The document discusses ongoing challenges in achieving gender diversity and equality in STEM fields in the UK, highlighting the slow growth of female representation despite various initiatives aimed at increasing awareness and support. A survey conducted identified key issues such as the need for role models, mentoring, and the impact of gender stereotypes on women's career progression in male-dominated environments. Recommendations are provided to encourage more girls to pursue engineering from an early age and to improve mentorship and visibility of women in STEM.

1. Issues in Gender Diversity and Equality in the UK
A. Bennaceur
The Open University
Milton Keynes, UK
[email protected]
A. Cano
Aston University
Birmingham, UK
[email protected]
L. Georgieva
Heriot Watt University
Edinburgh, UK
[email protected]
M. Kiran
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
Berkeley, CA, USA
[email protected]
M. Salama
University of Birmingham
Birmingham, UK
[email protected]

2. P. Yadav
University of Cambridge
Cambridge, UK
[email protected]
ABSTRACT
There has been a significant increase in the number of
initiatives to
raise awareness of diversity-related challenges in technology
world-
wide within the past decade. Multiple organizations now
emphasize
a need for a close to 50%-50% male to female workforce
distribu-
tion. Example of proposed activities include introducing quotas
for women on board positions, promoting equal opportunities
for
employment in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering,
Math-
ematics) jobs and creating a woman-friendly work environment.
However, despite these efforts, the growth of number of women
working in STEM is still slow.
To understand the impact of various initiatives and how they

3. influence the work environment in universities in the UK, we
con-
ducted a survey to record responses from multiple women
groups,
so that we can identify the issues that they have been facing.
This
paper presents the insights drawn from the survey, along with
rec-
ommendations for STEM and computing fields in order to
increase
female numbers in their programs. The survey presents
qualitative
measures of initiatives addressing the gender gap in the UK.
The
results show a clear need for prominent role models, mentoring,
and promoting engagement of women in STEM subjects from an
early age.
KEYWORDS
gender equality, diversity, current trends
1 INTRODUCTION
In recent years, gender diversity and equality have been
emphasized

4. as essential to progress in technology [1, 18]. Diverse and
inclusive
skills have been identified as beneficial for effective problem
solv-
ing and leadership [12, 18]. In order to reduce stereotyping
across
technology sectors, traditionally male-dominated industries
have
been releasing statistical data on their workforce composition.
Poli-
cies targeting better proportional representation of women,
better
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this
work for personal or
classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are
not made or distributed
for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this
notice and the full citation
on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work
owned by others than ACM
must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy
otherwise, or republish,
to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior
specific permission and/or a
fee. Request permissions from [email protected]
GE’18, May 28, 2018, Gothenburg, Sweden
© 2018 Association for Computing Machinery.
ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-5738-8/18/05.. .$15.00
https://doi.org/10.1145/3195570.3195571

5. engagement of employers, and higher commitment to countering
discrimination are being introduced. These include for example,
board quotas, the UK Equality Act (2010), cultural and diversity
initiatives, equal opportunities policies, quotas to encourage
hiring
of more women in engineering. Steps towards encouraging
women
into STEM from an early age have also been taken [14]
Historic female role models (for example Ada Lovelace, Marie
Sklodowska-Curie) have inspired events, awards, and fellowship
schemes (See for example [4, 7]). Contemporary female role
mod-
els such as the Yahoo’s CEO Marissa Meyer and the Facebook’s
COO Sheryl Sandberg have introduced calls for more women-
only
awards, events and fellowships to bridge the gender gaps and
pro-
mote visibility of women in technology. We have witnessed an
explosion of focus groups, conferences and workshops
providing
advice and collaborative platforms for women to learn work-

6. force
building skills in order to successfully compete in male-
dominated
fields.
Figure 1 describes the landscape which is currently influencing
career choices and career progression of women in STEM.
Attitudes
and policies in markets, institutions, and households affect the
com-
paratively low representation of women in STEM. Support
groups
and tailored economic opportunities and opportunities for
engage-
ment have been introduced in order to optimize the involvement
of women and improve gender diversity.
Women comprise 40% of the global work force. In the engineer-
ing sector, less that 10% of the work force comprises of women
and
despite the numerous initiatives, the impact on numbers has
been
low. Addressing the gender gap and ensuring equal participation
and representation of women remains challenging in

7. engineering
and science. As a means to measure why the gap exists, studies
which measure the existence of implicit bias have been
conducted.
For example, a study examined attitudes across committees
hiring
for faculty positions [23]. In the study, two candidates (a man
and a
woman) with identical qualifications were presented to the
commit-
tees which were then asked whether they would hire the
candidate
or not. The results showed that there is a clear preference to
hiring
the male candidate. Further studies investigated how this bias
can
be countered by looking at how job adverts can be designed to
attract the highest-qualified workforce and the best fit for the
job
specification, regardless of the gender of the applicant [8].
However,
such efforts have also met criticism. Studies have identified
gender

8. 5
2018 ACM/IEEE 1st International Workshop on Gender
Equality in Software Engineering
GE’18, May 28, 2018, Gothenburg, Sweden P. Yadav et al.
Figure 1: Landscape in STEM
bias as attributed to cultural differences and differences in self-
concept, placing an emphasis on the self-awareness and self-
image
of women as the most decisive factor [2, 6].
International studies indicate the need of promoting change of
attitudes from an early age for both boys and girls [15, 22]. In
the
UK, for example, only 20% of the total number of students who
study computer science at GCSE level are girls. The number
drops
to 16% at a degree level and beyond.
Studies have shown that a significant number of women leaves
engineering due to family issues, related to child-care or caring
responsibilities [13, 16, 17]. We argue that policies introduced
at

9. the government level, should help support family, hard work
and
ambition for nurturing young female talents in STEM. The drive
for women to push forward in STEM careers works two ways
both
from employers and the employee’s perspective and will take
time.
Awards and fellowships, exclusively for women can be
perceived
negatively, creating the impression that they are easier to
obtain,
based on gender and not on merit. In reality, for successful
STEM
careers, women need family support, hard work and ambition
and
they need to be recognized based on merit and not on gender.
1.1 Contributions and structure of the paper
In this paper, we, the ACM-women UK Chapter, present the
syn-
thesis of a survey which aimed to identify significant factors
that
affect the gender distribution in STEM.

10. We make the following contributions:
• We identify attitudes that need to change and propose recom-
mendations for ensuring diversity across the tech industry
and academia.
• We review the impact of selected women-promoting initia-
tives, which have been designed to encourage optimal gender
representation in STEM in the UK.
• We present statistics on perception of the importance of di-
versity for the success of the organization (in both academia
and industry).
• We analyze attitudes of men and women towards equality,
diversity, skill sets, and mentoring.
• We identify areas of improvement and propose targeted
solutions, based on the aggregated responses of our survey.
The paper is organized as follows. The methodology is pre-
sented in Section 2. In Section 3, we identify significant issues
affecting women in STEM. We also discuss related work on
sup-
porting women in STEM careers and discuss the importance of
equality, diversity, skill sets, and mentoring. We present our
recom-
mendations and most significant findings in Section 4. Our goal

11. was
to determine the extent of familiarity with gender awareness
initia-
tives in STEM and to compare the attitudes of women in STEM
to
the attitudes reported by alternative surveys for STEM [10, 18,
21].
2 METHODOLOGY
We distributed the survey electronically to organizations
engaged
in STEM. The survey consisted of twenty questions addressing
issues for women in STEM, among the most significant of
which
are diversity, role models and gender stereotypes. The age-
range of
the survey respondents was 20-50 years; 62% of the respondents
were female. Participants were predominantly from the UK
(80%),
the remaining 20 % were UK citizens, currently residing in
Europe
and USA. The participants had occupations in diverse fields,
repre-
sented as follows: Education 66%, Medicine 2%, IT and

12. Computer
Science 35%, comprising of undergraduate, postgraduate, PhD,
re-
search associates, and researchers, lecturers and senior
lecturers.
The proportion of distribution among the STEM fields was as
fol-
lows: Science 42%, Technology 57% and Engineering 38%. The
total
number of respondents to the survey was 87.
3 ISSUES FOR WOMEN IN STEM
Diversity in STEM subjects and the importance of mentoring
and
strong role models are recognized as integral to attracting more
women [10, 18, 19]. In this section, we assess the attitudes of
our
survey respondents to diversity, role models, and gender stereo-
types.
3.1 Diversity
Gender-diverse teams perform better financially, particularly
when
women occupy a significant proportion of top management po-

13. sitions [11]. The team dynamics and collegial relationships and
productivity are enhanced [10]. The need for diversity was
strongly
represented in our survey responses. 87% of the respondents
agreed
that diversity is important for a successful organization, 6%
were
neutral, and 7% identified diversity as unimportant.
Global diversity awareness surveys report similarly high per-
centage of the need for gathering, analysing, and sharing data in
order to remove bias and increase opportunity [3, 20]. Inclusion
has been identified as a top priority.
6
Issues in Gender Diversity and Equality in the UK GE’18, May
28, 2018, Gothenburg, Sweden
3.2 Role models
An absence of positive female role models and mentors is
identified
as the likely reason for women feeling uneasy in male
dominated

14. technology sectors [21]. Visible and effective role models are
needed
to support women so that they can thrive and are retained in
STEM
careers.
In our survey, we did not target gender similarity. We asked
respondents to assess their need for a mentor or role model, not
taking the gender of the mentor or role model into account. 53%
of
our respondents stated that positive role models already play an
important role in their career, 47% of the respondents were
positive
that suitably-selected influential role models have the capacity
to
change their perceptions towards a career in a STEM field. 29%
of
the respondents strongly agreed when asked whether they would
like to have a mentor, 32% agreed, and 18% indicated that they
are
uncertain whether having a mentor will be beneficial. This
clearly
shows that there is a need for a strong mentoring program and

15. for the presence of role models. Only a very small percentage of
the respondents indicated that they have already been allocated
a
mentor at their place of employment. 18 % were unsure whether
the
professional relationship that they have established with a
senior
colleague is identifiable as a mentor-mentee relationship and
61%
of the respondents indicated that they would have wanted to
have
a mentor at the beginning of their STEM career. A mentor was
not
perceived as necessary by 13% of the surveyed professionals.
In addition to the absence of suitable role models, the assumed
lack of comparable skills is another likely reason for women
"feeling
uneasy" in a male dominate fields. A worrying 19% of our
survey
respondents indicated that according to their own perception
there
is a difference in the skill sets that a male and a female
employee

16. will bring to technology fields with equal education (the
conviction
being that the male candidate will have better skills), and 39%
were
unsure.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
De
fin
ite
ly y
es

17. Pro
ba
bly
ye
s
Pro
ba
bly
no
t
De
fin
ite
ly n
ot
R
es
po
nd
en
ts
(
%

18. )
Figure 2: “As a woman, do you feel uneasy in a male-
dominated technology sector?"
3.3 Gender stereotypes
It is assumed that women who have chosen to study and subse-
quently engaged in a career in STEM subjects are more resistant
to gender stereotypes as they have overcome barriers in formal
educational environment and at home [5]. Nevertheless, women
in
STEM are acutely aware of the gender stereotypes from an early
age.
The development of the academic self-concept begins in infancy
and unfolds its most significant impact(s) after primary school.
Ex-
pectations based on gender and subsequent attributions of skills
and abilities do not use objective criteria. Frequently,
stereotypical
evaluations both at home and at school do not correspond to ac-
tual achievements but rather rely on limiting beliefs, gender
bias

19. and stereotypes (for example, the belief that girls are weaker in
mathematics) [5].
87% of our survey respondents agree that gender stereotypes,
including beliefs about the affinity of women to study, apply
them-
selves to and subsequently excel in STEM subjects do exist in
our
society. The respondents indicated that they needed to resist
these
stereotypes and not let them affect their career progression and
their career choice.
Limiting beliefs about the difference in technology-related skill
sets, persist. 63% of the respondents to our survey replied that
they do not think that men and women bring the same skill set
to an organization after identical education and training. 77% of
respondents agreed that they feel uncomfortable if either males
or
females exclusively dominate a workspace. This is an
interesting
result, indicating the need for diversity at top level management
positions. Attitudes to diversity will need to change. Our survey

20. indicated that the introduction of quotas is not a way forward.
When asked whether there is a need for gender-based quota 65%
of the respondents disagreed. 82% agreed that there is need for
promoting STEM and diversity in education.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Str
on
gly
Di
sa
gre
e
Dis
ag

21. ree
Ne
utr
al
Ag
ree
Str
on
gly
Di
sa
gre
e
R
es
po
nd
en
ts
(
%
)
Figure 3: “Do stereotypes deter you from establishing a ca-

22. reer in STEM?"
3.4 Awareness of women-promoting initiatives
in the UK
Various support groups promoting women in science exist in the
UK,
e.g. Women in STEM, Girl Geeks, BCS-Women [9, 14, 24], see
also
7
GE’18, May 28, 2018, Gothenburg, Sweden P. Yadav et al.
Figure 4. They all encourage more innovation, entrepreneurship
and
entrepreneurship. Our survey aimed to identify how well-known
each of these initiatives is.
Since we distributed the survey with an explanatory note, ACM-
Women and its activities were identified as known to 80% of
the
respondents. This was closely followed by Athena Swan and
Grace
Hopper, BCS-Women and Women who code.
0

23. 10
20
30
40
50
60
AC
M
−W
At
he
na
S
wa
n
G
HC
BC
S−
W
om

24. en
W
om
en
w
ho
C
od
e
W
om
En
co
ur
ag
e
Sc
ie
nc
e:
It
is
a
G

25. irl
T
hi
ng
W
IS
E
ST
EM
et
te
s
W
ES
Fl
os
sie
G
ee
ke
tte
s
Sc

26. ie
nc
eG
rrl
Co
de
F
irs
t G
irl
Ro
bo
G
irl
s
W
SE
T
Co
de
ss
Sh
e+
+

27. W
iS
ET
W
ES
T
Te
ch
F
ut
ur
e
W
IC
AT
W
om
en
R
oc
k
Sc
ie

28. nc
e
G
irl
sg
ui
di
ng
G
EC
R
es
po
nd
en
ts
(
%
)
Figure 4: Initiative Awareness in the UK
There was some support for the introduction of new laws by the
government to promote the number of females (See Figure 5).
0

29. 5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Ne
ve
r
Oc
ca
sio
na
lly
Ve
ry

30. Of
ten
Alw
ay
s
R
es
po
nd
en
ts
(
%
)
Figure 5: “Should there be new laws introduced by the gov-
ernment to promote the number of females?"
4 RECOMMENDATIONS
STEM provides numerous opportunities for career engagement,
de-
velopment and progress for women. Based on the identified
issues,
our survey results support the following recommendations:

31. (1) Create programs to encourage more girls to study engineer-
ing from an early age.
(2) Develop mentoring programs for school students such as
having engineers to come into primary schools and do talks,
so that positive role model and mentors are introduced early
on.
(3) Promote visibility of women as role models through diverse
social media channels such as Facebook, Twitter, technology-
related forums, Youtube in a positive manner. Promote visi-
bility of women at science festivals and organized events for
school-age children.
(4) Build strong peer-support network for participants of events
and initiatives. Engage the participants in follow-up activi-
ties.
(5) Address barriers of isolation via mentoring in STEM. Pro-
mote successful women role models at the graduate level to
ensure that more women are retained in a career in STEM.
(6) New policies are needed to facilitate and allow women to

32. earn the respect of their peers and families and to encourage
the development of a positive self-concept of the woman
scientist.
With these recommendations in mind, our ACM-W professional
chapter (https://acmukwomen.acm.org) was established in 2014
to support women in pursuing computing related careers,
finding
like-minded colleagues, and learning new skills in the UK. We
hope
that others will join us in this endeavor.
REFERENCES
[1] W. Ben-Amar, M. Chang, and P. McIlkenny. 2017. Board
Gender Diversity and
Corporate Response to Sustainability Initiatives: Evidence from
the Carbon
Disclosure Project. Journal of Business Ethics 142 (2017). Issue
2.
[2] S. Bhatia and J. Amati. 2010. If These Women Can Do It, I
Can Do It, Too: Building
Women Engineering Leaders through Graduate Peer Mentoring.
(2010).
[3] J. Bourke, S. Garr, A. van Berkel, and J. Wong. 2017.
Diversity and inclusion: The
reality gap. (2017).

33. [4] European Commission. 2018. Individual Fellowships.
Research and Innovation.
https://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/about/individual
-fellowships_
en. (2018).
[5] B. Ertl, S. Luttenberger, and M. Paechter. 2017. The Impact
of Gender Stereo-
types on the Self-Concept of Female Students in STEM Subjects
with an Under-
Representation of Females. (2017).
[6] A. Familara. 2006. Gender and Development. (2006). Issue
2.
[7] Ada Lovelace Festival. 2018. Connecting women in
computing and technology.
http://wiwo.konferenz.de/ada/en/. (2018).
[8] N. Fouad, M. Fitzpatrick, and J. P. Liu. 2011. Persistence of
Women in Engineering
Careers: A Qualitative study of Current and Former Female
Engineers. (2011).
[9] Girl Geeks. 2018. https://www.girlgeeks.uk/. (2018).
[10] C. Herring. 2009. Does diversity pay. American
Sociological Review 74 (2009).
Issue 2.
[11] S. Hoogendoorn, H. Oosterbeek, and M. van Praag. 2013.
The impact of gender
diversity on the performance of business teams: Evidence from
a field experiment.
Management Science 59 (2013). Issue 7.

34. [12] H. Huhman. 2012. STEM Fields And The Gender Gap:
Where Are The Women?
(2012).
[13] J. Hunt. 2010. Why Do Women Leave Science and
Engineering. NBER Working
Paper 15853 (2010).
[14] Women in STEM. 2018. http://www.womeninstem.co.uk/.
(2018).
[15] H. Jürges and K. Schneider. 2011. Why Young Boys
Stumble: Early Tracking,
Age and Gender Bias in the German School System. German
Economic Review.
(2011).
[16] C. Maertz and M. Campion. 2004. Profiles in Quitting:
Integrating Process and
Content Turnover Theory. Academy of Management Journal 47
(2004), 566–582.
[17] C. Mattis. 2005. Best Practices for Supporting Women
Engineers Career Devel-
opment in US Corporations. Edward Elgar. (2005).
[18] McKinsey and Company. 2014. Mckinsey Gender Diversity
Survey Results in
organisations. (2014).
[19] McKinsey and Company. 2015. The Power of Parity: How
Advancing Womenś
Equality Can Add $ 12 Trillion to Global Growth. New York.
(2015).
[20] PWC. 2017. Global Diversity and Inclusion Survey. (2017).

35. [21] C. Rayburn, F. Denmark, M. Reuder, and A. Austria. 2014.
A Handbook for Women
Mentors: Transcending barriers of Stereotype, Race and
Ethnicity. (2014).
[22] N. Schneeweis and M Zweimüller. 2014. Early Tracking
and the Misfortune of
Being Young. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics. (2014).
[23] C. M. Vogt. 2008. Faculty as a Critical Juncture in Student
Retention and Per-
formance in Engineering Programs. Journal of Engineering
Education 97 (2008).
8
Issues in Gender Diversity and Equality in the UK GE’18, May
28, 2018, Gothenburg, Sweden
Issue 1.
[24] BCS Women. 2018. http://www.bcs.org/category/8630.
(2018).
9
Fostering Youth Self-Efficacy to Address Transgender and
Racial Diversity
Issues: The Role of Gay–Straight Alliances
Eddie S. K. Chong

36. University of Maryland–College Park
V. Paul Poteat
Boston College
Hirokazu Yoshikawa
New York University
Jerel P. Calzo
San Diego State University
Gay–Straight Alliances (GSAs) aspire to empower youth to
address multiple systems of oppression,
including those affecting transgender and racial/ethnic minority
youth, yet there is little indication of
factors contributing to youths’ self-efficacy to do so. We
examined individual and group factors
predicting self-efficacy to address transgender and racial issues
among 295 youth in 33 high school
GSAs. Multilevel results indicated that level of GSA
engagement, individual and collective involvement
in transgender- and race-specific discussions, and in some cases
intergroup friendships were associated
with each form of self-efficacy. The association between GSA
engagement and transgender self-efficacy
was stronger for youth in GSAs with greater collective
transgender-specific discussions. Associations
with racial self-efficacy differed based on youths’
race/ethnicity. Continued research needs to identify
how GSAs and similar youth programs promote self-efficacy to
address diversity issues.
Impact and Implications
This study highlights the potential of diversity-focused youth
settings such as Gay–Straight Alliances
(GSAs) to empower youth to address discrimination and issues

37. faced by minority populations. It
advances GSA research by considering individual and group
differences; and suggests that active
involvement in peer discussions and being socialized around
other members who collectively discuss
such issues may benefit youth depending on the issue at stake.
Keywords: youth programs, gay–straight alliance, self-efficacy,
peer discussions, diversity issues
Supplemental materials:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/spq0000258.supp
Youth with marginalized identities (e.g., lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, and queer [LGBTQ] youth; youth of color) face
considerable discrimination in school settings (Fisher, Wallace,
&
Fenton, 2000; Hatzenbuehler & Pachankis, 2016). This discrimi-
nation is linked to health and academic concerns, such as
depres-
sion and anxiety, truancy, and lower grades (Peskin, Tortolero,
Markham, Addy, & Baumler, 2007; Toomey, Ryan, Diaz, Card,
&
Russell, 2010; Williams & Peguero, 2013). Marginalized youth
and their ally peers can share an indispensable role in
responding
to bias. To this end, school-based extracurricular settings could
empower youth by promoting their efficacy to counteract
oppres-
sion and hostility in schools and the larger community (Larson,
Perry, Kang, & Walker, 2011; Russell & Van Campen, 2011).
Yet,
few studies have examined factors that foster youths’ efficacy
to
address such major social issues in school settings.

38. Gay–Straight Alliances as a School-Based Youth
Setting
Gay–Straight Alliances (GSAs) are school-based groups with
potential to empower members to address multiple forms of di-
versity and oppression. With youth program models as a frame-
work (Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Shinn & Yoshikawa, 2008),
GSAs provide support and opportunities for youth to socialize,
This article was published Online First May 24, 2018.
Eddie S. K. Chong, Department of Psychology, University of
Maryland–
College Park; V. Paul Poteat, Department of Counseling,
Developmental,
and Educational Psychology, Boston College; Hirokazu
Yoshikawa, De-
partment of Applied Psychology, New York University; Jerel P.
Calzo,
Graduate School of Public Health, San Diego State University.
Support for the writing of this manuscript was partially based
on funding
awarded from the National Institute of Minority Health and
Health Dis-
parities (NIMHD), R01MD009458, to Poteat (Principal
Investigator) and
Calzo and Yoshikawa (Co-Investigators). Additional support for
Calzo was
provided by funding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse
(NIDA),
K01DA034753.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Eddie

39. S. K. Chong, Department of Psychology, Biology-Psychology
Building,
4094 Campus Dr., University of Maryland, College Park, MD
20742.
E-mail: [email protected]
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er

40. ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed

41. pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th

42. e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be

43. di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
School Psychology
© 2018 American Psychological Association 2019, Vol. 34, No.
1, 54 – 63
2578-4218/19/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/spq0000258
54
mailto:[email protected]
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/spq0000258
take on leadership roles with adult guidance, and engage in
advo-
cacy to address issues facing marginalized youth (Griffin, Lee,
Waugh, & Beyer, 2004; Russell, Muraco, Subramaniam, &
Laub,
2009). Historically, GSAs focused on sexual orientation-related
issues (e.g., victimization of LGBQ students). In recent years,
as
public awareness of transgender issues has increased, many

44. GSAs
extend their effort to respond to the needs of transgender youth
(i.e., youth whose gender identity is not aligned with their sex
assigned at birth), such as advocating for gender-neutral bath-
rooms. Many GSAs have even renamed themselves as Gender–
Sexuality Alliances, highlighting GSAs’ proximal focus on
issues
of gender identity as well as sexual orientation. GSAs also
aspire
to address other systems of oppression, including racism, often
in a more distal way by forming coalitions with other student
groups similar to theirs but with a focus on a different identity
dimension (e.g., race) and advocating on issues of shared con-
cerns (e.g., school safety and mental health; Gay–Straight Al-
liance Network, 2015). At the same time, although racism can
be addressed within GSAs, attention to race may be more
peripheral relative to gender identity and sexual orientation
(Poteat & Scheer, 2016).
Given the GSA aim to empower youth to address multiple
systems of oppression within their school communities, we
build
on empowerment theory to understand members’ diversity-
related
self-efficacy. Psychological empowerment refers to the process
where individuals participate in their community, gain control
over
issues facing their community, and develop understanding of the
sociopolitical landscape of their community (Zimmerman,
Israel,
Schulz, & Checkoway, 1992). One important indicator of
psycho-
logical empowerment is self-efficacy which can be defined as
one’s perceived capability to address issues of their concern.
Within the context of GSAs, we conceptualize self-efficacy to
address a specific diversity issue as the extent to which youth

45. believe in their capacity to articulate oppressive experiences
facing
people with a specific marginalized status and to discuss how
this
dimension of marginalization diverges and intersects with other
systems of oppression (Russell et al., 2009). In this study, we
focus
on self-efficacy related to two forms of marginalized identities
that
GSAs may address: transgender identity (a focal identity in the
GSA context) and racial minority identity (a relevant, but less
focal
identity in the GSA context). We consider individual and
contex-
tual factors that may account for GSA members’ efficacy to
address these two forms of diversity.
GSA Involvement: General Engagement and Identity-
Specific Discussions
On the basis of empowerment theory, studies have shown a
positive association between community participation and per-
ceived control of one’s sociopolitical environment (e.g.,
Zimmer-
man et al., 1992). Along the same lines, aspects of GSA engage-
ment may encourage members to be more confident about
addressing diversity-related issues in their school communities.
Indeed, GSAs often create opportunities for members to gain
positive experiences of perspective taking and advocacy,
receiving
supportive feedback from peers and advisors, and learning
effec-
tive ways to process one’s own emotional and physiological
reac-
tions that may arise when addressing diversity issues (Russell et
al., 2009). These experiences can serve as important sources of

46. diversity-related self-efficacy. Thus, we expect that
involvement in
GSA will be positively related to members’ transgender and
racial
self-efficacy.
Specifically, there are two ways in which involvement in GSAs
may account for youths’ transgender and racial self-efficacy:
gen-
eral level of engagement in the GSA and involvement in GSA
discussions specific to these two issues. Beyond comparing
mem-
bers to nonmembers, recent studies that have focused on levels
of
active engagement among GSA members (which can be opera-
tionalized as consistency of attending meetings, taking on
leader-
ship roles and responsibilities on projects, contributing to
discus-
sions) have found that more engaged members also report
greater
well-being than others (Poteat et al., 2015). The broader youth
program literature also indicates that youth more involved in
programs derive greater benefits (Fredricks & Simpkins, 2012).
A
similar pattern could apply to youths’ self-efficacy, but with po-
tential differences for the two forms we examine. Greater
general
engagement in the GSA may be associated with greater
transgen-
der self-efficacy because GSAs primarily focus on issues of
gender
and sexual orientation. However, simply being a more engaged
GSA member may not relate to greater racial self-efficacy
because

47. race does not tend to be as pronounced a focus.
Involvement in identity-specific discussions in GSA meetings
(i.e., discussing issues concerning gender or race) may offer
mem-
bers a chance to build efficacy regarding transgender and racial
issues. Scholars have suggested that peer discussions about
issues
of inequality can enhance their self-understanding and commit-
ment to social action (Pollock, 2017). These processes have
been
documented in participatory action work (e.g., Torre & Fine,
2008)
and intergroup dialogues (e.g., Nagda, 2006; Zúñiga, Nagda,
Chesler, & Cytron-Walker, 2007). However, the literature on
these
conversations strikingly omits attention to established diversity-
focused youth groups, such as GSAs. Similarly, the large
literature
on gender and racial socialization tends to focus on parents
(Hughes et al., 2006; Tenenbaum & Leaper, 2002), omitting at-
tention to how peers engage in identity-specific discussions
despite
the central role of peers during adolescence (Brechwald & Prin-
stein, 2011).
As an added contextual effect, youth may further benefit from
being in a GSA whose members collectively engage in more of
these identity-specific discussions. Group psychotherapy
research
has shown that the group context can contribute to more
positive
therapy outcomes for individual members (Muller & Miles,
2017).
In the case of GSAs, being around other members who
collectively

48. participate in more discussions of gender or race could be
associ-
ated with youths’ self-efficacy regarding each issue, over and
above their own direct participation in discussing transgender-
and
race-related issues.
Person-level conditional effects. We consider whether
youths’ gender and racial/ethnic identities may change how
GSA
involvement (including general GSA engagement and individual
participation in identity-specific discussions) may be associated
with the two forms of self-efficacy. Although cisgender youth
(i.e.,
youth whose gender identity aligns with their sex assigned at
birth)
may not encounter day-to-day gender identity-based discrimina-
tion, the focal nature of gender within GSAs may attract youth
(cisgender and transgender) who are highly motivated to address
transgender-related issues to become members and to further de-
velop efficacy to address such issues. Thus, these indicators of
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co

49. py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia

50. ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e

51. is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi

52. du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
55YOUTH SELF-EFFICACY ON DIVERSITY ISSUES

53. GSA involvement may be related to transgender self-efficacy
similarly for cisgender and transgender members. In contrast,
this
self-selection process may be less applicable for race-related
issues
given that they are often raised peripherally within GSAs. The
associations between GSA involvement and racial self-efficacy
may vary between White and racial/ethnic minority (R/EM)
youth.
White youth typically do not have many opportunities to discuss
race-related topics; being able to converse around racial issues
could have a large effect on their racial self-efficacy by
fostering
learning about privilege and issues facing youth of color (Gurin,
Nagda, & Lopez, 2004; Tatum, 1992). In comparison, R/EM
youth
may already have a rich understanding of issues related to race
from their personal or vicarious experiences of racism (Hughes
et
al., 2006); thus, engaging in race-related discussions in the GSA
may not be as strongly associated with their racial self-efficacy
as
for White youth. It is less clear whether the relation between
general GSA engagement and racial self-efficacy may vary with
one’s race/ethnicity.
Group-level conditional effects. The association between
general GSA engagement and transgender self-efficacy may be
stronger for youth who are members of GSAs where greater
transgender-related discussions occur collectively among mem-
bers. Participatory action and intergroup dialogue research
stress
the importance of collective learning for individuals to develop
critical consciousness (Torre & Fine, 2008; Zúñiga et al., 2007).
However, we do not expect a comparable group-level

54. accentuating
effect for racial self-efficacy. Initial evidence suggests that
GSA
advisors feel less equipped to facilitate discussions on race than
on
gender identity (Poteat & Scheer, 2016). We suspect that GSA
members may experience greater collective challenges in
generat-
ing productive conversations on race-related issues than
transgender-related ones, so it may be less likely that collective
race-related discussions enhance the benefits of general GSA
en-
gagement in relation to racial self-efficacy.
Friendships With Members of a Marginalized Group
Friendships with members of a marginalized group could reduce
prejudice and build allyship particularly for individuals without
the
corresponding marginalized status because they may have less
personal experience of marginalization to inform their
understand-
ing of that form of oppression (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008). For
instance, heterosexual youth with sexual minority friends are
more
likely to show support for sexual minorities than those without
(e.g., Heinze & Horn, 2009; Poteat, 2015). Similarly, White
youth
with R/EM friends are more likely to advocate for the rights of
R/EM than those without (e.g., Crystal, Killen, & Ruck, 2008).
Therefore, we expect that having close transgender or R/EM
friends will be associated with greater transgender and racial
self-efficacy, respectively. Further, we expect that this
association
will be stronger among cisgender and White youth, respectively.

55. Self-Reflection
Self-reflection, defined as being open to examining one’s own
thoughts and emotions as they arise (Sauter, Heyne, Blöte, van
Widenfelt, & Westenberg, 2010), can be an important trait for
building self-efficacy in multicultural contexts especially
because
diversity-related interactions often raise complex thoughts and
emotions (Tatum, 1992). Such domain-general self-reflection
may
help one gain insights about the power dynamics at play in
differ-
ent systems of oppression. Empirically, self-reflection was
shown
to be positively associated with diversity-related competence,
such
as LGBT-affirming behaviors among heterosexual adolescents
(e.g., Poteat, 2015). As such, to provide a more refined
examina-
tion of the unique contribution of GSA-related variables and
friendships, we consider self-reflection as a covariate in our
mod-
els.
Present Study
Discrimination against transgender and R/EM youth remains
prevalent in schools, and GSAs are one setting positioned to
instill
self-efficacy in youth to address issues faced by members of
these
groups. We tested the extent to which individual factors (GSA
engagement level, involvement in transgender- and race-related
discussions, and close friendships with transgender and R/EM
peers) and a contextual factor (collective frequency of identity-

56. specific discussions among members) contributed to youths’
self-
efficacy to address transgender- and race-related issues,
control-
ling for other important factors such as youths’ own tendency to
engage in self-reflection (Tatum, 1992) and the size of the GSA.
We hypothesized that greater GSA engagement would be asso-
ciated with greater transgender self-efficacy. Also, we hypothe-
sized that greater involvement in transgender-related
discussions
and having close transgender friends would be associated with
greater transgender self-efficacy. Further, we hypothesized a
con-
textual effect for group-level transgender-related discussions:
youth in GSAs whose members collectively participated in more
frequent discussions of transgender issues would report greater
transgender self-efficacy. Moreover, we hypothesized that
group-
level transgender discussions would enhance the association be-
tween GSA engagement and transgender self-efficacy. Finally,
we
hypothesized that having close transgender friends would relate
to
greater transgender self-efficacy more strongly for cisgender
youth
than for transgender youth.
Moreover, we hypothesized that greater involvement in race-
related discussions and having close R/EM friends would be
associated with greater racial self-efficacy. Also, we
hypothesized
that youth in GSAs whose members collectively participated in
more frequent discussions of racial issues would report greater
racial self-efficacy. Furthermore, because race-related issues
are

57. often peripheral in the GSA context and given the different
racial
experiences of White and R/EM youth, we hypothesized that
individual and collective involvement in race-specific
discussions
would be associated with racial self-efficacy more strongly for
White youth than for R/EM youth. Finally, we hypothesized
that having close R/EM friends would be associated with
greater racial self-efficacy more strongly for White youth than
for R/EM youth.
Method
Data Source and Participants
We conducted secondary data analysis of the 2014 Massa-
chusetts GSA Network survey of youth members, sponsored by
the Massachusetts Commission on LGBTQ Youth and the Mas-
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri

58. gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on

59. or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in

60. te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al

61. us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
56 CHONG, POTEAT, YOSHIKAWA, AND CALZO
sachusetts Safe Schools Program for LGBTQ Students. The
survey gathered data to identify youths’ GSA experiences. The

62. data were collected at five regional conferences throughout
Mas-
sachusetts and postings to GSA advisors. Surveys were provided
at
the start of the conferences. Also, GSA advisors were contacted
and requested to make surveys available to youth and to collect
them. For both outlets, youth voluntarily completed the anony-
mous survey if their GSA advisor granted adult consent. Adult
consent was used over parent consent to avoid potential risks of
outing LGBTQ youth to parents. This practice is common in
LGBTQ youth research to protect their safety and
confidentiality
(Mustanski, 2011). Youth were told that their responses would
be
anonymous and that data would be used for program evaluation
and potentially for research purposes to produce reports or
articles.
We secured IRB approval for our secondary data analysis. Our
sample included 295 youth (Mage � 16.07, SD � 1.14) who
were
members of 33 GSAs (ranging from 3 to 21 members; M � 9
members). Sample characteristics are reported in Table 1.
Measures
Demographics. Youth reported their sexual orientation, gen-
der, and race/ethnicity. Sexual orientation and race/ethnicity re-
sponses were dichotomized (heterosexual or LGBQ, and White
or
R/EM) because of the limited number of youth in specific
minority
groups. Similarly, we combined the transgender, gender-queer,
and write-in response options (e.g., gender-fluid) into a trans/
gender-queer group because of the limited representation of
youth
within these specific identities. Youth reported their number of

63. close friends who identified as transgender or R/EM. Response
options for both questions were 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 or more. We
dichotomized responses to both items to indicate whether youth
did or did not have any close friends who identified as
transgender
or R/EM (0 � no close transgender or R/EM friends,
respectively;
1 � at least one close transgender or R/EM friend,
respectively).
Self-reflection. Youth completed the 7-item Self-Reflection
and Insight Scale for Youth (Sauter et al., 2010; e.g., “I often
think
about how I feel about things”). Response options ranged from
1
(strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Higher average scale
scores represent greater self-reflection. Coefficient alpha
reliability
was .93.
GSA engagement level. Five items asked youth about their
engagement in their GSA: (a) I attend GSA meetings or other
GSA
events, (b) I participate in conversations at GSA meetings, (c) I
take leadership roles in activities and events in my GSA, (d) I
have
discussions with my GSA advisor(s) about GSA-related matters,
and (e) I help with events or projects in my GSA. Response
options
ranged from 0 (never) to 4 (all the time). Higher average scale
scores represent greater engagement in the GSA. Coefficient
alpha
reliability was .89.
Transgender-related and race-related topic discussions.
Youth reported how frequently they personally discussed

64. specific
topics during GSA meetings. Response options ranged from 0
(never) to 4 (very often). Three items covered transgender-
related
topics: (a) transgender rights (examples: gender-neutral bath-
rooms, etc.), (b) discrimination due to gender identity or
expres-
sion, and (c) transgender awareness (examples: pronouns, terms,
etc.). Higher average scale scores represent more frequently dis-
cussing transgender-related topics. Coefficient alpha was .88.
Two
items covered race-related topics: issues of racial discrimination
or
inequality and experiences of racial or ethnic minority students.
The items were significantly correlated (r � .87, p � .001). The
items were averaged for a scale score, with higher scores repre-
senting more frequently discussing race-related topics. We com-
puted average transgender-related discussions scores and
average
race-related discussions scores among members in each GSA to
represent the group-level collective frequency of discussing
these
topics.
Transgender and racial self-efficacy. Youth reported their
efficacy to address transgender-related issues (three items) and
race-related issues (three items). The items were preceded by
the
stem, “How equipped do you feel to do the following.” The
transgender-related self-efficacy items were as follows: (a) talk
about transgender students’ unique experiences, (b) describe
dif-
ferences between sexual orientation and gender identity/expres-
sion, and (c) talk about discrimination faced by transgender stu-
dents. The race-related self-efficacy items were as follows: (a)
talk

65. about unique experiences that students of color face, (b) discuss
Table 1
Participant Demographics and Measures
Descriptive Information
Variable N (%)
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual 87 (29.5)
Lesbian or gay 73 (24.8)
Bisexual 59 (20.0)
Questioning 18 (6.1)
Other self-reported sexual orientations 55 (18.6)
Not reported 3 (1.0)
Gender
Cisgender female 200 (67.8)
Cisgender male 66 (22.4)
Gender-queer 9 (3.0)
Transgender 11 (3.7)
Other self-reported gender identities 7 (2.4)
Not reported 2 (.7)
Race/ethnicity
White 201 (68.1)
Biracial/multiracial 32 (10.9)
Latino/a 18 (6.1)
Asian/Asian American 16 (5.4)
Black or African American 16 (5.4)
Native American 4 (1.4)
Other self-reported racial/ethnic identities 5 (1.7)
Not reported 3 (1.0)
Grade Level
Grade 8 4 (1.4)

66. Grade 9 47 (15.9)
Grade 10 90 (30.5)
Grade 11 95 (32.2)
Grade 12 55 (18.6)
Not reported 4 (1.4)
M(SD)
Self-reflection 4.44 (1.27)
GSA engagement level 2.77 (1.00)
Transgender-related topic discussions 2.66 (.98)
Race-related topic discussions 1.95 (1.15)
Transgender-related self-efficacy 3.56 (1.05)
Race-related self-efficacy 3.13 (1.16)
Note. N � 295.
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh

67. te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or

68. on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te

69. nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us

70. er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
57YOUTH SELF-EFFICACY ON DIVERSITY ISSUES
how racial and sexual orientation identities overlap, and (c) talk
about racism that students of color face. Response options
ranged
from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). Coefficient alpha for

71. transgender-related self-efficacy and race-related self-efficacy
were .87 and .90, respectively.
We conducted factor analyses for scales measuring self-
reflection, GSA engagement level, transgender-related discus-
sions, transgender self-efficacy, and racial self-efficacy. Results
(available from the authors) indicated that all these scales were
unidimensional.
Analytic Strategy
We used multilevel modeling to test our hypotheses for our set
of
independent variables and their associations with transgender-
related
self-efficacy. At the individual level we included demographic
factors
(sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, gender, friendship with
transgen-
der peers) and the following standardized group-mean centered
variables: GSA engagement level, frequency of participating
in transgender-related and race-related discussions, and self-
reflection. At the group level we included the collective
frequency
of discussing transgender-related and race-related topics and
group
size as predictors of the Level 1 intercept, accounting for
average
differences across GSAs in transgender-related self-efficacy. To
further test whether general GSA engagement, having at least
one
close transgender friend, and transgender-related discussions
were
associated with self-efficacy differentially for trans/gender-
queer
youth and nontrans/gender-queer youth, we created interaction

72. terms based on the dichotomized trans/gender-queer variable
and
the standardized score of GSA engagement, the dichotomized
variable of transgender friendships, and the standardized score
of
transgender-related discussions, respectively. We included the
in-
teraction terms at the individual level. Finally, we tested the
moderating effects of collective transgender-related discussions
within the GSA on self-efficacy differences between
trans/gender-
queer and nontrans/gender-queer members and on the
association
between individual’s GSA engagement and their self-efficacy
by
including collective frequency of transgender-related
discussions
at the group level as a predictor of the slopes for trans/gender-
queer identity and GSA engagement.
We tested an analogous multilevel model with race-related
self-efficacy as the dependent variable. However, we replaced
the
transgender friendship variable with the R/EM friendship
variable;
we examined how general GSA engagement, R/EM friendships,
and frequency of discussing race-related topics were associated
with self-efficacy differentially for White youth and R/EM
youth;
and we tested the moderating effects of collective race-related
discussions within the GSA on self-efficacy differences between
R/EM and White members, and on the association between indi-
vidual’s GSA engagement and their self-efficacy. As we later
note
in the results, because there were significant interaction effects
with R/EM identity at Level 1, we created cross-level

73. interaction
terms with these significant Level 1 interactions in the model:
R/EM Identity � Individual’s General GSA Engagement � Col-
lective Race-Related Discussions in the GSA and R/EM Identity
�
Individual Participation in Race-Related Discussions �
Collective
Race-Related Discussions in the GSA.
Results
Multilevel Model for Transgender-Related Efficacy
In the initial null model, GSAs varied significantly in
transgender-related self-efficacy (�2 � 50.24, p � .05). Results
of
the full multilevel model are summarized in Table 2. As hypoth-
esized, variables at the individual level (including LGBQ
identity,
trans/gender-queer identity, GSA engagement, and transgender-
related discussions) and collective transgender-related
discussions
at the group level were all positively associated with
transgender-
related self-efficacy. Moreover, the moderating effects of trans/
gender-queer identity were not significant with GSA
engagement,
transgender friendships, or transgender-related discussions. The
nonsignificant interaction with transgender friendships ran
counter
to our hypothesis. Furthermore, self-efficacy differences
between
trans/gender-queer youth and nontrans/gender-queer youth did
not
vary by levels of the GSAs’ collective transgender-related
discus-

74. sions. As hypothesized, the cross-level interaction between indi-
vidual GSA engagement and group frequency of transgender-
related discussions was marginally significant. Specifically, the
strength with which greater general GSA engagement was posi-
tively associated with transgender-related self-efficacy was
depen-
dent on the extent to which the GSAs collectively discussed
transgender-related issues (see Figure 1), which accounted for
16.7% of the variance in the slope. The overall model with all
Level 1 variables accounted for 26.9% of the Level 1 variance
and Level 2 variables accounted for 72.4% of the Level 2
variance.
Multilevel Model for Race-Related Efficacy
Notably, in the initial null model, GSAs did not vary signifi-
cantly in race-related self-efficacy (�2 � 32.13, p � .46).
Results
of the full multilevel model are summarized in Table 2. As
hypothesized, variables at the individual level (R/EM identity,
R/EM friendships, and race-related discussions) were positively
associated with race-related self-efficacy. Also as hypothesized,
the moderating effects of R/EM identity were significant with
general GSA engagement and race-related discussions.
However,
its interaction was not significant with R/EM friendships. When
testing the model separately for R/EM and White youth, greater
GSA engagement was associated with greater race-related self-
efficacy for R/EM youth (b � 0.46, p � .01) but not White
youth
(b � 0.01, p � .91; Figure 2); in contrast, greater participation
in
race-related discussions was associated with greater race-related
self-efficacy for White youth (b � 0.51, p � .001) but not R/EM
youth (b � 0.08, p � .57). Furthermore, the cross-level
interaction

75. of collective race-related discussions with the Level 1
interaction
between R/EM identity and individual participation in race-
related
discussions was significant. Figure 3 graphically shows this
interaction effect: the significant association between individ-
ual participation in race-related discussions and race-related
self-efficacy does not appear dependent on the GSA’s collective
level of participating in such discussions for White youth,
whereas for R/EM youth this association appears partly depen-
dent on the GSA’s collective level of participating in such
discussions. Collective race-related discussions accounted for
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by

76. th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of

77. it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so

78. le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d

79. is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
58 CHONG, POTEAT, YOSHIKAWA, AND CALZO
80% of the variance in the Level 1 interaction between R/EM
identity and individuals’ own participation in race-related dis-
cussions predicting race-related self-efficacy. The cross-level
interaction between R/EM identity � individual’s GSA engage-
ment and collective race-related discussions was not significant.
The overall model with all Level 1 variables accounted for
31.7% of the Level 1 variance. There was no variance accounted

80. for in the Level 2 intercept with the inclusion of the Level 2
Table 2
Models for Transgender-Related Self-Efficacy and Race-Related
Self-Efficacy
Model
Transgender-related
self-efficacy
Race-related
self-efficacy
Level 1
LGBQ (vs. heterosexual) .26 (.14) .10 (.12)
Trans/gender-queer (vs. cisgender) .53 (.33) –.07 (.21)
R/EM (vs. White) .05 (.10) 1.03 (.40)�
Self-reflection .19 (.06)�� .13 (.05)��
Have T/G friends .19 (.13)
Have R/EM friends .40 (.16)�
GSA engagement .21 (.06)�� .02 (.09)
Trans-related discussions .23 (.09)� .04 (.10)
Race-related discussions .09 (.08) .51 (.09)���
T/G � GSA engagement .03 (.19)
T/G � Have trans friends –.28 (.37)
T/G � Trans-related discussions –.05 (.16)
R/EM � GSA engagement .36 (.11)��
R/EM � Have R/EM friends –.62 (.37)
R/EM � Race-related discussions –.37 (.11)��
Level 2

81. Group size –.01 (.08) .04 (.07)
Collective trans-related discussions .25 (.08)�� .03 (.08)
Collective race-related discussions –.03 (.07) .19 (.07)�
Cross-level moderators
T/G � Collective trans-related discussions .17 (.29)
GSA engagement � Collective trans-related discussions .15
(.08)†
R/EM � GSA engagement � Collective race-related discussions
–.11 (.09)
R/EM � Race-related discussions � Collective race-related
discussions .30 (.11)�
Note. Values in parentheses are standard errors. LGBQ �
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, or queer; R/EM �
Racial/ethnic minority; T/G � Transgender/gender-queer; GSA
� Gay-Straight Alliance.
† p � .06. � p � .05. �� p � .01. ��� p � .001.
Figure 1. Association between individuals’ Gay–Straight
Alliance (GSA) en-
gagement level (group-mean centered) and their transgender-
related efficacy, mod-
erated by their GSA’s collective frequency of discussing
transgender topics.
Infrequent and frequent group-level discussions are displayed
based on lower and
upper quartile estimates (Minfrequent � �1.44; Mfrequent �
1.14).
Figure 2. Association between individuals’ Gay–Straight
Alliance
(GSA) engagement level (group-mean centered) and their race-
related
efficacy, moderated by race/ethnicity.

82. T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P

83. sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is

84. he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs

85. on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em

86. in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
59YOUTH SELF-EFFICACY ON DIVERSITY ISSUES
variables because the amount of variance across GSAs in the
null
model was nonsignificant.
Discussion
This study provides encouraging and novel results regarding the
potential of GSAs to foster the self-efficacy of members to
address
both transgender and racial issues. The results suggest that both
individual and GSA-level characteristics might foster members’
self-efficacy to address transgender issues (as a central focus in
GSAs) and racial issues (as a more peripheral but critically im-
portant issue that can be addressed in GSAs). As hypothesized,
general GSA engagement level, individual and collective
involve-
ment in race- and transgender-specific discussions, and in some
cases friendships with transgender or R/EM peers were
associated
differentially with each form of self-efficacy. Findings

87. highlight
the potential of diversity-focused youth settings such as GSAs
to
empower youth to address discrimination and major social
issues
faced by minority populations in schools and society.
Factors Related to Self-Efficacy in Addressing
Transgender Issues
As hypothesized, members’ involvement in transgender-related
discussions contributed to their self-efficacy to address
transgen-
der issues. This finding adds to work that indicates the
importance
of peer discourse in promoting critical consciousness and action
countering discrimination (Nagda, 2006; Pollock, 2017). Under-
scoring the importance of having direct discussions on issues
faced
by specific groups, involvement in transgender-related discus-
sions— but not race-related discussions—was associated with
transgender self-efficacy. This distinction may have been
evident
because some challenges and barriers faced by societally
margin-
alized minority groups are unique to that group. Thus, issue-
specific discussions, not simply general discussions of
diversity,
may be critical to foster youths’ self-efficacy to address issues
faced by particular minority populations.
The frequency of transgender-related discussions at the group
level accounted for members’ transgender self-efficacy in two
ways. First, youth in GSAs whose members collectively
engaged

88. in more transgender-related discussions reported higher self-
efficacy. GSA members may benefit vicariously from others en-
gaging in such discussions over and above their own
involvement
in them. This type of effect has been documented in other areas
of
research, such as group psychotherapy (e.g., Muller & Miles,
2017). Second, the positive association between general GSA
engagement level and transgender self-efficacy was marginally
stronger among youth in GSAs whose members collectively had
more transgender-related discussions. As one potential explana-
tion, critical discourse on transgender issues through peer
social-
ization and collective learning may have enhanced the benefits
of
general GSA engagement in relation to youths’ transgender self-
efficacy (Torre & Fine, 2008; Zúñiga et al., 2007).
Unexpectedly, transgender self-efficacy was not associated with
having close transgender friends for either cisgender or
transgen-
der youth. It is possible that friendship quality is more
important
when it comes to promoting transgender self-efficacy among
youths who are already motivated to address transgender issues
(Davies, Tropp, Aron, Pettigrew, & Wright, 2011).
Factors Related to Self-Efficacy in Addressing Racial
Issues
Racial self-efficacy was associated with having close R/EM
friends, and this association did not differ in size across White
and
R/EM youth. As expected, for White youth, having at least one
R/EM friend may increase their awareness of issues such as
discrimination that their R/EM friends may experience

89. (Pettigrew
& Tropp, 2008). However, inconsistent with our hypothesis,
R/EM
youth may also benefit from having at least one other R/EM
friend
when it comes to their self-efficacy in addressing racial issues
potentially due to a sense of solidarity.
Whereas there was a simple main effect for the association
between general GSA engagement and transgender self-efficacy
as
hypothesized, general GSA engagement was positively
association
with racial self-efficacy for R/EM youth but not White youth.
Greater GSA engagement may be important for R/EM youth to
build confidence to address racism, perhaps through an
increased
sense of community through their engagement in the GSA. This
association was not observed for White youth potentially
because
they may require more explicit and focused attention to race/
ethnicity (e.g., through race-related topic discussions).
Individual involvement in race-related discussions contributed
to youths’ racial self-efficacy, but in a more nuanced manner
than
we first hypothesized. Originally, we hypothesized that
individual
involvement in race-related discussions would have a stronger
association with race-related self-efficacy for White members
than
R/EM members. Although this interaction was significant, it
was
further moderated by the extent to which members collectively
discussed race-related issues within the GSA. Specifically,
White

90. GSA members’ own involvement in these discussions was asso-
ciated with their racial self-efficacy, which appeared regardless
of
how frequently members in their respective GSAs collectively
Figure 3. Association between individuals’ frequency of
discussing race-
related topics (group-mean centered) and their race-related
efficacy, mod-
erated by race/ethnicity and the collective frequency with which
the Gay–
Straight Alliance (GSA) as a whole discusses racial topics.
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by

91. th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of

92. it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so

93. le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d

94. is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
60 CHONG, POTEAT, YOSHIKAWA, AND CALZO
participate in race-related discussions (see Figure 3). We
expected
this pattern for White youth because these discussions may have
built White GSA members’ critical consciousness about racial
privilege and about the importance of promoting racial justice
(e.g., Nagda, 2006; Pollock, 2017). Given the dominant racial
status of White youth and their potential unawareness of racial
privileges, they may have benefitted from opportunities to

95. discuss
and gain insight on racial issues (Gurin et al., 2004; Tatum,
1992).
This association was more nuanced for R/EM GSA members:
their own participation in race-related discussions appeared to
be
positively associated with racial self-efficacy only when they
were
in GSAs whose members collectively discussed race-related
issues
frequently (see Figure 3). Because R/EM youth face racial stig-
matization and marginalization and may feel less supported in
their
GSAs relative to White members (Poteat et al., 2015), it may
have
been important for them (but not for White members) to have
other
members reciprocate and show interest in discussing these
issues
with them. R/EM youth in this GSA context may have felt more
supported and validated, which could explain why their more
frequent participation in race-related discussions predicted a
greater sense of self-efficacy to address race-related issues. In
contrast, if other members were relatively silent and did not
have
much to say on race-related issues (i.e., for R/EM members who
reported discussing racial issues frequently but were in GSAs
whose members collectively discussed race-related issues infre-
quently), R/EM youth in this GSA context may have felt
isolated
or pressured to speak on behalf of other R/EM people (Tatum,
1992). This could explain why, in this context, more frequently
discussing race-related issues may not have predicted R/EM
mem-
bers’ efficacy to address race-related issues. Although GSA

96. advi-
sors may have lower efficacy to direct conversations on race
than
on gender identity (Poteat & Scheer, 2016), more research is
needed to identify factors that facilitate discussions on race in
youth settings where other social identities are a primary focus.
It
would also be important to examine this cross-level interaction
in
future research with larger samples of individuals and GSAs and
in
combination with qualitative data that could help to describe
and
understand the likely nuance inherent to this finding. We would
consider this significant cross-level interaction to be important
but
exploratory and tentative with the current data.
Limitations, Strengths, and
Future Directions
We note several limitations to our study. First, given its cross-
sectional nature, we could not draw conclusions about causal or
directional relationships. For instance, self-efficacy to address
these two systems of oppression might be a predictor and
outcome
of individuals’ involvement in identity-specific discussions.
Future
longitudinal studies could enrich our understanding of the direc-
tionality of such associations over time. For example, studies
could
investigate mechanisms that may explain the connection
between
GSA engagement and self-efficacy in diversity issues. Studies
could also consider examining collective efficacy (e.g., the
belief

97. that GSA members as a group can achieve change) going
beyond
individual efficacy (Russell et al., 2009; Zimmerman et al.,
1992).
Second, we had to dichotomize race/ethnicity due to the limited
sample of specific R/EM groups. This limits our understanding
of
how the associations between various factors and race-related
self-efficacy may differ across specific R/EM groups. Further-
more, due to the limited number of GSAs in our study, results
for
our cross-level interaction effects should be interpreted with
cau-
tion and future research should consider these nuances with
larger
samples. Finally, although this study included data from a
number
of GSAs across Massachusetts, future studies should include
more
nationally representative samples of youth in GSAs across
multi-
ple states.
Despite the limitations of the study, it makes several significant
contributions to the literature on GSAs and youth
empowerment.
First, we went beyond studying general self-efficacy as an
indica-
tor of youth empowerment and instead we focused on youth
self-efficacy to address two specific social issues (i.e., issues
faced
by R/EM and transgender individuals). As the racial
demographics
in the United States continue to become more diverse, and as
transgender-related issues become more salient in social

98. discourse,
it has become increasingly important to understand how to em-
power youth— both from majority and minority groups—to ad-
dress such social issues. Second, most GSA studies have
compared
members to nonmembers without attention to variability among
GSA members. Our study addressed this gap by identifying and
accounting for such variability. Third, from a multicultural
educa-
tion perspective, our study is one of the first to examine both
transgender-specific discussions and race-specific discussions
in
the school context. Fourth, our data were from participants in
multiple GSAs across geographically diverse regions of Massa-
chusetts. We believe that these strengths, altogether, provide a
more rigorous and nuanced way of understanding GSAs as a
school-based setting with potential to empower youth to counter
multiple forms of inequality. Finally, this study addresses a
major
gap in the youth program literature, namely the need to examine
how youth programs address issues of diversity and prepare
youth
to engage in an increasingly diverse society (Larson et al.,
2011;
Russell & Van Campen, 2011).
Implications
The results of this study carry several implications for practice.
School psychologists have been called on to promote the well-
being of LGBTQ youth (National Association of School
Psychol-
ogists, 2011). In relation to this call, school psychologists could
be
a valuable resource to GSAs. They could serve as GSA advisors
or

99. consult with advisors and students as they aim to address
multiple
issues of diversity in this setting. For instance, given our
signifi-
cant findings for transgender-related and race-related
discussions,
school psychologists could help facilitate these conversations
based on their training and expertise. These conversations can
be
challenging and carry intense emotion; school psychologists
could
work with students through these experiences and to establish
and
uphold ground rules to ensure a supportive climate for such
con-
versations. Similarly, although we treated self-reflection as a
co-
variate in our models, general self-reflection was significantly
associated with both forms of self-efficacy. School
psychologists
could also use their expertise to work with GSA advisors and
youth members to develop and strengthen self-reflection skills
(e.g., through training or workshops), which could go on to
have
benefits in strengthening youths’ self-efficacy to discuss and
ad-
dress these social issues. Ongoing work in this area by school
psychologists and other school-based professionals—not only
with
T
hi
s
do

100. cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og

101. ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T

102. hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e

103. of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br

104. oa
dl
y.
61YOUTH SELF-EFFICACY ON DIVERSITY ISSUES
GSAs but also with other programs—will further our
understand-
ing of how youth programs in schools can directly address these
major social issues and promote equality.
References
Brechwald, W. A., & Prinstein, M. J. (2011). Beyond
homophily: A decade
of advances in understanding peer influence processes. Journal
of Re-
search on Adolescence, 21, 166 –179.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-
7795.2010.00721.x
Crystal, D. S., Killen, M., & Ruck, M. (2008). It is who you
know that
counts: Intergroup contact and judgments about race-based
exclusion.
British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 26, 51–70.
http://dx.doi
.org/10.1348/026151007X198910
Davies, K., Tropp, L. R., Aron, A., Pettigrew, T. F., & Wright,
S. C.
(2011). Cross-group friendships and intergroup attitudes: A
meta-

105. analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15,
332–
351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1088868311411103
Eccles, J., & Gootman, J. A. (2002). Community programs to
promote
youth development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Fisher, C. B., Wallace, S. A., & Fenton, R. E. (2000).
Discrimination
distress during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
29,
679 – 695. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1026455906512
Fredricks, J. A., & Simpkins, S. D. (2012). Promoting positive
youth
development through organized after-school activities: Taking a
closer
look at participation of ethnic minority youth. Child
Development Per-
spectives, 6, 280 –287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-
8606.2011
.00206.x
Gay–Straight Alliance Network. (2015). Our approach.
Retrieved from
http://www.gsanetwork.org/about-us
Griffin, P., Lee, C., Waugh, J., & Beyer, C. (2004). Describing
roles that
Gay-Straight Alliances play in schools: From individual support
to
school change. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education, 1,
7–22.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J367v01n03_03

106. Gurin, P., Nagda, B. R. A., & Lopez, G. E. (2004). The benefits
of diversity
in education for democratic citizenship. Journal of Social
Issues, 60,
17–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00097.x
Hatzenbuehler, M. L., & Pachankis, J. E. (2016). Stigma and
minority
stress as social determinants of health among lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and
transgender Youth. Pediatric Clinics, 63, 985–997.
http://dx.doi.org/10
.1016/j.pcl.2016.07.003
Heinze, J. E., & Horn, S. S. (2009). Intergroup contact and
beliefs about
homosexuality in adolescence. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 38,
937–951. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-009-9408-x
Hughes, D., Rodriguez, J., Smith, E. P., Johnson, D. J.,
Stevenson, H. C.,
& Spicer, P. (2006). Parents’ ethnic-racial socialization
practices: A
review of research and directions for future study.
Developmental Psy-
chology, 42, 747–770. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-
1649.42.5.747
Larson, R. W., Perry, S. C., Kang, H., & Walker, K. C. (2011).
New
horizons: Understanding the processes and practices of youth
develop-
ment. Journal of Youth Development, 6, 153–164.
http://dx.doi.org/10
.5195/JYD.2011.181

107. Muller, J. T., & Miles, J. R. (2017). Intergroup dialogue in
undergraduate
multicultural psychology education: Group climate development
and
outcomes. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 10, 52–71.
http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0040042
Mustanski, B. (2011). Ethical and regulatory issues with
conducting sex-
uality research with LGBT adolescents: A call to action for a
scientifi-
cally informed approach. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 673–
686.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9745-1
Nagda, B. R. A. (2006). Breaking barriers, crossing borders,
building
bridges: Communication processes in intergroup dialogues.
Journal of
Social Issues, 62, 553–576. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
4560.2006
.00473.x
National Association of School Psychologists. (2011). Lesbian,
gay, bisex-
ual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) youth. [Position
statement].
Bethesda, MD: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.nasponline.org/
about_nasp/positionpapers/LGBTQ_Youth.pdf
Peskin, M. F., Tortolero, S. R., Markham, C. M., Addy, R. C.,
& Baumler,
E. R. (2007). Bullying and victimization and internalizing

108. symptoms
among low-income Black and Hispanic students. The Journal of
Ado-
lescent Health, 40, 372–375.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006
.10.010
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup
contact
reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators.
European
Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 922–934.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
ejsp.504
Pollock, M. (2017). Schooltalk: Rethinking what we say about
and to
students every day. New York, NY: The New Press.
Poteat, V. P. (2015). Individual psychological factors and
complex inter-
personal conditions that predict LGBT-affirming behavior.
Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 44, 1494 –1507.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10964-015-0257-5
Poteat, V. P., & Scheer, J. R. (2016). GSA advisors’ self-
efficacy related
to LGBT youth of color and transgender youth. Journal of
LGBT Youth,
13, 311–325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2016.1185757
Poteat, V. P., Yoshikawa, H., Calzo, J. P., Gray, M. L.,
DiGiovanni, C. D.,
Lipkin, A., . . . Shaw, M. P. (2015). Contextualizing gay-

109. straight
alliances: Student, advisor, and structural factors related to
positive
youth development among members. Child Development, 86,
176 –193.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12289
Reason, R. D., Roosa Millar, E. A., & Scales, T. C. (2005).
Toward a
model of racial justice ally development. Journal of College
Student
Development, 46, 530 –546.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/csd.2005.0054
Russell, S. T., Muraco, A., Subramaniam, A., & Laub, C.
(2009). Youth
empowerment and high school Gay–Straight Alliances. Journal
of Youth
and Adolescence, 38, 891–903.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-008-
9382-8
Russell, S. T., & Van Campen, K. (2011). Diversity and
inclusion in youth
development: What we can learn from marginalized young
people.
Journal of Youth Development, 6, 94 –106.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/
JYD.2011.177
Sauter, F. M., Heyne, D., Blöte, A. W., van Widenfelt, B. M., &
Westen-
berg, P. M. (2010). Assessing therapy-relevant cognitive
capacities in
young people: Development and psychometric evaluation of the
self-

110. reflection and insight scale for youth. Behavioural and
Cognitive Psy-
chotherapy, 38, 303–317. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
S1352465810000020
Shinn, M., & Yoshikawa, H. (2008). Toward positive youth
development:
Transforming schools and community programs. New York, NY:
Ox-
ford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/
9780195327892.001.0001
Tatum, B. (1992). Talking about race, learning about racism:
The appli-
cation of racial identity development theory in the classroom.
Harvard
Educational Review, 62, 1–25.
http://dx.doi.org/10.17763/haer.62.1
.146k5v980r703023
Tenenbaum, H. R., & Leaper, C. (2002). Are parents’ gender
schemas
related to their children’s gender-related cognitions? A meta-
analysis.
Developmental Psychology, 38, 615– 630.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0012-1649.38.4.615
Toomey, R. B., Ryan, C., Diaz, R. M., Card, N. A., & Russell,
S. T. (2010).
Gender-nonconforming lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
youth:
School victimization and young adult psychosocial adjustment.
Devel-
opmental Psychology, 46, 1580 –1589.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/

111. a0020705
Torre, M. E., & Fine, M. (2008). Engaging youth in
participatory inquiry
for social justice. In M. Pollock (Ed.), Everyday antiracism:
Getting
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m

112. er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li

113. ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r

114. th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to

115. be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
62 CHONG, POTEAT, YOSHIKAWA, AND CALZO
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00721.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00721.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/026151007X198910
http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/026151007X198910
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1088868311411103
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1026455906512
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00206.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00206.x
http://www.gsanetwork.org/about-us
http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J367v01n03_03
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00097.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pcl.2016.07.003
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pcl.2016.07.003
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-009-9408-x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.747
http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/JYD.2011.181

116. http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/JYD.2011.181
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0040042
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0040042
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9745-1
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2006.00473.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2006.00473.x
http://www.nasponline.org/about_nasp/positionpapers/LGBTQ_
Youth.pdf
http://www.nasponline.org/about_nasp/positionpapers/LGBTQ_
Youth.pdf
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.10.010
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.10.010
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.504
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.504
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0257-5
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0257-5
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2016.1185757
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12289
http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/csd.2005.0054
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-008-9382-8
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-008-9382-8
http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/JYD.2011.177
http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/JYD.2011.177
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1352465810000020
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1352465810000020
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195327892.001.0001
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195327892.001.0001
http://dx.doi.org/10.17763/haer.62.1.146k5v980r703023
http://dx.doi.org/10.17763/haer.62.1.146k5v980r703023
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.38.4.615
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.38.4.615
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020705
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020705
real about race in school (pp. 165–172). New York, NY: The

117. New
Press.
Williams, L. M., & Peguero, A. A. (2013). The impact of school
bullying
on racial/ethnic achievement. Race and Social Problems, 5, 296
–308.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12552-013-9105-y
Zimmerman, M. A., Israel, B. A., Schulz, A., & Checkoway, B.
(1992).
Further explorations in empowerment theory: An empirical
analysis of
psychological empowerment. American Journal of Community
Psychol-
ogy, 20, 707–727. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01312604
Zúñiga, X., Nagda, B. A., Chesler, M., & Cytron-Walker, A.
(2007).
Intergroup dialogue in higher education: Meaningful learning
about
social justice. ASHE Higher Education Report, 32, 1–128.
Received September 11, 2017
Revision received February 14, 2018
Accepted February 22, 2018 �
T
hi
s
do
cu
m

118. en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al

119. A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s

120. ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th

121. e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl

122. y.
63YOUTH SELF-EFFICACY ON DIVERSITY ISSUES
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12552-013-9105-y
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01312604Fostering Youth Self-
Efficacy to Address Transgender and Racial Diversity Issues:
The Role of Ga ...Gay–Straight Alliances as a School-Based
Youth SettingGSA Involvement: General Engagement and
Identity-Specific DiscussionsPerson-level conditional
effectsGroup-level conditional effectsFriendships With
Members of a Marginalized GroupSelf-ReflectionPresent
StudyMethodData Source and
ParticipantsMeasuresDemographicsSelf-reflectionGSA
engagement levelTransgender-related and race-related topic
discussionsTransgender and racial self-efficacyAnalytic
StrategyResultsMultilevel Model for Transgender-Related
EfficacyMultilevel Model for Race-Related
EfficacyDiscussionFactors Related to Self-Efficacy in
Addressing Transgender IssuesFactors Related to Self-Efficacy
in Addressing Racial IssuesLimitations, Strengths, and Future
DirectionsImplicationsReferences
Issues in Gender Diversity and Equality in the UK
A. Bennaceur
The Open University
Milton Keynes, UK
amel[email protected]
A. Cano
Aston University

123. Birmingham, UK
[email protected]
L. Georgieva
Heriot Watt University
Edinburgh, UK
[email protected]
M. Kiran
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
Berkeley, CA, USA
[email protected]
M. Salama
University of Birmingham
Birmingham, UK
[email protected]
P. Yadav
University of Cambridge
Cambridge, UK
[email protected]
ABSTRACT
There has been a significant increase in the number of
initiatives to
raise awareness of diversity-related challenges in technology
world-

124. wide within the past decade. Multiple organizations now
emphasize
a need for a close to 50%-50% male to female workforce
distribu-
tion. Example of proposed activities include introducing quotas
for women on board positions, promoting equal opportunities
for
employment in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering,
Math-
ematics) jobs and creating a woman-friendly work environment.
However, despite these efforts, the growth of number of women
working in STEM is still slow.
To understand the impact of various initiatives and how they
influence the work environment in universities in the UK, we
con-
ducted a survey to record responses from multiple women
groups,
so that we can identify the issues that they have been facing.
This
paper presents the insights drawn from the survey, along with
rec-
ommendations for STEM and computing fields in order to
increase

125. female numbers in their programs. The survey presents
qualitative
measures of initiatives addressing the gender gap in the UK.
The
results show a clear need for prominent role models, mentoring,
and promoting engagement of women in STEM subjects from an
early age.
KEYWORDS
gender equality, diversity, current trends
1 INTRODUCTION
In recent years, gender diversity and equality have been
emphasized
as essential to progress in technology [1, 18]. Diverse and
inclusive
skills have been identified as beneficial for effective problem
solv-
ing and leadership [12, 18]. In order to reduce stereotyping
across
technology sectors, traditionally male-dominated industries
have
been releasing statistical data on their workforce composition.
Poli-

126. cies targeting better proportional representation of women,
better
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this
work for personal or
classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are
not made or distributed
for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this
notice and the full citation
on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work
owned by others than ACM
must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy
otherwise, or republish,
to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior
specific permission and/or a
fee. Request permissions from [email protected]
GE’18, May 28, 2018, Gothenburg, Sweden
© 2018 Association for Computing Machinery.
ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-5738-8/18/05.. .$15.00
https://doi.org/10.1145/3195570.3195571
engagement of employers, and higher commitment to countering
discrimination are being introduced. These include for example,
board quotas, the UK Equality Act (2010), cultural and diversity
initiatives, equal opportunities policies, quotas to encourage
hiring
of more women in engineering. Steps towards encouraging
women
into STEM from an early age have also been taken [14]

127. Historic female role models (for example Ada Lovelace, Marie
Sklodowska-Curie) have inspired events, awards, and fellowship
schemes (See for example [4, 7]). Contemporary female role
mod-
els such as the Yahoo’s CEO Marissa Meyer and the Facebook’s
COO Sheryl Sandberg have introduced calls for more women-
only
awards, events and fellowships to bridge the gender gaps and
pro-
mote visibility of women in technology. We have witnessed an
explosion of focus groups, conferences and workshops
providing
advice and collaborative platforms for women to learn work-
force
building skills in order to successfully compete in male-
dominated
fields.
Figure 1 describes the landscape which is currently influencing
career choices and career progression of women in STEM.
Attitudes
and policies in markets, institutions, and households affect the
com-

128. paratively low representation of women in STEM. Support
groups
and tailored economic opportunities and opportunities for
engage-
ment have been introduced in order to optimize the involvement
of women and improve gender diversity.
Women comprise 40% of the global work force. In the engineer-
ing sector, less that 10% of the work force comprises of women
and
despite the numerous initiatives, the impact on numbers has
been
low. Addressing the gender gap and ensuring equal participation
and representation of women remains challenging in
engineering
and science. As a means to measure why the gap exists, studies
which measure the existence of implicit bias have been
conducted.
For example, a study examined attitudes across committees
hiring
for faculty positions [23]. In the study, two candidates (a man
and a
woman) with identical qualifications were presented to the

129. commit-
tees which were then asked whether they would hire the
candidate
or not. The results showed that there is a clear preference to
hiring
the male candidate. Further studies investigated how this bias
can
be countered by looking at how job adverts can be designed to
attract the highest-qualified workforce and the best fit for the
job
specification, regardless of the gender of the applicant [8].
However,
such efforts have also met criticism. Studies have identified
gender
5
2018 ACM/IEEE 1st International Workshop on Gender
Equality in Software Engineering
GE’18, May 28, 2018, Gothenburg, Sweden P. Yadav et al.
Figure 1: Landscape in STEM
bias as attributed to cultural differences and differences in self-
concept, placing an emphasis on the self-awareness and self-

130. image
of women as the most decisive factor [2, 6].
International studies indicate the need of promoting change of
attitudes from an early age for both boys and girls [15, 22]. In
the
UK, for example, only 20% of the total number of students who
study computer science at GCSE level are girls. The number
drops
to 16% at a degree level and beyond.
Studies have shown that a significant number of women leaves
engineering due to family issues, related to child-care or caring
responsibilities [13, 16, 17]. We argue that policies introduced
at
the government level, should help support family, hard work
and
ambition for nurturing young female talents in STEM. The drive
for women to push forward in STEM careers works two ways
both
from employers and the employee’s perspective and will take
time.
Awards and fellowships, exclusively for women can be
perceived

131. negatively, creating the impression that they are easier to
obtain,
based on gender and not on merit. In reality, for successful
STEM
careers, women need family support, hard work and ambition
and
they need to be recognized based on merit and not on gender.
1.1 Contributions and structure of the paper
In this paper, we, the ACM-women UK Chapter, present the
syn-
thesis of a survey which aimed to identify significant factors
that
affect the gender distribution in STEM.
We make the following contributions:
• We identify attitudes that need to change and propose recom-
mendations for ensuring diversity across the tech industry
and academia.
• We review the impact of selected women-promoting initia-
tives, which have been designed to encourage optimal gender
representation in STEM in the UK.
• We present statistics on perception of the importance of di-
versity for the success of the organization (in both academia

132. and industry).
• We analyze attitudes of men and women towards equality,
diversity, skill sets, and mentoring.
• We identify areas of improvement and propose targeted
solutions, based on the aggregated responses of our survey.
The paper is organized as follows. The methodology is pre-
sented in Section 2. In Section 3, we identify significant issues
affecting women in STEM. We also discuss related work on
sup-
porting women in STEM careers and discuss the importance of
equality, diversity, skill sets, and mentoring. We present our
recom-
mendations and most significant findings in Section 4. Our goal
was
to determine the extent of familiarity with gender awareness
initia-
tives in STEM and to compare the attitudes of women in STEM
to
the attitudes reported by alternative surveys for STEM [10, 18,
21].
2 METHODOLOGY
We distributed the survey electronically to organizations

133. engaged
in STEM. The survey consisted of twenty questions addressing
issues for women in STEM, among the most significant of
which
are diversity, role models and gender stereotypes. The age-
range of
the survey respondents was 20-50 years; 62% of the respondents
were female. Participants were predominantly from the UK
(80%),
the remaining 20 % were UK citizens, currently residing in
Europe
and USA. The participants had occupations in diverse fields,
repre-
sented as follows: Education 66%, Medicine 2%, IT and
Computer
Science 35%, comprising of undergraduate, postgraduate, PhD,
re-
search associates, and researchers, lecturers and senior
lecturers.
The proportion of distribution among the STEM fields was as
fol-
lows: Science 42%, Technology 57% and Engineering 38%. The
total

134. number of respondents to the survey was 87.
3 ISSUES FOR WOMEN IN STEM
Diversity in STEM subjects and the importance of mentoring
and
strong role models are recognized as integral to attracting more
women [10, 18, 19]. In this section, we assess the attitudes of
our
survey respondents to diversity, role models, and gender stereo-
types.
3.1 Diversity
Gender-diverse teams perform better financially, particularly
when
women occupy a significant proportion of top management po-
sitions [11]. The team dynamics and collegial relationships and
productivity are enhanced [10]. The need for diversity was
strongly
represented in our survey responses. 87% of the respondents
agreed
that diversity is important for a successful organization, 6%
were
neutral, and 7% identified diversity as unimportant.

135. Global diversity awareness surveys report similarly high per-
centage of the need for gathering, analysing, and sharing data in
order to remove bias and increase opportunity [3, 20]. Inclusion
has been identified as a top priority.
6
Issues in Gender Diversity and Equality in the UK GE’18, May
28, 2018, Gothenburg, Sweden
3.2 Role models
An absence of positive female role models and mentors is
identified
as the likely reason for women feeling uneasy in male
dominated
technology sectors [21]. Visible and effective role models are
needed
to support women so that they can thrive and are retained in
STEM
careers.
In our survey, we did not target gender similarity. We asked
respondents to assess their need for a mentor or role model, not
taking the gender of the mentor or role model into account. 53%

136. of
our respondents stated that positive role models already play an
important role in their career, 47% of the respondents were
positive
that suitably-selected influential role models have the capacity
to
change their perceptions towards a career in a STEM field. 29%
of
the respondents strongly agreed when asked whether they would
like to have a mentor, 32% agreed, and 18% indicated that they
are
uncertain whether having a mentor will be beneficial. This
clearly
shows that there is a need for a strong mentoring program and
for the presence of role models. Only a very small percentage of
the respondents indicated that they have already been allocated
a
mentor at their place of employment. 18 % were unsure whether
the
professional relationship that they have established with a
senior
colleague is identifiable as a mentor-mentee relationship and
61%

137. of the respondents indicated that they would have wanted to
have
a mentor at the beginning of their STEM career. A mentor was
not
perceived as necessary by 13% of the surveyed professionals.
In addition to the absence of suitable role models, the assumed
lack of comparable skills is another likely reason for women
"feeling
uneasy" in a male dominate fields. A worrying 19% of our
survey
respondents indicated that according to their own perception
there
is a difference in the skill sets that a male and a female
employee
will bring to technology fields with equal education (the
conviction
being that the male candidate will have better skills), and 39%
were
unsure.
0
5
10

138. 15
20
25
30
35
40
45
De
fin
ite
ly y
es
Pro
ba
bly
ye
s
Pro
ba
bly
no

139. t
De
fin
ite
ly n
ot
R
es
po
nd
en
ts
(
%
)
Figure 2: “As a woman, do you feel uneasy in a male-
dominated technology sector?"
3.3 Gender stereotypes
It is assumed that women who have chosen to study and subse-
quently engaged in a career in STEM subjects are more resistant
to gender stereotypes as they have overcome barriers in formal

140. educational environment and at home [5]. Nevertheless, women
in
STEM are acutely aware of the gender stereotypes from an early
age.
The development of the academic self-concept begins in infancy
and unfolds its most significant impact(s) after primary school.
Ex-
pectations based on gender and subsequent attributions of skills
and abilities do not use objective criteria. Frequently,
stereotypical
evaluations both at home and at school do not correspond to ac-
tual achievements but rather rely on limiting beliefs, gender
bias
and stereotypes (for example, the belief that girls are weaker in
mathematics) [5].
87% of our survey respondents agree that gender stereotypes,
including beliefs about the affinity of women to study, apply
them-
selves to and subsequently excel in STEM subjects do exist in
our
society. The respondents indicated that they needed to resist
these

141. stereotypes and not let them affect their career progression and
their career choice.
Limiting beliefs about the difference in technology-related skill
sets, persist. 63% of the respondents to our survey replied that
they do not think that men and women bring the same skill set
to an organization after identical education and training. 77% of
respondents agreed that they feel uncomfortable if either males
or
females exclusively dominate a workspace. This is an
interesting
result, indicating the need for diversity at top level management
positions. Attitudes to diversity will need to change. Our survey
indicated that the introduction of quotas is not a way forward.
When asked whether there is a need for gender-based quota 65%
of the respondents disagreed. 82% agreed that there is need for
promoting STEM and diversity in education.
0
5
10

142. 15
20
25
30
Str
on
gly
Di
sa
gre
e
Dis
ag
ree
Ne
utr
al
Ag
ree
Str
on
gly

143. Di
sa
gre
e
R
es
po
nd
en
ts
(
%
)
Figure 3: “Do stereotypes deter you from establishing a ca-
reer in STEM?"
3.4 Awareness of women-promoting initiatives
in the UK
Various support groups promoting women in science exist in the
UK,
e.g. Women in STEM, Girl Geeks, BCS-Women [9, 14, 24], see
also
7

144. GE’18, May 28, 2018, Gothenburg, Sweden P. Yadav et al.
Figure 4. They all encourage more innovation, entrepreneurship
and
entrepreneurship. Our survey aimed to identify how well-known
each of these initiatives is.
Since we distributed the survey with an explanatory note, ACM-
Women and its activities were identified as known to 80% of
the
respondents. This was closely followed by Athena Swan and
Grace
Hopper, BCS-Women and Women who code.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
AC

145. M
−W
At
he
na
S
wa
n
G
HC
BC
S−
W
om
en
W
om
en
w
ho
C
od
e

146. W
om
En
co
ur
ag
e
Sc
ie
nc
e:
It
is
a
G
irl
T
hi
ng
W
IS
E
ST
EM

147. et
te
s
W
ES
Fl
os
sie
G
ee
ke
tte
s
Sc
ie
nc
eG
rrl
Co
de
F
irs
t G
irl

148. Ro
bo
G
irl
s
W
SE
T
Co
de
ss
Sh
e+
+
W
iS
ET
W
ES
T
Te
ch

149. F
ut
ur
e
W
IC
AT
W
om
en
R
oc
k
Sc
ie
nc
e
G
irl
sg
ui
di
ng
G
EC

150. R
es
po
nd
en
ts
(
%
)
Figure 4: Initiative Awareness in the UK
There was some support for the introduction of new laws by the
government to promote the number of females (See Figure 5).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35

151. 40
45
50
Ne
ve
r
Oc
ca
sio
na
lly
Ve
ry
Of
ten
Alw
ay
s
R
es
po
nd

152. en
ts
(
%
)
Figure 5: “Should there be new laws introduced by the gov-
ernment to promote the number of females?"
4 RECOMMENDATIONS
STEM provides numerous opportunities for career engagement,
de-
velopment and progress for women. Based on the identified
issues,
our survey results support the following recommendations:
(1) Create programs to encourage more girls to study engineer-
ing from an early age.
(2) Develop mentoring programs for school students such as
having engineers to come into primary schools and do talks,
so that positive role model and mentors are introduced early
on.
(3) Promote visibility of women as role models through diverse

153. social media channels such as Facebook, Twitter, technology-
related forums, Youtube in a positive manner. Promote visi-
bility of women at science festivals and organized events for
school-age children.
(4) Build strong peer-support network for participants of events
and initiatives. Engage the participants in follow-up activi-
ties.
(5) Address barriers of isolation via mentoring in STEM. Pro-
mote successful women role models at the graduate level to
ensure that more women are retained in a career in STEM.
(6) New policies are needed to facilitate and allow women to
earn the respect of their peers and families and to encourage
the development of a positive self-concept of the woman
scientist.
With these recommendations in mind, our ACM-W professional
chapter (https://acmukwomen.acm.org) was established in 2014
to support women in pursuing computing related careers,
finding

154. like-minded colleagues, and learning new skills in the UK. We
hope
that others will join us in this endeavor.
REFERENCES
[1] W. Ben-Amar, M. Chang, and P. McIlkenny. 2017. Board
Gender Diversity and
Corporate Response to Sustainability Initiatives: Evidence from
the Carbon
Disclosure Project. Journal of Business Ethics 142 (2017). Issue
2.
[2] S. Bhatia and J. Amati. 2010. If These Women Can Do It, I
Can Do It, Too: Building
Women Engineering Leaders through Graduate Peer Mentoring.
(2010).
[3] J. Bourke, S. Garr, A. van Berkel, and J. Wong. 2017.
Diversity and inclusion: The
reality gap. (2017).
[4] European Commission. 2018. Individual Fellowships.
Research and Innovation.
https://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/about/individual
-fellowships_
en. (2018).
[5] B. Ertl, S. Luttenberger, and M. Paechter. 2017. The Impact
of Gender Stereo-
types on the Self-Concept of Female Students in STEM Subjects
with an Under-
Representation of Females. (2017).
[6] A. Familara. 2006. Gender and Development. (2006). Issue

155. 2.
[7] Ada Lovelace Festival. 2018. Connecting women in
computing and technology.
http://wiwo.konferenz.de/ada/en/. (2018).
[8] N. Fouad, M. Fitzpatrick, and J. P. Liu. 2011. Persistence of
Women in Engineering
Careers: A Qualitative study of Current and Former Female
Engineers. (2011).
[9] Girl Geeks. 2018. https://www.girlgeeks.uk/. (2018).
[10] C. Herring. 2009. Does diversity pay. American
Sociological Review 74 (2009).
Issue 2.
[11] S. Hoogendoorn, H. Oosterbeek, and M. van Praag. 2013.
The impact of gender
diversity on the performance of business teams: Evidence from
a field experiment.
Management Science 59 (2013). Issue 7.
[12] H. Huhman. 2012. STEM Fields And The Gender Gap:
Where Are The Women?
(2012).
[13] J. Hunt. 2010. Why Do Women Leave Science and
Engineering. NBER Working
Paper 15853 (2010).
[14] Women in STEM. 2018. http://www.womeninstem.co.uk/.
(2018).
[15] H. Jürges and K. Schneider. 2011. Why Young Boys
Stumble: Early Tracking,
Age and Gender Bias in the German School System. German

156. Economic Review.
(2011).
[16] C. Maertz and M. Campion. 2004. Profiles in Quitting:
Integrating Process and
Content Turnover Theory. Academy of Management Journal 47
(2004), 566–582.
[17] C. Mattis. 2005. Best Practices for Supporting Women
Engineers Career Devel-
opment in US Corporations. Edward Elgar. (2005).
[18] McKinsey and Company. 2014. Mckinsey Gender Diversity
Survey Results in
organisations. (2014).
[19] McKinsey and Company. 2015. The Power of Parity: How
Advancing Womenś
Equality Can Add $ 12 Trillion to Global Growth. New York.
(2015).
[20] PWC. 2017. Global Diversity and Inclusion Survey. (2017).
[21] C. Rayburn, F. Denmark, M. Reuder, and A. Austria. 2014.
A Handbook for Women
Mentors: Transcending barriers of Stereotype, Race and
Ethnicity. (2014).
[22] N. Schneeweis and M Zweimüller. 2014. Early Tracking
and the Misfortune of
Being Young. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics. (2014).
[23] C. M. Vogt. 2008. Faculty as a Critical Juncture in Student
Retention and Per-
formance in Engineering Programs. Journal of Engineering
Education 97 (2008).

157. 8
Issues in Gender Diversity and Equality in the UK GE’18, May
28, 2018, Gothenburg, Sweden
Issue 1.
[24] BCS Women. 2018. http://www.bcs.org/category/8630.
(2018).
9