Chapter Discussion: Sexuality

Gay-Straight Alliances, Inclusive Policy, and School Climate: LGBTQ

Youths’ Experiences of Social Support and Bullying

Jack K. Day and Jessica N. Fish University of Texas at Austin

Arnold H. Grossman New York University

Stephen T. Russell University of Texas at Austin

Gay-Straight Alliances (GSA) and school policies focused on support for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning youth may reduce bias-based bullying and enhance social supports in schools. Using multivariate regression, we tested the relationship between youth reports of the presence of GSAs and LGBTQ-focused policies, independently and mutually, with experiences bullying and perceived support (n = 1,061). Youth reported higher class- mate support in the presence of GSAs and higher teacher support in the presence of LGBTQ-focused policies; the pres- ence of both GSAs and LGBTQ-focused policies was associated with less bullying and higher perceived classmate and teacher support. The findings indicate that GSAs and LGBTQ-focused policies are distinctly and mutually important for fostering safer and more supportive school climates for youth.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/ questioning (LGBTQ) youth often navigate more hostile school climates than their heterosexual, cis- gender peers. Youth who are bullied because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gen- der identity are at higher risk of poorer mental health and academic outcomes (Sinclair, Bauman, Poteat, Koenig, & Russell, 2012), and of engaging in risky behaviors and substance use (Russell, Sin- clair, Poteat, & Koenig, 2012). Creating safer and

more supportive school climates has emerged as a shared concern of school staff and administrators, researchers, and policymakers (Goodenow, Sza- lacha, & Westheimer, 2006; Hatzenbuehler, Birkett, Van Wagenen, & Meyer, 2014; Russell, Kosciw, Horn, & Saewyc, 2010; Russell & McGuire, 2008).

Schools are an especially important site of study, as they serve as fundamental developmental con- texts in which youth spend a majority of their time outside of their family environment (Eccles & Roe- ser, 2011; Steinberg & Morris, 2001). Prior research underscores that positive school climates, which include feelings of safety and the presence of supportive relationships between students and teach- ers, are essential for a range of health and wellbeing- related outcomes (Cohen, McCabe, Michelli, & Pickeral, 2009; McNeely, Nonnemaker, & Blum, 2002; Thapa, Cohen, Guffey, & Higgins-D’Alessandro, 2013). Concerningly, bullying and harassment are common in schools across the United States, with 21% of students reporting having been bullied at school within the last year (Lessne & Cidade, 2015).

Teachers are instrumental to creating positive school climates. Positive teacher–student relation- ships are associated with greater school engage- ment and better academic performance, and overall better social-emotional well-being (Eccles & Roeser, 2011; NRC/IOM, 2004). Teachers also serve as the

This research uses data from the Risk and Protective Factors for Suicide among Sexual Minority Youth study, designed by Arnold H. Grossman and Stephen T. Russell, and supported by Award Number R01MH091212 from the National Institute of Mental Health. Administrative support for this research was also provided by grant R24HD042849, Population Research Center, awarded to the Population Research Center at The University of Texas at Austin by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Insti- tute of Child Health and Human Development. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute of Mental Health. The authors acknowledge the site coordinators, staff of the community organizations, and leaders of college groups who cooperated in recruiting participants. We also express our gratitude to the study’s participants for sharing their experiences with us. The authors also acknowledge generous support from the Communities for Just Schools Fund Project at the New Ven- ture Fund, the Priscilla Pond Flawn Endowment at the Univer- sity of Texas at Austin, and support for Fish from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism grant F32AA023138. Requests for reprints should be sent to Jack K. Day, Depart-

ment of Human Development and Family Sciences, Population Research Center, University of Texas at Austin, 305 E. 23rd St., Stop G1800, Austin, TX 78712. E-mail: [email protected]

© 2019 Society for Research on Adolescence

DOI: 10.1111/jora.12487

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON ADOLESCENCE, 30(S2), 418–430

nexus between the implementation of school poli- cies and direct interactions with students (Cohen et al., 2009). School context becomes even more important when we consider the health and well- being of LGBTQ youth, as they are more likely to experience school-based harassment, victimization, and bullying than their cisgender and heterosexual peers (Day, Perez-Brumer, & Russell, 2018; Toomey & Russell, 2016).

School-sponsored programs such as Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs; also known as Gender and Sexu- ality Alliances) and school policies focused on sup- port for LGBTQ students (LGBTQ-focused policies) have also been identified as effective means for improving school climates, especially for LGBTQ youth (Chesir-Teran & Hughes, 2009; Fetner & Ela- fros, 2015; Goodenow et al., 2006; Heck, Flentje, & Cochran, 2013; Kosciw, Greytak, Giga, Villenas, & Danischewski, 2016; Marx & Kettrey, 2016; McGuire, Anderson, Toomey, & Russell, 2010). Enumerated antibullying policies that are inclusive of sexual orientation and gender identity are asso- ciated with stronger feelings of safety, less victim- ization (Kosciw et al., 2016; O’Shaughnessy, Russell, Heck, Calhoun, & Laub, 2004), and lower rates of suicidal behavior among LGB youth (Hatzenbuehler & Keyes, 2013). GSAs and LGBTQ–focused policies are also associated with less psychological distress and depressive symp- toms, and greater general well-being, among LGBTQ youth during adolescence (Goodenow et al., 2006; Heck et al., 2013; Toomey, Ryan, Diaz, & Russell, 2011; Walls, Kane, & Wisneski, 2010) and later in young adulthood (Toomey et al., 2011). However, the mechanisms through which GSAs and policies, especially policies related to sexual orientation and gender identity, contribute to posi- tive school climate are not well-understood (Poteat & Russell, 2013).

In this study, we propose that GSAs and LGBTQ-focused policies are associated with less bullying and stronger social support from multiple sources in schools – such as classmates and teach- ers – for LGBTQ youth. This study provides a novel contribution to existing literature on school experiences of LGBTQ youth, as we investigate whether GSAs and school policies, independently and mutually, are associated with less bullying and youths’ perceptions of support from classmates and teachers. Previous studies of sexual and gen- der minority youth in school contexts have often combined samples of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth; this is also among the first studies on measures of school climate related to

social support and bullying to include gender iden- tity independent of sexual identity. Recognizing this, the review below uses variations of the acro- nym LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning) to accurately describe the sample characteristics of prior studies.

Bias-Based Bullying in Schools

All forms of bullying are concerning, yet youth who experience bias-based bullying based on their perceived or actual sexual or gender identity have poorer mental health, greater substance use, and higher truancy compared to youth who experience general forms of bullying (Birkett, Espelage, & Koe- nig, 2009; Bontempo & D’Augelli, 2002; Rivers & D’Augelli, 2001; Russell et al., 2012). A recent meta-analysis revealed that LGBQ youth, especially males, were more likely than heterosexual peers to be victimized at school (Toomey & Russell, 2016). In one national survey of LGBTQ youth, 67% reported frequently hearing homophobic comments at school, 58% felt unsafe because of their sexual orientation, and 43% felt unsafe because of their gender expression (Kosciw et al., 2016). Additionally, only 12% of the youth reported that teachers intervened most or all of the time when they heard homophobic remarks; yet in schools with GSAs, 20% of youth reported teacher inter- vention in response to homophobic statements (Kosciw et al., 2016).

Research also consistently shows that LGBT youth who have been bullied because of their sex- ual orientation or gender expression report lower levels of school connectedness (Diaz, Kosciw, & Greytak, 2010). School connectedness is a key indi- cator of school climate (McNeely & Falci, 2004; Wil- son, 2004) related to whether youth feel that adults and peers in their school care about students as individuals and about their academic success (CDC, 2009). Importantly, positive school climates are associated with higher academic achievement (Battin-Pearson et al., 2000), better mental health (Bond et al., 2007), and less engagement in risky behaviors (Bond et al., 2007; McNeely & Falci, 2004). Positive school climates have also been found to mitigate negative adjustment for LGB youth (Birkett et al., 2009).

Social Supports for LGBTQ Youth

The benefits of social support on overall health and well-being are well documented (e.g., Chu, Saucier, & Hafner, 2010). Studies demonstrate that among

GSAS, INCLUSIVE POLICY, AND PERCEIVED SUPPORT 419

LGB youth, social support within schools, and from peers, and family is associated with better health and educational outcomes (Watson, Gross- man, & Russell, 2019; Doty, Willoughby, Lindahl, & Malik, 2010; Goodenow et al., 2006; Needham & Austin, 2010;). In a sample of LGB and transgender youth, parental support was associated with greater school belonging and lower levels of suici- dality, which were predictive of better academic outcomes, although sexual orientation and gender identity were not treated as distinct categories in the analyses (Poteat, Mereish, DiGiovanni, & Koe- nig, 2011).

Studies on social support among LGB youth emphasize a distinction between general support and sexual identity-specific support (Doty et al., 2010). Compared to general support, higher levels of sexual identity-specific support are associated with lower emotional distress (Doty et al., 2010). Similarly, a recent study that examined wellbeing among LGBT young adults found concurrent LGBT- related support from families and friends during adolescence was associated with higher life satisfac- tion and self-esteem (Snapp, Watson, Russell, Diaz, & Ryan, 2015). Extant research suggests, however, that parental support may generally be lower for LGB (D’Augelli, Grossman, & Starks, 2005; Fish & Russell, 2018; Mufioz-Plaza, Quinn, & Rounds, 2002; Needham & Austin, 2010) and transgender (Factor & Rothblum, 2008; Fish & Russell, 2018) youth com- pared to heterosexual and cisgender youth.

Given that LGBTQ youth often experience vary- ing levels of support and acceptance (or rejection) from family members, schools may serve as an important context for modeling and cultivating social support, and sexuality-specific support, via LGBTQ-focused programs, policies, and curricula (Snapp, McGuire, Sinclair, Gabrion, & Russell, 2015; Snapp, Watson et al., 2015). In a nationally representative study, youth who reported same-sex attraction also had higher GPAs and fewer school troubles (e.g., related to paying attention and get- ting along with others) in the presence of more supportive teachers (Russell, Seif, & Truong, 2001). Other studies show that LGBT youth who note supportive teachers or staff members in school also report feeling safer (Kosciw, Palmer, Kull, & Grey- tak, 2013; McGuire et al., 2010), greater belonging (Murdock & Bolch, 2005), and fewer incidences of victimization (Kosciw et al., 2013). Additionally, LGB youth in schools with LGB-sensitive curricula are less likely to engage in risky sexual activity and substance use (Blake et al., 2001). Notably, peers and teachers each play a unique role in positive

youth development (Watson et al., 2019), highlight- ing the need to consider how classmate and teacher support are both independently instrumental to LGBTQ youth experiences in schools.

Although schools may serve as an important context for social support outside of families, LGBT youth often report a lack of support from class- mates and teachers (Grossman et al., 2009; Sausa, 2005). Research examining attitudes toward LGBT youth and LGBT-related issues reveals that hetero- sexual youth tend to be less accepting and support- ive of sexual and gender minority peers than they are of their heterosexual peers (Horn, Szalacha, & Drill, 2008; Poteat, Espelage, & Koenig, 2009). The lack of social supports and higher risks of victim- ization of LGBTQ youth in schools underscores the importance of identifying programs and policies that improve school climate and experiences for LGBTQ youth.

GSAs and LGBTQ-Focused Policies in Schools

Gay-Straight Alliances may serve a particularly valuable support function within schools. LGBT youth in schools with a GSA report significantly less victimization compared to those without (Che- sir-Teran & Hughes, 2009; Goodenow et al., 2006; Heck et al., 2013; Marx & Kettrey, 2016). School personnel in schools with a GSA are more likely to intervene when they hear homophobic remarks than those in schools without GSAs (Kosciw et al., 2016), and LGBTQ youth report greater school con- nectedness and lower negative mental health out- comes when attending schools with GSAs (Heck et al., 2013). Youth in schools with GSAs engage in less risky behaviors related to alcohol, tobacco, and sex, and are less likely to be truant (Poteat, Sinclair, DiGiovanni, Koenig, & Russell, 2013). LGBTQ youth in schools with a GSA also report more sup- port from classmates, teachers, and administrators (Fetner & Elafros, 2015; Kosciw et al., 2016). Nota- bly, with the exception of a few recent studies (Fet- ner & Elafros, 2015; Poteat, Calzo, & Yoshikawa, 2016; Poteat, Heck, Yoshikawa, & Calzo, 2016), most studies of GSAs do not distinguish between sexual orientation and gender identity. The recent change in name from the “Gay-Straight Alliance Network” to the more inclusive “Genders and Sex- ualities Alliance” network encourages considera- tion for how these programs may provide differential support for LGB and transgender youth (GSA Network, 2016).

LGBTQ-focused school policies also play a vital role in strengthening social supports in schools for

420 DAY, FISH, GROSSMAN, AND RUSSELL

LGBTQ youth. Much of the extant literature to date documents the role of enumerated policies in rela- tion to bias-based bullying and safety (e.g., O’Shaughnessy et al., 2004; Poteat & Russell, 2013). Beyond improved school climates, especially for LGBTQ youth, enumerated antibullying policies are associated with lower suicidal ideation among LGB youth (Goodenow et al., 2006; Hatzenbuehler & Keyes, 2013), and suicidal ideation is also lower in schools in which there are multiple supports for LGB youth, including GSAs, LGBT-inclusive curric- ula, harassment policies that enumerate protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and training for staff on how to create supportive environments for LGBT youth (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2014). Comprehensive antibullying policies in schools are also associated with higher self- esteem among LGBT youth, possibly because such policies signal that schools are an affirming place for LGBT youth (Kosciw et al., 2013). To our knowledge, only one study to date has specifically examined transgender youths’ experiences of vic- timization and harassment in relation to LGBTQ- focused policies (McGuire et al., 2010). McGuire et al. (2010) found that although victimization of transgender youth was pervasive, transgender youth felt safer and more connected to teachers in schools with policies that addressed bullying, and expressed the need for policy that specifically enu- merates gender identity. More research is needed to carefully consider how GSAs and LGBTQ- focused policies cultivate safe and supportive school climates for all youth, and how experiences of LGB and transgender youth may differ within schools.

Current Study

This study extends prior research by considering how GSAs and LGBTQ-focused policies relate to experiences of bias-based bullying and perceptions of support in schools among LGBTQ youth. In previous studies, LGBTQ youth were often com- bined into a single category; we specifically test for how levels of social support may differ based on gender identity. Using data from a contempo- rary cohort of racially and ethnically diverse LGBTQ youth, we investigate the association between GSAs and LGBTQ-focused policies, indi- vidually and in combination, with youths’ experi- ences of bias-based bullying and perceptions of classmate and teacher support. We conceptualize social support as youth’s perceptions of: (1) teach- ers as caring, fostering supportive classroom

environments, taking an interest in youths’ learn- ing, and offering positive encouragement; and (2) classmates as friendly and attentive, interested in helping academically, encouraging, and inclusive in activities.

We expect that GSAs and LGBTQ-focused poli- cies will contribute to safer and more supportive school climates among LGBTQ youth (Russell, Day, Ioverno, & Toomey, 2016; Russell & McGuire, 2008; Toomey, McGuire, & Russell, 2012). Specifically, we hypothesize that: (H1) LGBTQ youth’s reports of the presence of GSAs and LGBTQ-focused policies, both individually and mutually, will be associated with less self- reported bias-based bullying; (H2) the presence of GSAs will be positively associated with perceived support from classmates and teachers; (H3) given that teachers are the ones who are most likely to be knowledgeable of and tasked with implement- ing policies, LGBTQ-focused policies will be posi- tively associated with perceptions of support from teachers; and (H4) the presence of both GSAs and LGBTQ-focused policies will be positively associ- ated with perceptions of support from classmates and teachers.

Regarding potential differential findings based on gender-identity and life stage, we hypothesize that (H5) the association between the presence or absence of GSAs and LGBTQ-focused policies, as reported by LGBTQ youth, and perceptions of sup- port may differ for transgender youth compared to cisgender youth. We also consider whether or not youth are “out” to classmates or teachers at school because out youth are more likely to be victimized at school (Russell, Toomey, Ryan, & Diaz, 2014), but appear to access and receive more support from others who are sensitive to the issues LGBTQ youth encounter within schools (Watson, Wheldon, & Russell, 2015). We also hypothesize that (H6) the association among GSAs, LGBTQ-focused policies, experiences of bias-based bullying and perceptions of support may differ for youth who are still in high school versus those who have already gradu- ated. Specifically, those who have graduated high school may be susceptible to recall bias. Further- more, those who have gone on to postsecondary education may conflate their high school and col- lege experiences. Although LGBTQ youth often have negative experiences in college (Beemyn & Rankin, 2011; Tetreault, Fette, Meidlinger, & Hope, 2013; Yost & Gilmore, 2011), they theoretically have more choice about where they enroll for postsec- ondary education, and may select colleges with more LGBTQ-focused supports.

GSAS, INCLUSIVE POLICY, AND PERCEIVED SUPPORT 421

METHOD

Participants

Our sample includes participants from the first of a four panel longitudinal study on the risk and pro- tective factors for suicide (N = 1,061). Participants were recruited from community-based agencies or college groups for LGBTQ youth from three urban cities in the Northeast, Southwest, and West Coast. Snowball sampling was used to recruit additional participants.

The sample included LGBTQ identified youth, aged 15–21 (M = 18.8), and was ethnically and racially diverse (see Table 1): 38% were Hispanic or Latino/a; 24% were Black/African American; 23% were multiracial; 22% were White; and 9% were Asian/Asian American, American Indian/ Native American/Alaskan Native, or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. Fifty-four percent (54%) of the participants identified as cisgender female, and 12% identified as transgender. Additionally, 47% identified as gay or lesbian, 43% as bisexual, and 10% as questioning or other, and a majority of the participants (67%) reported disclosing their sex- ual or gender identity to either classmates or teach- ers. More than half of the participants indicated they received free or reduced lunch (59%), which was used as a proxy for socioeconomic status.

Measures

Bias-based bullying. Bias-based bullying was assessed through two items based on the question, “During the past 12 months, how many times on school property were you harassed or bullied for any of the following reasons”: “Because you are gay, lesbian, or bisexual or someone thought you were” (homophobic bullying) and “Because of your sex or gender” (gender-based bullying) (0 = never; 4 = more than once a day) (r = .73). Variability was low for the most frequent categories (i.e., every day, more than once a day). We therefore collapsed responses into three categories (0 = never; 1 = less than once a month/once a month; 2 = once a week/more than once a week). Homophobic bully- ing and gender-based bullying were included as distinct measures.

Perceived social support in schools. Both per- ceived classmate support (a = .96) and teacher support (a = .97) were measured via 12-item subscales from the Child and Adolescent Social Support Scale (Malecki, Demaray, & Elliot, 2000). Participants

were prompted to rate how often they received support from (1) classmates and (2) teachers (0 = never; 5 = always). For example, youth were asked, “How often my classmates. . .” “treat me nicely,” “pay attention to me,” “give me informa- tion so I can learn new things;” and, “How often my teacher(s). . .” “cares about me,” “treats me fairly,” and “takes time to help me to learn to do something well.”

GSAs and LGBTQ-focused policies. The pres- ence or absence of a GSA and LGBTQ-focused poli- cies was assessed through two separate items: “Does (did) your school have a Gay/Straight Alli- ance group?” (0 = no; 1 = yes), and “Does (did) your school have an antibullying policy that specif- ically protects LGBTQ students?” (0 = no; 1 = yes; 2 = I don’t know). For analyses we included a cate- gorical measure with six categories reflecting youth who attended a school with: (1) a GSA only (7%); (2) a GSA, but were unsure about LGBTQ-focused policies (25%); (3) no GSA, and were unsure about LGBTQ-focused policies (13%); (4) LGBTQ-focused policies only (8%); (5) both a GSA and LGBTQ- focused policies (31%); and (6) neither a GSA nor LGBTQ-focused policies (17%; reference category).

Covariates. Models were adjusted for: sexual identity (1 = bisexual; 2 = questioning; gay/lesbian was the reference category); assigned sex at birth (0 = female; 1 = male); gender identity (0 = cisgen- der; 1 = transgender); race (including Asian, Pacific Islander, or Native American; Black or African American; multiple races; and unreported, with White as the reference category); ethnicity (0 = non-Hispanic; 1 = Hispanic); age; receipt of free or reduced school lunch (0 = no; 1 = yes); finally, we created a dichotomous measure of being out to school classmates and/or teachers based on youths’ responses to the question, “who knows about your sexual identity/gender identity: class- mate(s)? teacher(s)?” Youth who answered “yes” to being out to either classmates or teachers were coded as “out at school” (0 = no; 1 = yes). See Table 1 for sample descriptive statistics.

Analytic Strategy

We conducted multivariate ordinal logistic and lin- ear regressions using Stata 15 (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003; StataCorp, 2016) to investigate the relationship between the presence or absence of a GSA and/or LGBTQ-focused policies, bias-based bullying, and perceptions of classmate and teacher

422 DAY, FISH, GROSSMAN, AND RUSSELL

support. We also tested whether gender identity moderated these associations to investigate whether GSAs and policies operate differently for transgender youth. Complete case analyses resulted in a loss of 9% of the total sample. Data were determined to be Missing at Random (MAR) using tests for missingness in Stata 15, and we therefore used multiple imputations using chained equations (10 iterations seeded at 53,241) to account for miss- ing data (Enders, 2010). Results for each outcome are reported in Tables 2 and 3.

RESULTS

Bias-Based Bullying

We first tested our hypothesis that the presence of GSAs and LGBTQ-focused policies, as reported by LGBTQ youth, will be associated with less self- reported bias-based bullying (H1). In line with this hypothesis, we found that youth had lower odds of experiencing frequent homophobic bullying in schools with LGBTQ-focused policies only (AOR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.19–0.71), and both a GSA and LGBTQ-focused policies (AOR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.36– 0.83; see Table 2). Additionally, youth in schools with a GSA, but who were unsure if the school had LGBTQ-focused policies, were less likely to experi- ence frequent homophobic bullying (AOR = 0.45, 95% CI 0.28–0.70). Having a GSA in schools where youth knew there were not LGBTQ-focused policies was not associated with homophobic bullying. Youth in schools with GSAs, but in which youth were unsure if they had LGBTQ-focused policies, (AOR = 0.50, 95% CI 0.30–0.84), and both GSAs and LGBTQ-focused policies (AOR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.33–0.86) were also less likely to experience frequent gender-based bullying than youth who reported having neither a GSA nor LGBTQ-focused policies at their school. Having LGBTQ-focused policies exclusively was not indepen- dently associated with gender-based bullying.

Associations between covariates and outcomes were also of substantive interest (see Table 2). Com- pared to lesbian or gay youth, bisexual youth had lower odds of experiencing homophobic bullying; and compared to cisgender youth, transgender youth had two times greater odds of experiencing homo- phobic and gender-based bullying. Additionally, youth who indicated their assigned sex at birth as male were almost twice as likely to experience homo- phobic bullying compared to those who were assigned female at birth. Compared to White youth, Black or African American and multiracial youth were less likely to be bullied for homophobic reasons.

TABLE 1 Frequencies, Means, and Standard Deviations for Sample Demo-

graphics and Outcome Variables

Percent/ Mean (SD) n

Sexual orientation 1,061 Gay/Lesbian 47.22% Bisexual 42.70% Questioning/other 10.08%

Gender identity 1,061 Cisgender 87.84% Transgender 12.16%

Assigned sex at birth 1,060 Male 45.75% Female 54.25%

Age (15–21) 18.66 (1.85) 1,061 Race 1,061 Asian/Pacific Islander/ Native American

8.67%

Black/African American 24.32% White 21.58% Multiracial 22.90% No race reported 22.53%

Ethnicity 1,061 Not Hispanic or Latino/a 49.29% Hispanic or Latino/a 38.27% No ethnicity reported 12.44%

Homophobic bullying 1,022 Never 70.84% Once a month/less than once a month 18.49% Once a week/more than once a week

10.67&

Gender-based bullying 1,020 Never 81.08% Once a month/less than once a month

10.69%

Once a week/more than once a week

8.24%

Perceived classmate support (0–5) 2.61 (1.28) 1,006 Perceived teacher support (0–5) 3.09 (1.32) 1,013 GSA, LGBTQ-focused policies, or both

1,061

Neither 16.68% GSA only 7.07% GSA, LGBTQ-focused policies unsure

24.98%

No GSA, LGBTQ-focused policies unsure

12.54%

LGBTQ-focused policies only 7.82% Both GSA & LGBTQ-focused policies 30.91%

Out to classmates 64.75% 1,061 Out to teachers 53.06% 1,061 Out at school (classmates and/or teachers)

66.82% 1,061

Received free/reduced lunch 59.16% 1,043

Notes. LGBTQ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/ questioning; Cisgender = gender identity aligns with assigned sex at birth (sex assigned at birth); classmate support and tea- cher support were scales ranging from 0 to 5 (0 = “never sup- ported”; 5 = “always supported”); GSA = Gay-Straight Alliance; youth who were out to classmates and/or teachers were com- bined to calculate “out at school”.

GSAS, INCLUSIVE POLICY, AND PERCEIVED SUPPORT 423

Classmate and Teacher Support

We next tested our hypotheses that: GSAs will be positively associated with perceptions of classmate support (H2); LGBTQ-focused policies will be posi- tively associated with perceptions of teacher sup- port (H3); and the presence of both GSAs and LGBTQ-focused policies will be positively associ- ated with perceptions of support from classmates and teachers (H4). Youth who reported that their school had a GSA, but were unsure if they had LGBTQ-focused policies, perceived greater class- mate support (b = 0.31, p = .016; see Table 3) than youth who attended schools who had neither a GSA nor LGBTQ-focused policies (H2). Youth also perceived more support from classmates when they attended schools with both a GSA and LGBTQ-focused policies (b = 0.46, p < .001) com- pared to youth who attended a school with neither (H4). Having LGBTQ-focused policies with (b = 0.28, p = .030; H4) or without (b = 0.41, p = .023; H3) a GSA was associated with higher levels of perceived teacher support, compared to youth who attended schools with neither GSAs nor LGBTQ-focused policies; having only a GSA was

not significantly associated with perceptions of tea- cher support.

Regarding covariates, Black or African American youth reported higher perceptions of support from classmates compared to White youth (see Table 3). Compared to youth who did not identify as His- panic or Latino/a, youth who did not report an ethnicity also had higher perceptions of classmate support. Transgender youth reported less classmate support relative to cisgender youth, though there were no differences based on sexual identity. Youth assigned male at birth reported higher per- ceptions of teacher support compared to female assigned youth, though sexual and gender identity were not related to classmate support. Youth who were out at school had higher perceptions of class- mate and teacher support relative to youth who had not disclosed their sexual or gender identity.

Moderation of GSAs and LGBTQ-Focused Policies by Gender Identity

Next, we tested if the association between GSAs, LGBTQ-focused policies, and perceptions of sup- port was moderated by gender identity (H5).

TABLE 2 Summary of Ordinal Logistic Regression Analyses Predicting Homophobic and Gender-Based Bullying (n = 1,061)

Homophobic Bullying Gender-Based Bullying

OR 95% CI OR 95% CI

GSA/LGBTQ-focused policies GSA only 1.33 0.76–2.33 1.12 0.59–2.15 GSA, LGBTQ-focused policies unsure 0.45*** 0.28–0.70 0.50** 0.30–0.84 No GSA, LGBTQ-focused policies unsure 0.89 0.54–1.47 1.06 0.61–1.83 LGBTQ-focused Policies only 0.37** 0.19–0.71 0.62 0.31–1.23 GSA & LGBTQ-focused policies 0.55** 0.36–0.83 0.53* 0.33–0.86

Transgender 2.13*** 1.38–3.30 3.05*** 1.93–4.81 Assigned sex at birth (male) 2.06*** 1.54–2.45 1.33 0.95–1.86 Sexual orientation Bisexual 0.64** 0.47–0.87 0.82 0.57–1.18 Queer/questioning 0.87 0.53–1.44 1.25 0.73–2.16

Age 0.91* 0.83–0.98 0.98 0.89–1.08 Race/ethnicity Black or African American 0.48*** 0.31–0.74 0.78 0.47–1.30 Multiracial 0.61* 0.39–0.94 1.01 0.61–1.68 Asian/PI/Native Hawaiian 0.67 0.39–1.16 1.02 0.54–1.92 No race reported 0.78 0.47–1.28 0.83 0.45–1.53 Hispanic or Latino/a 0.82 0.55–1.21 0.84 0.53–1.33 No ethnicity reported 1.01 0.64–1.28 1.12 0.68–1.82

Free and reduced lunch 1.21 0.89–1.64 1.44* 1.01–2.06 Out at school 1.13 0.82–1.54 0.93 0.66–1.33

Notes. GSA/Policies was a categorical item (reference category = “neither a GSA nor LGBTQ-focused policies”); race was a categori- cal item (reference category = “White”); ethnicity was a categorical item (reference category = “not-Hispanic or Latino/a”); out at school was a dichotomous item (0 = “not out to classmates and/or teachers”). ***p ≤ .001, **p ≤ .01, *p ≤ .05.

424 DAY, FISH, GROSSMAN, AND RUSSELL

Interaction terms between gender identity and GSAs/LGBTQ-focused policies were not statisti- cally significant. We therefore did not find evi- dence that the effect of GSAs, LGBTQ-focused policies, or the combination of both differed for transgender and cisgender youth.

Comparisons between High School Students and High School Graduates

Given that 518 of the participants in our sample had already graduated high school, we compared stratified models of youth in high school to youth who had graduated (H6; results available upon request). Among youth who were still in high school, having a GSA and being unsure about LGBTQ-focused policies (b = 0.51, p = .020) and having both a GSA and LGBTQ-focused policies (b = 0.62, p < .001) were associated with higher

perceptions of classmate support. Youth who reported attending schools with only LGBTQ- focused policies (b = 0.56, p = .026) and both GSAs and LGBTQ-focused policies (b = 0.51, p = .013) had higher perceptions of teacher support. Neither GSAs nor LGBTQ-focused policies were associated with homophobic or gender-based bullying among youth still in high school.

Among youth who had graduated high school, neither GSAs nor LGBTQ-focused policies were associated with perceptions of classmate or teacher support, though the combination of GSAs and LGBTQ-focused policies was significant at the trend level for perceived classmate support (b = 0.34, p = .052). Youth who had attended schools with a GSA but who were unsure about LGBTQ-focused policies (AOR = 0.31, 95% CI 0.17– 0.57), and GSAs in combination with LGBTQ- focused policies (AOR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.20–0.66) had lower odds of frequent homophobic bullying; GSAs in conjunction with LGBTQ-focused policies were associated with lower odds of frequent gen- der-based bullying (AOR = 0.39, 95% CI 0.19–0.80).

DISCUSSION

We studied whether the presence of GSAs and LGBTQ-focused policies were associated with posi- tive school climates for LGBTQ youth as measured through fewer experiences of bias-based bullying and perceptions of higher social support from classmates and teachers. We found support for our six hypotheses. First, youth were less likely to report experiencing frequent homophobic and gen- der-based bullying in schools with GSAs and/or LGBTQ-focused policies (H1). Although previous research has documented how GSAs (Chesir-Teran & Hughes, 2009; Goodenow et al., 2006; Heck et al., 2013; Marx & Kettrey, 2016) and LGBTQ- focused policies (O’Shaughnessy et al., 2004; Poteat & Russell, 2013) independently improve school cli- mates, our findings suggest that the combination of LGBTQ-focused programs and policies are espe- cially effective mechanisms for addressing bias- based bullying.

We also found that LGBTQ-focused policies may be particularly effective for addressing homophobic bullying, and GSAs for gender-based bullying. Per- ceptions of classmate support, but not teacher sup- port, were higher in the presence of GSAs, independent of LGBTQ-focused policies (H2), sug- gesting GSAs are especially salient for social sup- port among youth and their peers. While previous studies have identified how GSAs (Fetner &

TABLE 3 Summary of Regression Analyses Predicting Perceptions of

Classmate and Teacher Support (n = 1,061)

Classmate Support

Teacher Support

b (SE) b (SE)

GSA/LGBTQ-focused policies GSA only 0.15 (0.18) 0.04 (0.19) GSA, LGBTQ-focused policies unsure

0.31 (0.13)* 0.12 (0.16)

No GSA, LGBTQ-focused policies unsure

�0.10 (0.15) 0.12 (0.16)

LGBTQ-focused Policies only

0.33 (0.17) 0.41 (0.18)*

GSA & LGBTQ-focused policies

0.46 (0.13)*** 0.28 (0.13)*

Transgender �0.35 (0.13)** 0.06 (0.14) Assigned sex at birth (male) 0.13 (0.08) 0.25 (0.09)**

Sexual orientation Bisexual �0.04 (0.09) �0.12 (0.09) Queer/questioning 0.06 (0.15) �0.12 (0.16)

Age �0.003 (0.02) �0.001 (0.02) Race/ethnicity Black or African American

0.36 (0.12)** 0.07 (0.13)

Multiracial 0.19 (0.13) 0.18 (0.13) Asian/PI/Native Hawaiian

0.21 (0.16) 0.12 (0.17)

No race reported 0.21 (0.15) 0.23 (0.16) Hispanic or Latino/a 0.12 (0.11) 0.02 (0.12) No ethnicity reported 0.34 (0.13)** 0.21 (0.13)

Free and reduced lunch 0.08 (0.09) �0.06 (0.09) Out at school 0.23 (0.09)* 0.33 (0.09)***

Constant 1.95 (0.48)*** 2.55 (0.49)***

Notes. ***p ≤ .001, **p ≤ .01, *p ≤ .05.

GSAS, INCLUSIVE POLICY, AND PERCEIVED SUPPORT 425

Elafros, 2015; Heck et al., 2013; Kosciw et al., 2016) and LGBTQ-focused policies serve as protective factors (Goodenow et al., 2006; Hatzenbuehler & Keyes, 2013), especially in terms of improving school climates (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2014), this study identifies how both – independently and concurrently – are associated with perceptions of stronger social support within schools. Findings also show that LGBTQ youth perceived greater classmate support when their school had LGBTQ- focused policies independent of whether or not their school had a GSA. Notably, findings related to GSAs independent of LGBTQ-focused policies were only significant when the youth were unsure if schools had LGBTQ-focused policies, and not when they indicated there were no such policies. Youth in schools with LGBTQ-focused policies also perceived greater teacher support (H3), suggesting that these policies may influence the professional or administrative characteristics of schools, which is consistent with previous research that identify teachers as pivotal to implementing policy (Cohen et al., 2009). Youth also perceived higher support from other students and teachers in the presence of both GSAs and LGBTQ-focused policies (H4).

Associations between the presence or absence of GSAs and LGBTQ-focused policies and perceptions of classmate and teacher support did not differ on the basis of gender identity (H5). Our findings indicate that GSAs and LGBTQ-focused policies play mutually enforcing roles in reducing bias- based bullying and promoting social support in schools. Findings suggest however that, compared to cisgender youth, transgender youth are at higher risk of homophobic bullying, and perceived class- mates as being less supportive. This suggests that, although transgender youth were more likely to have more negative school experiences, the rela- tionship between GSAs, LGBTQ-focused policies, and homophobic bullying and perceptions of social support was no stronger or weaker for transgender youth compared to cisgender youth.

Our findings also highlight a potentially impor- tant resilience factor for Black or African American youth, since they reported notably higher levels of classmate support. Stronger feelings of support among racial minority youth in our sample may be partially accounted for by their lower likelihood of homophobic bullying. Notably, youth who were out at school did not report higher rates of homo- phobic bullying, a finding that contrasts with prior studies (Russell et al., 2014). Regarding teacher support, it is noteworthy that participants who were assigned male at birth, and youth who were

out to classmates and/or teachers, reported more support from teachers.1 Similar to a previous study, findings here suggest that out LGBTQ youth may be more visible and thus may receive, or seek out, more support from teachers and classmates (Watson et al., 2015).

Notably, models stratified by youth who were still in high school and those who had graduated differed from the sample as a whole (H6). Among those still in high school, youth in schools with a GSA, but who were unsure about LGBTQ-focused policies, reported higher perceptions of classmate support. The combination of GSAs and policies were associated with perceptions of stronger class- mate and teacher support for high school students, and less homophobic and gender-based bullying for those who had graduated high school. The dif- ferential findings may be attributable to some par- ticipants conflating their high school and college programs and policies, or to retrospective reporting of high school experiences. We suspect that teacher support may be more salient in reports from youth who are still in high school. Further research is needed to clarify how policies and programs oper- ate across school settings, such as high school and college, and how retroactive accounts may differ from those provided by youth still in high school.

Our study has important implications for under- standing how GSAs and LGBTQ-focused policies may improve school climates by creating safe and more supportive schools for LGBTQ youth. Although several previous studies found that GSAs and policies are associated with improved school climates (e.g., Chesir-Teran & Hughes, 2009; Good- enow et al., 2006; Heck et al., 2013; Marx & Ket- trey, 2016), this study documents mechanisms – reduced bias-based bullying and stronger support networks within schools – through which such approaches create more positive school climates.

The results of this study also provide valuable support for the limited evidence that LGBTQ- focused policies directly reduce bias-based bullying (Russell & McGuire, 2008), and that they may miti- gate the negative effects of bullying by strengthen- ing support among classmates and teachers within schools, especially in combination with GSAs. Strikingly, GSAs were not associated with lower bias-based bullying or perceptions of higher social support in schools where youth indicated that there were no LGBTQ-focused policies. This may

1In post-hoc analyses we tested a statistical interaction to assess whether the association was unique for males who were out at school, but the effect was null.

426 DAY, FISH, GROSSMAN, AND RUSSELL

be indicative of less supportive school environ- ments in which youth are acutely aware of the lack of policies that are responsive to the unique experi- ences of LGBTQ youth. This finding underscores the importance of considering multipronged approaches to improving school climates, including training teachers on policies and having teachers communicate policies to students. Such programs and policies may be sound investments and a cost- effective strategy for creating LGBTQ-specific sup- ports within schools (Snapp, Watson et al., 2015).

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Although the data in this study allows for a unique investigation into the school experiences of a diverse and contemporary sample of LGBTQ youth, there were some notable limitations. We were unable to assess who participants envision in the context of support measures. For example, we do not know how close participants are to class- mates, nor whether they are referring to a particu- larly supportive or unsupportive teacher, or to their teachers as a whole. Future studies should consider both the breadth and depth of such social networks within schools.

This study was also based on a sample drawn from LGBTQ community and college groups. Therefore, the youth in the study were in some way connected to an existing LGBTQ community, and do not necessarily reflect the experiences of youth who lack access or connections to supportive communities. Such youth may be at greater risk of experiencing poor outcomes in the absence of sup- port within schools. Additionally, youth were asked to report on their current school experiences and the presence of GSAs and LGBTQ-focused policies, or to offer their retrospective accounts if they no longer attended school. Youth who had graduated high school may have integrated their experiences in college with their retrospective accounts of high school experiences. A number of factors might also influence their reports: although there may be more sources of social and institu- tional support at some colleges, research suggests that LGBTQ youth often experience negative school climates on college campuses (Beemyn & Rankin, 2011; Tetreault et al., 2013; Yost & Gilmore, 2011). On the other hand, when reflecting on their past experiences youth may be more likely to recall neg- ative events, especially those related to bullying, or may not accurately recall whether or not their schools had GSAs and/or LGBTQ-focused policies. Utilizing school-based samples would offer

important insight into experiences of victimization and perceptions of school-based supports for youth who may lack other access to or engagement with other forms of LGBTQ-specific social support within their communities. Collecting more objective measures and multirater data, such as reports from teachers and administrators about the implementa- tion of policies and programs, and youth’s current experiences within these school settings could miti- gate some of the bias that may result from our methods.

Youth self-reports of the presence or absence of GSAs and LGBTQ-focused policies may not accu- rately reflect the actual presence of such programs and policies within schools. Objective measures of programs and policies may therefore help to eluci- date their association with social support within schools, as youth need not necessarily be aware of programs and policies to benefit from them (Hatzenbuehler, 2011; Poteat et al., 2013). Our anal- yses were also limited to cross-sectional data, and thus our theory that GSAs and LGBTQ-focused policies reduce bullying and promote social sup- port should be further tested. Other work shows that the presence of a GSA in schools is associated with fewer reports of homophobic bullying one year later (Ioverno, Belser, Baiocco, Grossman, & Russell, 2016), but we are aware of no other longi- tudinal studies that test these mechanisms. We have confidence in our results since it is unlikely that perceptions of stronger social support in schools result in more LGBTQ-focused policies or GSAs, although it is plausible that youth who feel most supported may be more likely to be aware of inclusive school policies, and resources such as GSAs.

It is also important to consider the unique school experiences of youth who identify as both a sexual and gender minority. In preliminary analyses, we examined if youths’ perception of support in schools or experiences of bias-based bullying var- ied based on whether or not they identified as both LGB and transgender. We did not, however, find evidence of differential school experiences. Never- theless, future studies should consider how inter- secting sexual and gender identities may relate to unique experiences, and risks, within schools, and how GSAs and LGBTQ-focused policies may pro- vide differential support – or lack thereof – for diverse groups of youth. There is need for research that provide a more nuanced understanding of what policies and practices are most effective for creating safer and more supportive school climates for all youth.

GSAS, INCLUSIVE POLICY, AND PERCEIVED SUPPORT 427

CONCLUSION

Schools can serve as an important context for LGBTQ youth to gain access to supportive class- mates and adults who are sensitive to their unique needs and experiences. The findings that youth per- ceive more peer and adult support in schools with GSAs and LGBTQ-focused policies are timely as new measures of school success are considered in relation to the implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act. Schools that implement both GSAs and LGBTQ-focused policies may be especially effective at improving school climate for LGBTQ (and all) youth via reducing bias-based bullying and strengthening social supports within schools.

REFERENCES

Battin-Pearson, S., Newcomb, M. D., Abbott, R. D., Hill, K. G., Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (2000). Predic- tors of early high school dropout: A test of five theo- ries. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 568. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.3.568

Beemyn, G., & Rankin, S. (2011). Introduction to the spe- cial issue on “LGBTQ campus experiences”. Journal of Homosexuality, 58, 1159–1164. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00918369.2011.605728

Birkett, M., Espelage, D. L., & Koenig, B. (2009). LGB and questioning students in schools: The moderating effects of homophobic bullying and school climate on negative outcomes. Journal of Youth and Adoles- cence, 38, 989–1000. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964- 008-9389-1

Blake, S. M., Ledsky, R., Lehman, T., Goodenow, C., Sawyer, R., & Hack, T. (2001). Preventing sexual risk behaviors among gay, lesbian, and bisexual adoles- cents: The benefits of gay-sensitive HIV instruction in schools. American Journal of Public Health, 91(6), 940.

Bond, L., Butler, H., Thomas, L., Carlin, J., Glover, S., Bowes, G., & Patton, G. (2007). Social and school connect- edness in early secondary school as predictors of late teenage substance use, mental health, and academic outcomes. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, 357.e9–357.e18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.10.013

Bontempo, D. E., & D’Augelli, A. R. (2002). Effects of at- school victimization and sexual orientation on lesbian, gay, or bisexual youths’ health risk behavior. Journal of Adolescent Health, 30(5), 364–374. https://doi.org/10. 1016/S1054-139X(01)00415-3

CDC (2009). School connectedness: Strategies for increasing protective factors among youth. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Depart- ment of Health and Human Services.

Chesir-Teran, D., & Hughes, D. (2009). Heterosexism in high school and victimization among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and questioning students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 963–975. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10964-008-9364-x

Chu, P. S., Saucier, D. A., & Hafner, E. (2010). Meta-ana- lysis of the relationships between social support and well-being in children and adolescents. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 29, 624. https://doi.org/10. 1521/jscp.2010.29.6.624

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences, Vol. 3rd. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Cohen, J., McCabe, L., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research, policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 180–213.

D’Augelli, A. R., Grossman, A. H., & Starks, M. T. (2005). Parents’ awareness of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths’ sexual orientation. Journal of Marriage and Fam- ily, 67(2), 474–482. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-2445. 2005.00129.x

Day, J. K., Perez-Brumer, A., & Russell, S. T. (2018). Safe schools? Transgender youth’s school experiences and perceptions of school climate. Journal of Youth and Ado- lescence. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0866-x

Diaz, E. M., Kosciw, J. G., & Greytak, E. A. (2010). School connectedness for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgen- der youth: In-school victimization and institutional supports. The Prevention Researcher, 17(3), 15–18.

Doty, N. D., Willoughby, B. L. B., Lindahl, K. M., & Malik, N. M. (2010). Sexuality related social support among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 1134–1147. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10964-010-9566-x

Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (2011). Schools as develop- mental contexts during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 225–241. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00725.x.

Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Factor, R., & Rothblum, E. (2008). Exploring gender iden- tity and community among three groups of transgen- der individuals in the United States: MTFs, FTMs, and genderqueers. Health Sociology Review, 17, 235–253. https://doi.org/10.5172/hesr.451.17.3.235

Fetner, T., & Elafros, A. (2015). The GSA difference: LGBTQ and ally experiences in high schools with and without Gay-Straight Alliances. Social Sciences, 4, 563– 581. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci4030563

Fish, J. N., & Russell, S. T. (2018). Have mischievous respon- ders misidentified sexual minority youth disparities in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47, 1053–1067. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-0993-6, PMC5671920

Goodenow, C., Szalacha, L., & Westheimer, K. (2006). School support groups, other school factors, and the safety of sexual minority adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 573–589. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20173

Grossman, A. H., Haney, A. P., Edwards, P., Alessi, E. J., Ardon, M., & Howell, T. J. (2009). Lesbian, gay, bisex- ual and transgender youth talk about experiencing and coping with school violence: A qualitative study.

428 DAY, FISH, GROSSMAN, AND RUSSELL

Journal of LGBT Youth, 6(1), 24–46. https://doi.org/10. 1080/19361650802379748

GSA Network. (2016). GSA network unveils new name and tagline. Retrieved November 22, 2016, from https:// gsanetwork.org/GSA-Network-Unveils-New-Name-and- Tagline

Hatzenbuehler, M. L. (2011). The social environment and suicide attempts in lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Pediatrics, 127, 896–903. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds. 2010-3020

Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Birkett, M., Van Wagenen, A., & Meyer, I. H. (2014). Protective school climates and reduced risk for suicide ideation in sexual minority youths. American Journal of Public Health, 104, 279–286. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301508

Hatzenbuehler, M. L., & Keyes, K. M. (2013). Inclusive anti-bullying policies and reduced risk of suicide attempts in lesbian and gay youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53(1), S21–S26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jado health.2012.08.010

Heck, N. C., Flentje, A., & Cochran, B. N. (2013). Offsetting risks: High school Gay-Straight Alliances and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1(S), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/2329-0382.1.s.81

Horn, S. S., Szalacha, L. A., & Drill, K. (2008). Schooling, sexuality, and rights: An investigation of heterosexual students’ social cognition regarding sexual orientation and the rights of gay and lesbian peers in school. Jour- nal of Social Issues, 64(4), 791–813. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1540-4560.2008.00589.x

Ioverno, S., Belser, A. B., Baiocco, R., Grossman, A. H., & Russell, S. T. (2016). The protective role of gay–straight alliances for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and questioning students: A prospective analysis. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 3(4), 397–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000193.

Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Giga, N. M., Villenas, C., & Danischewski, D. J. (2016). The 2015 National School Cli- mate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer youth in our nation’s schools. New York, NY: GLSEN.

Kosciw, J. G., Palmer, N. A., Kull, R. M., & Greytak, E. A. (2013). The effect of negative school climate on aca- demic outcomes for LGBT youth and the role of in- school supports. Journal of School Violence, 12(1), 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2012.732546

Lessne, D., & Cidade, M. (2015). Student Reports of Bul- lying and Cyber-Bullying: Results from the 2013 School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Vic- timization Survey. (No. NCES 2015-056). National Cen- ter for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http:// eric.ed.gov/?id=ED545100

Malecki, C. K., Demaray, M. K., & Elliot, S. N. (2000). The Child and Adolescent Social Support Scale. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University.

Marx, R. A., & Kettrey, H. H. (2016). Gay-Straight Alli- ances are associated with lower levels of school-based

victimization of LGBTQ+ youth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(7), 1269–1282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016- 0501-7

McGuire, J. K., Anderson, C. R., Toomey, R. B., & Rus- sell, S. T. (2010). School climate for transgender youth: A mixed method investigation of student experiences and school responses. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(10), 1175–1188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010- 9540-7

McNeely, C. A., & Falci, C. (2004). School connectedness and the transition into and out of Health-Risk behavior among adolescents: A comparison of social belonging and teacher support. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 284–292. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2004.tb 08285.x

McNeely, C. A., Nonnemaker, J. M., & Blum, R. W. (2002). Promoting school connectedness: Evidence from the national longitudinal study of adolescent health. Journal of School Health, 72(4), 138–146.

Mufioz-Plaza, C., Quinn, S. C., & Rounds, K. A. (2002). Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students: Per- ceived social support in the high school environment. The High School Journal, 85(4), 52–63. https://doi.org/ 10.1353/hsj.2002.0011

Murdock, T. B., & Bolch, M. B. (2005). Risk and protec- tive factors for poor school adjustment in lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) high school youth: Variable and person-centered analyses. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20054

National Research Council and Institute of Medicin (NRC/IOM) (2004). Engaging schools: Fostering high school students’ motivation to learn. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

Needham, B. L., & Austin, E. L. (2010). Sexual orientation, parental support, and health during the transition to young adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 1189–1198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9533-6

O’Shaughnessy, M., Russell, S. T., Heck, K., Calhoun, C., & Laub, C. (2004). Safe place to learn: Consequences of harass- ment based on actual or perceived sexual orientation and gen- der non-conformity and steps for making schools safer. San Francisco, CA: California Safe Schools Coalition.

Poteat, V. P., Calzo, J. P., & Yoshikawa, H. (2016). Pro- moting Youth Agency Through Dimensions of Gay- Straight Alliance Involvement and Conditions that Maximize Associations. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(7), 1438–1451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016- 0421-6.

Poteat, V. P., Espelage, D. L., & Koenig, B. W. (2009). Willingness to remain friends and attend school with lesbian and gay peers: Relational expressions of preju- dice among heterosexual youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 952–962. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10964-009-9416-x

Poteat, V. P., Heck, N. C., Yoshikawa, H., & Calzo, J. P. (2016). Greater engagement among members of Gay-Straight Alliances: Individual and structural

GSAS, INCLUSIVE POLICY, AND PERCEIVED SUPPORT 429

contributors. American Educational Research Journal, 53(6), 1732–1758. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216674804.

Poteat, V. P., Mereish, E. H., DiGiovanni, C. D., & Koe- nig, B. W. (2011). The effects of general and homopho- bic victimization on adolescents’ psychosocial and educational concerns: The importance of intersecting identities and parent support. Journal of Counseling Psy- chology, 58, 597–609. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025095

Poteat, V. P., & Russell, S. T. (2013). Understanding homophobic behavior and its implications for policy and practice. Theory Into Practice, 52, 264–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2013.829729

Poteat, V. P., Sinclair, K. O., DiGiovanni, C. D., Koenig, B. W., & Russell, S. T. (2013). Gay-Straight Alliances are associated with student health: A multischool com- parison of LGBTQ and heterosexual youth. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23, 319–330. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2012.00832.x

Rivers, I., & D’Augelli, A. R. (2001). The victimization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths. In A. R. D’Augelli, & C. J. Patterson (Eds.), Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identi- ties and youth: Psychological perspectives (pp. 199–223). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Russell, S. T., Day, J. K., Ioverno, S., & Toomey, R. B. (2016). Are school policies focused on sexual orienta- tion and gender identity associated with less bullying? Teachers’ perspectives. Journal of School Psychology, 54, 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2015.10.005

Russell, S. T., Kosciw, J., Horn, S., & Saewyc, E. (2010). Safe schools policy for LGBTQ students. Social Policy Report, 24(4), 1–17.

Russell, S. T., & McGuire, J. K. (2008). The school climate for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) stu- dents. In M. Shinn, & H. Yoshikawa (Eds.), Toward pos- itive youth development: Transforming schools and community programs (pp. 133–149). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/ac prof:oso/9780195327892.001.0001

Russell, S. T., Seif, H., & Truong, N. L. (2001). School out- comes of sexual minority youth in the United States: Evidence from a national study. Journal of Adolescence, 24(1), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1006/jado.2000.0365

Russell, S. T., Sinclair, K. O., Poteat, V. P., & Koenig, B. W. (2012). Adolescent health and harassment based on dis- criminatory bias. American Journal of Public Health, 102, 493–495. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300430

Russell, S. T., Toomey, R. B., Ryan, C., & Diaz, R. M. (2014). Being out at school: The implications for school victimization and young adult adjustment. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 84, 635–643. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/ort0000037

Sausa, L. A. (2005). Translating research into practice: Trans youth recommendations for improving school systems. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education, 3 (1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1300/J367v03n01_04

Sinclair, K. O., Bauman, S., Poteat, V. P., Koenig, B., & Russell, S. T. (2012). Cyber and bias-based harassment: Associations with academic, substance use, and mental

health problems. Journal of Adolescent Health, 50, 521– 523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.09.009

Snapp, S. D., McGuire, J. K., Sinclair, K. O., Gabrion, K., & Russell, S. T. (2015). LGBTQ-inclusive curricula: Why supportive curricula matter. Sex Education, 15, 580–596. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2015.10425 73

Snapp, S. D., Watson, R. J., Russell, S. T., Diaz, R. M., & Ryan, C. (2015). Social support networks for LGBT young adults: Low cost strategies for positive adjust- ment. Family Relations, 64, 420–430. https://doi.org/10. 1111/fare.12124

StataCorp. (2016). Stata statistical software: Release 15. Col- lege Station, TX: StataCorp LP.

Steinberg, L., & Morris, A. S. (2001). Adolescent develop- ment. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(83), 83–110.

Tetreault, P. A., Fette, R., Meidlinger, P. C., & Hope, D. (2013). Perceptions of campus climate by sexual minorities. Journal of Homosexuality, 60, 947–964. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2013.774874

Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 357–385.

Toomey, R. B., McGuire, J. K., & Russell, S. T. (2012). Heteronormativity, school climates, and perceived safety for gender nonconforming peers. Journal of Ado- lescence, 35(1), 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adole scence.2011.03.001

Toomey, R. B., & Russell, S. T. (2016). The role of sexual orientation in school-based victimization: A meta-ana- lysis. Youth & Society, 48, 176–201. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0044118X13483778

Toomey, R. B., Ryan, C., Diaz, R. M., & Russell, S. T. (2011). High school Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs) and young adult well-Being: An examination of GSA pres- ence, participation, and perceived effectiveness. Applied Developmental Science, 15(4), 175–185. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/10888691.2011.607378

Walls, N. E., Kane, S. B., & Wisneski, H. (2010). Gay- Straight Alliances and school experiences of sexual minority youth. Youth & Society, 41, 307–332. https://d oi.org/10.1177/0044118X09334957

Watson, R. J., Grossman, A. H., & Russell, S. T. (2019). Sources of social support and mental health among LGB youth. Youth & Society, 51(1), 30–48. https://doi. org/i: 10.1177/0044118X16660110

Watson, R. J., Wheldon, C. W., & Russell, S. T. (2015). How does sexual identity disclosure impact school experiences? Journal of LGBT Youth, 12, 385–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2015.1077764

Wilson, D. (2004). The interface of school climate and school connectedness and relationships with aggression and vic- timization. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 293–299. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2004.tb08286.x

Yost, M. R., & Gilmore, S. (2011). Assessing LGBTQ cam- pus climate and creating change. Journal of Homosexual- ity, 58(9), 1330–1354. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369. 2011.605744

430 DAY, FISH, GROSSMAN, AND RUSSELL

Normative Sexuality Development in Adolescence: A Decade in Review,

2000–2009

Deborah L. Tolman Hunter College

Sara I. McClelland University of Michigan

This review details a key innovation across the field of adolescent sexuality research over the last decadeFconceptualizing sexuality as a normative aspect of adolescent development. Anchored in a growing articulation of adolescent sexuality as having positive qualities and consequences, we provide an organizing framework for understanding sexuality as nor- mative and developmentally expected. Using this framework, we report on 3 specific areas of research that have developed ‘‘critical mass’’ over the past decade: new views on sexual behavior, sexual selfhood, and sexual socialization in the 21st century. We conclude by suggesting that the next step in the field of adolescent sexuality development is the explicit integration of ‘‘positive’’ dimensions of sexuality with risk management dimensions. Rather than navigating a binary between positive and risky, we propose characterizing the ‘‘both/and’’ quality of adolescent sexuality development as normative. This framework, we argue, encourages empirical research that assumes a wide range of strategies through which adolescents learn about themselves, their bodies, intimate partners, and relationships within contexts where they are required to both manage risks and develop positive patterns for adulthood sexuality. We conclude with considerations for future research and public policy.

A KEY INNOVATION

This review details a key innovation across the field of adolescent sexuality research over the last decadeFthat is, the conceptualization of sexuality as a normative aspect of adolescent development. Ad- olescent sexuality has long been equated with dan- ger (Moran, 2000), and researchers have often reflected this sentiment with their choice of research questions by pursuing studies of pregnancy, sexually transmitted infection (STI) risk, condom use, and, increasingly, sexual violence in the lives of adoles- cents. While risks associated with adolescent sexu- ality are essential to understand, this first decade of the 21st century witnessed the emergence of a critical mass of empirical studies reflecting an assumption that adolescent sexuality is a normal and expected aspect of adolescent development. We argue that this emerging body of research signals a sea change in how researchers (and the public) conceptualize ad- olescent sexuality, as well as its predictors, outcomes, and salient characteristics.

Over the last 30 years, researchers have advocated for unlinking adolescent sexuality from automati- cally assumed dangerous outcomes and pathology

(Bauman & Udry, 1981; Ehrhardt, 1996; Fine, 1988; Thompson, 1995). However, it has been over the last decade that, rather than the occasional lone voice in a chorus of concern, investigators produced a set of empirical studies which have developed earlier ob- servations about the limitations and costs of defining adolescent sexuality exclusively as a dangerous and risky set of behaviors and outcomes. Since 2000, this perspective has been both more fully articulated and utilized to guide a significant body of research.

At the start of the decade, Welsh, Rostosky, and Kawaguchi (2000) noted that sexuality was slowly becoming understood as integral to adolescent identity formation and that ‘‘[s]igns of a shift toward a more normative perspective ha[d] begun to ap- pear’’ (p. 119). In 2004, researchers from various disciplines gathered together in San Francisco, CA, for the ‘‘Cutting the Edge of Research in Adolescent Sexuality: Considering Normative Development’’ conference. That same year, The Sexuality Informa- tion and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS, 2004) published guidelines for compre- hensive sexuality educationFwidely approved by mainstream professional organizationsFwhich pre- sented six key concepts, including that ‘‘sexuality is a central part of being human’’ (p. 15) and emphasized developmentally appropriate sexuality education throughout a child and adolescent’s life in order to ensure that ‘‘[y]oung people explore their sexuality

r 2011 The Authors

Journal of Research on Adolescence r 2011 Society for Research on Adolescence

DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00726.x

We wish to thank Christin Bowman, Amy Baker, and Jessica Lake for their extensive assistance with research, coding, and manuscript preparation.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Deborah L. Tolman, School of Social Work, Hunter College, CUNY Graduate Center, 129 East 79th Street, New York, NY 10075. E-mail: dtolman@ hunter.cuny.edu

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON ADOLESCENCE, 21(1), 242 – 255

as a natural process in achieving sexual maturity’’ (p. 20). In 2005 – 2006, two separate special issues in sexuality and developmental journals were pub- lished which argued for conceptualizing and defin- ing characteristics of ‘‘positive’’ adolescent sexuality development while also recognizing the challenges of making such a claim (Diamond, 2006; Russell, 2005a, 2005b). In one of these articles, Russell ex- plained that, ‘‘[t]he intense social regulation of both adolescence and sexuality makes this field a rich venue for academic interrogation, as well as a risky area of academic inquiry,’’ (2005a, p. 10).

Indeed, there has been both political and aca- demic anxiety concerning the most beneficial way to define adolescent sexuality over the past 10 years, especially given the context of abstinence-only sex education policies and the controversies over the science associated with them (see Fine & McClelland, 2006; McClelland & Fine, 2008b). However, there has also been tremendous progress in developing innovative research that addresses the development of healthy sexual attitudes, behaviors, relationships, and importantly, recognition that adult sexual out- comes are rooted in adolescence. Ten years after Welsh and colleagues’ observation about normative adolescent sexuality development, we find that a body of research has emerged and shows signs of growth.

NORMATIVE ADOLESCENT SEXUALITY DEVELOPMENT

We use the term ‘‘normative’’ as an organizing frame for studying adolescent sexuality development, be- cause it allows for integration of the ‘‘positive’’ sex- uality frame called for by other researchers (Diamond, 2006; Russell, 2005a), but also draws at- tention to the developmental nature of sexuality development (i.e., what it means to become a healthy sexual adult). Normative has been defined as, ‘‘per- taining to the average or expected behavior patterns of a group or community’’ (Barker, 1995). By em- phasizing sexuality as expected and normative, we aim to discern the types of research generated within this set of assumptions. We forward the idea that the normative quality of adolescent sexuality signals that sexuality is a developmental phenomenon; this does not mean, however, that we are advocating for normative timelines or benchmarks, such as the ideal time to begin sexual activity. Instead, we use this term to highlight the qualities of sexuality develop- ment, which are necessarily rooted in the adolescent years and thereby important for researchers to un- derstand. While use of terms such as ‘‘normal’’ and

‘‘normative’’ are complex and contested, we have chosen to use the concept of normativity as a way of signaling this major shift in the last decade. We be- lieve this key advance has significantly challenged, and thus altered, the basic assumptions within the field and that this perspective of normative sexuality development is evident not only in the questions researchers ask but in their methods and presenta- tion of findings as well.

In addition to normative, the emergence of the term ‘‘sexuality development’’ (as opposed to ‘‘sex- ual development’’) reflects the theoretical and em- pirical developments of the last decade. Originally used to document the development of physiological stages, more recent research in this field has ad- dressed the intertwining physiological and psycho- logical processes involved in developing as a sexual person at various developmental moments over the course of an adolescent’s life. Early in the decade, Tolman (2002) argued for the importance of con- ceptually expanding what has been called sexual development into the broader, more comprehensive construct of ‘‘sexuality development.’’ This shift has been made possible, in part, by an expanded ap- proach to sexuality itself.

In this review, we report on new arenas of knowledge about adolescent sexuality that have emerged from the growing application of this inno- vative lens. The current discussion is a focused re- view that grew out of a larger comprehensive review of research done in the field of adolescent sexuality from 2000 to 2009. We generated a list of 31 English language journals that regularly published articles from 2000 to 2009 on issues related to adolescent sexuality across a range of disciplines including psychology, public health, sociology, adolescence, women’s studies, and sexuality studies. From this set of journals, 710 abstracts were identified, retrieved, and coded. We developed codes based on the themes that emerged from the abstracts rather than bringing a set of theoretically derived codes to the data. From the initial set of 25 codes, we constructed themes for more careful analysis by grouping the codes based on similarity, relevance, and theoretical relation- ships. From this body of literature, we identified the growing trend for researchers to assume that ado- lescent sexuality is normative rather than distinctly pathological or problematic.

Within this more specific body of research, we identified three domains: new perspectives on sexual behaviors, sexual selfhood, and sexual socialization in the 21st century. Taken in turn, each represents an important aspect of recent empirical research: sexual behaviors emphasizes the behavioral aspects of

ADOLESCENT SEXUALITY 243

sexuality, sexual selfhood represents the internal de- velopment of the individual, and finally, sexual so- cialization represents the social contexts in which adolescents develop sexual knowledge and experi- ences. While these three areas overlap conceptually and each works necessarily in tandem with the other two, we highlight these areas as distinct in order to illustrate how different levels of analysis are impor- tant within this field as it continues to develop.

Lastly, we discuss the role of the National Longi- tudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) as a major domain of adolescent sexuality research over the past decade. The impact of this U.S.-based, fed- erally funded, nationally representative, longitudinal study has been immense, and no discussion of ado- lescent sexuality research in the last decade would be complete without inclusion of research from this data set. One of the only studies that has collected data on adolescents and their peers, romantic part- ners, families, schools, and neighborhoods, Add Health has provided an unparalleled ability to ex- amine sexual relationships, behaviors, and risk management in the lives of adolescents as they age from 12 onwards. Toward the end of our discussion, we review how this study mirrors both the trends we have identified in the larger body of literature re- garding normative sexuality development and ten- sions that continue to exist within the field of adolescent sexuality.

While far from representing the entirety of re- search on adolescent sexuality, this major sea change of normativity warrants a focused review. Thus, this review of the research on adolescent sexuality is purposefully not a comprehensive dis- cussion of the enormous literature on the topic of adolescent sexuality, which still is constituted pri- marily by a focus on preventing sexual risk taking (i.e., having unprotected intercourse) and negative sexual outcomes (i.e., adolescent pregnancy, STIs). There are a number of excellent reviews available that cover important aspects of research on ado- lescent sexuality: for reviews of adolescent sexual behaviors and development, see Diamond and Savin-Williams (2009); contraception and condom use by adolescents, see Santelli, Morrow, Anderson, and Lindberg (2006); sexual risk taking and alcohol, see Halpern-Felsher, Millstein, and Ellen (1996); religiosity and sexual behavior, see Rostosky, Wil- cox, Wright, and Randall (2004); abstinence policies and sex education in schools, see Lindberg, Santelli, and Singh (2006); Santelli et al. (2006); abstinence education evaluation, see Kirby (2002, 2007); Smith, Steen, Spaulding-Givens, and Schwendinger (2003); adolescent relationships, see Collins,

Welsh, and Furman (2009); Giordano (2003). We conclude this discussion by suggesting an integra- tive approach to adolescent sexuality development and research.

THREE AREAS OF RESEARCH

Empirical research that has explored the idea of normative adolescent sexuality development is or- ganized into three main areas in this review. First, we report on research reflecting new views on sexual behavior, including research on adolescent sexual repertoires, nonprocreative sexual behavior, and virginity as a ‘‘new’’ sexual behavior. Second, we cover the empirical developments in sexual selfhood, which includes aspects of sexual subjectivity, iden- tity, and gender as well as the development of a self who imagines him/herself (in the present or the fu- ture) as having intimate relationships and/or expe- riencing sexual pleasure. Third, we discuss the empirical research on sexual socialization in the 21st century, presenting research that has examined the social contexts in which adolescents learn about sex and about how to be sexual individuals. This work stands in contrast to studies that seek to identify negative social influencesFa major interest in the last 10 years, especially with the advent of new technologies. We discuss the various ways that re- searchers have approached this question of social- ization within families and peers as well as relational and nonrelational contexts of sexuality.

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON SEXUAL BEHAVIORS

What constitutes a sexual behavior? The last decade saw this question driving research in adolescent sexuality, pressing for interrogation of what ‘‘counts’’ as sex by teens and in research settings (Sanders et al., 2010). Research in the last decade reflects a growing recognition that sexual behaviors include a range of possible activities, leading to the in- creased need to be precise when referring to sexual behaviors. For example, ‘‘penile-vaginal intercourse’’ (PVI) has emerged as a specific term as other forms of intercourse (oral and anal) are recognized with their own unique questions and concerns. While much of this review covers heterosexual intercourse behaviors, in part, because of a continuing heterosexist bias in behavioral research on adolescent sexuality, studies that focus exclusively on same-sex sexual behavior are reviewed elsewhere in this issue (Saewyc, 2011). What unites this body of research on sexual behav- iors is a growing interest in documenting the psy- chological and developmental dimensions of sexual

244 TOLMAN AND McCLELLAND

behaviors rather than assuming that adolescent sex- ual behavior is a route to psychological and physical damage.

In the last decade, oral sex has been acknowl- edged as part of what Fortenberry and colleagues have called adolescents’ ‘‘sexual repertoires’’ (e.g., Hensel, Fortenberry, & Orr, 2008), that is, the range of behaviors about which they develop knowledge and make choicesFan idea first suggested by Smith and Udry in 1985 but elaborated only in the last decade. There has been an emerging body of knowledge about oral sex, picking up where Newcomer and UATUdry (1985) left off in their long-standing study published over 20 years ago. Adolescents’ perceptions of oral sex, especially whether they consider it sex, have been a focus of study (McKay, 2004; Prinstein, Meade, & Cohen, 2003). Halpern-Felsher, Cornell, Kropp, and Tschann (2005) found that relative to vaginal intercourse, young people perceived oral sex to be less risky, more acceptable, less of a threat to their beliefs, more likely for them, and that a greater number of their peers have had it than vaginal sex. Brady and Halpern-Felsher (2007) found in a longitudinal study of early adolescents that those engaging in oral sex only versus both oral and vag- inal intercourse were less likely to become pregnant or have an STI, feel guilty or used, have their rela- tionship become worse or get in trouble with their parents about sex.

At the beginning of the decade, concern that girls may be providing oral sex to boys as a way to ‘‘stay abstinent,’’ that is, to avoid PVI, may have been driving the emergent study of oral sex (e.g., Remez, 2000). However, this pattern has not been found. Hensel et al. (2008) tracked sexual behaviors among primarily African American adolescents using sex- ual diaries to identify sexual trajectories and how oral sex fit into them. They found that oral sex oc- curred before, simultaneously, or concurrent with intercourse rather than as a substitute. What has been shown as a new trend among adolescents in regards to oral sex seems to be about expectations. For example, some research indicates that oral sex is less of a ‘‘choice’’ behavior and more of an expected behavior, especially fellatio. For example, Kaestle (2009) found that in Wave 3 of the Add Health study, a greater proportion of young women versus men had engaged repeatedly in sexual activities they disliked (12% vs. 3%) and were more likely than men to report repeated participation in these activities (odds ratio, 3.7), primarily fellatio and anal sex.

Other studies have found differential associations for oral sex versus vaginal sex among adolescents, including parental communication and behavior-

specific normative beliefs (Bersamin, Walker, Fisher, & Grube, 2006). Bay-Cheng, Robinson, and Zucker (2009) found in retrospective reports by college wo- men on heterosexual experiences in adolescence that compared with intercourse, erotic touching, manual stimulation, and fellatio were less predictive of young women’s subjective perceptions of desire, wanting, and pleasure.

More recently, research has examined the role and expectations surrounding anal sex. Lescano et al. (2009) found that among 1,348 ‘‘at-risk’’ 15 – 21-year- olds in three cities, 16% reported recent anal sex. For males only, sexual orientation related to recent het- erosexual anal sex; for females, variables associated with power imbalances in sexual encounters and relationships were identified. In a study of African American young women, DiClemente et al. (2009) found that those who reported anal intercourse (10%) had elevated overall sexual risk behavior.

A new ‘‘sexual behavior’’ that emerged for study in the last decade was virginity; that is, the active choice to not engage in sexual behavior. While im- plicitly assumed a positive moment in sexuality development, research about virginity has shown that it can lead to a variety of consequences. This is evident in studies of sexual trajectories of ‘‘pledgers’’ (Thomas, 2009) versus those who ‘‘left’’ abstinence (Blinn-Pike, Berger, Hewett, & Oleson, 2004) and characteristics of those who postponed sexual initia- tion (Gray et al., 2008) or retracted pledges (Rose- nbaum, 2006). Studies of ‘‘primary’’ and ‘‘secondary’’ abstinence or being a ‘‘reborn virgin’’ identified what differentiates these groups. For instance, Loewenson, Ireland, and Resnick (2004) found that among males, ‘‘secondary’’ virgins were more likely to have caused a pregnancy.

Adolescents themselves do not consider absti- nence and sexual activity to be opposing constructs, such that positive abstinence attitudes and intentions may not have robust effects in preventing sexual activity (Masters, Beadnell, Morrison, Hoppe, & Gillmore, 2008). Woody, Russel, D’Souza, and Woody (2000), in study of 18 – 21-year-olds, found that noncoital sex was common among both virgins and nonvirgins, with ‘‘total abstainers’’ having had fewer opportunities for sexual activity, and half of those who reported having ‘‘c[o]me close to intercourse [pvi]’’ also reported proceeding with noncoital sex. Among the ‘‘intercourse’’ group, sig- nificantly more females than males reported less positive emotional reaction, poorer outcomes, and a lower evaluation of their decision than did males. Framing abstinence as an important behavioral strategy, Santelli et al. (2006) argued that abstinence

ADOLESCENT SEXUALITY 245

as the ‘‘sole option’’ for healthy sexual behavior in adolescence is ethically as well as scientifically problematic.

SEXUAL SELFHOOD

In the last decade, a body of knowledge about the sexual motivations and sexual desire of adolescent girls and women has emerged and quickly grown. This interest in young female sexuality has roots in the larger feminist project of reclaiming female sex- uality (Fine, 1988; Vance, 1984). This body of work largely constituted the early roots in describing ad- olescent sexuality as a normative process that is af- fected by sociopolitical and biological changes (Tolman & Diamond, 2001).

Tolman’s (2002) research on adolescent girls’ ex- periences of sexual desire identified a complicated landscape of social, material, and personal dilemmas that characterized girls’ diverse experiences negoti- ating their sexuality. This research laid the ground- work for new questions about female adolescent sexuality that were explored quantitatively as well as qualitatively and using mixed methods. An innova- tive direction in the past decade has been a new body of research on the development of a sexual self-con- cept (O’Sullivan, Meyer-Bahlburg, & McKeague, 2006) and sexual subjectivity (Horne & Zimmer- Gembeck, 2005, 2006). Researchers working with these concepts have investigated the relationships between sexual identity formation, sexual decision making, and sexual behaviors and outcomes. For ex- ample, O’Sullivan et al. (2006) found associations between sexual self-concept and early adolescent girls’ intentions to engage in intercourse and orien- tation to engage in sex in the near future. Others have investigated how sexual subjectivityFdefined as having a sense of entitlement to sexual pleasure and sexual safetyFinteracted with intraindividual and psychological well-being (e.g., Impett & Tolman, 2006; Phillips, 2000). The development of the Female Sexual Subjectivity Inventory enabled Horne and Zimmer- Gembeck (2006) to find that among adolescent girls, sexual subjectivity was associated with self-esteem and resistance to sexual double standards.

In the field of sexuality development, and sexual identity more specifically, one of the major shifts over the past decade has been the reconsideration of sexual orientation development for the cohort born in the 1990s. Savin-Williams (2005) and Diamond (2008) have articulated the shifting and often unsta- ble nature of sexual identification for adolescents. Both have studied self-identification processes in young people, how these identities relate to same-

and different-sex sexual behaviors, and how they change over time. Other researchers have taken up these same questions and replicated Savin-Williams and Diamond’s critical stance on assuming a linear process (e.g., Friedman et al., 2004). The past decade has seen a paradigmatic shift from conceptualizing a ‘‘gay teen’’ to a more nuanced discussion of ‘‘sexual minority youth,’’ an extremely diverse group who may at times adopt a gay, lesbian, bisexual, or no specific sexual identity, may be actively questioning their identity, may engage in same-sex sexual activ- ities, and/or may report same-sex attractions (Cohler & Hammack, 2006). Alternatively, Russell, Clarke, and Clary (2009) found that the labels of gay, lesbian, and bisexual remained relevant for contemporary adolescents and that this cohort was not in fact ‘‘postgay’’ as some had speculated. Still others have found that difficulties in developing an ‘‘integrated LGB identity’’ led to poor psychological adjustment and sexual risk taking (Rosario, Scrimshaw, & Hunter, 2009). These questions about identity have not been solely rooted in questions of sexual or psychological risk due to an LGBT identity but in the larger question of how young people become gendered and develop sexual identities.

One of the most important shifts seen in the previous decade has been around conceptualizing psychological motives for sexual activity and rela- tionships among adolescents. Defining adolescents as capable of positively motivated sexuality has contributed to an upsurge of research on adolescents as a whole, beyond a particular focus on girls and young women. Across all adolescents, there has been interest in active decision making about having sex, having sex early (usually considered before age 16), and having sex for the first time (L’Engle, Brown, & Kenneavy, 2006; Woody, D’Souza, & Russel, 2003) as part of a more expansive developmental process. Each of these areas of research places sexual decision making in the hands of young people rather than identifying and evaluating negative influences on them and sets out to understand this process from the perspective of young people themselves (e.g., Michels, Kropp, Eyre, & Halpern-Felsher, 2005). This body of research has developed a new image of the young person who is making dynamic decisions re- garding his or her sexuality.

In a study done by Dawson, Shih, de Moor, & Shrier (2008), the authors used daily diary methods to assess the range of reasons why adolescents had sex and found a number of associations between psychological well-being and the reasons stated by the young people; for example, female youth with higher impulsivity ratings reported that their moti-

246 TOLMAN AND McCLELLAND

vations were less driven by intimacy/desire reasons. Similarly, Robinson, Holmbeck, and Paikoff, (2007) found that among their sample of African American adolescents, males were more likely to report self- esteem enhancement as a reason for having sex, and for those who sought self-esteem through sex, there was also less consistent condom use. There is cur- rently a dearth of research on these decision pro- cesses for LGBT adolescents, who are not often framed as motivated toward sexual activity by any- thing other than their sexual identity (see Saewyc, 2011). Another example is a study by Impett and Tolman (2006), in which they assessed late adoles- cent girls’ motives for engaging in sex and their level of sexual satisfaction with their most recent sexual experience. Using sexual self-concept to operation- alize sexual subjectivity, the authors found that those young women (ages 16 – 19) who reported higher rates of sexual self-concept and greater approach (positive) versus avoidance (negative) motives also reported greater sexual satisfaction.

SEXUAL SOCIALIZATION IN THE 21st CENTURY

The contexts which impact adolescent sexual risk have been operationalized in various ways, including the role of neighborhoods (Averett, Rees, & Argys, 2002), parental communication (Miller & Whitaker, 2000), religion (Manlove, Logan, Moore, & Ikramul- lah, 2008), and the overall developing recognition of the role of culture as a shaping factor. Understanding adolescent sexuality experiences and processes in context is consistent with the emergence of the per- spective across the study of adolescence in the last decade that development is a highly social pro- cessFeven biological processes do not occur in a vacuum (Collins, 2003; Russell, 2005a)Fopening the larger question of what helps to create an optimal result, not only what ruins a life or stops bad things from happening.

Peers and Sexual Socialization

The role of peers in socializing young people in sexual norms, attitudes, and behaviors is considered an effect of an assumed normative developmental process of adolescents’ shift away from families and toward peers, but the types and range of the role of peers are not yet well understood. Peer networks have, over the last decade, been examined as a complex method of socialization shaping sexuality development through a number of mediating mechanisms. A line of research that has persisted

into this decade is how perceived peer sexual experience has been found to be influential in adolescents’ sexual decision making (e.g., Santelli et al., 2004). Bearman, Moody, and Stovel (2004) examined the structure of adolescent romantic and sexual networks in a sample of more than 800 ad- olescents from the Add Health study to identify the micromechanisms of social networks (i.e., the rela- tionships and number of links between individuals in a group), leading to new models of STD trans- mission, sexual behavior influence, and communi- cation of social and sexual norms. They found that prior models of disease diffusion did not suffi- ciently account for temporal changes or the ante- cedents that preceded partner choice. They explained that the implications of their findings are that adolescents exist within networks that differ from adults’, and, as a result, their intimate and sexual choices hinge on ‘‘collective assessment of their personal choices’’ (Bearman, Moody, & Stovel, 2004, p. 79). By considering the characteristics of adolescent sexual relationships as deeply informed by social norms and peer scrutiny, the researchers were able to more accurately model the impact of peer partnerships and consider interventions that assume sexual networks for all adolescents rather than focusing on those who are considered ‘‘high risk.’’

In a significant study much discussed and often erroneously represented in public at the time of its publication, Bearman and Brückner (2001) examined the effect of social networks to track the impact of virginity pledges. Evaluating the effect of these pledges on the likelihood to transition to first sexual intercourse, they found that, initially, those who pledged abstinence were more likely to delay first intercourse. However, when they took the specifics of social group contexts into account, they found that pledging delayed intercourse only in contexts where there were some, but not too many, pledgers. Their interpretation was that the pledge worked in con- texts where group membership constituted an identity in the particular school context. Thus, to be effective, pledging had to be pervasive enough to constitute group membership, but not so pervasive that it was no longer a distinguishing characteristic (Bearman & Brückner, 2001). In a subsequent study they found that ‘‘promise-breakers,’’ pledgers who did not in fact wait until marriage for sex, were less likely than their peers to use contraception at first intercourse and just as likely, over time, to contract an STI (Brückner & Bearman, 2005). Together, these examinations of social networks mirrored a per- spective of adolescent sexuality that is not merely

ADOLESCENT SEXUALITY 247

contaminated by peers but in process and consti- tuted by interactions, which both help and hinder its healthy development.

Hooking Up

Increasingly, people are wondering whether teens are hooking up (i.e., having sex outside of relational con- texts). This question holds an implicit acknowledge- ment that there is a social contract about what is an expected or appropriate context in which adolescents might express sexuality: ‘‘monogamous-enough’’ re- lationships. A new concern, especially for girls, is expressing sexuality without a relational ‘‘net’’ (i.e., Shalit, 2007). Yet despite the public discourse sug- gesting a widespread phenomenon among adoles- cents, the small body of research on the topic challenges this public impression and demonstrates that the term ‘‘hooking up’’ as used by adolescents of varying ages is itself a moving target.

Manning, Giordano, and Longmore (2006) found that while half of sexually active teens had sexual partners they were not dating, those having sex out- side of relationships were partnering with friends or ‘‘exes.’’ One third of these hook ups were associated with hopes or expectations that a relationship would ultimately ensue. The authors concluded that rather than painting sex outside relationships as bad or negative, a more nuanced set of questions is required about the function of ‘‘hooking up.’’ Kaestle and Halpern (2005) compared sexual activity among adolescents in romantic relationships with friends, acquaintances, or strangers. Knowing a ‘‘hook up’’ partner as friend versus an acquaintance was protec- tive against sexual intercourse for males and females; for females, sexually active relationships with partners they had not known romantically were less likely to include discussions of STIs or contraception and less likely to use consistent birth control, while prero- mantic social ties did not play a statistically significant role for outcomes with males (see also McCarthy & Casey, 2008). Korobov (2006), in a study of nonrela- tional male sexuality, found that it was a resource for boys in constructing masculine identities.

Romantic Relationships and Sexuality

Before the last decade, adolescent romantic rela- tionships were recognized only implicitly as sites for risky or dangerous (heterosexual) behaviorFmostly theorized as a predictor of negative sexual outcomes (Nathanson, 1991). While research on adolescent romantic relationships as a normative dimension of adolescent development has emerged (e.g., Furman,

Brown, & Feiring, 1999), this field has only recently addressed questions of sex and sexuality within the contexts of adolescent romantic relationships (Bou- chey & Furman, 2003; Collins et al., 2009; Florsheim, 2003). There were several investigations of romantic relationships as a potentially positive, protective, and expected feature of adolescent sexuality in the last decade (Risman & Schwartz, 2002; Rostosky, Galliher, Welsh, & Kawaguchi, 2000). For example, Welsh, Haugen, Widman, Darling, and Grello (2005) fol- lowed 21 male/female couples (14 – 21 years old) who were dating for a minimum of 4 weeks. They found that kissing and desiring a romantic partner corre- lated positively to relationship satisfaction and com- mitment, as well as variations in associations between sexual intercourse and relationship qualities by age, whereby being younger was negatively associated with frequency of intercourse and relationship qual- ity. Gender did not moderate the link between sexual behavior and relationship quality.

One study addressed intimacy in adolescent ro- mantic relationships and evaluated it as a possible ‘‘positive motivation’’ for sexual behavior. Ott, Mil- stein, Ofner, and Halpern-Felsher (2006) evaluated adolescents’ goals for intimacy, sexual pleasure, and social status within a romantic relationship, as well as their expectations that sex would lead to these goals. Among ninth graders, they found that intimacy was valued the most, then status, then pleasure. Girls valued intimacy significantly more and pleasure sig- nificantly less than boys, while those with more sex- ual experience valued both intimacy and pleasure more than those who were sexually inexperienced. Sexually experienced girls (but not boys) valued so- cial status less than those with no sexual experience. Girls and sexually inexperienced adolescents had lower expectations that sex would meet their goals than did males and sexually experienced adolescents.

Media and Sexual Socialization

The media has long been a potent source of sexuality information for young people and feared as a quasi- or even replacement for parental influence. Before the last decade, ‘‘media’’ had been operationalized primarily as music and music videos, television, and movies. As media formats changed over the last decade, newer interactive forums available on the Internet, including social networking sites and chat rooms, have been studied (i.e., Wolak, Finkelhor, Mitchell, & Ybarra, 2008). The influence of violent imagery in a range of media (movies, video games), and in the last decade especially, media culture’s increasing sexualization of

248 TOLMAN AND McCLELLAND

young girls have been primary questions for adoles- cent sexuality development.

Like all media impact research, studies evaluating the effects of seeing sexual media are plagued by a ‘‘chicken or egg’’ challengeFare adolescents who watch sexual media more ‘‘sexual’’ to begin with and thus drawn to it, or are they curious or uninten- tionally exposed and thus imposed upon by it (Brown, 2002)? Consonant with the overall move in developmental research to apprehend young people not as ‘‘empty vessels’’ but as active, agentic con- sumers and producers of culture, research on media as sexual socializer expanded beyond studying iso- lated effects in the last decade. For instance, Brown (2002) developed the concept of the sexual media diet as part of a media ‘‘identity toolkit’’ that ado- lescents utilized to explore the self; she suggests that media can serve as a kind of sexual ‘‘super peer.’’ The presence of parents is one of the few moderating factors in associations between viewing sexual me- dia and sexual attitudes and to some extent behavior; however, as children become adolescents, they are much less likely to consume media with their par- ents (Schooler, Kim, & Sorsoli, 2006).

This decade witnessed an increasingly fine- grained analysis of the roles of gender, race, and class when assessing various media and sexual so- cialization (Ward, 2003; Ward, Hansbrough, & Walker, 2005). Researchers have found that media which convey traditional gender roles are associated with endorsement of more traditional perspectives regarding male and female sexuality (Kim et al., 2007; Rivadeneyra & Lebo, 2008; Ward et al., 2005). The research has found associations between non- behavioral negative sexual outcomes (endorsement of coercion in heterosexual relationships, negative attitudes about sex, and the potential for mutuality in sexual relationships) and media images reflecting scripts in traditional gendered relational practices. With increasing availability of pornography on the Internet, the question of whether porn inflates or creates vulnerability to engaging in or experiencing unwanted sex has been considered. In one study of adolescents aged 14 – 19, ‘‘active’’ and ‘‘passive’’ sexual violence and unwanted sex and porn were correlated with reading porn more strongly linked to active sexual violence, while being a boy was found to be protective against passive sexual violence, and some effects of viewing porn on passive unwanted sex were also found among girls (Bonino, Ciairano, Rabaglietti, & Cattelino, 2006).

Media researchers in this last decade also exam- ined how media can support young people’s sexu- ality development (Bay-Cheng, 2001; Bay-Cheng,

et al., 2009; Ward & Friedman, 2006). Analyses of on- line environments documented processes adoles- cents use to search out peers, ask questions about sexual topics, and construct sexual identities (Suzuki & Calzo, 2004). For example, in their analysis of teen chat rooms, Subrahmanyam, Greenfield, and Tynes (2004) found that online spaces provided safer en- vironments than the teenage participants found elsewhere in their lives in which they learned to exchange information with peers and to explore their emerging sexuality.

THE NATIONAL LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF ADOLESCENT HEALTH

One of the most important resources for research in this area since 2000, the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) has provided un- paralleled data on the lives of U.S. adolescents. In addition, this study provides evidence of the shift from an exclusive focus on sexual risk and an emerging conception of sexuality development as normative that we have been discussing. Funded by NIH in 1994, Add Health (Harris, 2009) has been the source of hundreds of studies on adolescent sexuality. Because of its longitudinal and nationally representa- tive design, it is the largest study of its kind. Currently in its fourth wave of data collection, the study includes a series of detailed questions concerning sexual be- haviors and outcomes; thus, it offers the opportunity to test models that have high explanatory power, even for subsamples that are overlooked or hard to evaluate in smaller studies. Here we consider the intersection of Add Health and this emergent perspective on ado- lescent sexuality development.

Primarily, the design of Add Health has made possible more robust study of sexual risk (i.e., preg- nancy and STD risk: Ryan, Franzetta, Manlove, & Schelar, 2008; condom use: Santelli, Lindberg, Abma, McNeely, & Resnick, 2000; and intimate partner violence: Whitaker, Haileyesus, Swahn, & Saltzman, 2007). Yet some questions about sexuality that were not solely grounded in a risk perspective have been investigated, for example, the relationship between love and sexual activities (Kaestle & Halpern, 2007). Some researchers using Add Health data have been able to demonstrate that associations between de- mographic characteristics and negative sexual out- comes are not uniformly causal and have identified, instead, possible trajectories of adolescent sexuality development. For example, Spriggs and Halpern (2008) examined three waves of data from Add Health, observing the relationship between age of sexual debut and depression. While they found that

ADOLESCENT SEXUALITY 249

depressive symptoms were associated with earlier sexual debut among female adolescents, this rela- tionship did not hold for either males or for females as the sample aged into emerging adulthood. Simi- larly, McGee and Williams (2000) examined whether low self-esteem predicted ‘‘health compromising’’ behaviors in a sample of 9 – 13-year-olds but found no relationship between self-esteem and early sexual activity.

In an extensive study using Add health data (O’Sullivan, Cheng, Harris, & Brooks-Gunn, 2007), researchers compared trajectories of social, romantic, and sexual events within adolescent relationships among White, Asian, Hispanic, and Black 12 – 21- year-olds. They found that social and romantic events were far more common than, and preceded, sexual events; Asians and Hispanics provided lower rates of sexual events compared with Whites and Blacks. Santelli, Lowry, Brener, and Robin (2000) of- fered an important new approach to the study of these ‘‘key determinants’’ by demonstrating that factors other than socioeconomic status and race/ ethnicity have more potent predictive power when examined within the full spectrum of possible pre- dictors using Add Health.

The ability as well as the interest on the part of investigators to use the Add Health data to examine sexual outcomes apart from risk-based assessments has, unfortunately, been limited. Because of ideologi- cal and political ‘‘squeamishness about . . . adolescent romance and sexual behaviors’’ (Collins, 2003, p. 3), there is a paucity of information in the Add Health data set for posing research questions about norma- tive adolescent sexuality framed to include potentially positive processes rather than exclusively as averting negative ones. Yet there has been a small body of re- search examining sexuality development questions and what researchers have referred to as ‘‘positive’’ sexual outcomes. In 2005, Dennison and Russell ar- gued that the Add Health data can and should be used to increase our understanding of positive sex- ual[ity] development; that is, adolescent sexuality must not only be framed in terms of risk and danger but must include qualities of sexual well-being, in- cluding entitlement to pleasure, efficacy in achieving pleasure, and subjective experiences of enjoyment (Diamond, 2006; Russell, 2005a, 2005b; Wight et al., 2008). Kaestle and Halpern (2007), for example, ex- amined the role of emotional commitment in the types of sexual behaviors engaged in and found the degree of love (e.g., ‘‘a lot’’) was associated with specific sexual behaviors (e.g., increased rates of anal sex).

In sum, this large study of adolescents as they age from the seventh grade into adulthood has produced

tremendous insight into the sexuality development of young people, challenged long-held beliefs about the negative consequences of sexual experience, en- abled researchers to develop contextual models which allow for greater understanding of how ado- lescents are influenced by and influence one another, and ultimately highlight the areas of knowledge that deserve greater understanding, such as how young people evaluate the quality of their sexual experi- ences and how these appraisals and early experi- ences influence adulthood sexual and romantic relationships with partners.

CONCLUSION

For this review, we identified the emergence of normative adolescent sexuality as a conceptual framework in the empirical research on adolescence. We characterized this development as the significant departure and new direction of the last decade. We predicated the focus of this review on the growing articulation of the importance of understanding ad- olescent sexuality not only in terms of sexual risks and how to avert them but also of querying what enables and challenges the expected development of healthy sexuality in adulthood, previously posi- tioned as ‘‘positive sexual development.’’ We have suggested that the development of a normative framework for addressing adolescent sexuality de- velopment has produced research questions and methods with an eye toward recognizing the role of emergent sexuality as having potentially positive consequences and ultimately to increasing support for young people as they find their way as devel- oping sexual beings. While research on youth has continued to focus primarily on sexual behaviors, even behavioral questions expand within a norma- tive framing of sexuality and its development in adolescence. This view joins an emerging discourse of adult sexual health that incorporates aspects of sexuality beyond reproductive health and sexual function that continues to develop for adult men and women, reflected in a plethora of questions about sexuality beyond behavior and risk that are ex- panding into the study of adolescents (see Diamond & Savin-Williams, 2009).

We suggest pushing the calls for ‘‘positive’’ ado- lescent sexuality one step further. Calls for consider- ation of positive sexual development have constituted a move away from the pervasive problematizing of sexuality in terms of risk; however, this history has yielded an implicit binary of sexual risk and sexual possibility. While studies framing adolescent sexuality as ‘‘positive’’ diligently note, but do not necessarily

250 TOLMAN AND McCLELLAND

investigate, the risks associated with adolescent sex- uality, researchers continue to straddle this binary. We suggest a more explicit integration of these two di- mensions that incorporates both positive aspects and risk management and how they develop in tandem or dialectically at the individual, relational, and cultural levels into the overarching concept of sexuality de- velopment in adolescence. This ‘‘final’’ step will pro- vide a more comprehensive framework from which researchers can and should work without having to navigate the either/or binary of risky and positive outcomes. While we acknowledge the limits of ‘‘normative’’ due its potentially moralistic tones and implications of nonnormative, we believe its associa- tion with ‘‘expected’’Flinked with the increasing acknowledgement of diversity in so many realms of sexualityFsignals that part of adolescence is the very broad task of navigating how to become a healthy sexual adult.

We have fronted a relatively small body of the last decade’s research on adolescent sexuality; it remains the case that a great deal of research in this area is organized around assumptions that adolescent sex- ual risk should be the focus of inquiry and inter- vention. Researchers are not immune to social, funding, and professional pressures and are still of- ten asked by peer reviewers (and even sometimes required) to limit their research questions to those involving sexual risk assessment (Collins, 2003; Gardner & Wilcox, 1993). We are hopeful that iden- tifying that there is a critical mass of research on normative adolescent sexuality development will encourage researchers to ask the questions that emerge from this perspective. These might include questions about the intersections between sexual experience, the relational contexts in which those occur, and the individual biopsychosocial charac- teristics that make possible or challenge trajectories toward healthy sexuality in adulthood; about what boys’ experiences of sexuality and relationships are across adolescence; about how the sexualization of girls impacts adolescent sexuality development for both girls and boys; about how diverse adolescents balance positive possibilities and consequences with management of various forms of risk; and, at the cutting edge, about what newer notions about ado- lescent sexuality such as ‘‘entitlement’’ and ‘‘agency’’ are required as social contexts change more rapidly than ever before (Lamb, 2010).

We also argue that this integrative framework is necessary as adolescent sexuality research continues to influence public policy and public discourse, in which managing risky sexuality has trumped the basic human right to experience sexuality free from

harms. In order to create social change that enables young people to develop into sexually healthy adults, it is necessary for our research questions and designs to incorporate the social contexts in which sexuality develops and recognize those conditions that enable sexuality as a positive dimension of our humanity (Correa & Petchesky, 1994).

In 2006, Fine and McClelland elaborated a set of enabling conditions for the development of adoles- cent sexuality and introduced the term ‘‘thick desire’’ as a way to capture the political, social, and em- bodied aspects of sexuality development. They ex- plained, ‘‘[a] framework of thick desire locates sexual well-being within structural contexts . . . in which [young people] are able to imagine themselves as sexual beings capable of pleasure and cautious about danger’’ (McClelland & Fine, 2008a, p. 244). Thick- ening the body of knowledge that provides the nu- anced information about how sexuality develops in adolescence will provide the fuel to expand public discourse and public policies aimed at managing adolescent sexuality development. It will be vital to amplify a normative perspective to challenge the sense of a dangerous ‘‘outside’’ world that has yiel- ded, in young people’s lives and in research about them, an increasing role of monitoring and surveil- lance on the part of parents, schools, and public policies. When theorizing and studying only danger and sexual risk, researchers implicitly convey the notion that no one is paying attention and that with increased attention, young people would be safer (and less sexual). Thus, the normative paradigm that has taken root can provide not only important new information but a new stance toward young people in public discourse and policy making.

REFERENCES

Averett, S. L., Rees, D. I., & Argys, L. M. (2002). The impact

of government policies and neighborhood characteris-

tics on teenage sexual activity and contraceptive use.

American Journal of Public Health, 92, 1773 – 1778. Barker, R. L. (1995). The social work dictionary (3rd ed.).

Washington, DC: NASW. Bauman, K. E., & Udry, J. R. (1981). Subjective expected

utility and adolescent sexual behavior. Adolescence, 16,

527 – 535. Bay-Cheng, L. Y. (2001). SexEd.com: Values and norms

in web-based sexuality education. The Journal of Sex Research, 38, 241 – 251.

Bay-Cheng, L., Robinson, A. D., & Zucker, A. N.

(2009). Behavioral and relational contexts of adolescent

desire, wanting, and pleasure: Undergraduate women’s

retrospective accounts. Journal of Sex Research, 46,

511 – 524.

ADOLESCENT SEXUALITY 251

Bearman, P. S., & Brückner, H. (2001). Promising the future: Virginity pledges and first intercourse. The American Journal of Sociology, 106, 859 – 913.

Bearman, P. S., Moody, J., & Stovel, K. (2004). Chains of affection: The structure of adolescent romantic and sex- ual networks. American Journal of Sociology, 110, 44 – 91.

Bersamin, M. M., Walker, S., Fisher, D. A., & Grube, J. W. (2006). Correlates of oral sex and vaginal intercourse in early and middle adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16, 59 – 68.

Blinn-Pike, L., Berger, T. J., Hewett, J., & Oleson, J. (2004). Sexually abstinent adolescents: An 18-month follow-up. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19, 495 – 511.

Bonino, S., Ciairano, S., Rabaglietti, E., & Cattelino, E. (2006). Use of pornography and self-reported engage- ment in sexual violence among adolescents. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 3, 265 – 288.

Bouchey, H., & Furman, W. (2003). Dating and romantic experiences in adolescence. Blackwell handbook of adolescence. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. pp. 313 – 329).

Brady, S. S., & Halpern-Felsher, B. L. (2007). Adolescents’ reported consequences of having oral sex versus vaginal sex. Pediatrics, 119, 229 – 236.

Brown, J. D. (2002). Mass media influences on sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 39, 42 – 45.

Brückner, H., & Bearman, P. (2005). After the promise: The STD consequences of adolescent virginity pledges. Journal of Adolescent Health, 36, 271 – 278.

Cohler, B., & Hammack, P. (2006). The psychological world of the gay teenager: Social change and the issue of ‘nor- mality’. The Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 47 – 45.

Collins, W. A. (2003). More than myth: The developmental significance of romantic relationships in adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13, 1 – 24.

Collins, W. A., Welsh, D. P., & Furman, W. (2009). Ado- lescent romantic relationships. Annual Review of Psy- chology, 60, 631 – 652.

Correa, S., & Petchesky, R. (1994). Reproductive and sexual rights: A feminist perspective. In G. Sen, A. Germain, & L. Chen (Eds.), Population policy reconsidered: Health, em- powerment and rights. Harvard series on population and in- ternational health (pp. 107 – 126). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Dawson, L., Shih, M., de Moor, C., & Shrier, L. (2008). Reasons why adolescents and young adults have sex: Associations with psychological characteristics and sexual behavior. Journal of Sex Research, 45, 225 – 232.

Dennison, R. P., & Russell, S. T. (2005). Positive perspec- tives on adolescent sexuality: Contributions of the na- tional longitudinal study of adolescent health. Sexuality Research and Social Policy: A Journal of the NSRC, 2, 54 – 59.

Diamond, L. M. (2006). Introduction: In search of good sexual-developmental pathways for adolescent girls. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2006, 1 – 7.

Diamond, L. M. (2008). Sexual fluidity: Understanding wo- men’s love and desire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer- sity Press.

Diamond, L. M., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (2009). Adoles- cent sexuality. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (3rd ed., pp. 479 – 523). New York, NY: Wiley.

DiClemente, R. J., Wingood, G. M., Crosby, R. A., Salazar, L. F., Head, S., Rose, E., et al. (2009). Anal sex is a be- havioural marker for laboratory-confirmed vaginal sex- ually transmissible infections and HIV-associated risk among African-American female adolescents. Sexual Health, 6, 111 – 116.

Ehrhardt, A. A. (1996). Our view of adolescent sexuality: A focus on risk behavior without the developmental context [Editorial]. American Journal of Public Health, 86, 1523 – 1525.

Fine, M. (1988). Sexuality, schooling, and adolescent fe- males: The missing discourse of desire. Harvard Educa- tional Review, 58, 29 – 53.

Fine, M., & McClelland, S. I. (2006). Sexuality education and desire: Still missing after all these years. Harvard Educational Review, 76, 297 – 338.

Florsheim, P. (2003). Adolescent romantic and sexual be- havior: What do we know and where do we go from here. In P. Florsheim (Ed.), Adolescent romantic relations and sexual behavior: Theory, research, and practical implica- tions (pp. 371 – 385). Mahwah, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erl- baum Associates Publishers.

Friedman, M. S., Silvestre, A. J., Gold, M. A., Markovic, N., Savin-Williams, R. C., Huggins, J., et al. (2004). Adoles- cents define sexual orientation and suggest ways to measure it. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 303 – 317.

Furman, W., Brown, B. B., & Feiring, C. (Eds.). (1999). The development of romantic relationships in adolescence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Gardner, W., & Wilcox, B. L. (1993). Political intervention in scientific peer review: Research on adolescent sexual behavior. American Psychologist, 48, 972 – 983.

Giordano, P. C. (2003). Relationships in adolescence. An- nual Review of Sociology, 29, 257 – 281.

Gray, S. H., Austin, S. B., Huang, B., Frazier, A. L., Field, A. E., & Kahn, J. A. (2008). Predicting sexual initiation in a prospective cohort study of adolescents. Archives of Pe- diatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 162, 55 – 59.

Halpern-Felsher, B. L., Cornell, J., Kropp, R. Y., & Tschann, J. M. (2005). Oral versus vaginal sex among adolescents: Perceptions, attitudes, and behavior. Pediatrics, 115, 845 – 851.

Halpern-Felsher, B. L., Millstein, S. G., & Ellen, J. M. (1996). Relationship of alcohol use and risky sexual behavior: A review and analysis of findings. Journal of Adolescent Health, 19, 331 – 336.

Harris, K. M. (2009). The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), Waves I & II, 1994 – 1996; Wave III, 2001 – 2002; Wave IV, 2007 – 2009 [machine- readable data file and documentation]. Chapel Hill, NC: Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Hensel, D. J., Fortenberry, J. D., & Orr, D. P. (2008). Variations in coital and noncoital sexual repertoire

252 TOLMAN AND McCLELLAND

among adolescent women. Journal of Adolescent Health,

42, 170 – 176. Horne, S. G., & Zimmer-Gembeck, M. (2005). Female sex-

ual subjectivity and well-being: Comparing late adoles-

cents with different sexual experiences. Sexuality

Research and Social Policy: A Journal of the NSRC, 2, 25 – 40. Horne, S., & Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. (2006). The female

sexual subjectivity inventory: Development and valida-

tion of a multidimensional inventory for late adolescents

and emerging adults. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30,

125 – 138. Impett, E. A., & Tolman, D. L. (2006). Late adolescent girls’

sexual experiences and sexual satisfaction. Journal of

Adolescent Research, 21, 628 – 646. Kaestle, C. E. (2009). Sexual insistence and disliked sexual

activities in young adulthood: Differences by gender

and relationship characteristics. Perspectives on Sexual

and Reproductive Health, 41, 33 – 39. Kaestle, C. E., & Halpern, C. T. (2005). Sexual intercourse

precedes partner violence in adolescent romantic

relationships. Journal of Adolescent Health, 36, 386 – 392. Kaestle, C. E., & Halpern, C. T. (2007). What’s love got to do

with it? Sexual behaviors of opposite-sex couples

through emerging adulthood. Perspectives on Sexual and

Reproductive Health, 39, 134 – 140. Kim, J. L., Sorsoli, C. L., Collins, K., Zylbergold, B. A.,

Schooler, D., & Tolman, D. L. (2007). From sex to sexu-

ality: Exposing the heterosexual script on primetime

network television. Journal of Sex Research, 44, 145 – 157. Kirby, D. (2002). Effective approaches to reducing adoles-

cent unprotected sex, pregnancy, and childbearing. The

Journal of Sex Research, 39, 51 – 57. Kirby, D. (2007). Emerging answers 2007: Research findings on

programs to reduce teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted

diseases. Washington, DC: The National Campaign to

Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. Retrieved from

http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/EA2007/EA2007_

full.pdf Korobov, N. (2006). The management of nonrelational

sexuality: Positioning strategies in adolescent male talk

about (hetero)sexual attraction. Men and Masculinities, 8,

493 – 517. Lamb, S. (2010). Feminist ideals for a healthy female ado-

lescent sexuality: A critique. Sex Roles, 62, 1573 – 2762. L’Engle, K. L., Brown, J. D., & Kenneavy, K. (2006). Virginal,

curious, silent, or sophisticated? The sexual self-concepts of

black and white adolescents. Conference of the Society for

Research on Adolescence, San Francisco, CA. Lescano, C. M., Houck, C. D., Brown, L. K., Doherty, G.,

DiClemente, R. J., Fernandez, M. I., et al. (2009). Corre-

lates of heterosexual anal intercourse among at-risk

adolescents and young adults. American Journal of Public

Health, 99, 1131 – 1136. Lindberg, L. D., Santelli, J. S., & Singh, S. (2006). Changes in

formal sex education: 1995 – 2002. Perspectives on Sexual

and Reproductive Health, 38, 182 – 189.

Loewenson, P. R., Ireland, M., & Resnick, M. D. (2004).

Primary and secondary sexual abstinence in high school

students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 34, 209 – 215. Manlove, J., Logan, C., Moore, K., & Ikramullah, E. (2008).

Pathways from family religiosity to adolescent sexual

activity and contraceptive use. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 40, 105 – 117.

Manning, W. D., Giordano, P. C., & Longmore, M. A.

(2006). Hooking up: The relationship contexts of

‘nonrelationship’ sex. Journal of Adolescent Research, 21,

459 – 483. Masters, N. T., Beadnell, B. A., Morrison, D. M., Hoppe, M.

J., & Gillmore, M. R. (2008). The opposite of sex? Ado-

lescents’ thoughts about abstinence and sex, and their

sexual behavior. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 40, 87 – 93.

McCarthy, B., & Casey, T. (2008). Love, sex, and crime:

Adolescent romantic relationships and offending.

American Sociological Review, 73, 944 – 969. McClelland, S. I., & Fine, M. (2008a). Writing on cellophane:

Studying teen women’s sexual desires; Inventing

methodological release points. In K. Gallagher (Ed.), The methodological dilemma: Creative, critical and collaborative approaches to qualitative research (pp. 232 – 260). London,

UK: Routledge. McClelland, S. I., & Fine, M. (2008b). Embedded science:

Critical analysis of abstinence-only evaluation research.

Cultural Studiesh5 iCritical Methodologies, 8, 50 – 81. McGee, R., & Williams, S. (2000). Does low self-esteem

predict health compromising behaviours among ado-

lescents? Journal of Adolescence, 23, 569 – 582. McKay, A. (2004). Oral sex among teenagers: Research,

discourse, and education. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 13, 201 – 203.

Michels, T., Kropp, R., Eyre, S., & Halpern-Felsher, B.

(2005). Initiating sexual experiences: How do young

adolescents make decisions regarding early sexual ac-

tivity? Journal of Research on Adolescence, 15, 583 – 607. Miller, K., & Whitaker, D. (2000). Parent-adolescent dis-

cussions about sex and condoms: Impact on peer influ-

ences of sexual risk behavior. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15, 251 – 273.

Moran, J. P. (2000). Teaching sex: The shaping of adolescence in the twentieth century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-

sity Press. Nathanson, C. (1991). Dangerous passage: The social control of

sexuality in women’s adolescence. Philadelphia, PA: Temple

University Press. Newcomer, S. F., & Udry, J. R. (1985). Oral sex in an ado-

lescent population. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 14, 41 – 46. O’Sullivan, L. F., Cheng, M. M., Harris, K. M., & Brooks-

Gunn, J. (2007). I wanna hold your hand: The progres-

sion of social, romantic and sexual events in adolescent

relationships. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 39, 100 – 107.

O’Sullivan, L. F., Meyer-Bahlburg, H. F. L., & McKeague,

I. W. (2006). The development of the sexual self-concept

ADOLESCENT SEXUALITY 253

inventory for early adolescent girls. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 139 – 149.

Ott, M. A., Millstein, S. G., Ofner, S., & Halpern-Felsher, B. L. (2006). Greater expectations: Adolescents’ positive motivations for sex. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproduc- tive Health, 38, 84 – 89.

Phillips, L. M. (2000). Flirting with danger: Young women’s reflections on sexuality and domination. New York, NY, USA: New York University Press.

Prinstein, M. J., Meade, C. S., & Cohen, G. L. (2003). Adolescent oral sex, peer popularity, and perceptions of best friends’ sexual behavior. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 28, 243 – 249.

Remez, L. (2000). Oral sex among adolescents: Is it sex or is it abstinence? Family Planning Perspectives, 32, 298 – 304.

Risman, B., & Schwartz, P. (2002). After the sexual revolution: Gender politics and teen dating. Contexts, 1, 16 – 24.

Rivadeneyra, R., & Lebo, M. J. (2008). The association be- tween television-viewing behaviors and adolescent dating role attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Adoles- cence, 31, 291 – 305.

Robinson, M., Holmbeck, G., & Paikoff, R. (2007). Self-es- teem enhancing reasons for having sex and the sexual behaviors of African American adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 453 – 464.

Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E., & Hunter, J. (2009). Different patterns of sexual identity development over time: Implications for the psychological adjustment of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths. Journal of Sex Research, 11, 1 – 13.

Rosenbaum, J. E. (2006). Reborn a virgin: Adolescents’ retracting of virginity pledges and sexual histories. American Journal of Public Health, 96, 1098 – 1103.

Rostosky, S. H., Galliher, R. V., Welsh, D. P., & Kawaguchi, M. C. (2000). Sexual behaviors and relationship qualitites in late adolescent couples. Journal of Adoles- cence, 23, 583 – 587.

Rostosky, S., Wilcox, B., Wright, M., & Randall, B. (2004). The impact of religiosity on adolescent sexual behavior: A review of the evidence. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19, 677 – 697.

Russell, S. T. (2005a). Conceptualizing positive adolescent sexuality development. Sexuality Research Social Policy, 2, 4.

Russell, S. T. (2005b). Introduction to positive perspectives on adolescent sexuality: Part 1. Sexuality Research and Social Policy: A Journal of the NSRC, 2, 1 – 3.

Russell, S. T., Clarke, T. J., & Clary, J. (2009). Are teens ‘‘post-gay’’? Contemporary adolescents’ sexual identity labels. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 884 – 890.

Ryan, S., Franzetta, K., Manlove, J. S., & Schelar, E. (2008). Older sexual partners during adolescence: Links to reproductive health outcomes in young adulthood. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 40, 17 – 26.

Saewyc, E. (2011). Research on adolescent sexual orienta- tion: Development, health disparities, stigma, and resi- lience. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21.

Sanders, S., Hill, B., Yarber, W., Graham, C., Crosby, R., & Milhausen, R. (2010). Misclassification bias: Diversity in conceptualisations about having ‘had sex.’ Sexual Health, 7, 31 – 34.

Santelli, J. S., Kaiser, J., Hirsch, L., Radosh, A., Simkin, L., & Middlestadt, S. (2004). Initiation of sexual intercourse among middle school adolescents: The influence of psychosocial factors. Journal of Adolescent Health, 34, 200 – 208.

Santelli, J. S., Lowry, R., Brener, N. D., & Robin, L. (2000). The association of sexual behaviors with socioeconomic status, family structure and race/ethnicity among US adolescents. American Journal of Public Health, 90, 1582 – 1588.

Santelli, J., Ott, M. A., Lyon, M., Rogers, J., Summers, D., & Schleifer, R. (2006). Abstinence and abstinence-only education: A review of U.S. policies and programs. Journal of Adolescent Health, 38, 72 – 81.

Santelli, J. S., Lindberg, L. D., Abma, J., McNeely, C. S., & Resnick, M. (2000). Adolescent sexual behavior: Estimates and trends from four nationally representative surveys. Family Planning Perspectives, 32, 156 – 165, 194.

Santelli, J. S., Morrow, B., Anderson, J., & Lindberg, L. D. (2006). Contraceptive use and pregnancy risk among U.S. high school students, 1991 – 2003. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 38, 106 – 111.

Savin-Williams, R. C. (2005). The new gay teenager. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press.

Schooler, D., Kim, J. L., & Sorsoli, L. (2006). Setting rules or sitting down: Parental mediation of television consumption and adolescent self-esteem, body image, and sexuality. Sexuality Research and Social Policy: Journal of NSRC, 3, 49 – 62.

Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). (2004). National guidelines task force: Guidelines for comprehensive sexuality education (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Shalit, W. (2007). Girls gone mild: Young women reclaim self- respect and find it’s not bad to be good. New York, NY, USA: Random House.

Smith, E. A., & Udry, J. R. (1985). Coital and non-coital sexual behaviours of white and black adolescents. American Journal of Public Health, 75, 1200 – 1203.

Smith, T., Steen, J., Spaulding-Givens, J., & Schwendinger, A. (2003). Measurement error in abstinence education: Research and recommendations. Evaluation in the Health Professions, 26, 180 – 205.

Spriggs, A. L., & Halpern, C. T. (2008). Sexual debut timing and depressive symptoms in emerging adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 1085 – 1096.

Subrahmanyam, K., Greenfield, P., & Tynes, B. (2004). Constructing sexuality and identity in an online teen chat room. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25, 651 – 666.

Suzuki, L. K., & Calzo, J. P. (2004). The search for peer advice in cyberspace: An examination of online teen bulletin boards about health and sexuality. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25, 685 – 698.

254 TOLMAN AND McCLELLAND

Thomas, J. (2009). Virginity pledgers are just as likely as matched nonpledgers to report premarital intercourse. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 41, 63.

Thompson, S. (1995). Going all the way: Teenage girls’ tales of sex, romance, and pregnancy. New York, NY: Hill & Wang.

Tolman, D. L. (2002). Dilemmas of desire: Teenage girls talk about sexuality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Tolman, D. L., & Diamond, L. (2001). Desegregating sexuality research: Cultural and biological perspectives on gender and desire. Annual Review of Sex Research, 12, 33 – 74.

Vance, C. S. (1984). Pleasure and danger: Toward a politics of sexuality. In C. S. Vance (Ed.), Pleasure and danger: Exploring female sexuality (pp. 1 – 27). Boston, MA: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Ward, L. M. (2003). Understanding the role of entertain- ment media in the sexual socialization of American youth: A review of empirical research. Developmental Review, 23, 347 – 388.

Ward, L. M., & Friedman, K. (2006). Using TV as a guide: Associations between television viewing and adoles- cents’ sexual attitudes and behavior. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16, 133 – 156.

Ward, L. M., Hansbrough, E., & Walker, E. (2005). Contri- butions of music video exposure to black adolescents’ gender and sexual schemas. Journal of Adolescent Re- search, 20, 143 – 166.

Welsh, D. P., Haugen, P. T., Widman, L., Darling, N., & Grello, C. M. (2005). Kissing is good: A developmental

investigation of sexuality in adolescent romantic cou- ples. Sexuality Research and Social Policy: A Journal of the NSRC, 2, 32 – 41.

Welsh, D. P., Rostosky, S. S., & Kawaguchi, M. C. (2000). A normative perspective of adolescent girls’ developing sexuality. In C. B. Travis & J. W. White (Eds.), Sexuality, society, and feminism (pp. 111 – 140). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Whitaker, D. J., Haileyesus, T., Swahn, M., & Saltzman, L. S. (2007). Differences in frequency of violence and re- ported injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence. American Jour- nal of Public Health, 97, 941 – 947.

Wight, D., Parkes, A., Strange, V., Allen, E., Bonell, C., & Henderson, M. (2008). The quality of young people’s heterosexual relationships: A longitudinal analysis of characteristics shaping subjective experience. Perspec- tives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 40, 226 – 237.

Wolak, J., Finkelhor, D., Mitchell, K. J., & Ybarra, M. L. (2008). Online ‘‘predators’’ and their victims: Myths, realities, and implications for prevention and treatment. American Psychologist, 63, 111 – 128.

Woody, J., D’Souza, H., & Russel, R. (2003). Emotions and motivations in first adolescent intercourse: An explor- atory study based on object relations theory. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 12, 35 – 51.

Woody, J. D., Russel, R., D’Souza, H. J., & Woody, J. K. (2000). Adolescent non-coital sexual activity: Compari- sons of virgins and non-virgins. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 25, 261 – 268.

ADOLESCENT SEXUALITY 255