, J. M., Klein, W. M., Harris, P. R., & Levine, J. M. (2013). Self-
affirmation improves problem-solving under stress. PLoS One, 8(5), e62593.
doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0062593
Cruwys, T., Haslam, S. A., Dingle, G. A., Haslam, C., & Jetten, J. (2014). Depression and social
identity: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(3), 215–
238.
Crisp, C., & McCave, E. L. (2007). Gay affirmative practice: A model for social work practice
with gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 24,
403– 421. doi:10.1007/s10560-007-0091-z
Eisenberg, M. E., & Resnick, M. D. (2006). Suicidality among gay, lesbian and bisexual youth:
The role of protective factors. Journal of Adolescent Health, 39(5), 662–668.
65
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 62(1), 107-115. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
Epton, T., Harris, P. R., Kane, R., Van Koningsbruggen, G. M., & Sheeran, P. (2015). The
impact of self-affirmation on health-behavior change: A meta-analysis. Health
Psychology, 34, 187. doi:10.1037/hea0000116
Estevez, G. (2018, June 26). If you're LGBTQ and want to raise a family, then California is the
best state for you. The Desert Sun. Retrieved from:
https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/2018/06/26/report-california-best-state-lgbtq-
families/736370002/
Falk, G. (2001). Stigma: How we treat outsiders. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Farr, R. H., Tasker, F., & Goldberg, A. E. (2017). Theory in highly cited studies of sexual
minority parent families: variations and implications. Journal of Homosexuality, 64(9),
1143-1179.
Field, T. L., & Mattson, G. (2016). Parenting transgender children in PFLAG. Journal of GLBT
Family Studies, 12, 1–17.
Fish, J. N., & Pasley, K. (2015). Sexual (minority) trajectories, mental health, and alcohol use: A
longitudinal study of youth as they transition to adulthood. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 44(8), 1508–1527.
Fortin, J. (2018, May 12). Oklahoma passes adoption law that LGBT groups call discriminatory.
New York Times. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/12/us/oklahoma-
gay-adoption-bill.html
Galvin, K. M. (2006). Diversity’s impact on defining the family. The family communication
sourcebook, 3-19.
66
Ganz, M. (2011). Public narrative, collective action, and power. In S. Odugbemi & T. Lee (Eds.),
Accountability through public opinion: From inertia to public action (pp. 273–289).
Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Gates, G. (2012). Family formation and raising children among same-sex couples. NCFR Report.
Gates, G. (2013). LGBT Parenting in the United States. The Williams Institute.
Gershorn, L. (2016). Summer camp, history of. Retrieved from https://daily.jstor.org/history-
summer-camp/
Gillig, T. K., & Murphy, S. T. (2016). Fostering support for LGBTQ youth?: The effects of a gay
adolescent media portrayal on young viewers. International Journal of Communication,
10, 3828–3850.
GLAAD & The Harris Poll. (2018). Accelerating acceptance: A survey of American acceptance
and attitudes toward LGBTQ Americans. Los Angeles, CA.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on a spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Grace, A. P., & Wells, K. (2007). Using freirean pedagogy of just ire to inform critical social
learning in arts-informed community education for sexual minorities. Adult Education
Quarterly, 57, 95–114. doi:10.1177/0741713606294539
Green, R., Mandel, J. B., Hotvedt, M. E., Gray, J., & Smith, L. (1986). Lesbian mothers and their
children: A comparison with solo parent heterosexual mothers and their children.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15(2), 167-184.
Gross, L. (2005). The past and the future of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender studies.
Journal of Communication, 55(3), 508-528.
Gross, L. (2007). Gideon who will be 25 in the year 2012: Growing up gay today. International
Journal of Communication, 1, 18.
67
Grzanka, P. R., & Miles, J. R. (2016). The problem with the phrase “intersecting identities”:
LGBT affirmative therapy, intersectionality, and neoliberalism. Sexuality Research and
Social Policy, 13, 1–19.
Gullan, R. L., Power, T. J., & Leff, S. S. (2013). The role of empowerment in a school-based
community service program with inner-city, minority youth. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 28, 664–689. doi:10.1177/0743558413477200
Haines, B. A., Ajayi, A. A., & Boyd, H. (2014). Making trans parents visible: Intersectionality of
trans and parenting identities. Feminism & Psychology, 24(2), 238-247.
Harper, G. W., Brodsky, A., & Bruce, D. (2012). What’s good about being gay? Perspectives
from youth. Journal of LGBT Youth, 9(1), 22–41.
Hatzenbuehler, M. L. (2009). How does sexual minority stigma “get under the skin”? A
psychological mediation framework. Psychological Bulletin, 135(5), 707.
Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Phelan, J. C., & Link, B. G. (2013). Stigma as a fundamental cause of
population health inequalities. American Journal of Public Health, 103(5), 813-821.
doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.301069
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A
regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hillier, L., Mitchell, K. J., & Ybarra, M. L. (2012). The Internet as a safety net: Findings from a
series of online focus groups with LGB and non-LGB young people in the United States.
Journal of LGBT Youth, 9, 225–246. doi:10.1080/19361653.2012.684642
Hoffner, C., & Buchanan, M. (2005). Young adults’ wishful identification with television
characters: The role of perceived similarity and character attributes. Media Psychology, 7,
325–351. doi:10.1207/S1532785XMEP0704_2
68
Hogg, M. A., Abrams, D., Otten, S., & Hinkle, S. (2004). The social identity perspective:
Intergroup relations, self-conception, and small groups. Small Group Research, 35(3),
246-276
Horstman, H. K., Colaner, C. W., Nelson, L. R., Bish, A., & Hays, A. (2018). Communicatively
constructing birth family relationships in open adoptive families: Naming, connecting,
and relational functioning. Journal of Family Communication, 18(2), 138-152.
Ilardi, S. S., & Craighead, W. E. (1994). The role of nonspecific factors in cognitive-behavior
therapy for depression. Clinical Psychology, 1, 138–155.
Ilardi, S. S., & Craighead, W. E. (1999). The relationship between personality pathology and
dysfunctional cognitions in previously depressed adults. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 108, 51. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.108.1.51
Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., & Silvestre, B. S. (2011). Social media? Get
serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business
Horizons, 54(3), 241e251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2011.01.005
Kirschman, K. J. B., Roberts, M. C., Shadlow, J. O., & Pelley, T. J. (2010, December). An
evaluation of hope following a summer camp for inner-city youth. In Child & Youth Care
Forum, 39, 385–396. doi:10.1007/s10566-010-9119-1
Koenig Kellas, J., & Suter, E. A. (2012). Accounting for lesbian-headed families: Lesbian
mothers' responses to discursive challenges. Communication Monographs, 79(4), 475-
498.
Kosciw, J. G., & Diaz, E. M. (2006). The 2005 national school climate survey: The experiences
of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York, NY:
Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network.
69
Kosciw, J. G., Palmer, N. A., Kull, R. M., & Greytak, E. A. (2013). The effect of negative school
climate on academic outcomes for LGBT youth and the role of in-school supports.
Journal of School Violence, 12, 45–63. doi:10.1080/15388220.2012.732546
Levy, E. F. (1992). Strengthening the coping resources of lesbian families. Families in Society,
73(1), 23-31.
Lewinsohn, P. M., Seeley, J. R., Roberts, R. E., & Allen, N. B. (1997). Center for epidemiologic
studies depression scale (CES-D) as a screening instrument for depression among com-
munity-residing older adults. Psychology and Aging, 12, 277. doi:10.1037/0882-
7974.12.2.277
Lin, L. Y., Sidani, J. E., Shensa, A., Radovic, A., Miller, E., Colditz, J. B., & Primack, B. A.
(2016). Association between social media use and depression among US young adults.
Depression and Anxiety, 33(4), 323-331. https://doi-
org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1002/da.22466
Lott-Whitehead, L., & Tully, C. T. (1993). The family lives of lesbian mothers. Smith College
Studies in Social Work, 63, 265-280.
Macintosh, L., & Bryson, M. (2008). Youth, Myspace, and the interstitial spaces of becoming
and belonging. Journal of LGBT Youth, 5, 133–142.
Maguire, P. (1987). Doing participatory research: A feminist approach. Participatory Research
& Practice. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Center for International
Education.
Marar, Z. (2012). Intimacy: Understanding the subtle power of human connection. ELEC.
Durham, United Kingdom: Acumen Publishing. Retrieved from: http://
ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?
70
Meisenbach, R. J. (2010). Stigma management communication: A theory and agenda for applied
research on how individuals manage moments of stigmatized identity. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 38(3), 268-292.
Meixler, E. (2018, October 2). Trump administration halts visas for unmarried same-sex partners
of diplomats. Time. Retrieved from: http://time.com/5412318/u-s-visa-same-sex-partner-
diplomats/
Mohr, J. J., & Kendra, M. S. (2011). Revision and extension of a multidimensional measure of
sexual minority identity: The lesbian, gay, and bisexual identity scale. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 58, 234. doi:10.1037/a0022858
Norton, A. T., & Herek, G. M. (2013). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward transgender people:
Findings from a national probability sample of US adults. Sex Roles, 68(11–12), 738–
753. doi:10.1007/s11199- 011-0110-6.
Nieminen, T., Martelin, T., Koskinen, S., Simpura, J., Alanen, E., Härkänen, T., & Aromaa, A.
(2008). Measurement and socio-demographic variation of social capital in a large
population-based survey. Social Indicators Research, 85(3), 405-423.
Nuttbrock, L., Bockting, W., Rosenblum, A., Mason, M., Macri, M., & Becker, J. (2012).
Gender identity conflict/affirmation and major depression across the life course of trans-
gender women. International Journal of Transgenderism, 13, 91–103. doi:10.1080/
15532739.2011.657979
Nyden, P., & Wiewel, W. (1992). Collaborative research: Harnessing the tensions between
researcher and practitioner. The American Sociologist, 43-55
Obergefell v. Hodges, No. 14-556, slip op. at 23 (U.S. June 26, 2015).
71
Olsson, C. A., Bond, L., Burns, J. M., Vella-Brodrick, D. A., & Sawyer, S. M. (2003).
Adolescent resilience: A concept analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 26, 1–11.
doi:10.1016/ S0140-1971(02)00118-5
Pachankis, J. E., & Goldfried, M. R. (2013). Clinical issues in working with lesbian, gay, and
bisexual clients. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1, 45–58.
doi:10.1037/2329-0382.1.S.45
Patterson, C. J., & Riskind, R. G. (2010). To be a parent: Issues in family formation among gay
and lesbian adults. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 6, 326 340. doi:10.1080/1550428X.
2010.490902
Pawelski, J. G., Perrin, E. C., Foy, J. M., Allen, C. E., Crawford, J. E., Del Monte, M., et al.
(2006). The effects of marriage, Civil union, and domestic partnership laws on the health
and well-being of children. Pediatrics, 118, 349–364.
Pea, R., Nass, C., Meheula, L., Rance, M., Kumar, A., Bamford, H., & Zhou, M. (2012). Media
use, face-to-face communication, media multitasking, and social well-being among 8- to
12-year-old girls. Developmental Psychology, 48, 327. doi:10.1037/a0027030
Pear, R. (2018, April 21). Trump plan would cut back health care protections for transgender
people. New York Times. Retrieved from:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/21/us/politics/trump-transgender-health-care.html
Pew Research Center. (2017, June 26). Support for same-sex marriage grows, even among
groups that had been skeptical. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/2017/06/26/
support-for-same-sex-marriage-grows-even-among-groups-that-had-been-skeptical/
Pew Research Center. (2018). Teens, social media, & technology. Retrieved from:
http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/05/31/teens-social-media-technology-2018/
72
Prestin, A. (2013). The pursuit of hopefulness: Operationalizing hope in entertainment media
narratives. Media Psychology, 16, 318–346. doi:10.1080/15213269.2013.773494
Primack, B. A., Shensa, A., Escobar-Viera, C. G., Barrett, E. L., Sidani, J. E., Colditz, J. B., &
James, A. E. (2017). Use of multiple social media platforms and symptoms of depression
and anxiety: A nationally-representative study among US young adults. Computers in
Human Behavior, 69, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.013
Public Religion Research Institute. (2015). How race and religion shape millennials attitudes on
sexuality and reproductive health. Retrieved from http://www.prri.org/research/survey-
how-race-and-religion-shape-millennial-attitudes-on-sexuality-and-reproductive-health/#.
VZIXQqbTGWY
QORDS. (2017). Queer oriented radical days of summer. Retrieved from www.qords.org
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Rosenberg self-esteem scale (RSE). Acceptance and Commitment
Therapy. Measures Package, 61, 52.
Reid, W. (2014, May 17). The most expensive ballot initiatives. Washington Post. Retreived
from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/
Ricketts, W., & Achtenberg, R. (1989). Adoption and foster parenting for lesbians and gay men:
Creating new traditions in family. Marriage & Family Review, 14(3-4), 83-118.
Rideout, V. (2018). The common sense census: Media use by tweens and teens. Retrieved from:
https://www.commonsensemedia.org/
Rideout, V., & Robb, M. B. (2018). Social media, social life: Teens reveal their experiences.
Retrieved from: https://www.commonsensemedia.org/

73
Riffe, D., Lacy, S., & Fico, F. (2014). Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content
analysis in research. New York, NY: Routledge.
Ross, L. E., & Dobinson, C. (2013). Where is the “B” in LGBT parenting? A call for research on
bisexual parenting. In LGBT-parent families (pp. 87-103). Springer, New York, NY.
Ross, L. E., Doctor, F., Dimito, A., Kuehl, D., & Armstrong, M. S. (2007). Can talking about
oppression reduce depression? Modified CBT group treatment for LGBT people with
depression. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 19(1), 1–15.
Russell, S. T., & Horn, S. S. (Ed.). (2016). Sexual orientation, gender identity, and schooling:
The nexus of research, practice, and policy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ryan, T., Chester, A., Reece, J., & Xenos, S. (2014). The uses and abuses of Facebook: a
review of Facebook addiction. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 3(3), 133e148.
https://doi.org/10.1556/JBA.3.2014.016
Saewyc, E. M., Homma, Y., Skay, C. L., Bearinger, L. H., Resnick, M. D., & Reis, E. (2009).
Protective factors in the lives of bisexual adolescents in North America. American
Journal of Public Health, 99, 110–117. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2007.123109
Scharkow, M. (2016). The accuracy of self-reported Internet use—A validation study using
client log data. Communication Methods and Measures, 10(1), 13-27. https://doi-
org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1080/19312458.2015.1118446
Schrank, B., Stanghellini, G., & Slade, M. (2008). Hope in psychiatry: A review of the
literature. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 118(6), 421e433. doi:10.1111/j.1600-
0447.2008.01271.x
74
Shensa, A., Sidani, J. E., yi Lin, L., Bowman, N. D., & Primack, B. A. (2016). Social media use
and perceived emotional support among US young adults. Journal of Community Health,
41(3), 541-549. doi:10.1007/s10900-015-0128-8
Sherman, D. K., & Cohen, G. L. (2006). The psychology of self-defense: Self-affirmation theory.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 183–242. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601
(06)38004-5
Shorey, H. S., Snyder, C. R., Yang, X., & Lewin, M. R. (2003). The role of hope as a mediator in
recollected parenting, adult attachment, and mental health. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 22, 685–715. doi:10.1521/jscp.22.6.685.22938
Sin, N. L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2009). Enhancing well-being and alleviating depressive
symptoms with positive psychology interventions: A practice-friendly meta-analysis.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65(5), 467–487.
Smith, R. A. (2007). Language of the lost: An explication of stigma communication.
Communication Theory, 17(4), 462-485.
Snapp, S. D., Russell, S. T., Arredondo, M., & Skiba, R. (2016). A right to disclose: LGBTQ
youth representation in data, science, and policy. Advances in Child Development and
Behavior, 50, 135–159.
Snyder, C. R. (2002). Hope theory: Rainbows in the mind. Psychological Inquiry, 13(4), 249–
275.
Snyder, C. R., Sympson, S. C., Ybasco, F. C., Borders, T. F., Babyak, M. A., & Higgins, R. L.
(1996). Development and validation of the state hope scale. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 70, 321–335. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.2.321
75
Soliz, J., & Harwood, J. (2006). Shared family identity, age salience, and intergroup contact:
Investigation of the grandparent–grandchild relationship. Communication Monographs,
73(1), 87-107.
Sowislo, J. F., & Orth, U. (2013). Does low self-esteem predict depression and anxiety? A meta-
analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 213. doi:10.1037/ a0028931
Srnka, K. J., & Koeszegi, S. T. (2007). From words to numbers: How to transform qualitative
data into meaningful quantitative results. Schmalenbach Business Review, 59(1), 29-57.
doi:10.1007/BF03396741
Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 261–302.
Steinhardt, M., & Dolbier, C. (2008). Evaluation of a resilience intervention to enhance coping
strategies and protective factors and decrease symptomatology. Journal of American
College Health, 56, 445–453. doi:10.3200/JACH.56.44.445-454
Stoecker, R. (1999). Are academics irrelevant? Roles for scholars in participatory research.
American Behavioral Scientist, 42(5), 840-854. https://doi-
org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1177/00027649921954561
Stoecker, R. (2004, May 13). Creative tensions in the new community-based research. Keynote
addressed prepared for the Community-Based Research Network Symposium, Carleton
University, Ottawa, Canada.
Strand, K., Marullo, S., Cutforth, N., Stoecker, R., & Donohue, P. (2003). Community-based
research and higher education: Principles and practices. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley
& Sons.
76
Suter, E. A. (2014). Communication in lesbian and gay families. In L. H. Turner, & R. West
(Eds.), The Sage handbook of family communication (pp. 235–247). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Suter, E. A., Seurer, L. M., Webb, S., Grewe Jr, B., & Koenig Kellas, J. (2015). Motherhood as
contested ideological terrain: Essentialist and queer discourses of motherhood at play in
female–female co-mothers' talk. Communication Monographs, 82(4), 458-483.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The social
psychology of intergroup relations, 33(47), 74.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004). The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior. In J. T.
Jost & J. Sidanius (Eds.), Key readings in social psychology. Political psychology: Key
readings (pp. 276-293). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Theriault, D. (2017). Implementation of Promising Practices for LGBTQ Inclusion: A Multilevel
Process. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 35(3), 122–134.
doi:10.3200/JACH.56.44.445-454
Thurber, C. A., Scanlin, M. M., Scheuler, L., & Henderson, K. A. (2007). Youth development
outcomes of the camp experience: Evidence for multidimensional growth. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 36, 241–254. doi:10.1007/s10964-006-9142-6
Twenge, J. M., Joiner, T. E., Rogers, M. L., & Martin, G.N. (2018). Increases in depressive
symptoms, related outcomes, and suicide rates among U.S. adolescents after 2010 and
links to increased new media screen time. Clinical Psychological Science., 6(1), 3-17.
http://doi.org/10.1177/2167702617723376
Twenge, J. M., Martin, G. N., & Spitzberg, B. H. (2018). Trends in US Adolescents’ media use,
1976–2016: The rise of digital media, the decline of TV, and the (near) demise of print.
77
Psychology of Popular Media Culture.
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1037/ppm0000203
Uhls, Y. T., Michikyan, M., Morris, J., Garcia, D., Small, G. W., Zgourou, E., & Greenfield, P.
M. (2014). Five days at outdoor education camp without screens improves preteen skills
with nonverbal emotion cues. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 387-392.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.036
Underwood, M. K., & Ehrenreich, S. E. (2017). The power and the pain of adolescents' digital
communication: Cyber victimization and the perils of lurking. American Psychologist, 2,
144-158. http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1037/a0040429
U.S. Census Bureau. (2012, April). Households and families: 2010 (2010 Census Briefs,
C2010BR-14). Retrieved from: http://www.census.gob/prod/cen2010/briefs/C2010br-
14.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. (2017, September 12). Income and poverty in the United States: 2016
(Report No. P60–259). Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2017/ demo/p60-259.html
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). Chronic disease prevention and health
promotion. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publica
tions/aag/dash.htm
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). School connectedness: Strategies for
increasing protective factors among youth. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services. Retrieved from www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/protective/pdf/connected
ness.pdf
78
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2016). National survey on drug use and
health. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,
Office of Applied Studies.
van den Eijnden, R. J., Lemmens, J. S., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2016). The social media disorder
scale. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 478-487.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.038
Van Rooij, A. V., & Schoenmakers, T. M. (2013). Monitor Internet en Jongeren 2010- 2012. Het
(mobiele) gebruik van sociale media en games door jongeren [Monitor Internet and
Youth 2010-2012: The (mobile) use of social media and games by adolescents].
http://www.ivo.nl/UserFiles/File/Publicaties/2013-01%20Factsheet
%20Social%20media%20en%20gamen.pdf.
Verduzco, I. L. (2016). Barriers to sexual expression and safe sex among Mexican gay men: A
qualitative approach. American Journal of Men's Health, 10(4), 270-284.
Vincke, J., & van Heeringen, K. (2004). Summer holiday camps for gay and lesbian young
adults: An evaluation of their impact on social support and mental well-being. Journal of
Homosexuality, 47(2), 33–46.
Visser, P. L., Loess, P., Jeglic, E. L., & Hirsch, J. K. (2013). Hope as a moderator of negative life
events and depressive symptoms in a diverse sample. Stress and Health, 29, 82–88.
doi:10.1002/smi.2433
Wagnild, G., & Young, H. (1993). Development and psychometric. Journal of Nursing
Measurement, 1, 165–178.
Wallerstein, N. B., & Duran, B. (2006). Using community-based participatory research to
address health disparities. Health Promotion Practice, 7(3), 312-323.
79
West, R., & Turner, L. H. (1995). Communication in lesbian and gay families: Building a
descriptive base. Parents, children, and communication: Frontiers of theory and research,
147-169.
Wingo, A. P., Wrenn, G., Pelletier, T., Gutman, A. R., Bradley, B., & Ressler, K. J. (2010).
Moderating effects of resilience on depression in individuals with a history of childhood
abuse or trauma exposure. Journal of Affective Disorders, 126, 411–414. doi:10.1016/j.
jad.2010.04.009
Woods, K., Mayes, S., Bartley, E., Fedele, D., & Ryan, J. (2013). An evaluation of psychosocial
outcomes for children and adolescents attending a summer camp for youth with chronic
illness. Children’s Health Care, 42, 85–98. doi:10.1080/02739615.2013.753822
Woods, H. C., & Scott, H. (2016). #Sleepyteens: Social media use in adolescence is associated
with poor sleep quality, anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem. Journal of
Adolescence, 51, 41-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.05.008
Zarembka, A. (2015). Advising same-sex couples after Obergefell and Windsor. GPSolo, 32 (4).
Chicago, IL: American Bar Association. Retrieved from http://www.americanbar.org/
publications/gp_solo/2015/july-august.html

80
APPENDIX I: PILOT SURVEY INSTRUMENTS
Brave Trails Camp Kick-Off Survey
Thank you in advance for completing this survey. It should take about 15 minutes. You will be asked
questions about yourself and your experiences so far with Brave Trails. Please be as open and honest as
possible. Your responses are completely anonymous, and your name will NOT in any way be connected
to your answers.

If you complete this survey, you can choose to be entered into a raffle for a $100 Visa gift card.

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Traci Gillig at tgillig@usc.edu or Jessica
Weissbuch at Jessica@bravetrails.org.

Please indicate below that you have read the information and agree to participate in this survey. If you
are under age 18, please also indicate that your parents have read the information above and allow you
to participate.

[Page break.]

In the box below, type the last four digits of your primary phone number, followed by the
number of siblings you have. For example, if your phone number is 555.555.1234 and you have
0 siblings, you would type “12340”.

[Page break.]

The following questions ask about your experience as an LGBTQ+ person. Please mark how
much you agree or disagree with the following statements.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Strongly
disagree agree

I feel comfortable with people knowing I am an LGBTQ+ person.

I am glad to be an LGBTQ+ person.

My LGBTQ+ identity is a significant part of who I am.

[Page break.]

Think carefully about your experiences in your everyday life. To what extent do you agree or
disagree with the following statements?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Strongly
disagree agree
81

I can be on my own if I have to.

I am friends with myself.

I can get through difficult times because I’ve experienced difficulty before.

I can usually find something to laugh about.

My belief in myself gets me through hard times.

My life has meaning.

I tend to dwell on things I can’t do anything about.

When I’m in a difficult situation, I can usually find my way out of it.

It’s okay if there are people who do not like me.

[Page break.]

To what extent do you agree with the following statements?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Strongly
disagree agree

I can usually organize people to get things done.

Other people usually follow my ideas.

I find it very hard to talk in front of a group.

I like to work on solving a problem myself rather than wait and see if someone else will deal
with it.

I like trying new things that are challenging to me.

I am often a leader in groups.

I would prefer to be a leader rather than a follower.

I would rather have a leadership role when I’m involved in a group project.

82
[Page break.]

Read each item carefully. Using the scale shown below, please select the statement that best
describes how you think about yourself right now. Please take a few moments to focus on
yourself and what is going on in your life at this moment. Once you are thinking about the “here
and now”, answer each item:
Definitel
y false
Mostl
y false
Somewha
t false
Slightl
y false
Slightl
y true
Somewha
t true
Mostl
y true
Definitel
y true
If I
should
find
myself in
a jam, I
can think
of many
ways to
get out of
it.

I am
working
to achieve
my goals.

There are
lots of
ways
around
any
problem I
am facing
now.

Right
now, I see
myself as
being
pretty
successfu
l.

I have a
hard time
thinking
of ways
to reach
my
current

83
goals.
[reversed]
At this
time, I am
meeting
the goals
I have set
for
myself.

[Page break.]

For the following items, on a scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 9 (Strongly agree), please
choose the number that best represents your feelings about LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, queer, and/or questioning) people.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Strongly
disagree agree

I do not feel like I am a member of the LGBTQ+ community.

I feel like I belong in the LGBTQ+ community.

LGBTQ+ people share a sense of companionship.

[Page break.]

Below is a list of ways people may feel or behave. Please indicate on how many days you have
felt each way during the past week.

[Matrix of 7 days to 0 days.]

I felt depressed.

I felt lonely.

I had crying spells.

I felt sad.

[Page break.]

Additional Info/Demographics

How long will you spend at Camp Brave Trails this summer?
84
___ 2 weeks
___ 1 week

How old are you?
Text entry 10-25.

What is your gender identity?
___ Male
___ Female
___ Intersex
___ Other, please specify: _________

Did your biological sex at birth align with the gender you identify as?
__ No
__ Yes

Please select the description below that best describes your sexual orientation.
___ Gay
___ Lesbian
___ Bisexual
___ Pansexual
___ Queer
___ Questioning
___ Straight/heterosexual
___ Asexual
___ Other, please specify: ______________________
What is your race/ethnicity? Please check all that apply:
___ Non-Hispanic White
___ Latino
___ Black
___ Asian
___ Pacific Islander
___ Middle Eastern
___ Native American
___ Other, please specify: ________________________

In what city or town do you live?

Please write in: ______________________________

In what state do you live?

85
Please write in: ______________________________

In what country do you live?

Please write in: ______________________________

Which best describes your current residence?
___ Living with immediate biological family (for example, mother, father)
___ Living with extended biological family (for example, aunt, uncle, grandparents)
___ Living with both immediate and extended biological family in one home
___ Living alone
___ Living with friends
___ Living in a foster home
___ Homeless
___ Other, please specify: ________________________

Which of the following best describes your religious beliefs?
___ Christian
___ Jewish
___ Muslim
___ Buddhist
___ Hindu
___ Agnostic
___ Atheist
___ Unsure
___ Other, please specify: ________________________

Which best describes your current educational situation?
___ Student in public school
___ Student in non-religious private school
___ Student in a parochial (religious) school
___ Student in an alternative school (for example, a special education cooperative)
___ Home schooled
___ Non-student
___ Other [Please specify: ________________________]

Which best describes your current employment?
___ Working full time
___ Working part time
___ Not working
___ Not applicable

Did you attend Camp Brave Trails last year (Summer 2015)?
___ Yes [Continue]
___ No [Send to Thank You]
86

[Page break]

Brave Trails thanks you for your help with this survey! Would you like to be entered into a drawing for a
chance to win a $100 Visa gift card?

If you answer yes, you will be taken to a different form where you will be asked to enter your name and
email address. Your name and email will be used only for the drawing and will not be connected to your
survey responses in any way.

___ No
___ Yes

[Redirect to new survey]

To enter into the drawing, please complete the following:

First Name: _______________________

Last Name: _______________________

Primary Email Address: ________________________
87
Brave Trails Parent Survey

Thank you in advance for taking the time to complete this survey. It should take about 10 minutes to
finish. You will be asked questions about your experiences as a parent and with Brave Trails. Please be
as open and honest as possible. Your responses are anonymous, and your name will not in any way be
connected to your answers.

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Jessica Weissbuch at Jessica@bravetrails.org or
Traci Gillig at tgillig@usc.edu.

[Page break.]

Think of how you have seen your child act since returning from Brave Trails. Please indicate to
what extent the following statements are accurate.

1 2 3 4
Not at Somewhat Mostly Completely
All true true true true

My child’s confidence level has improved.

My child’s leadership skills have improved.

My child is more connected to the LGBTQ community.

My child has more mentors in the LGBTQ community.

What other changes in your child, if any, have you noticed since your child attended Brave
Trails?
[Free response]

What changes, if any, have you noticed in your family as a whole since your child attended
Brave Trails?
[Free response]

[Page break.]

What was your child’s feedback about their experience at Brave Trails?

[Free response]

[Page break.]

Demographics

88
How old are you?
[Text entry, 18-100]

What is your gender identity?
Male ( )
Female ( )
Transgender male ( )
Transgender female ( )
Intersex ( )
Gender non-conforming ( )
Other identity, please specify: ________

Did your biological sex at birth align with the gender you identify as?
__ No
__ Yes

Please select the description below that best fits you.
Straight/heterosexual ( )
Gay ( )
Lesbian ( )
Bisexual ( )
Pansexual ( )
Queer ( )
Questioning ( )
Asexual ( )
Other, please specify: ______________________

[Page break.]

What is your child’s gender identity?
Male ( )
Female ( )
Transgender male ( )
Transgender female ( )
Intersex ( )
Gender non-conforming ( )
Other identity, please specify: ________

Did your child’s biological sex at birth align with the gender they identify as?
__ No
__ Yes

Which of the following best describes your child’s sexual orientation?
Straight/heterosexual ( )
Gay ( )
Lesbian ( )
89
Bisexual ( )
Pansexual ( )
Queer ( )
Questioning ( )
Other, please specify: ______________________

[Page break.]

What is your ethnicity?
___ Non-Hispanic White
___ Hispanic
___ Black
___ Asian
___ Pacific Islander
___ Middle Eastern
___ Native American
___ Other, please specify: ________________________

In what state do you live?

Please write in: ______________________________

In what city or town do you live?

Please write in: ______________________________

Which of the following best describes your religious beliefs?
___ Christian
___ Jewish
___ Muslim
___ Buddhist
___ Hindu
___ Agnostic
___ Atheist
___ Unsure
___ Other, please specify: ________________________

How would you describe your political ideology?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very Very
Conservative Liberal

What is the level of education you have completed?
___ No schooling completed
___ 8
th
grade
___ High school (diploma or GED)
90
___ Trade/technical/vocational training
___ Associate degree
___ Bachelors degree
___ Masters degree
___ Professional degree
___ Doctorate degree

Which best describes your marital status?
___ Never married
___ Married or domestic partnership
___ Widowed
___ Divorced
___ Separated
___ Other, please specify: ____________

Which best describes your total household income?
___ Less than $10,000
___ $10,000 to $19,999
___ $20,000 to $29,999
___ $30,000 to $39,999
___ $40,000 to $49,999
___ $50,000 to $59,999
___ $60,000 to $69,999
___ $70,000 to $79,999
___ $80,000 to $89,999
___ $90,000 to $99,999
___ $100,000 to $149,999
___ $150,000 or more
___ Prefer not to answer

[Page break.]

Thank you for taking the time to take our survey!

91
APPENDIX II: YOUTH SURVEY INSTRUMENTS
Brave Trails Pre-Camp Survey
Thank you in advance for completing this survey. It should take about 10-15 minutes. You will be asked
questions about yourself and your experiences. Please be as open and honest as possible. Your responses
are completely anonymous, and your name will NOT in any way be connected to your answers.

If you complete this survey and the survey shared on the last day of camp, you can choose to be
entered into a raffle for a $100 Visa gift card.

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Traci Gillig at tgillig@usc.edu or Jessica
Weissbuch at Jessica@bravetrails.org.

Please indicate below that you have read the information and agree to participate in this survey.
____

[Page break.]
Identifiers

In the boxes below, please type your first and last names (whichever you typically use when
completing forms or paperwork). This information is important for processing your responses.
Brave Trails will NOT ever see your name connected to your survey responses.

First name: __________________________
Last name: __________________________

[Page break.]

Below is a list of ways people may feel or behave. Please indicate on how many days you have
felt each way during the past week.

[Matrix of 7 days to 0 days.]

I felt depressed.

I felt lonely.

I had crying spells.

I felt sad.

[Page break.]

Please select how much you agree or disagree with each statement below.

92
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Strongly
disagree agree

I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others.

I feel that I have a number of good qualities.

I do not think that I am a failure.

I can do things as well as most other people.

I have much to be proud of.

I take a positive attitude toward myself.

I am satisfied with myself.

I have respect for myself.

I feel useful.

I think I am a good person.

[Page break.]

Prior Brave Trails Participation

In what years did you attend Camp Brave Trails in the past? Check all that apply.
___ 2017
___ 2016
___ 2015
___ None of the above
[Page break.]

Demographics

How old are you?
[Text entry 0-100.]
[Page break.]

Please select the gender identity below that best describes you.
___ Male
93
___ Female
___ Transgender male
___ Transgender female
___ Gender nonconforming
___ Other, please specify: _________

Did your biological sex at birth align with the gender you identify as?
__ No
__ Yes
__ Not sure
[Page break.]

Please select the sexual orientation below that best describes you.
___ Gay
___ Lesbian
___ Bisexual
___ Pansexual
___ Queer
___ Questioning/Unsure
___ Straight/Heterosexual
___ Other, please specify: ______________________
[Page break.]

What is your race/ethnicity? Please check all that apply:
___ White (Non-Hispanic)
___ Latino (including Latina or Latinx)
___ Black
___ Asian
___ Pacific Islander
___ Middle Eastern
___ Native American
___ Other, please specify: ________________________

[Page break.]

In what city or town do you live?
______________________________

In what state do you live?
______________________________

In what country do you live?
94
______________________________

[Page break.]

Which of the following best describes your religious beliefs?
___ Christian
___ Jewish
___ Agnostic
___ Atheist
___ Unsure
___ Other, please specify: ________________________

[Page break.]

Which best describes your current educational situation?
___ Student
___ Not a student
___ Other, please specify: ________________________]

[Page break.]

Which best describes your current employment?
___ Working full time
___ Working part time
___ Not working
___ Not applicable

[Page break.]

What session are you attending at Camp Brave Trails this summer?
___ Session 1 (California)
___ Session 2 (California)
___ Session 3 (California)
___ Session 4 (Maryland)
[Page break]

Brave Trails thanks you for your help with this survey! Would you like to enter a drawing for a chance to
win a $100 Visa gift card?

To enter, please type the email address you’d like us to contact you at if you win:
_________________

95
Brave Trails Post-Camp Survey
Thank you in advance for completing this survey. It should take about 10-15 minutes. You will be asked
questions about yourself and your experiences. Please be as open and honest as possible. Your responses
are completely anonymous, and your name will NOT in any way be connected to your answers.

If you complete this survey and completed the survey shared before camp, you can choose to be
entered into a raffle for a $100 Visa gift card.

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Traci Gillig at tgillig@usc.edu or Jessica
Weissbuch at Jessica@bravetrails.org.

Please indicate below that you have read the information and agree to participate in this survey.
____

[Page break.]
Identifiers

In the boxes below, please type your first and last names (whichever you typically use when
completing forms or paperwork). This information is important for processing your responses.
Brave Trails will NOT ever see your name connected to your survey responses.

First name: __________________________
Last name: __________________________

[Page break.]

Below is a list of ways people may feel or behave. Please indicate on how many days you have
felt each way during the past week.

Matrix of 7 days to 0 days.

I felt depressed.

I felt lonely.

I had crying spells.

I felt sad.

[Page break.]

Please select how much you agree or disagree with each statement below.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Strongly
disagree agree
96

I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others.

I feel that I have a number of good qualities.

I do not think that I am a failure.

I can do things as well as most other people.

I have much to be proud of.

I take a positive attitude toward myself.

I am satisfied with myself.

I have respect for myself.

I feel useful.

I think I am a good person.

[Page break.]

Prior Brave Trails Participation

In what years did you attend Camp Brave Trails in the past? Check all that apply.
___ 2017
___ 2016
___ 2015
___ None of the above
[Page break.]

Demographics

How old are you?
[Text entry 0-100.]
[Page break.]

Please select the gender identity below that best describes you.
___ Male
___ Female
___ Transgender male
___ Transgender female
97
___ Gender nonconforming
___ Other, please specify: _________

Did your biological sex at birth align with the gender you identify as?
__ No
__ Yes
__ Not sure
[Page break.]

Please select the sexual orientation below that best describes you.
___ Gay
___ Lesbian
___ Bisexual
___ Pansexual
___ Queer
___ Questioning/Unsure
___ Straight/Heterosexual
___ Other, please specify: ______________________
[Page break.]

What is your race/ethnicity? Please check all that apply:
___ White (Non-Hispanic)
___ Latino (including Latina or Latinx)
___ Black
___ Asian
___ Pacific Islander
___ Middle Eastern
___ Native American
___ Other, please specify: ________________________

[Page break.]

In what city or town do you live?
______________________________

In what state do you live?
______________________________

In what country do you live?
___ United States
___ Other, please specify: __________

98
[Page break.]

Which of the following best describes your religious beliefs?
___ Christian
___ Jewish
___ Agnostic
___ Atheist
___ Unsure
___ Other, please specify: ________________________

[Page break.]

Which best describes your current educational situation?
___ Student
___ Not a student
___ Other, please specify: ________________________]

[Page break.]

Which best describes your current employment?
___ Working full time
___ Working part time
___ Not working
___ Not applicable

[Page break.]

What session are you attending at Camp Brave Trails this summer?
___ Session 1 (California)
___ Session 2 (California)
___ Session 3 (California)
___ Session 4 (Maryland)
[Page break.]

Cabin

Please answer the following about your experience at camp.

What was your cabin name? ___________
[Page break]

Brave Trails thanks you for your help with this survey! Would you like to enter a drawing for a chance to
win a $100 Visa gift card?
99

To enter, please type the email address you’d like us to contact you at if you win:
_________________

100
APPENDIX III: FAMILY SURVEY INSTRUMENTS
Thank you in advance for taking the time to complete this survey. It should take about 15 minutes to
finish. You will be asked questions about your experiences as a parent and with Brave Trails. Please be
as open and honest as possible.

Brave Trails will not see your individual survey responses, and your responses will not be shared
publicly, unless you give Brave Trails permission to share your anonymous stories. Your child(ren) will
not see your responses.

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Traci Gillig (tgillig@usc.edu) or Jessica
Weissbuch at (Jessica@bravetrails.org).

Identifying Information

In the box below, please type your first and last name.

First name: _____________
Last name: _____________

[Page break.]

Background

The following questions ask about your experiences before coming to Brave Trails' Family
Camp.

Think of a time before attending this camp when you were with your child (or children) and you
felt like your family was the same as – or similar to – other families. Please describe this
situation or experience.
[Free response, short text box]

How did this situation or experience make you feel?
[Free response, short text box]

[Page break.]

Think of a situation when you were with your child (or children) and you felt like your family
was different from other families. Please describe this situation or experience.
[Free response, short text box]

How did this situation or experience make you feel?
[Free response, short text box]

101
Did you talk to your child (or children) about this situation, or interact with them in any way
regarding it? If so, please describe.
[Free response, short text box]

How did your child respond?
[Free response, short text box]

[Page break.]

Demographics

How old are you?
[Text entry, 18-100]

Please select the gender identity below that best fits you.
Cisgender male ( )
Cisgender female ( )
Transgender male ( )
Transgender female ( )
Gender non-conforming ( )
Other identity, please specify: ________

Did your biological sex at birth align with the gender you identify as?
__ No
__ Yes

Please select the sexual orientation below that best fits you.

Gay ( )
Lesbian ( )
Bisexual ( )
Queer ( )
Other, please specify: ______________________

What is your race/ethnicity? Select all that apply. [Allow multiple answer choices.]
___ White (Non-Hispanic)
___ Latino/a/x
___ Black
___ Asian
___ Other, please specify: ________________________

[Page break.]

In what state do you live?
[Dropdown of abbreviations]

102
In what city or town do you live? Please write the name below.
______________________________

[Page break.]

Which of the following best describes your religious beliefs?
___ Agnostic
___ Atheist
___ Jewish
___ Christian
___ Muslim
___ Buddhist
___ Hindu
___ Unsure
___ Other, please specify: ________________________

[Page break.]

How would you describe your political ideology?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very Very
Conservative Liberal

[Page break.]

What is the highest level of education you have completed?
___ High school (diploma or GED)
___ Bachelors degree
___ Masters degree
___ Professional degree
___ Other, please specify: _______

[Page break.]

Which best describes your total annual household income?
___ More than $150,000
___ $100,000 to $149,999
___ $50,000 to $99,999
___ Less than $49,999
___ Prefer not to answer

[Page break.]

Partner Info

Which best describes your current marital status?
103
___ Married or domestic partnership
___ Never married
___ Divorced
___ Separated
___ Other, please specify: ____________

Did you attend camp with a partner?
___ No [If no, skip to Child Info]
___ Yes [If yes, show next question]

In the box below, please type the first and last name of your partner.

First name: _____________
Last name: _____________

[Page break.]

Child Info

The next questions are to help us understand your child (or children) who attended camp.

Please write the name of your child. If you have multiple children who attended camp, write the
name of the first child you will be describing. You will be able to provide information on the
second child after.

First Name: ____________
Last Name: ____________

Which of the following best describes this child?
___ Your biological child, carried by you
___ Your biological child, carried by your partner
___ Your biological child, carried by a surrogate
___ Your partner’s biological child, carried by you
___ Your partner’s biological child, carried by your partner
___ Your partner’s biological child, carried by a surrogate
___ Adopted through private adoption
___ Adopted through foster care
___ Other, please describe: _________

Do you have a second child that attended camp?
___ No
___ Yes [If yes, branch to repeat of all questions]

Do you have a third child that attended camp?
___ No
___ Yes [If yes, branch to repeat of all questions]
104

[Page break.]

Thank you for taking the time to take our survey!

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This dissertation extends scholarly knowledge of the communicative and psychological experiences of LGBTQ adolescents and families in the United States. The project includes three studies. The first is a pilot study that evaluated the impact of a novel intervention for LGBTQ youth—Camp Brave Trails 2016—using pre-post camper surveys (N = 56) and a follow-up survey of campers’ parents (N = 54). Results show campers experienced increases in identity affirmation and hope and a reduction in depressive symptoms. Findings from the parent survey were consistent with camper survey results. The second study examines the influence of LGBTQ teens’ frequency of social media use on their depressive symptoms over time. Youth ages 12-18 (N = 190) were surveyed before and immediately after attending Camp Brave Trails 2018, which represents a “social media-free” experience for participants. Moderation analyses showed a significant interaction between social media use prior to attending the program and depressive symptoms, such that depressive symptoms at Time 1 predicted depressive symptoms at Time 2 for teens with low levels of prior social media use. For those with high levels of social media use, depressive symptoms at Time 1 did not significantly predict symptoms at Time 2. Youth with the highest social media use tended to have the fewest depressive symptoms at Time 2, regardless of their baseline symptoms. The third study analyzes open-ended responses from 15 LGBTQ parents attending the first annual Brave Trails Family Camp. Results indicate social contexts tend to make family identity difference salient for LGBTQ parents, primarily prompting negative emotions and use of the external strategy of labeling and the internal strategy of narrating. Practical and theoretical implications are discussed.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The link between maternal depression and adolescent daughters' risk behavior: the mediating and moderating role of family

PDF

Factors and correlates of sexual behaviors among young adults from continuation high schools

PDF

Cultural risk and protective factors for tobacco use behaviors and depressive symptoms among American Indian adolescents in California

PDF

School-based Health Centers 2.0: Using social media to increase utilization of UMMA Wellness Center Services

PDF

In visible families: gay fatherhood and the politics of family change

PDF

Anti-bias training in community colleges: an exploratory study

PDF

"There are enough people here to wage that war:" a communication infrastructure theory approach to identifying factors of anti-gentrification mobilization

PDF

Outfit: a queer fashion podcast that explores the relationship between the LGBTQ community and their clothing

PDF

An exploratory study of the role of religion and religious involvement among Latinos with schizophrenia and family caregivers

PDF

Maltreated adolescents and their families: a longitudinal examination of family functioning, parenting attitudes, & youth mental health

PDF

The role of dyadic and triadic factors on psychosocial wellbeing and healthcare interactions among childhood cancer survivors, parents, and medical providers

PDF

Doing family on Facebook: connecting communicative affordances of mobile media, parental practices, and social capital

PDF

Voices from within: perceptions of community youth orchestras and musical identities of child musicians

PDF

Internet communication use, psychological functioning and social connectedness at older ages

PDF

Determinants of delay in care seeking for pelvic floor disorders among Latina women in Los Angeles

PDF

The effect of an educational fotonovela on the prevention of secondhand smoke

PDF

Tokens, ledgers, and rails: the communication of money

PDF

Staying ahead of the digital tsunami: strategy, innovation and change in public media organizations

PDF

A mixed-methods examination of transgender and gender nonbinary students’schooling experiences: implications for developing affirmative schools

PDF

Examining the associations of respiratory problems with psychological functioning and the moderating role of engagement in pleasurable activities during late adolescence

Asset Metadata

Creator Gillig, Traci K. (author)

Core Title Braver together: exploring the communicative and psychological experiences of LGBTQ youth and families

School Annenberg School for Communication

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Communication

Publication Date 07/22/2021

Defense Date 02/27/2019

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag adolescents,depression,family identity,interventions,LGBTQ,OAI-PMH Harvest,survey methods

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Gross, Larry (committee chair), Baezconde-Garbanati, Lourdes (committee member), Miller, Lynn (committee member)

Creator Email traci.gillig@wsu.edu,tracigillig@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-187249

Unique identifier UC11660652

Identifier etd-GilligTrac-7582.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-187249 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-GilligTrac-7582.pdf

Dmrecord 187249

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Gillig, Traci K.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA