Development of Youth Advocacy and Sociopolitical Efficacy as Dimensions of Critical Consciousness within Gender-Sexuality Alliances

Abstract

Attention to youth advocacy and sociopolitical efficacy has been evident in developmental research on critical consciousness, yet this literature has given little attention to sexual and gender minority (SGM) youth or issues, or to the interplay between these dimensions of critical consciousness over time. We addressed these limitations within the context of Gender-Sexuality Alliances (GSAs). Among 366 youth members (M_age = 15.53 years) in 38 GSAs across Massachusetts who completed surveys at the beginning and end of the school year, multilevel models indicated that youth who reported more active engagement in GSAs at the beginning of the school year reported greater advocacy throughout the year and greater sociopolitical efficacy at the year’s end (adjusting for baseline advocacy and efficacy). There was a significant indirect association between greater GSA engagement and greater sociopolitical efficacy at the year’s end through reported advocacy done over the school year. Further, group-level contextual effects indicated that youth in GSAs with a more youth-led orientation reported doing less advocacy but reported greater sociopolitical efficacy at the year’s end than youth in GSAs with less of a youth-led orientation. Finally, advocacy and sociopolitical efficacy were reciprocally associated with one another: greater initial efficacy was associated with greater advocacy over the school year and advocacy was associated with greater efficacy at the year’s end. These findings extend the critical consciousness literature and carry implications for how GSAs and similar groups could support SGM youth and their allies in resisting oppression.

Developmental research among sexual and gender minority (SGM) youth should focus not only on the negative effects of discrimination on their development but also on factors that promote their resilience. Scholars suggest that advocacy (e.g., actions intended to counteract or raise awareness of discrimination) is an important means through which marginalized youth may resist oppressive systems and thereby thrive (Ballard & Ozer, 2016; Ginwright, 2015). Whereas other forms of civic action (e.g., service learning) have been critiqued for their tendency to prepare youth only to operate within established systems (Ginwright & James, 2002), advocacy is more transformational in its aims to change systems and address inequities (Ginwright, 2015; Morsillo & Prilleltensky, 2007). To this point, critical consciousness is an important model for understanding marginalized youth’s development and resilience. Critical consciousness is a reflection of how youth from marginalized groups gain an understanding of the sociohistorical roots of oppression (critical reflection), build efficacy to challenge oppression (sociopolitical efficacy), and engage in advocacy (critical action) to promote social change (Diemer, Rapa, Voight, & McWhirter, 2016; Freire, 2000; Watts & Hipolito-Delgado, 2015). Critical consciousness is multidimensional and comprised of these distinct but interrelated components.

As critical consciousness models have taken shape around these dimensions, research suggests that opportunities for youth to advocate, as well as their sociopolitical efficacy, are beneficial for development. Findings indicate that these dimensions of critical consciousness are associated with empowerment (Ballard & Ozer, 2016; Watts, Diemer, & Voight, 2011) and mental health (Christens & Peterson, 2012; Godfrey, Burson, Yanisch, Hughes, & Way, 2019; Godfrey, Santos & Burson, 2017). Critical consciousness scholarship has focused principally on racial and economic injustice (Diemer et al., 2016; Godfrey & Burson, 2018), but it offers a useful framework to understand how youth facing other forms of marginalization, such as SGM youth, develop efficacy and take action against social stigma and discrimination.

From a developmental lens, sociopolitical efficacy and advocacy are important to study in adolescence, a time when youth develop the cognitive complexity to recognize systems of oppression (Godfrey et al., 2017) and articulate their worldviews (Arnett, 2000). As such, we argue that they are central to study not only among SGM youth but also among heterosexual and cisgender youth who may experience greater privilege (e.g., less stigma). Scholarship has highlighted the need for an intersectional conceptualization of youth’s identities and experiences in relation to critical consciousness (e.g., Godfrey & Burson, 2018) and has noted that allies from more privileged groups are essential in efforts to counteract oppression (Goodman, 2011). Adolescence is a formative period for ally identity development (Dillon et al., 2004) and a time when peers are a primary source of support (Bukowski, Laursen, & Rubin, 2018).

Empirical work on predictors of sociopolitical efficacy and advocacy or how they develop in naturally-occurring contexts has lagged. In particular, work is needed to understand what school-based experiences may relate to the development of efficacy and advocacy, as many SGM youth attend schools with oppressive policies and experience discrimination in these settings (Russell & Fish, 2016). School-based extracurricular groups may be settings wherein some youth can engage in advocacy and develop greater sociopolitical efficacy.

Although most research on extracurricular groups has not attended to SGM youth or to SGM-focused groups (see, Farb & Matjasko, 2012, for a review), an exception is work on Gender-Sexuality Alliances (GSAs). GSA presence in schools is associated with greater perceived safety and wellbeing for SGM and heterosexual cisgender youth in these schools (Marx & Kettrey, 2016; Poteat, Yoshikawa, Calzo, Russell, & Horn, 2017). As we later argue, GSAs may be naturalistic settings in which members may develop greater critical consciousness.

Positioning GSAs within a Critical Consciousness Framework

GSAs are school clubs which offer space for SGM and heterosexual cisgender ally youth to provide support, learn about SGM issues, and engage in advocacy to promote justice for SGM youth (Griffin, Lee, Waugh, & Beyer, 2004). GSAs and analogous SGM-supportive clubs are in a median of 37% of secondary schools across states in the U.S. (CDC, 2019). Typically, GSAs meet up to one hour per week, have an adult advisor, and are intended to be youth-led and advisor-supported. Meeting time can be allotted for dialogue to learn about SGM issues, provide support, and plan and engage in advocacy efforts (Griffin et al., 2004). Many GSAs offer opportunities to engage in advocacy reflective of critical action (Morsillo & Prilleltensky, 2007; Poteat et al., 2015; Russell, Muraco, Subramaniam, & Laub, 2009). Efforts can include holding events such as National Coming Out Day, Ally Week, Day of Silence, Youth Pride, or National Transgender Day of Remembrance (GLSEN, n.d.). Other efforts can focus on promoting policies or practices that explicitly protect SGM youth in schools (e.g. enumerated anti-bullying policies).

GSAs differ from other clubs and activities oriented around academics (e.g., tutoring, honors societies), recreational interests (e.g., intramural sports, robotics), or the arts (e.g., music or theater; Eccles & Barber, 1999; Larson, Hansen, & Moneta, 2006). Although many such clubs aim to promote development or civic participation (Farb & Matjasko, 2012), they do not give direct focus to issues of injustice and how injustice impacts their members, or aim to challenge oppression. GSAs are more similar to clubs focused on sociopolitical issues and diversity (e.g., racial justice; Taines, 2012). These clubs often have inward facing goals of providing member support and outward facing goals of addressing inequality (Poteat et al., 2017). As clubs, GSAs are not standardized interventions. Rather, they represent a naturalistic setting in which critical consciousness could develop, including sociopolitical efficacy and advocacy.

The structure and aims of GSAs align with theory and practice on critical consciousness. Community-based programs to promote critical consciousness rely on group dialogue, youth-driven activities (e.g., photovoice), and participatory action to bolster youth’s ability to reflect on oppression, build their sociopolitical efficacy, and provide a context for youth-led action (Carlson, Engerbretson & Chamberlain, 2006). Whereas GSAs are not formalized programs in the same respect, these features are reflected in GSAs, which are youth-led and adult-supported, and engage in advocacy efforts. In particular, GSAs rely on group discussion and dialogue in meetings, which theory and available research have identified as underlying critical consciousness (Freire, 2000; Watts et al., 2011).

GSA Engagement as a Predictor of Sociopolitical Efficacy and Advocacy

Prior work on GSAs has not considered members’ sociopolitical efficacy, although studies have examined their advocacy efforts in GSAs (Mayberry, 2013; Poteat, Calzo, & Yoshikawa, 2018). Nor has most work on critical consciousness included the experiences of SGM youth or school settings in which youth’s sociopolitical efficacy and advocacy might develop. Here, then, we examine whether youth who are more engaged in their GSA, and thus more exposed to the dialogues and advocacy theorized to undergird critical consciousness, report greater sociopolitical efficacy and advocacy over time than other GSA members.

Active engagement in GSAs can be reflected by indicators such as contributing to conversations with peers and advisors, taking on leadership, helping with projects, and consistent attendance (Poteat, Heck, Yoshikawa, & Calzo, 2016). These are similar to indicators of engagement in the broader extracurricular literature (Bohnert, Fredricks, & Randall, 2010). Youth members vary in their level of GSA engagement (Poteat et al., 2016), just as they do in other groups (Dawes & Larson, 2011). As active group members have the potential to gain more from their involvement (Dawes & Larson, 2011), youth who are more engaged in their GSAs may be those who later report greater sociopolitical efficacy and advocacy than others.

Youth who are more engaged in their GSA report doing more advocacy than others (Poteat et al., 2018). However, reliance on cross-sectional data has prevented researchers from ruling out selection effects: Are more engaged members those who already are doing more advocacy than others? Leveraging two waves of data across a school year, we consider whether greater GSA engagement is associated with greater advocacy over the school year (reported at wave 2), adjusting for differences among youth in their initial advocacy efforts (at wave 1).

We also examine whether GSA engagement is associated with sociopolitical efficacy over the school year, testing whether youth who are initially more engaged report greater efficacy at the year’s end than others (adjusting for initial level of efficacy). Qualitative evidence suggests that this may be possible: an interview study with 15 GSA youth leaders indicated that they felt that their GSAs empowered them to effect change in their schools (Russell et al., 2009).

Indirect and Reciprocal Associations between Advocacy and Sociopolitical Efficacy

Critical consciousness scholars have argued conceptually that reflection, efficacy, and action are mutually reinforcing (Freire, 2000; Watts et al., 2011). However, reciprocal associations between efficacy and action have been less clearly documented (Diemer et al. 2016; Godfrey et al., 2019). Greater efficacy could prompt youth to engage in action, and likewise action could build youth’s efficacy (Diemer et al., 2016). Data from participatory action research suggest that efficacy and action build on one another (Morsillo & Prilleltensky, 2007). We use data from two waves over a school year to consider the interplay of efficacy and advocacy.

First, we consider whether greater GSA engagement is indirectly associated with greater sociopolitical efficacy via advocacy. Is more active GSA engagement at the start of the school year associated with greater advocacy over the year (i.e., adjusting for wave 1 advocacy), and is this in turn associated with greater efficacy at the year’s end (i.e., adjusting for wave 1 efficacy)? Some youth in GSAs report a strong desire for advocacy (Calzo et al., 2020) and GSAs provide advocacy opportunities for members. Do youth who engage in more advocacy than others later report more sociopolitical efficacy at the year’s end? This type of process would suggest that advocacy is an important means by which youth in GSAs come to feel more efficacy. Indeed, as we later note, past accomplishments can bolster self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977).

Second, we consider whether youth’s greater sociopolitical efficacy at the beginning of the year is associated with greater involvement in advocacy in the GSA over the school year, and likewise, whether greater advocacy over the school year is associated with greater sociopolitical efficacy at the end of the year (adjusting for initial levels of each component). The directional associations between action and efficacy are central questions in critical consciousness scholarship. A significant association between earlier efficacy and later action would align with prior cross-sectional studies (Christens & Peterson, 2012; Diemer & Rapa, 2016), which have modeled efficacy as a precedent to reported or intended actions (e.g., voting, signing petitions). With few exceptions (e.g., see Berg, Coman, and Schensul [2009] for a quasi-experimental intervention), there have not been longitudinal data on both efficacy and action to test whether initial efficacy is associated with later action, adjusting for earlier levels. Such a finding would suggest the need for GSAs and other groups first to equip youth for action prior to taking action. This could be an important developmental process during adolescence when youth may benefit from scaffolded training (Heckhausen, 2007).

Engaging in advocacy also could promote efficacy (Watts & Hipolito-Delgado, 2015). Youth in one study reported greater efficacy after completing projects to address issues of importance to them (Morsillo & Prilleltensky, 2007). Developmental psychologists have long noted that efficacy can be predicted by past accomplishments, and is a major tenet of self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977). Associations between earlier advocacy and later efficacy would constitute an important extension to how cross-sectional models of critical consciousness typically have portrayed this developmental process. They would highlight how important it is for youth to have immediate opportunities to act on social issues. These opportunities could be empowering, as youth often have fewer options for civic action than adults (Camino, 2000).

Finally, the significance of both paths may reflect a co-occurring reciprocal process that has been posited in the conceptual literature but which has not been as clearly documented empirically. As such, we aim to advance the critical consciousness literature by examining these two developmental processes as they occur over time within the GSA context.

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Differences

Because GSAs include youth across sexual orientations and gender identities, we consider potential sexual orientation and gender identity differences in our model for exploratory purposes. There is some debate as to how critical consciousness applies to individuals with different constellations of privilege (Diemer et al., 2016; Godfrey & Burson, 2018), but this debate is aimed more at the dimension of critical reflection than efficacy and advocacy. In fact, scholars have argued that it is essential for individuals with privilege to act against oppression and to ensure that they feel equipped to do so (Dillon et al., 2004; Goodman, 2011).

The associations among GSA engagement, sociopolitical efficacy, and advocacy over time could differ for SGM youth relative to heterosexual and cisgender youth. Given that GSAs aim to empower SGM youth, their engagement level could be more strongly associated with their advocacy and efficacy than for heterosexual and cisgender youth. In contrast, higher initial sociopolitical efficacy may not be as strongly associated with ensuing advocacy for SGM youth relative to heterosexual and cisgender youth because SGM youth may face more barriers and risks to engaging in advocacy due to their marginalization. However, for youth who do engage in more advocacy over the year, this could be more strongly associated with sociopolitical efficacy at the year’s end for SGM youth than for heterosexual and cisgender youth because such advocacy may address unique stressors experienced by SGM youth. These potential differences carry important theoretical and practical implications for understanding critical consciousness-promotion among youth facing different forces of oppression or privilege.

Youth-Led Orientation of GSAs in Relation to Advocacy and Sociopolitical Efficacy

At the group level, some GSAs may have members who collectively go on to do more advocacy over the year or feel more sociopolitical efficacy at the year’s end than others. This variability may relate to the extent to which the GSA is youth-led. Critical consciousness-building models argue for adopting a youth-led orientation (Ginwright & James, 2002). Still, most prior studies have considered only individual leadership experiences; the youth-led orientation to how a group is structured has received limited attention.

Apart from any one member taking a leadership role (e.g., as president), youth in a GSA that is more youth-led may have more opportunities to take on formal or informal leadership roles from week to week. This approach could foster a climate in which members feel a greater collective ownership of the group than GSAs that are more advisor-led. Although GSAs are framed as youth-led and adult-supported (Griffin et al., 2004), meeting observations indicate that these dynamics vary across GSAs: some GSA advisors lead meetings unilaterally while other GSAs are entirely youth-led (Poteat et al., 2015). In more youth-led GSAs, youth were observed taking greater responsibility in setting agendas and running meetings, facilitating dialogues, presenting on various topics, or planning events (Poteat et al., 2015). With respect to critical consciousness development, youth in GSAs that are more youth-led may collectively go on to report more advocacy over the year and greater sociopolitical efficacy at the year’s end.

Current Study and Hypotheses

We use data from two time points over the school year to test a model of how youth’s level of engagement in GSAs may be associated with greater advocacy and efficacy, as well as how advocacy and efficacy may be reciprocally related to one another. Further, we consider the advocacy efforts done by GSAs to provide a richer contextual understanding of how GSAs may serve as spaces in which members’ critical consciousness could develop.

First, we hypothesize that youth who are initially more engaged in their GSA (at wave 1) will report greater advocacy over the school year and greater efficacy at the year’s end (both measured at wave 2) than other members, adjusting for levels on both at wave 1. Second, we hypothesize a significant indirect association between greater GSA engagement and greater efficacy at the year’s end through greater advocacy over the school year. Third, focusing on the cross-lagged portion of our model, we hypothesize that initial efficacy at wave 1 will be associated with greater advocacy over the school year (reported at wave 2), and likewise that advocacy over the school year will be associated with efficacy at the year’s end (reported at wave 2). Fourth, we consider whether associations among GSA engagement, efficacy, and advocacy are moderated based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Finally, we hypothesize that youth in GSAs characterized as more youth-led will report more advocacy over the school year and greater efficacy at the year’s end than youth in GSAs characterized as more advisor-led.

Method

Participants

Current GSA youth members (n = 366, M_age = 15.53 years, SD = 1.38 years; range = 10 to 20 years; M = 15 students per GSA, SD = 6.54) and advisors (n = 58, M_age = 43.58 years, SD = 10.50 years; range = 27 to 62 years) in 38 GSAs across Massachusetts completed surveys at both waves. Twenty-one GSAs had one advisor and 17 had more than one advisor. Of the 580 youth who completed wave 1 surveys, at least 85 youth (14.7% of the original sample) discontinued their GSA membership early in the year (as reported by advisors; advisors of eight GSAs did not provide this information). The remaining 129 youth who did not complete wave 2 surveys (22.2% of the original sample) either were not present during data collection, did not complete the survey left for them prior to the end of the school year, or were in GSAs whose advisors did not indicate whether they had discontinued their members. Thus, 73.9% of the original sample who were potentially still active GSA members at the end of the year completed wave 2 surveys.

A MANOVA to test for differences between youth lost at wave 2 and youth retained at both waves on initial GSA engagement, efficacy, and advocacy was not significant, Wilks’ Λ = .99, F (3, 492) = 2.25, p = .08. There also was no differential attrition based on gender (χ² = 0.48, p = .79), but there was greater attrition for heterosexual than sexual minority youth (χ² = 13.72, p < .001; 43% vs 24%) and for racial/ethnic minority youth than White youth (χ² = 11.49, p = .001; 43% vs 23%). The amount of missing data for youth who participated at both time points was minimal (0% to 1.6% across measures). Our models adjust for covariates related to missingness. Demographic data for the final youth sample are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Youth Demographic Information and Descriptive Data

Demographic Indicator	N (%)	M (SD)	Range
Sexual orientation
Bisexual	81 (22.1)
Pansexual	79 (21.6)
Heterosexual	52 (14.2)
Gay or Lesbian	61 (16.7)
Questioning	26 (7.1)
Queer	18 (4.9)
Asexual	14 (3.8)
Other written-in response	32 (8.7)
Not reported	3 (0.8)
Gender identity
Cisgender Female	202 (55.2)
Cisgender Male	59 (16.1)
Non-Binary	22 (6.0)
Transgender	31 (8.5)
Genderqueer	8 (2.2)
Gender Fluid	7 (1.9)
Other written-in response	36 (9.8)
Not reported	1 (0.3)
Race or ethnicity
White, non-Hispanic	264 (72.1)
Biracial or Multiracial	40 (10.9)
Latino/a	39 (10.7)
Asian or Asian American	10 (2.7)
Black or African American	8 (2.2)
Middle Eastern, Arab, or Arab American	1 (0.3)
Other written-in response	4 (1.1)
Measures
W1 GSA engagement		2.68 (0.97)	0.00 – 4.00
W1 Advocacy		2.59 (0.96)	0.00 – 4.00
W1 Sociopolitical efficacy		5.38 (1.35)	1.00 – 7.00
W1 Youth-led nature of GSA		4.66 (1.31)	2.00 – 7.00
W2 Advocacy		2.24 (1.02)	0.00 – 4.00
W2 Sociopolitical efficacy		5.29 (1.39)	1.00 – 7.00

Note. Total sample size is 366 youth from 38 Gender-Sexuality Alliances in Massachusetts. W1 = wave 1; W2 = wave 2. The youth-led nature of the GSA was reported by GSA advisors.

Procedures

We identified GSAs in consultation with the Massachusetts Safe Schools Program for LGBTQ Students. GSAs were located in public schools, public charter schools, and vocational/technical public schools. We purposively sampled GSAs for geographic diversity and population density, as well as diversity in the size and racial and socioeconomic composition of the schools. We secured permission from GSA advisors and principals, and then asked youth members to participate. We shared that their individual responses would be confidential. Advisors consented for all youth to participate and 100% of youth gave their assent. We used advisor adult consent over parent consent to avoid risks of inadvertently outing SGM youth to their parents. This method is common in SGM youth research to protect their safety (Mustanski, 2011). Advisors consented to complete their own survey. Procedures for the project, Mechanisms of Health Promotion in GSAs, were approved by the IRB at Boston College (Protocol 15.250) and each school.

The project occurred over a two-year period, wherein 19 GSAs participated in the first year and a separate set of 19 GSAs participated in the second year. This approach ensured that we could visit the GSAs within a close time frame at each wave, given that they were located across the state and many met on the same days of the week. At wave 1, we collected surveys during a GSA meeting. The survey took 30 minutes to complete and proctors were present to answer questions. The visit occurred between mid-September and late-October. We followed identical procedures at wave 2. The visit occurred between late-April and late-May. Participants received a $10 gift card and wave 1 and a $20 gift card at wave 2.

Youth Measures

Demographics.

Youth reported their sexual orientation, gender identity, and race/ethnicity, with response options and patterns reported in Table 1. Because of the small representation of youth within some of the specific sexual minority, racial/ethnic minority, and gender minority subgroups, in our analyses we used binary indicators of sexual orientation (heterosexual or sexual minority) and race/ethnicity (White or racial/ethnic minority), and three indicators of gender identity (cisgender female, cisgender male, or gender expansive).

Level of GSA engagement.

Youth reported their initial extent of engagement in their GSA at wave 1 using the 5-item GSA Engagement scale (Poteat et al., 2016; e.g., “I participate in conversations at GSA meetings”). The items are preceded by the stem, “Please consider your own GSA involvement up to this point this year.” Response options are never, rarely, sometimes, often, and very often (scaled 0 to 4). Higher average scale scores represent greater engagement in the GSA. The coefficient alpha reliability estimate was α = .85.

Advocacy efforts.

Youth reported the extent to which they had engaged in any advocacy in their GSA since the beginning of the school year at wave 1 (i.e., September-October), as well as their level of advocacy since November at wave 2 using the 7-item Advocacy subscale of the GSA Involvement scale (e.g., “Spoke out for LGBTQ issues,” “Organized school events to raise awareness of LGBTQ issues”; Poteat, Calzo, & Yoshikawa, 2016). Response options range from 0 (not at all) to 4 (a lot). Higher average scale scores represent greater involvement in advocacy in the GSA. The coefficient alpha reliability estimate was α = .89 (wave 1) and .88 (wave 2).

Sociopolitical efficacy.

Youth reported on their sociopolitical efficacy at waves 1 and 2 using the 5-item perceived behavioral control subscale of the Social Justice Scale, which was developed based on a critical consciousness framework and which taps into feelings of efficacy to promote social justice (e.g., “I feel confident in my ability to talk to others about social injustices and the impact of social conditions on health and wellbeing”; Torres-Harding et al., 2012). Response options range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Higher average scale scores represent greater confidence in one’s ability to promote social justice. The coefficient alpha reliability estimate was α = .91 (wave 1) and α = .92 (wave 2).

Advisor Measures

Number of meetings.

At wave 2, advisors reported the total number of meetings their group had held since November (i.e., since our wave 1 visit), which ranged from 5 to 28 meetings (M = 17.59, SD = 6.84). We included this as a covariate in the model.

Youth- or advisor-led GSA orientation.

Advisors reported the extent to which their GSA was led by students at wave 1 with the item, “In general, to what extent is the GSA led by students or by you as the advisor?” The response options were Entirely student led; Mostly student led; More student-led than advisor-led; Equally led by students and advisor; More advisor-led than student-led; Mostly advisor-led; and Entirely advisor-led. We reverse-scored the item such that higher scores indicated that the GSA was more youth-led (scored 1 to 7). For GSAs in which there was more than one advisor, we used their average score in our model.

GSA activities and events.

At wave 2, we asked advisors to list any activities or events that their GSA had done over the current school year related to LGBTQ issues, as well as issues of race or racism, culture, and immigration. We compiled these responses under several broad categories of awareness-raising and advocacy efforts that these actions represented.

Analytic Approach

For our main analyses, we tested our model using multilevel structural equation modeling (MSEM) with maximum likelihood estimation in Mplus 8.1. We did so to account for the interdependence of youth in GSAs and to include variables at the individual and GSA levels. At the individual level (level 1), we included youth’s GSA engagement, sociopolitical efficacy, and advocacy at wave 1 to predict their wave 2 advocacy and wave 2 sociopolitical efficacy (wave 2 efficacy was further predicted by wave 2 advocacy). Our demographic covariates of sexual orientation (0 = heterosexual, 1= sexual minority), race/ethnicity (0 = White, 1 = racial/ethnic minority), and gender (indicating whether youth identified as cisgender male [1 = cisgender male] or gender expansive [1 = gender expansive], making cisgender females the referent group) predicted youth’s advocacy and sociopolitical efficacy at wave 2. Centering continuous variables is recommended for multilevel modeling, and therefore we grand-mean centered our wave 1 variables (such that individuals’ scores represent the deviation from the overall sample mean), while we group-mean centered wave 2 advocacy and sociopolitical efficacy because we reintroduced their group means at level 2 in our model (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002).

At the GSA level (level 2), we included the extent to which the GSA was youth-led to predict the aggregate level of advocacy reported among members of the GSA throughout the year (i.e., the group mean, as reported at wave 2) and the aggregate level of sociopolitical efficacy reported among members of the GSA at the year’s end (also as they reported at wave 2 and further predicted by the aggregate level of advocacy at wave 2). In addition, we adjusted for the number of meetings held by the GSA over the school year since November.

Figure 1 portrays the arrangement of our focal variables, excluding covariates for parsimony. At level 1, we calculated the indirect association between wave 1 level of GSA engagement and wave 2 sociopolitical efficacy through wave 2 advocacy. We used Monte Carlo simulation to compute the empirical sampling distribution of the indirect effect based on 10,000 simulations, and from this we calculated its 95% confidence interval (Preacher & Selig, 2012).

Figure 1.

Conceptual model of how individual GSA engagement and the youth-led orientation of GSAs relate to greater advocacy and sociopolitical efficacy, and the bidirectional associations between advocacy and sociopolitical efficacy. Moderated associations are considered for exploratory purposes and main effect covariates of sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, and gender at Level 1 and the number of GSA meetings held over the school year at Level 2 are omitted in the figure for parsimony.

For our exploratory moderation analyses, we added interaction terms to our MSEM model. Given the complexity of the models, we did not include all terms at once but instead we tested two models where sexual orientation moderated (a) the associations for GSA engagement (i.e., paths to wave 2 advocacy and efficacy) and (b) the bidirectional associations between advocacy and efficacy. We tested two analogous models for gender identity interactions. We reduced the number of categories for gender to two (0 = cisgender, 1 = gender expansive) for the gender identity interactions because of the complexity of the MSEM models. Gender and race/ethnicity remained as covariates in the sexual orientation interaction models, and sexual orientation and race/ethnicity remained as covariates in the gender identity interaction models.

Results

Preliminary Analyses and Descriptive Data

Descriptive data and bivariate associations are presented in Tables 1 and 2. A MANOVA indicated significant sexual orientation differences, Wilks’ Λ = .97, F (5, 348) = 2.37, p = .04, ${\eta }_{\text{p}}^2=.03$. Follow-up ANOVAs indicated that with small effect sizes, compared to heterosexual youth, sexual minority youth reported lower wave 1 advocacy, F (1, 352) = 4.18, p = .04, ${\eta }_{\text{p}}^2=.01$ (sexual minority: M = 2.55, SD = 0.95; heterosexual: M = 2.84, SD = 0.97), and lower wave 2 sociopolitical efficacy, F (1, 352) = 5.01, p = .03, ${\eta }_{\text{p}}^2=.01$ (sexual minority: M = 5.22, SD = 1.42; heterosexual: M = 5.69, SD = 1.21). A MANOVA also was significant for gender differences, Wilks’ Λ = .90, F (10, 698) = 3.69, p < .001, ${\eta }_{\text{p}}^2=.05$. Follow-up ANOVAs indicated significant gender differences for both sociopolitical efficacy at wave 1, F (2, 353) = 10.91, p < .001, ${\eta }_{\text{p}}^2=.06$, and wave 2, F (2, 353) = 6.19, p = .002, ${\eta }_{\text{p}}^2=.03$. From Bonferroni post-hoc comparisons, gender expansive youth reported lower wave 1 sociopolitical efficacy than cisgender males (p = .006, d = 0.48; gender expansive M = 4.87, SD = 1.52; cisgender male M = 5.54, SD = 1.28) and cisgender females (p < .001, d = 0.52; cisgender female M = 5.59, SD = 1.21). Gender expansive youth also reported lower wave 2 sociopolitical efficacy than cisgender males (p = .03, d = 0.38; gender expansive M = 4.89, SD = 1.55; cisgender male M = 5.47, SD = 1.48) and cisgender females (p = .003, d = 0.40; cisgender female M = 5.45, SD = 1.24). Race/ethnicity differences were not significant, Wilks’ Λ = .99, F (5, 351) = 0.84, p = .52.

Table 2.

Correlations among GSA Engagement and Components of Critical Consciousness at Waves 1 and 2

	W1 GSA Engagement	W1 Advocacy	W1 Efficacy	W2 Advocacy	W2 Efficacy
W1 GSA Engagement	—
W1 Advocacy	.30***	—
W1 Efficacy	.26***	.32***	—
W2 Advocacy	.43***	.48***	.30***	—
W2 Efficacy	.29***	.22***	.60***	.37***	—

Note. W1 = wave 1; W2 = wave 2; GSA Engagement = level of active engagement within the GSA; Advocacy = amount of advocacy done within the GSA; Efficacy = Sociopolitical efficacy.

^***p < .001.

Advisors reported a range of advocacy and awareness-raising efforts undertaken by their GSA over the school year. A number of actions could be characterized as promoting visibility and awareness of SGM and other marginalized identities: making school displays (e.g., bulletin boards, posters, or fliers), school-wide announcements, art projects, film screenings, producing and posting their own videos, or open mic nights. Many GSAs also participated in annual events such as Ally Week, Day of Silence, National Coming Out Day, Pride Month, and Transgender Awareness Month and Transgender Day of Remembrance. Other efforts reflected educational programming that GSAs provided to others, such as workshops, trainings, assemblies, or presentations to teachers, other students, administrators, or school board members. Similarly, advisors reported efforts that GSAs made to educate themselves: attending leadership meetings and trainings, youth summits, meeting with SGM community organizations, and bringing in speakers. There were also efforts to advance school policies and political legislation, such as advocating for gender-neutral bathrooms and graduation gowns, signing petitions, and contacting the governor and other legislators asking them to support protective policies for SGM students. Some GSAs also collaborated with other school groups focused on equity and justice in order to hold joint awareness-raising events addressing multiple forms of discrimination or highlighting intersectionality in youth’s identities, and others attended rallies around immigration.

Multilevel Structural Equation Model Analyses

At the individual level, as anticipated, wave 1 greater GSA engagement was significantly associated with residualized increases in advocacy at wave 2 (b = 0.294, p < .001) and increased sociopolitical efficacy at wave 2 (b = 0.145, p = .04), adjusting for advocacy and efficacy at wave 1 and demographic covariates. In addition, as hypothesized, there was a significant indirect association between initial GSA engagement level and year-end sociopolitical efficacy through its association with greater advocacy over the school year (b = 0.073, SE = 0.023, p = .002, 95% CI [0.032, 0.125]). Also, as expected, greater wave 1 sociopolitical efficacy was associated with residualized increases in wave 2 advocacy (b = 0.080, p = .04), adjusting for all other covariates. Similarly, greater wave 2 advocacy (reflecting advocacy over the school year) was associated with residualized increases in wave 2 sociopolitical efficacy (reflecting efficacy at the year’s end; b = 0.250, p < .001), adjusting for all other covariates. The model accounted for 34% of the variance in youth’s wave 2 advocacy and 40% of the variance in youth’s wave 2 sociopolitical efficacy at level 1. All coefficient estimates, standard errors, and confidence intervals in our level 1 model are reported in Table 3.

Table 3.

Main Effects Multilevel Structural Equation Model for Associations among Factors at the Individual and GSA Level

Estimated Paths	Coefficient	SE	95% CI
GSA engagement associations
W1 GSA engagement to W2 Advocacy over school year	0.294***	0.055	(0.186, 0.402)
W1 GSA engagement to W2 Sociopolitical efficacy at year’s end	0.145*	0.069	(0.010, 0.281)
Action and efficacy bidirectional associations
W1 Sociopolitical efficacy to W2 Advocacy over school year	0.080*	0.038	(0.006, 0.154)
W2 Advocacy over school year to W2 Sociopolitical efficacy at year’s end	0.250***	0.065	(0.122, 0.378)
Autoregressive associations
W1 Advocacy to W2 Advocacy over school year	0.378***	0.054	(0.272, 0.484)
W1 Sociopolitical efficacy to W2 Sociopolitical efficacy at year’s end	0.499***	0.060	(0.382, 0.616)
Demographic covariate associations
Sexual orientation to W2 Advocacy over the school year	−0.039	0.132	(−0.298, 0.220)
Sexual orientation to W2 Sociopolitical efficacy at year’s end	−0.159	0.153	(−0.458, 0.140)
Race/ethnicity to W2 Advocacy over the school year	0.070	0.082	(−0.091, 0.230)
Race/ethnicity to W2 Sociopolitical efficacy at year’s end	0.044	0.118	(−0.187, 0.275)
Cisgender male to W2 Advocacy over the school year	−0.091	0.211	(−0.505, 0.322)
Gender expansive to W2 Advocacy over the school year	0.088	0.094	(−0.096, 0.272)
Cisgender male to W2 Sociopolitical efficacy at year’s end	0.094	0.183	(−0.264, 0.452)
Gender expansive to W2 Sociopolitical efficacy at year’s end	−0.232	0.131	(−0.488, 0.025)
Group-level variable associations
W1 Youth-led orientation to W2 Collective advocacy over school year	−0.067*	0.034	(−0.134, 0.000)
W1 Youth-led orientation to W2 Collective year-end sociopolitical efficacy	0.143*	0.070	(0.006, 0.281)
Number of GSA meetings to W2 Collective advocacy over school year	0.014	0.008	(−0.002, 0.031)
W2 Advocacy over school year to W2 sociopolitical efficacy at year’s end	0.963	0.560	(−0.134, 2.059)
Number of GSA meetings to W2 Collective year-end sociopolitical efficacy	0.005	0.007	(−0.009, 0.018)

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

^***p < .001.

^*p ≤ .05.

At the group level, after adjusting for the number of meetings the GSA held over the year and with marginal statistical significance, contrary to expectations, youth in GSAs that were more youth-led reported less advocacy at wave 2 than youth in other GSAs (b = −0.067, p = .05), but they reported greater sociopolitical efficacy at wave 2 (b = 0.143, p = .04). The model accounted for 58% of the variance in advocacy and 92% of the variance in sociopolitical efficacy at level 2. Table 3 presents all results for our level 2 model.

Moderation Analyses

Finally, we tested whether our paths of interest were moderated by sexual orientation or gender identity (Table 4). The association between wave 1 GSA engagement and wave 2 efficacy was moderated by sexual orientation and gender identity; however, neither sexual orientation nor gender identity moderated the association between wave 1 GSA engagement and wave 2 advocacy. Regarding the reciprocal associations between efficacy and advocacy, both sexual orientation and gender identity moderated the association between wave 1 sociopolitical efficacy and wave 2 advocacy over the school year as well as the association between wave 2 advocacy over the school year and wave 2 sociopolitical efficacy at the year’s end.

Table 4.

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Moderators in the Multilevel Structural Equation Model

Estimated Paths	Coefficient	SE	95% CI
Sexual orientation-based interactions
S. orientation × W1 GSA engagement path to W2 Advocacy over school year	−0.175	0.128	(-0.426, 0.076)
S. orientation × W1 GSA engagement path to W2 Year-end sociopolitical efficacy	0.450**	0.165	(0.126, 0.773)
S. orientation × W1 Sociopolitical efficacy path to W2 Advocacy over school year	−0.172**	0.053	(-0.276, −0.069)
S. orientation × W2 Advocacy over school year path to W2 Year-end sociopolitical efficacy	0.337*	0.167	(0.010, 0.664)
Gender identity-based interactions
Gender identity × W1 GSA engagement path to W2 Advocacy over school year	−0.220	0.114	(-0.444, 0.004)
Gender identity × W1 GSA engagement path to W2 Year-end sociopolitical efficacy	0.412**	0.126	(0.165, 0.658)
Gender identity × W1 Sociopolitical efficacy path to W2 Advocacy over school year	−0.140*	0.063	(-0.263, −0.017)
Gender identity × W2 Advocacy over school year path to W2 Year-end sociopolitical efficacy	0.384**	0.137	(0.116, 0.652)
Conditional associations based on sexual orientation
W1 GSA engagement path to W2 Sociopolitical efficacy: Sexual minority	0.199*	0.080	(0.042, 0.355)
W1 GSA engagement path to W2 Sociopolitical efficacy: Heterosexual	−0.251	0.129	(-0.505, 0.002)
W1 Sociopolitical efficacy path to W2 Advocacy: Sexual minority	0.052	0.041	(-0.029, 0.133)
W1 Sociopolitical efficacy path to W2 Advocacy: Heterosexual	0.225***	0.043	(0.141, 0.308)
W2 Advocacy path to W2 Sociopolitical efficacy: Sexual minority	0.303***	0.069	(0.169, 0.438)
W2 Advocacy path to W2 Sociopolitical efficacy: Heterosexual	−0.034	0.155	(-0.337, 0.269)
Conditional associations based on gender identity
W1 GSA engagement path to W2 Sociopolitical efficacy: Gender expansive	0.430***	0.122	(0.191, 0.669)
W1 GSA engagement path to W2 Sociopolitical efficacy: Cisgender	0.018	0.065	(-0.109, 0.146)
W1 Sociopolitical efficacy path to W2 Advocacy: Gender expansive	−0.002	0.053	(-0.105, 0.101)
W1 Sociopolitical efficacy path to W2 Advocacy: Cisgender	0.138**	0.044	(0.052, 0.224)
W2 Advocacy path to W2 Sociopolitical efficacy: Gender expansive	0.560***	0.131	(0.303, 0.817)
W2 Advocacy path to W2 Sociopolitical efficacy: Cisgender	0.176*	0.068	(0.042, 0.310)

Note. Values are unstandardized coefficient estimates, their standard errors (SE), and 95% confidence intervals (CI). W1 = wave 1; W2 = wave 2. S. orientation = sexual orientation and was coded as 0 = heterosexual, 1 = sexual minority. Gender identity was coded as 0 = cisgender, 1 = gender expansive.

^***p < .001.

^**p < .01.

^*p ≤ .05.

Using the model constraint function in Mplus, we calculated the conditional associations for the significant sexual orientation interactions. Wave 1 GSA engagement was associated with wave 2 sociopolitical efficacy at the year’s end more strongly for sexual minority youth than for heterosexual youth (sexual minority: b = 0.199, p = .01; heterosexual: b = −0.251, p = .05). Further, wave 1 sociopolitical efficacy was associated with wave 2 advocacy over the school year more strongly for heterosexual youth than for sexual minority youth (heterosexual: b = 0.225, p < .001; sexual minority: b = 0.052, p = .21), while wave 2 advocacy over the school year was associated with wave 2 sociopolitical efficacy at the year’s end more strongly for sexual minority youth than for heterosexual youth (sexual minority: b = 0.303, p < .001; heterosexual: b = −0.034, p = .83).

We also calculated the conditional associations for the significant gender identity interactions. Wave 1 GSA engagement was associated with wave 2 sociopolitical efficacy at the year’s end more strongly for gender expansive youth than for cisgender youth (gender expansive: b = 0.430, p < .001; cisgender: b = 0.018, p = .78). Further, wave 1 sociopolitical efficacy was associated with wave 2 advocacy over the school year more strongly for cisgender youth than for gender expansive youth (cisgender: b = 0.138, p = .002; gender expansive: b = −0.002, p = .97), while wave 2 advocacy over the school year was associated with wave 2 sociopolitical efficacy at the year’s end more strongly for gender expansive youth than for cisgender youth (gender expansive: b = 0.560, p < .001; cisgender: b = 0.176, p = .01).

Discussion

Youth who were initially more engaged in their GSAs at the beginning of the school year reported greater advocacy over the year and sociopolitical efficacy at the year’s end than other members. There was further evidence of contextual associations attributable to attending GSAs with more youth-led orientations. Advocacy and sociopolitical efficacy were reciprocally associated with one another: greater initial efficacy was associated with greater advocacy over the school year and greater advocacy over the year was associated with greater efficacy at the year’s end. At the same time, our exploratory moderation results suggest that these associations varied in magnitude for SGM relative to heterosexual and cisgender youth. By using data from two waves, we were able to adjust for initial levels and more rigorously test these developmental processes. Finally, advisors reported a range of advocacy efforts undertaken by their GSAs, providing a richer contextualization of how critical consciousness might develop within GSA spaces. These findings extend the critical consciousness literature and carry implications for efforts to support SGM youth and their allies in resisting oppression. Future research should give greater focus to how naturally-occurring settings such as school-based extracurricular groups could be a relevant space in which youth develop greater critical consciousness.

Sexual Orientation and Gender Differences on Sociopolitical Efficacy and Advocacy

Sexual minority youth reported lower advocacy at wave 1 and lower sociopolitical efficacy at wave 2 than heterosexual youth, while gender expansive youth reported lower sociopolitical efficacy than cisgender youth at both waves. One possible explanation for this is that heterosexual and cisgender youth who come to GSAs arrive with greater feelings of efficacy or advocacy interests, whereas engagement in GSAs and opportunities for advocacy ultimately cultivate efficacy among SGM youth. As we later note, these possibilities are reflected in our exploratory moderation results. Also, SGM youth likely contend with unique risks tied to stigma (e.g., risk of being outed, ongoing bias-based harassment), which may hinder their sociopolitical efficacy or engagement in advocacy relative to their ally peers.

Levels of Initial GSA Engagement Predicted Greater Advocacy and Efficacy

Youth who were more engaged in their GSA at the beginning of the school year reported greater advocacy over the year than other members, adjusting for initial advocacy efforts. Highly engaged members may have made use of opportunities within GSA spaces, resources (e.g., materials or funds), and support from peers and advisors for such efforts. For instance, advisors reported that their GSAs undertook many types of awareness-raising and advocacy efforts ranging from promoting SGM visibility and awareness, educating other youth and adults, advancing school policies and political legislation, and coalition building and collaboration with other equity and justice clubs in solidarity and to highlight issues of intersectionality.

Our results add to cross-sectional GSA findings (Mayberry, 2013; Poteat et al., 2018), providing stronger evidence that, to some extent, more active members may go on to engage in greater advocacy. The results align with research on more formalized programs intended to build critical consciousness on racial and economic injustice through youth-led action (Berg et al., 2009; Carlson et al., 2006). Our qualitative finding suggest that GSAs may facilitate youth’s action to counteract SGM-based oppression and they highlight the relevance of GSAs for future study in the critical consciousness literature.

More engaged GSA members also reported greater sociopolitical efficacy at the year’s end than others, adjusting for their initial efficacy. This finding adds to qualitative reports from some GSA youth leaders that they felt empowered from their GSA involvement (Mayberry, 2013; Russell et al., 2009). As our measure of active engagement included youth’s participation in conversations with peers and advisors, our finding aligns with theory and research on critical consciousness, which emphasizes the role of dialogue (Diemer et al., 2016; Freire, 2000; Watts et al., 2011; Watts & Hipolito-Delgado, 2015). Because GSAs often provide time for dialogue on issues faced by SGM youth (Griffin et al., 2004), it may be one mechanism through which more engaged members gain sociopolitical efficacy. As conveyed in our moderation findings, this association was stronger for SGM youth than heterosexual and cisgender youth. Given the SGM-focused efforts reported in these GSAs, greater levels of GSA engagement may have reflected something distinctly important for SGM youth in relation to their resolve or efficacy to resist oppression that they uniquely experienced.

Several factors could account for the significant indirect association between youth’s level of GSA engagement and their sociopolitical efficacy via advocacy over the year. Scholars have argued that opportunities for action can raise critical consciousness and empower youth (Godfrey et al., 2019; Watts & Hipolito-Delgado, 2015). Also, developmental theorists have shown that past efforts and accomplishments can bolster self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977). GSAs may have constituted an existing space wherein more engaged members channeled their energy into a range of advocacy initiatives (as reported by GSA advisors), elevating their sociopolitical efficacy at the year’s end. For SGM members, advocacy may have strengthened their confidence by enabling them to directly counteract oppression that they faced. For ally members, actively working to support their SGM peers may have raised their confidence and efficacy, given that peers are key providers of support during adolescence (Bukowski et al., 2018).

These findings could aid in refining developmental models of how extracurricular groups based on equity and justice could come to serve as a space to cultivate critical consciousness. In addition to promoting dialogue, the findings suggest that one other way in which to do so is to provide youth with opportunities to engage in advocacy, and through these efforts build youth’s sociopolitical efficacy (Morsillo & Prilleltensky, 2007). Still, the indirect association was modest in size. Also, our study did not formally evaluate a standardized intervention. Thus, we do not intend to convey causality in our interpretation of these associations. However, the associations documented in this naturalistic developmental study could inform future development and experimental evaluation of interventions tailored for GSAs.

Reciprocal Associations between Advocacy and Sociopolitical Efficacy

We identified significant bidirectional associations between advocacy and sociopolitical efficacy, with some evidence that the magnitude of these associations varied for SGM and heterosexual and cisgender youth. Critical consciousness scholars have made the conceptual case for their reciprocal and mutually reinforcing associations (Diemer et al., 2016; Morsillo & Prilleltensky, 2007; Watts & Hipolito-Delgado, 2015). Our findings add to emerging empirical support for their interplay (Berg et al., 2009; Diemer et al., 2016; Godfrey et al., 2019).

Greater initial sociopolitical efficacy was associated with modest increased reports of advocacy over the school year, adjusting for initial advocacy. This finding aligns with how prior critical consciousness research has ordered these variables with cross-sectional data (Christens & Peterson, 2012; Diemer & Rapa, 2016). By adjusting for initial advocacy, our results offer rigorous evidence for this sequence. Participatory action efforts to raise critical consciousness have been designed on this order of cultivating efficacy prior to advocacy (Berg et al., 2009). From a developmental lens, a stronger sense of efficacy may have been important in galvanizing youth in GSAs to engage in greater advocacy because advocacy may be daunting: there are age-related power imbalances between youth and adults in schools, and many youth have had fewer prior opportunities than adults from which to draw when taking steps to change their schools and communities (Camino, 2000).

This directional association was relatively stronger for heterosexual and cisgender youth than SGM youth. SGM youth may have perceived greater risks in advocacy (e.g., discriminatory backlash), despite feeling confident in their abilities. A number of the advocacy and awareness-raising efforts reported by GSA advisors involved a degree of public visibility. Recent work suggests that even for youth who express high sociopolitical efficacy, some may not engage in action, possibly from feeling disheartened or alienated (Christens, Collura, & Tahir, 2013; Godfrey et al., 2019). SGM youth, relative to heterosexual and cisgender peers with comparable efficacy, may need greater support in GSAs or in other spaces to capitalize on their efficacy in moving toward critical action. For youth with more privilege, this same movement from efficacy to action may be less dependent on support or resources from their immediate social contexts.

The association between initial efficacy and greater action over the school year carries implications for GSAs and other groups aimed at promoting youth’s critical consciousness. It suggests that youth might benefit from a scaffolded developmental sequence. For instance, initial training could be provided to build some youth’s sociopolitical efficacy prior to them taking on certain advocacy initiatives.

Youth’s greater involvement in advocacy over the school year was associated with relatively greater sociopolitical efficacy at the year’s end, adjusting for initial efficacy. Theory has posited reciprocal associations between specific components of critical consciousness, and this marks an expansion on prior empirical studies that have positioned efficacy as a precedent to action, but not an outcome of action (Christens & Peterson, 2012; Diemer & Rapa, 2016). This directional association was stronger for SGM youth relative to heterosexual and cisgender youth. SGM youth may have been especially empowered and gained confidence through advocacy, as SGM-focused advocacy was reflected in their self-report measure and in many advocacy efforts reported by advisors. For SGM youth, advocacy may promote their belief that resisting oppression is possible and can yield change, thereby promoting greater efficacy. Our findings add to others in which youth have felt empowered from involvement in projects intended to promote critical consciousness (Berg et al., 2009; Morsillo & Prilleltensky, 2007). Again, self-efficacy theory proposes developmental underpinnings for this, in noting that past performance and accomplishments contribute to one’s self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977). Youth’s reported advocacy in their GSA may have offered hands-on learning experiences, important during this period of development, that might have elevated their sociopolitical efficacy.

The bidirectional associations between advocacy and efficacy over time underscore the need for more developmental research on critical consciousness to assess the dynamic processes by which it develops and how this might be cultivated. For instance, certain advocacy efforts might be more approachable and could be used as initial means by which to build efficacy through action. Other more challenging efforts might be sequenced after youth have built a greater sense of efficacy. The potential effectiveness of these approaches could be tested more formally in future intervention-based work within GSAs.

Potential Benefits and Challenges of Youth-Led Orientations in GSAs

Youth in GSAs with a more youth-led orientation reported more sociopolitical efficacy at the year’s end than youth in other GSAs. Our findings expand on past observations of variability across GSAs in their youth-led orientations—from running meetings, facilitating dialogues, to coordinating and planning events (Poteat et al., 2015)—to suggest that youth-led orientations are also associated with greater critical consciousness, at least on the dimension of sociopolitical efficacy. More broadly, this finding aligns with a major tenet in the critical consciousness literature that a youth-led approach is fundamental to raising youth’s critical consciousness (Ginwright & James, 2002; Watts & Hipolito-Delgado, 2015). Our findings suggest, however, that this may be limited to sociopolitical efficacy and may not apply in the same way to action.

By contrast, with marginal statistical significance, members of GSAs with a more youth-led orientation reported doing less advocacy over the school year than youth in other GSAs. Youth in GSAs that were more youth-led may have taken on more responsibility in planning and completing these efforts, including tasks that advisors in other GSAs might have taken instead. This may have led to less advocacy over the year relative to other GSAs. Although youth in GSAs with a more youth-led orientation did relatively less advocacy, they reported greater efficacy. Given that developmental research highlights the role of adult mentors who can offer guidance to youth as they engage in activities (Zeldin, Christens, & Powers, 2013), it may be important to consider youth-adult partnerships in GSAs more closely in future research.

Future developmental research should consider the youth-led nature of justice-oriented groups with greater nuance. For instance, youth and advisors could adopt different responsibilities in GSAs. Studies on GSAs and other groups aimed at fostering critical consciousness and justice might consider whether there is an optimal balance between youth and advisors in power sharing, leadership roles, and distribution of responsibilities.

Our findings also carry practical implications. They may help to explain potential friction in groups that wish to maximize productivity (e.g., engage in more advocacy) while maximizing youth control, especially when many youth have responsibilities outside these groups (Brion-Meisels & Alter, 2018). It may benefit youth and advisors to discuss their advocacy goals at the beginning of the year and clarify the roles that youth and advisors may take to achieve them. Assessing specific dimensions of critical consciousness will be important in future research, as certain group dynamics may promote critical consciousness in some ways but not others.

Limitations, Strengths, and Future Directions

Our study carries several limitations. Its design permitted the analysis of prediction and bidirectional associations between variables, helping to delineate the processes of interest, but the results cannot speak to causality. This was a naturalistic developmental study of youth’s experiences in GSAs and processes involving dimensions of critical consciousness. There are inherent selection biases when studying GSAs and clubs that youth elect whether or not to join. This limitation, when paired with our findings, clearly suggests that future research should consider more controlled approaches to testing interventions that might be delivered in GSAs to promote critical consciousness. Also, while we included data from two waves to capture the process of critical consciousness development, it would be even stronger to utilize multiple waves of data to model the co-development of efficacy and advocacy. In addition, we focused on GSAs as a relevant setting for critical consciousness development; future research needs to determine whether our findings generalize to similar groups. Future work should also consider the extent to which our findings generalize to GSAs in other areas of the country and that operate in distinct political climates or in schools that express open hostility against them. Our advisor-reported assessment of the GSA’s youth-led orientation was limited to a single item. Future work should consider multiple indicators of youth and advisor leadership. In a similar manner, future research should consider which specific GSA activities, discussions, or events are most strongly associated with critical consciousness. Finally, although our exploratory moderation analyses on the basis of sexual orientation and gender yielded important findings with meaningful implications for theory, they warrant further attention with larger samples and with attention to factors that could explain such differences. Similarly, because the majority of our sample was White, we were unable to look at further variability in youth’s experiences based on the intersection of their race or ethnicity or with their other social identities.

We also note several strengths of the study. It is one of the first studies to move beyond the use of cross-sectional data on youth’s GSA involvement; one of the few studies in the critical consciousness literature to focus on SGM issues and youth; and among the few studies to consider distinct dimensions of critical consciousness (sociopolitical efficacy and action) with attention to their reciprocal associations. Further, we considered these processes in the context of GSAs, which are present in many schools and a relevant setting in which to consider the development of critical consciousness. As another strength, we used a measure of advocacy comprised of multiple indicators that would be relevant and available courses of action for youth, whereas other studies have been limited to single item indicators or behaviors less accessible to youth (e.g., meeting with politicians) or not yet open to all youth (e.g., voting). We attended to distinctions between youth in marginalized and privileged positions, and our moderation findings offer data relevant to the discussion among scholars of critical consciousness promotion for youth with different axes of privilege. Finally, our participants were sampled to increase representation along multiple indicators of diversity (e.g., school size, population density, SES, race/ethnicity), and we used multi-informant data from youth and adult advisors.

Youth are taking on major roles in advocacy efforts to address social injustices in their communities and in society. Extracurricular groups are in a position to provide opportunities for youth to build their sociopolitical efficacy and skills to engage in this work, while offering direct opportunities for action. Ongoing developmental research on critical consciousness could aid in these efforts by providing empirically-supported guidance on how these groups might promote youth’s critical consciousness, support their efforts to resist oppressive systems, and to thrive.