Times are displayed in (UTC-05:00) Central Time (US & Canada) Change
About this paper symposium
| Panel information |
|---|
| Panel 19. Sex, Gender |
| Paper #1 | |
|---|---|
| Mechanisms of Sexual Minority Health Inequities: Conceptual Distinctions & Methodological Implications of Peer Victimization and Bullying | |
| Author information | Role |
| Samantha A. Moran, M.S.W., University of Maryland, College Park, United States | Presenting author |
| Diana Meter, Utah State University, United States | Non-presenting author |
| Salvatore Ioverno, Roma Tre University, Italy | Non-presenting author |
| Stephen T. Russell, University of Texas at Austin, United States | Non-presenting author |
| Jessica N. Fish, University of Maryland, College Park, United States | Non-presenting author |
| Abstract | |
|
Background. Sexual minority (SM) youth are at higher risk of experiencing victimization and bullying compared to their heterosexual peers (Toomey & Russell, 2016). Extensive research demonstrates the association between victimization and adverse psychosocial and health outcomes for SM (and all) youth, including mental health symptomology (i.e., depression and suicidality) and substance use (Collier et al., 2013). Despite the conceptual distinctiveness between victimization and bullying, SM youth scholarship often uses these constructs interchangeably and without justification. The lack of specificity with which these constructs are examined may lead to inconsistent findings across studies and misguided attempts to intervene. The current study uses national, population-based data to empirically test whether experiences of school-based victimization and bullying uniquely explain sexual identity differences in well-established disparities in mental health and substance use. Methods. Data are from the 2021 National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (n=14,732), with robustness checks using data from 2015-2019. School-based victimization was measured through 4-items assessing physical violence and safety concerns at school. Bullying was measured via 1-item asking about experiences with bullying on school property in the past 12 months. Indicators of mental health included past 12-month reports of depressive symptomology, suicidal ideation, and suicide plans. Substance use indicators were examined using past 30-day alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana use. Sexual identity captured whether youth identified as heterosexual, gay or lesbian, bisexual, or not sure. We used the Karlson, Holm, and Breen (KHB) method to test whether and to what degree peer victimization and bullying independently account for sexual identity differences in mental health and substance use. Results. Due to space constraints, we present select results of the KHB analysis that tested the main effects (unconditional) and mediated (conditional) models in Table 1. Unconditional models indicated that compared to heterosexual girls, lesbian and bisexual girls had greater odds of substance use and mental health symptomology. There were no significant sexual orientation differences in substance use among boys; however, SM boys had higher odds of all mental health symptomology than heterosexual boys. Bullying and victimization consistently mediated disparities for girls, but not boys. Table 2 shows the proportion of indirect and total effects attributed to mediators. Results suggest a consistent pattern across outcomes, whereby victimization accounts for a majority of the indirect effect for substance use disparities (60-70%), and bullying accounts for a larger proportion of the indirect effect for mental health disparities (50-60%). As a robustness check, we ran similar models across each administration of the YRBS from 2015-2019, and our observed indirect effect patterns are largely consistent across all years. Discussion. Results suggest the need for school policies and practices that distinctly target school victimization and bullying as they are independently related to risk for substance use and mental health for SM youth, particularly among SM girls. Our findings also provide critical insight for future research investigating associations between victimization or bullying and well-being among SM youth, given that these constructs operate in distinct ways by sex, sexual identity, and outcome of interest. Implications for research and application will be discussed. |
|
| Paper #2 | |
|---|---|
| When Sexual and Gender Minority Early Adolescents are Victimized, They Offend, and Get Punished | |
| Author information | Role |
| Allison Woosley, University of Illinois- Urbana Champaign, United States | Presenting author |
| Shannon Snapp, California State University, Monterey Bay, United States | Non-presenting author |
| D.A. Briley, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, United States | Non-presenting author |
| Abstract | |
|
Introduction Scholars have documented disproportionate discipline among sexual (Mittleman, 2018; Poteat et al., 2016) and gender (Snapp et al., 2015) minority youth (SGM). Additionally, researchers have identified pathways between victimization, punishable behavior (e.g., fighting), and school discipline (Horn & Schriber, 2020; Poteat et al., 2016; Snapp et al., 2015) to illustrate that SGM youth’s punishable behaviors can be explained by their victimization and that these behaviors result in higher rates of school discipline. In this study, we expand this research by replicating Poteat et al.'s (2016) model with a demographically diverse sample that also includes gender (as well as sexual) minority youth. Hypotheses We expect that part of the reason that SGM students receive discipline is due to differential rates of peer victimization. Study Population Youth participants were approximately age 10 at baseline and age 14 at the most recent wave (n = 11,886; 22% SGM, 4% transgender and nonbinary). The sample was racially diverse (52% white, 15% black, 20% hispanic, 2% asian, 11% other) and majority male (52%). Methods Data were analyzed from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development study (ABCD data release 5.1). Relevant measures included school victimization (measured by 9 items, divided into three subclasses of overt, reputational, and relational victimization; punishable offenses (i.e., youth reports of ever engaging in substance use and school truancy); and school discipline (as characterized by the number of suspensions or detentions a child reported receiving throughout their time in the study). Data Analysis We estimated a series of structural equation models testing the extent to which differential discipline as a function of SGM status was mediated through victimization experiences and offending behaviors. Further, we allowed the pathways from victimization to offending and offending to discipline to vary as a function of SGM status. Results We find that SGM youth experience similar rates of victimization compared to non-SGM youth (.033 expected increase in instances of discipline for SGM youth, SE = .16). However, the full model revealed a suppression effect such that SGM youth experience higher rates of victimization (β = .42, SE = .02), and that those who are victimized are more likely to commit more punishable infractions (β = .23, SE = .02), and in turn receive school discipline (β = .23, SE = .01). Holding victimization and offending constant, SGM youth reported .094 (SE = .02) fewer instances of school discipline. Conclusions This is the first study that examines the association between victimization, punishable behaviors, and school discipline with a demographically diverse sample of SGM early adolescents. As expected victimization increases the likelihood that SGM youth will engage in punishable infractions, which leads to an increase in suspension/detentions. Given this trend has been replicated nearly a decade after Poteat et al’s (2016) study, it illustrates that not enough has been done to address disproportionate discipline and victimization among SGM youth. We hope stakeholders will use this evidence to urgently enforce supportive school-based strategies that reduce the impact of school pushout (Day et al., 2022) and victimization (Day et al., 2019) on SGM youth. |
|
| Paper #3 | |
|---|---|
| Unraveling the Power of School Policies: Sexual Orientation & Gender Modality-Based Disparities in Victimization & School Unsafety | |
| Author information | Role |
| Miriam Dietz, University of Groningen, Netherlands | Presenting author |
| Wouter J. Kiekens, University of Groningen, Netherlands | Non-presenting author |
| René Veenstra, University of Groningen, Netherlands | Non-presenting author |
| Laura Baams, University of Groningen, Netherlands | Non-presenting author |
| Abstract | |
|
Introduction. Despite increased societal acceptance of sexual and gender diversity, sexually and gender diverse (SGD) youth still experience more bullying-victimization and feel less safe at school than their heterosexual, cisgender peers (Goldbach & Gibbs, 2017). These disparities have been well established and stem from hetero- and cisnormative norms in secondary schools (Kaufman & Baams, 2022). However, it remains unclear how school policies may affect these disparities. Before investigating this, we need to better understand the existing school policy landscape and characteristics to better address SGD-based disparities. Therefore, we aimed to gain insight into the latent classes of school policies in the Netherlands to later examine how policy classes may moderate sexual orientation and gender modality-based disparities in victimization and social unsafety. Methods. Cross-sectional data come from a national study from 142 management employees across 48 Dutch secondary schools. Latent Class Analysis (LCA) was used to determine the latent structure of 23 school policies to later examine how policy classes moderate the association between sexual orientation and gender modality with victimization and social safety. The policies generally concerned inclusion, SGD-based respect, discrimination prevention, behavioral discipline, performance-based respect, and staff and parent incentives. Results. For school characteristics, see Table 1. LCA results indicate that a five-class solution fitted the data best (see Figure 1). The five latent classes were characterized as: high on behavioral discipline and performance-based respect, moderate on SGD-based respect, and low on inclusion (N = 2; class 1); moderate on inclusion, SGD-based respect, discrimination prevention, performance-based respect, and low on staff and parent incentives (N = 11; class 2); high on inclusion and discrimination prevention, moderate on performance-based respect, SGD-based respect, and behavioral discipline (N = 16; class 3); high on inclusion, behavioral discipline, performance-based respect, moderate on SGD-based respect, and staff and parent incentives (N = 17; class 4); and high on inclusion, SGD-based respect, discrimination prevention, performance-based respect, staff and parent incentives, and moderate on behavioral discipline (N = 2; class 5). More disciplinarian schools generally seem less inclusive of SGD dimensions (e.g., class 1). Moreover, schools high on inclusion and discrimination prevention are not necessarily high on SGD-based respect (e.g., class 3). Schools with high scores on all categories seem moderate in behavioral discipline (e.g., class 5). Conclusion. This study sheds light on the school policy landscape in the Netherlands. The five policy classes indicate that regardless of whether a school is high on disciplinary action, or inclusion and discrimination prevention, SGD-based respect tends to be moderate. Conversely, at schools with moderate behavioral discipline, inclusive policies, including SGD-based respect, are more prevalent. Further research will examine these policies’ associations with victimization and social unsafety, as well as the moderating role of latent policy classes in SGD-based disparities. This will help determine how specific policy classes may be more or less effective in reducing sexual orientation and gender modality-based disparities in victimization and social unsafety. |
|
| Paper #4 | |
|---|---|
| LGBTQ+ Student Perspectives on School Mental Health | |
| Author information | Role |
| Brandon Stratford, Ph.D., Child Trends, United States | Presenting author |
| Claire Kelley, Child Trends, United States | Non-presenting author |
| Zabryna L. Balén, Child Trends, United States | Non-presenting author |
| Cassidy Guros, Child Trends, United States | Non-presenting author |
| Laney Taylor, Child Trends, United States | Non-presenting author |
| Abstract | |
|
Introduction: LGBTQ+ students often demonstrate resilience despite being disproportionately high rates of exposure to risk factors like identity-based harassment and discrimination. There is a growing body of research that documents the relationships between discrimination, victimization, and mental health outcomes for LGBTQ+ youth (Mustanksi, Andrews, & Puckett, 2016; Russell & Fish, 2016). Multi-tiered school mental health supports have potential to buffer the effects of identity-based harassment and victimization; however, limited attention has been paid to LGBTQ+ students’ perceptions of school mental health. This study examines more than 5,000 open-ended responses from LGBTQ+ students to questions about the ways in which their schools support student mental health. Hypotheses: This study was exploratory in nature and is designed to center the voices and experiences of LGBTQ+ youth of color. We did not develop specific hypotheses related to what we expected to find. Study population: Annual surveys were administered to students in grades four and up attending public schools in an urban community on the east coast across four school years starting in the 2020-2021 school year. We restricted our analyses to students who identified as LGBTQ+ and who also identified as Black, Hispanic, or multiple races/ethnicities. Methods: Surveys were cross-sectional and responses from individuals were not linked over time. Combining the results from four open ended questions about how schools can support student mental health we analyze a total of 5,824 student responses. We used topic modeling as a method to interpret and analyze the open-ended responses. To identify themes, we used neural topic modeling with contextualized document embeddings. This method uses a model updating approach in which we take a pre-trained language processing model and update the output functions to represent the patterns found in our data. This method identifies groups of responses that share similar themes (called topics) as well as identifying key words associate with each topic. Results: The questions that students responded to were intended to encompass the range of school-based mental health multi-tiered systems of support; they did not focus exclusively on Tier 3 supports (i.e., treatment services). One important finding is that student responses addressed supports across all three tiers. This suggests that schools should considered non-clinical school staff as well as school policies, programs, and practices when thinking about how to support the mental health of LGBTQ+ students. Specific themes that were identified include confidentiality, trust or mistrust of counselors, academic stress, classroom management including strategies that schools use to provide students with opportunities to learn and apply coping skills—especially stress management. The themes of confidentiality and trust/mistrust of counselors often included concerns about personal information potentially being shared with parents and caregivers, which can present a barrier for LGBTQ+ students to reach out to school-based mental health clinicians. |
|
⇦ Back to session
School Bullying & Victimization among Sexual and Gender Diverse Youth: Promoting Mental Health & Access to Care
Submission Type
Paper Symposium
Description
| Session Title | School Bullying & Victimization among Sexual and Gender Diverse Youth: Promoting Mental Health & Access to Care |