Advocacy Communication and Social Identity: An Exploration of Social Media Outreach

Abstract

Increasingly, advocacy organizations employ social networking sites as inexpensive and often effective ways to disseminate outreach messages. For groups working to reach lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) youth, social media provide key platforms for connecting with target audiences. While these young people increasingly utilize social media, little is known about how digital advocacy campaigns influence their sexual identity formation. This article applies concepts of social identity to examine how LGBTQ youth understand advocacy campaigns, how they perceive LGBTQ as a social category presented in campaigns, and what values they assign to LGBTQ group membership.

Full text

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjhm20
Journal of Homosexuality
ISSN: 0091-8369 (Print) 1540-3602 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjhm20
Advocacy Communication and Social Identity: An
Exploration of Social Media Outreach
Erica L. Ciszek
To cite this article: Erica L. Ciszek (2017) Advocacy Communication and Social Identity:
An Exploration of Social Media Outreach, Journal of Homosexuality, 64:14, 1993-2010, DOI:
10.1080/00918369.2017.1293402
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2017.1293402
Accepted author version posted online: 10
Feb 2017.
Published online: 21 Mar 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 727
View related articles
View Crossmark data

Advocacy Communication and Social Identity: An
Exploration of Social Media Outreach
Erica L. Ciszek, PhD
Jack J. Valenti School of Communication, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, USA
ABSTRACT
Increasingly, advocacy organizations employ social networking
sites as inexpensive and often effective ways to disseminate
outreach messages. For groups working to reach lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) youth, social media
provide key platforms for connecting with target audiences.
Although these young people increasingly utilize social media,
little is known about how digital advocacy campaigns influ-
ence their sexual identity formation. This article applies con-
cepts of social identity to examine how LGBTQ youth
understand advocacy campaigns, how they perceive LGBTQ
as a social category presented in campaigns, and what values
they assign to LGBTQ group membership.
KEYWORDS
Activism; advocacy
communication; digital
communication; identity;
LGBTQ; social identity; social
media
Over the past several decades, LGBTQ youth have been positioned as
“one of the most significant ‘at-risk’groups”(O’Connor, 1995,p.13),
resulting in targeted advocacy efforts. Today, advocacy efforts pertaining
to LGBTQ youth outreach span a variety of micro-social and macro-
social levels, from regional and local discussions about creating safe
schools at the K–12 level to public policy enactment at the state and
federal levels. Three distinct organizations define the contemporary U.S.
LGBTQ youth advocacy landscape: GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian, and
Straight Education Network), the Trevor Project, and the It Gets Better
Project. At the level of education, GLSEN addresses advocacy from a K–
12 educational perspective, “empowering student-led efforts”as well as
targeting state and federal legislation for implementation of policies
regarding safe schools (GLSEN, 2016). From a public health perspective,
the Trevor Project addresses bullying through suicide outreach and
prevention campaigns, as well as providing resources, counseling, and
a“sense of community”to LGBTQ young people (The Trevor Project,
2016). At the grassroots level, the It Gets Better Project has created a
global movement, curating and disseminating user-generated content,
engaging community, and building an international affiliate network.
CONTACT Erica L. Ciszek elciszek@central.uh.edu Jack J. Valenti School of Communication, University of
Houston, 101 Communication Bldg, Houston, TX 77204, USA.
JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY
2017, VOL. 64, NO. 14, 1993–2010
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2017.1293402
© 2017 Taylor & Francis

Increasingly, LGBTQ organizations use social media to communicate with
target publics through advocacy campaigns. Such campaigns foster a platform
for seeking and sharing information that allows users to interact with others who
may be geographically distant or widely dispersed, but who may share similar
identities and experiences. Although social media campaigns are increasingly
employed by advocacy organizations, very little is known about the role of
campaigns on LGBTQ youth’s identity formation. This study uses social identity
theory (SIT) to examine the relationship between advocacy campaigns and
identity among a sample of LGBTQ adolescents to interpret the role advocacy
campaigns play in sexual identity development.
Literature review
Social identity theory: A brief overview
Although it is beyond the scope of this article to provide a comprehensive
review of social identity theory (SIT; see Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Hogg &
Terry, 2000,2001; Tajfel & Turner, 1986), this section provides an overview
of concepts from SIT that are relevant to the inquiries that drive the present
research. Social identity is the part of an individual’s self-concept that derives
from knowledge of one’s membership of a social group (or groups) along
with the values and significance of that association (Morton & Duck, 2000).
One’s sense of self is determined by the importance and relevance placed on
group membership(s) to which one belongs (Turner & Oaks, 1986).
According to SIT, individuals establish social identities through association
with various groups (e.g., drama club) or social categories (e.g., theater geeks;
Edwards & Harwood, 2003).Themoreoneidentifieswithaspecificgroup,the
more one defines who one is in relation to one’s group membership (e.g., I am an
athlete) and seeks to fit in with the group (e.g., the football team). Importantly,
identification with a group and social category can happen without direct inter-
action (Mael & Ashforth, 1995; Pratt, 1998).
The Internet facilitates new avenues for the development of social identity
(Code & Zaparyniuk, 2010;Yee,2006). Extant research (see Bagozzi, Dholakia,
&Pearo,2007;Code&Zaparyniuk,2010;Dholakia,Bagozzi,&Pearo,2004;
Gabbiadini, Mari, & Volpato, 2013;Utz,2003) has suggested that members of an
online group may develop a social identity deriving from social connections that
individuals establish with other members, even if this link exists entirely online.
Research has suggested that digital media provide a sense of anonymity that may
strengthen the salience of a social identity, and through interaction with mediated
groups one may develop a strong and meaningful sense of identity (Postmes,
Spears, Sakhel, & De Groot, 2001), positioning digital spaces as well suited for
identity development (Correll, 1995; McKenna & Bargh, 1998;Mehra,Merkel,&
Bishop, 2004; Owens, 1998).
1994 E. L. CISZEK

LGBTQ identity and digital media
For many young people, media are primary sites of knowledge of LGBTQ
identity and are the first places where people who will come to identify as
LGBTQ first interact with LGBTQ people and issues (Gray, 2009). A study by
the Gay, Lesbian, & Straight Education Network (GLSEN) found LGBTQ youth
were five times as likely as non-LGBTQ youth to have searched online for
information on sexuality or sexual attraction (GLSEN, CiPHR, & CCRC,
2013), suggesting the Internet plays a central role in identity formation for
these young people. For many LGBTQ young people, the Internet is the primary
source of information about their emerging identities, and research has sug-
gested that they often use the Internet to connect with groups or organizations
that serve LGBTQ people (Dehaan, Kuper, Magee, Bigelow, & Mustanski, 2013).
Although LGBTQ youth experience a high level of harassment online on
the basis of their sexuality or gender identity (GLSEN, CiPHR, & CCRC,
2013), scholars have recognized the Internet as a safe space for social inter-
action, providing promising support for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people
(Drushel, 2010). New media present a promise to free LGBTQ young people
from the “shackles of geography, especially in rural and prejudiced places”
(Barnhurst, 2007, p. 2).
Virtual communities provide young queer people a space to be “active
makers and facilitators”where they can share experiences from their lives to
create “imagined social worlds”(Driver, 2007, p. 192). Despite recent devel-
opments in increased visibility of sexual and gender minorities, according to
Gross (2007, p. 267), most LGBTQ young people “still find themselves
isolated and vulnerable,”adding optimistically that for these teenagers the
Internet is “a godsend,”where “thousands are using computer networks to
declare their homosexuality, meet, and seek support.”
Through online media, LGBTQ youth access resources, explore identity,
find likeness, and digitally engage in coming out (Craig, Austin, & Mclnroy,
2014), with the Internet serving as a central site for identity development and
community formation (Driver, 2007; Gray, 2009). Research has suggested
that LGBTQ young people go online and seek out LGBTQ-related content to
socialize and to develop a sense of belonging (Crowley, 2010; Driver, 2005;
Laukkanen, 2007), often using emerging media to explore identities, beha-
viors, and lifestyles that are inaccessible offline (Hillier & Harrison, 2007;
Pascoe, 2011). The vast number of user-generated videos available about
coming out (Craig & McInroy, 2014) and experiences of transgender youth
(O’Neill, 2014) in new formats such as vlogging (Alexander & Losh, 2010)
suggest an increased accessibility of digital LGBTQ content. Digital media
provide LGBTQ young people with resources to connect with others like
them. LGBTQ youth perceive these online spaces as safe and productive,
providing experiences that may support one’s continuing construction of
JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY 1995

identities (Laukkanen, 2007), fostering a sense of community (Cserni &
Talmud, 2015).
Advocacy organizations see the Internet and social media as key spaces for
engaging with LGBTQ young people. The executive director of GLSEN, Eliza
Byard, noted: “As social media evolve, so must our efforts to serve LGBT
youth to ensure their safety, health and well-being”(Marra, 2013, para. 3).
Organizations believe social media enable them to accomplish organizational
and advocacy goals (Obar, Zube, & Lampe, 2012). Relatively little is known,
however, about how specific communication strategies, including campaigns
issued by advocacy organizations, affect social identity (Scott, 2007), parti-
cularly that of LGBTQ youth.
Advocacy communication
Advocacy is a central function of nonprofit organizations that is of increasing
scholarly interest (e.g., Child & Gronbjerg, 2007;Guo&Saxon,2014;LeRoux
&Goerdel,2009; Schmid, Bar, & Nirel, 2008;Suárez&Hwang,2008).
Advocacy gives voice to marginalized populations, promoting an active parti-
cipation in issues that affect their lives (Quarry & Ramirez, 2009), and provides
a platform where individuals and groups contest interpretations of problems
and proposed solutions (Wilkins, 2014). Through communication strategies
and tactics, nonprofit organizations issue campaigns to advance their missions
and to improve the lives of their constituencies (Guo, 2007;O’Connell, 1994).
Often, advocacy campaigns become a space for audiences to consume,
engage, and interact with content and other audience members (Ciszek,
2013). Recently, organizations have been taking to social media to efficiently
and inexpensively (Kietzmann, Hermkens, McCarthy, & Silvestre, 2011)
disseminate advocacy communication, and social media continue to change
how advocacy organizations connect with, educate, and mobilize their con-
stituents (Saxton, Niyirora, Guo, & Waters, 2015).
Within LGBTQ outreach efforts, advocacy organizations engage in social
media campaigns; however, little research has examined advocacy commu-
nication and social identity of LGBTQ young people. Therefore, the follow-
ing questions guide this research:
RQ1: How do participants interpret LGBTQ advocacy campaigns?
RQ2: How do participants perceive LGBTQ as a social category in advocacy
campaigns?
RQ3: Within the context of advocacy campaigns, what values do youth
assign to LGBTQ group membership?
1996 E. L. CISZEK

Method
Although SIT is traditionally a predictive theory based on causal relation-
ships, its concepts and ideas are helpful for an exploratory inquiry of
advocacy communication and youth identity formation. Unlike traditional
social identity research, this study used employed a qualitative approach.
The Internet is an ideal space to study youth. The architecture of the
Internet provides a hyper-textual, flexible, dialogic, interactive mode of
address that, as Livingstone (2007) noted, appeals to youth, “fitting their
informal, peer-oriented, anti-authority approach”and creating a space where
they feel empowered (p. 166). There is evidence that digital environments
play an important role in the lives of LGBTQ youth. Although only 18% of
LGBTQ youth say they participate very often or sometimes in an LGBTQ
group outside of school, 52% of LGBTQ youth say they participate very often
or sometimes in an online community that addresses issues facing LGBTQ
youth (HRC, 2012). Therefore, participants for this study were recruited
from online communities pertaining to youth and LGBTQ issues.
Prospective participants for this study were recruited online through organi-
zation-based and community-based social media sites.
The first social media platform used for recruitment was Facebook. With
approximately 1.79 billion active users monthly in 2016, Facebook is a
powerhouse within social media. It provides a platform for dissemination
of strategic communication to targeted groups. I reached out to page man-
agers at 10 LGBTQ community Facebook pages, including some of the most
popular community pages on Facebook for LGBTQ youth (e.g., Gay Teens)
and the Facebook pages of well-known direct-service LGBTQ youth advocacy
organizations (e.g., Ali Forney Center), asking them to distribute my survey
to followers.
The second platform that was used for recruitment was Reddit, a social
networking site in which registered community members can submit con-
tent. A unique feature of Reddit is the subreddit, a custom-made subforum in
which members focus on a very specific area of interest. The call for
participation was placed on five subreddits that function as community
spaces specific to LGBTQ and LGBTQ youth topics. Messages were sent to
the subreddit moderators, asking if they would be willing to promote the
survey. The moderator from “LGBTeens”was skeptical about my identity,
and before sharing my survey she asked me to verify my identity by sending
her a picture of myself holding up a sign with my Reddit username on it.
After my identity was verified by the moderators of the group, I was granted
permission to post my call for participation.
A descriptive questionnaire was used to identify individuals who were
willing to serve as informative research participants for in-depth interviews.
A total of 725 participants began the survey, with 349 complete responses,
JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY 1997

and 88 participants left their e-mail addresses to be contacted for an inter-
view. All 88 participants were sent a follow-up e-mail regarding the inter-
view, and out of those 88, 30 individuals responded to the first e-mail and
were sent an informed consent e-mail. In total, 24 participants followed
through with the interviews.
I obtained a rich sample of 24 LGBTQ youth ages 13 to 18 who varied in
racial and ethnic identity, socioeconomic class, age, geographical location
(urban, suburban, and rural), and disclosure (the degree to which individuals
are open about their sexuality and/or gender identity to others), in order to
give voice to marginalized individuals in an already marginalized population.
The goal was not to develop a representative sample but rather to gather rich
data and to obtain data saturation.
Scholars are increasingly employing virtual methods to investigate topics
that might be difficult in face-to-face-communication, such as suicide (Horne
& Wiggins, 2009), high-risk sexual behaviors (Chiasson et al., 2005), sexual
orientation and schooling (Atkinson & DePalma, 2008), and young people’s
sexuality (Subrahmanyam, Greenfield, & Tynes, 2004). Online qualitative
methods offer the chance to establish a less threatening and more open
type of interaction between adult researchers and adolescent participants
compared to face-to-face methods, particularly if the matter is sensitive or
stigmatized (Hessler et al., 2003). Researchers have argued that participants
are more open about sensitive subjects in virtual settings because increased
anonymity encourages more “honest”discussion (Atkinson & DePalma,
2008; Suzuki & Calzo, 2004).
I carried out chat-based interviews on three platforms: Facebook Chat,
Google Chat, and Skype Chat. Participants were allowed to select which
platform was most convenient and comfortable for them to use and could
suggest an alternative if none of the options were desirable. Conducting
interviews on Facebook Chat required “friending”participants on
Facebook. Several participants felt comfortable with this, but others preferred
more anonymous platforms such as Google Chat or Skype Chat. Google Chat
required participants to have a Google e-mail, and Skype Chat required
participants to have a Skype account. In situations where participants felt
most comfortable using Facebook Chat, I allowed participants to continue
being my “friend”and “defriend”me when they felt it was appropriate.
I conducted individual semistructured synchronous chat-based interviews
with youth respondents between June and September 2013. All human-
subjects protocols were followed, and Institutional Review Board (IRB)
approval was obtained prior to data collection. At the start of each interview,
I asked the participant to say a little about themselves. Table 1 includes the
terms participants used to describe themselves (note: names have been
changed to protect the privacy of participants). To build rapport with
1998 E. L. CISZEK

Table 1. List of LGBTQ youth participants’demographic information.
Name Age Grade
Gender
Identity
Sexual
Orientation Location
Race/
Ethnicity Disclosure
Atifa 16 12 Female Queer the South Black Not out
Austin 14 9 Transgender
(FtM)
Bisexual Central Texas Caucasian Out for a year
Connor 18 College
in the
fall
Male Gay Rural Alabama White Not out
Ashley 16 11 Female Lesbian Small-town
Tennessee
Caucasian Out to family and
school
Alex 16 11 Male Gay Southeastern
Iowa
N/A N/A
Heather 16 11 Female Lesbian New Orleans,
Williamsburg,
Michigan
White N/A
Diego 15 10 Male Gay Long Beach,
CA
Mexican,
first
generation
N/A
Michael 16 12 Male Gay Connecticut Hispanic Came out 10/2012
Kyle 15 10 Male Gay Central Illinois Caucasian
A.J. 15 10 Male Gay Suburbs of
Dallas, TX
N/A Out to everyone
but dad
Antzo 15 10 Male Gay Toronto,
Canada
Immigrant
from the
Philippines
Openly gay
Noah 18 College
in the
fall
Male Gay Southeastern
Connecticut
Mexican
Italian and
Native
American
Openly gay
Alejandro 16 11 Male Gay San Diego, CA Immigrated
from Mexico
8 years ago
Only out to two
people
Logan 16 11 Male Gay Pittsburgh, PA Caucasian N/A
Emily 13 8 Female Bisexual Northern
Illinois
half
Hispanic,
half
Caucasian
Out to close
friends and father
David 17 Male Gay Southern
Oregon, grew
up in Deep
South
White Just came out to
friends and family
living in the South
Ryan 15 10 Male Gay Northwest
Canada
Caucasian N/A
Hannah 14 9 Transgender Queer Suburban
Pennsylvania
White Only out as trans
to one person
Dan 16 11 Male Gay Texas Black and
White
N/A
Nick 17 12 Male Gay Long Island,
NY
English and
Hispanic
N/A
Jacob 15 10 Male Bisexual Alabama White N/A
Arturo 17 12 Male Gay Caracas,
Venezuela
Latino N/A
Billy 19 College
freshman
Male Gay New Jersey White N/A
Justin 14 9 Male Gay Indianapolis,
Indiana
White N/A
JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY 1999

participants, I provided information about myself, including my sexual
orientation (lesbian) and gender identity (queer).
Data were analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s(2006) six phases of thematic
analysis. First, to gain an understanding of context and perspective, I
searched for patterns and areas of interest that emerged from the transcripts.
I then generated initial codes, or provocative elements of the data, across the
data set. Third, I organized codes into possible themes and data into mean-
ingful groups. In the fourth phase, I generated a thematic map by reviewing
themes, comparing them to sections of coded data and the entire data set.
Then I defined and labeled themes, refining specifics. Last, I produced the
manuscript, highlighting examples and relating analysis to the research
questions and the literature review.
Findings
During analysis, codes coalesced into three dominant themes: virtual safe
haven, representations of LGBTQ, and critical of community.
Virtual safe haven
The first research question asked how participants interpret LGBTQ advo-
cacy campaigns. Advocacy organizations such as the Trevor Project and the
It Gets Better Project provide digital platforms for connecting with others
that share common experiences regarding sexuality or gender identity.
Although all participants noted that social media were central to their lives,
Ashley emphasized that advocacy campaigns, community Web sites, and
blogs—particularly digital platforms that bring people together to get
involved—resonate most. Advocacy campaigns help many participants feel
connected to a larger LGBTQ collective, suggesting isolation and fear of
being alone are fundamental components of their reality. Austin noted out-
reach efforts helped him realize he is not the only trans young person out
there, adding that online advocacy campaigns give young people like him the
courage to “stop hiding”who they are.
Although the Internet can be a dangerous space for queer young people,
for some participants, digital advocacy campaigns provide what Antzo called
a“lifeline.”In times of need, technology helps these young people connect
with others like them in virtual communities. Heather noted that advocacy
efforts made her feel not so alone in a closed-minded town where being gay
“is like painting a target on yourself.”Through social media sites such as
Facebook and Instagram, campaigns offer LGBTQ youth a cyber community
that may not exist in their real lives.
Campaigns provide a digital space where young people can seek out
stories and resources to explore sexual and gender identities, remaining
2000 E. L. CISZEK

fairly anonymous, while at the same time feeling connected to a larger
collective of real people like themselves. These findings are consistent with
extant research (Correll, 1995;McKenna&Bargh,1998; Mehra et al.,
2004;Owens,1998). Data suggest that the scale of the community does
not matter; what is important is knowing that someone, somewhere, is out
there.
Young LGBTQ people may seek out advocacy resources to alleviate the
stresses in their social environments, such as rejection from family or friends,
religious pressures, and perceived attitudes toward LGBTQ people. At the
time of the interview, Hannah was experimenting with the label transgender,
and she stated that videos from the It Gets Better Project give her a “boost”
so that “whatever”she “turns out to be,”she can be herself and be happy. For
Connor, advocacy campaigns offer salvation. Although at first he was terri-
fied about being gay, seeing messages from LGBTQ advocacy organizations
helped him feel the “burden had been lifted.”Diego lamented his own
coming-out process, describing his loss of confidence and alienation because
his father made him get rid of all his electronics. He recounted sneaking in to
his parents’room and grabbing his iPhone, then pretending to do homework
but having Facebook open in another window, turning to campaigns from
the Trevor Project as his “place for help.”Atifa believes smartphones and
laptops are so central because young people like herself can use these devices
to do research, watch videos from organizations, and talk to people online
while still having the option to keep their identity a secret to their families
and friends.
For some young people, social networks and advocacy campaigns are
primary outlets of support, whereas for others, the Internet supplements
their offline experiences. Some participants emphasized that although sup-
port from family and friends might be sparse in their day-to-day lives, virtual
spaces suggest there are others out there who care about them. Many
participants follow forums and organizations that share positive messages
and supportive content on social media. Alejandro noted that when he feels
sad or alone, he looks for consolation on the Internet, pointing to online
forums during times when he does not have support in his day-to-day life.
A handful of youth said that they were the only LGBTQ person they knew
in their class or school. David explained how social media posts from
organizations such as GLSEN help reinforce that he is not the only gay
person in the world. Campaigns situate LGBTQ identity as a way to build
community through unifying experiences with those who have come before,
either virtually or “IRL”(in real life), as one respondent stated. Several young
people noted that engaging with advocacy campaigns provided them a sense
of comfort, or a feeling of being at home, in places where home often felt
dangerous and foreign.
JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY 2001

Representations of LGBTQ
The second research question asked how participants perceive LGBTQ as a
social category in advocacy campaigns. Data suggest that campaigns decon-
struct stereotypes by providing more robust and complex representations of
LGBTQ people and issues, in contrast to the homogenization of LGBTQ they
perceived in the media. Logan noted that, until recently, television shows and
movies featured a “token gay guy”who talked with a lisp, had great fashion
sense, and was very melodramatic. Seeing these images in the media “was
very confusing”because he did not see himself that way. These insights
demonstrate the flattening of identity that can occur in mainstream media,
making it challenging for young people to identify as LGBTQ. Social media
campaigns provide a multiplicity of voices and perspectives of LGBTQ
people, capturing diversity and differences in race and ethnicity, geographical
locations, age, and socioeconomic status.
Youth recognized that many advocacy campaigns highlight how LGBTQ
people are not reducible to binaries or stereotypes and that one can be both
LGBTQ and successful; these identities are not mutually exclusive. When
asked about her favorite campaign, Atifa pointed to the It Gets Better Project
video contribution by Pixar Animation: “I think because it did a really good
job of sending the message that you can be really awesome and kickass at
something and not have your sexual orientation be the end-all be-all of your
identity/who you are as a person.”Nick admitted he enjoys messages that
show people who have grown up and “raised complete families,”providing
hope that he may have a family and achieve the American Dream. Alex
remarked on a time when he saw a campaign message come to life. He
recounted walking down a street while visiting Washington, DC, and spot-
ting two young men walking together, holding hands: “The fact that two
people are comfortable enough to do that, without it even being a big deal, is
pretty great.”He described this as a moment of self-recognition, seeing
himself in this couple and imagining a life of freedom, living out and proud.
Critical of community
The final research question asked what values youth assign to LGBTQ group
membership within the context of advocacy campaigns. Although many
participants were complimentary of campaigns and advocacy efforts, a few
respondents were critical of and disassociated themselves from contemporary
LGBTQ movements. Matt described LGBTQ politics as self-righteous and
preachy, while Nick noted that a confrontational “I’m here and I’m queer”
mentality applies an unwarranted stigma to the majority of the movement.
Several young people observed messages in advocacy campaigns that
contradict their everyday experiences. Justin pointed to a generation gap,
2002 E. L. CISZEK

noting it was difficult to hear messages from older LGBTQ people because
“people in their 40s or 50s seem way old,”and their experiences are dissim-
ilar from his because “even 20 or 30 years ago”the situation was different. A.
J. does not believe youth advocacy efforts relate directly to contemporary
political and social issues. He believes that gay marriage and bullying both
deal with the lives of LGBTQ people, “but they’re entirely separate ideas for
two different groups of people.”Different issues face different parts of
LGBTQ communities; lumping the community into one giant collective
ignores different facets of identity.
Although young people felt advocacy campaigns provided support and
community, overwhelmingly, most participants did not feel connected to a
larger LGBTQ social movement. These young people turn to advocacy
campaigns to aid in identity construction, not political engagement. Many
young people emphasized that sexuality and gender identity are only parts of
their identity. According to Atifa, what makes her human is her “various
intersecting identities”as “Black, poor, a woman, and identifying as queer.”
Participants pointed to a lack of messages and content that address their
multiple intersecting identities. Importantly, transgender participants noted
they felt advocacy campaigns rarely featured transgender perspectives.
Discussion
Findings suggest advocacy campaigns are part of the cultural milieu and
contribute to representations of sexual and gender minorities that young
people use to construct their understanding of what it means to be LGBTQ.
Advocacy campaigns are sites of aggregation and exchange among young
people where users can collect and pick content that fits their specific needs,
functioning as “information pools,”or communities of similar users (Cho,
Chen, & Chung, 2010; Kim, Zheng, & Gupta, 2011). For many participants,
advocacy campaigns provide a space for introspection, reflection, and self-
discovery as well as for connecting, however directly or indirectly, with other
LGBTQ people. Data demonstrate that such campaigns provide young people
a digital platform to hear positive messages and to connect with other
LGBTQ people that they do not necessarily get in their nonvirtual
experiences.
Findings suggest that these campaigns function as rich experiential infor-
mation environments that can serve as social sites of identity formation,
providing a repository of representations where young people learn about
themselves, their identities, and the identities of others. Advocacy campaigns
present young people with messages that function as tools to assess their
sexual desires, behaviors, emotional connections, and friendships both online
and offline. Such campaigns help young people to navigate their local
realities through content that can supplement their lived realities.
JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY 2003

Salience of LGBTQ identity varied among participants. Data suggest that
campaigns challenge stereotypes of LGBTQ in mainstream media, providing
more robust representations of LGBTQ that, for some participants, help to
establish LGBTQ as a salient identity. For others, LGBTQ was nonsalient,
proving difficult to constitute oneself as LGBTQ as a social category or as a
member of LGBTQ as a social group. Social stigma of LGBTQ prevails,
impacting the degree to which young people identify with LGBTQ as an
in-group and at times leading some young people to disidentify (Pratt, 2001)
with LGBTQ as a social identity. At times, as in during the coming-out
process, one’s sexual identity may be their most salient identity, and although
coming out is often a taxing part of identity formation (D’Augelli, 1996),
findings suggest that for some young people, advocacy campaigns can foster
a sense of belonging to an LGBTQ community, enhancing participants’
positive social identity. Importantly, young people have multiple intersecting
and competing identities that they are constantly forming and reforming.
The salience of sexual identity is circumstantial, and the degree to which
participants embraced or rejected LGBTQ as a social identity is partially
based on how they perceived LGBTQ people and issues. For some partici-
pants, advocacy campaigns provided representations that challenged their
perceptions of LGBTQ, making it a more salient identity; others rejected
advocacy campaigns because the identities presented in the messages were
not how they saw themselves.
Data from this study suggest advocacy campaigns can help LGBTQ youth
feel connected to a common-identity group when sexual orientation or
gender identity are salient in their lives, particularly when youth are strug-
gling to come out to themselves, their families, or their friends. One’s
relationship to common-identity groups (Schwämmlein & Wodzicki, 2012)
is based on the appeal of the group as a whole, and many LGBTQ youth in
this study accessed social media to connect with common-identity commu-
nities. For these young people, such LGBTQ common-identity communities
are based in social networks (e.g., Facebook, Tumblr, Reddit). Advocacy
campaigns that use social media create spaces for identity exploration by
providing users with content and a place to engage directly or indirectly with
others. Importantly, however, data demonstrate that community is not a
ubiquitous concept. Many young people in this research value connection
to a common-identity group of others like them, rather than valuing con-
nection to a larger LGBTQ movement that often feels distant and discon-
nected from their lived realities.
Several scholars have argued that positive social identity development of
LGBTQ youth is strengthened through a sense of belonging to an LGBTQ
community (e.g., McCallum & McLaren, 2011) or through practices asso-
ciated with participation in the LGBTQ community (e.g., Cox & Gallois,
1996; Gair, 2004; Halverson, 2005,2010; Herdt & Boxer, 1996), which is
2004 E. L. CISZEK

consistent with findings from this research. For many participants, the shared
characteristics and social categories of a minority sexuality or gender identity
and associated experiences foster an attachment with a perceived LGBTQ
community.
According to social identity theory, actually knowing other group mem-
bers is not a prerequisite to feeling connected to one’s common-identity
group. Data illustrate that such identification with a social group and social
category can occur without direct interaction (Mael & Ashforth, 1995; Pratt,
1998), and advocacy campaigns by way of digital technologies serve as a
platform for such connections to occur. One’s perception of sharing at least
one characteristic that connects all members is enough to cultivate a bond
(Tajfel & Turner, 1979,1986; Turner, 1985; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, &
Wetherell, 1987). Thus advocacy organizations employing social media cam-
paigns can work to reach young people through these platforms and can
plant the seeds of connection to a larger collective that may aid in identity
development.
Data suggest that practitioners developing advocacy campaigns should
create content that represents the experiences of the campaign’s target
audience. For example, in a youth outreach campaign, showcasing real
young people and messages written by these young people for a young
audience may be more effective than messages from adults. Additionally,
findings from this study suggest that campaigns addressing transgender
young people’s needs are lacking and that existing messaging does not
resonate with transgender participants. Such findings are troubling consider-
ing the unique medical and psychosocial support transgender youth require
(Grossman & D’Augelli, 2006). Advocacy organizations need to be well
informed about and responsive to the needs of all facets of LGBTQ identities.
This study provides a snapshot into the experiences and understandings
of LGBTQ young people in a particular moment of advocacy and digital
culture. It advances work on social media and identity by going beyond
survey-based methods to examine young people’s understandings of advo-
cacy efforts. Although this study provides an in-depth examination of
LGBTQ youth’s response to contemporary advocacy communication,
more research is needed to explore social media and social identity.
Findings from this research are not generalizable, and future research
should continue to examine the intersections of identity, advocacy, and
social media.
Conclusion
Historically, advocacy organizations have struggled to connect with LGBTQ
youth constituents; however, the ubiquitous nature of social media allows
organizations to speak directly to young people through digital campaigns.
JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY 2005

Recognizing the complexity of identity formation and its intersections with
social media, advocacy organizations can use social media as a tool to learn
about and from LGBTQ youth and to engage with these young people in
meaningful ways. Social media provide communicative opportunities to
reach previously unreachable audiences, and practitioners working with
hard-to-reach populations, such as LGBTQ youth, can recognize the oppor-
tunities social media afford. The use of social media by advocacy organiza-
tions can be beneficial to reach young people in the spaces they frequent with
the messages that resonate most with them and about the issues that are most
pressing to them. Importantly, however, scholars and advocates of LGBTQ
youth need to understand that digital media are part of a “broader social
terrain of experience”(Gray, 2014, p. 173) and that online and offline worlds
are greatly intertwined (Baym, 2010).
References
Alexander, J., & Losh, E. (2010). A YouTube of one’s own?: “Coming out”videos as rhetorical
action. In C. Pullen & M. Cooper (Eds.), LGBT identity and online new media (pp. 37–50).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of
Management Review,14,20–39.
Atkinson, E., & DePalma, R. E. (2008). Dangerous spaces: Constructing and contesting sexual
identities in an online discussion forum. Gender and Education,20, 183–194. doi:10.1080/
09540250701797192
Bagozzi, R. P., Dholakia, U. M., & Pearo, L. (2007). Antecedents and consequences of online
social interactions. Media Psychology,9,77–114. doi:10.1080/15213260709336804
Barnhurst, K. G. (2007). Visibility as paradox: Representation and simultaneous contrast. In
K. G. Barnhurst (Ed.), Media/queered: Visibility and its discontents (pp. 1–20). NewYork,
NY: Peter Lang.
Baym, N. K. (2010). Personal connections in the Digital Age. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology,3,77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Chiasson, M. A., Hirshfield, S., Humberstone, M., Difilippi, J., Koblin, B. A., & Remien, R. H.
(2005). Increased high risk sexual behavior after September 11 in men who have sex with
men: An Internet survey. Archives of Sexual Behavior,34, 527–535. doi:10.1007/s10508-
005-6278-5
Child, C. D., & Gronbjerg, K. A. (2007). Nonprofit advocacy organizations: Their character-
istics and activities. Social Science Quarterly,88, 259–281. doi:10.1111/j.1540-
6237.2007.00457.x
Cho, H., Chen, M., & Chung, S. (2010). Testing an integrative theoretical model of knowledge
sharing behavior in the context of Wikipedia. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology,61, 1198–1212.
Ciszek, E. (2013). LGBT advocacy in the digital age: Participatory media and the empower-
ment of an LGBT public. In N. T. Tindall & R. W. Waters (Eds.), Coming out of the closet:
Exploring LGBT issues in strategic communication with theory and research (pp. 207–218).
New York, NY: Peter Lang.
2006 E. L. CISZEK

Code, J., & Zaparyniuk, N. (2010). Social identities, group formation, and analysis of online
communities. In S. Dasgupta (Ed.), Social computing: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and
applications (pp. 1346–1361). New York, NY: IGI.
Correll, S. (1995). The ethnography of an electronic bar: The lesbian café. Journal of
Contemporary Ethnography,24, 270–298. doi:10.1177/089124195024003002
Cox, S., & Gallois, C. (1996). Gay and lesbian identity development: A social identity
perspective. Journal of Homosexuality,30,1–30. doi:10.1300/J082v30n04_01
Craig, S. L., Austin, A., & Mclnroy, L. B. (2014). School-based groups to support multiethnic
sexual minority youth resiliency: Preliminary effectiveness. Child and Adolescent Social
Work Journal,31,87–106. doi:10.1177/0267323107076768
Craig, S. L., & McInroy, L. (2014). You can form a part of yourself online: The influence of
new media on identity development and coming out for LGBTQ youth. Journal of Gay &
Lesbian Mental Health,18,95–109. doi:10.1080/19359705.2013.777007
Crowley, M. S. (2010). How r u???: Lesbian and bi-identified youth on MySpace. Journal of
Lesbian Studies,14,52–60. doi:10.1080/10894160903058881
Cserni, R. T., & Talmud, I. (2015). To know that you are not alone: The effect of Internet
usage on LGBT youth’s social capital. Communication and Information Technologies
Annual,9, 161–182.
D’Augelli, A. R. (1996). Enhancing the development of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths. In E.
D. Rothblum & L. A. Bond (Eds.), Preventing heterosexism and homophobia. London, UK:
Sage.
Dehaan, S., Kuper, L. E., Magee, J. C., Bigelow, L., & Mustanski, B. S. (2013). The interplay
between online and offline explorations of identity, relationships, and sex: A mixed-
methods study with LGBT youth. Journal of Sex Research,50, 421–434. doi:10.1080/
00224499.2012.661489
Dholakia, U. M., Bagozzi, R. P., & Pearo, L. (2004). A social influence model of consumer
participation in network and small group based virtual communities. International Journal
of Research in Marketing,21, 241–263. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2003.12.004
Driver, S. (2005). Out, creative and questioning: Reflexive self-representations in queer youth
homepages. Canadian Women Studies,24, 111–116.
Driver, S. (2007). Queer girls and popular culture: Reading, resisting, and creating media. New
York, NY: Peter Lang.
Drushel, B. E. (2010). Virtually supportive: Self-disclosure of minority sexualities through
online social networking sites. In C. Pullen & M. Cooper (Eds.), LGBT identity and online
new media (pp. 62–72). New York, NY: Routledge.
Edwards, C., & Harwood, J. (2003). Social identity in the classroom: An examination of age
identification between students and instructors. Communication Education,52,60–65.
doi:10.1080/03634520302463
Gabbiadini, A., Mari, S., & Volpato, C. (2013). Virtual users support forum: Do community
members really want to help you? Cyber Psychology, Behavior, and Social Networking,16,
285–292. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0412
Gair, S. (2004). It takes a community. Journal of Lesbian Studies,8,45–56. doi:10.1300/
J155v08n01_03
GLSEN. (2016). Who we are. Retrieved from http://www.glsen.org/learn/about-glsen
GLSEN, CiPHR, & CCRC. (2013). Out online: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender youth on the Internet. New York, NY: GLSEN.
Gray, M. (2014). Negotiating identities/queering desires: Coming out online and remediation
of the coming-out story. In A. Poletti & J. Rak (Eds.), Identity technologies: Constructing the
self online (pp. 167–197). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY 2007

Gray, M. L. (2009). Out in the country: Youth, media, and queer visibility in rural America.
New York, NY: New York University Press.
Gross, L. (2007). Foreword. In K. O’Riordan & D. J. Phillips (Eds.), Queer online: Media,
technology, and sexuality (pp. vii–x). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Grossman, A. H., & D’Augelli, A. R. (2006). Transgender youth: Invisible and vulnerable.
Journal of Homosexuality,51(1), 111–128. doi:10.1300/J082v51n01_06
Guo, C. (2007). When government becomes the principal philanthropist: The effect of public
funding on patterns of nonprofit governance. Public Administration Review,67, 456–471.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00729.x
Guo, C., & Saxton, G. D. (2014). Tweeting social change: How social media are changing
nonprofit advocacy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,43(1), 57–79.
Halverson, E. R. (2005). InsideOut: Facilitating gay youth identity development through a
performance-based youth organization. Identity,5,67–90. doi:10.1207/s1532706xid0501_5
Halverson, E. R. (2010). The dramaturgical process as a mechanism for identity development
of LGBTQ youth and its relationship to detypification. Journal of Adolescent Research,25,
635–668. doi:10.1177/0743558409357237
Herdt, G., & Boxer, A. (1996). Children of horizons: How gay and lesbian teens are leading a
new way out of the closet (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Beacon.
Hessler, R. M., Downing, J., Beltz, C., Pelliccio, A., Powell, M., & Vale, W. (2003). Qualitative
research on adolescent risk using e-mail: A methodological assessment. Qualitative
Sociology,26, 111–124. doi:10.1023/A:1021460205328
Hillier, L., & Harrison, L. (2007). Building realities less limited than their own: Young people
practising same-sex attraction on the Internet. Sexualities,10,82–100. doi:10.1177/
1363460707072956
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in
organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review,25, 121–140.
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2001). Social identity theory and organizational processes. In M.
A. Hogg & D. J. Terry (Eds.), Social identity processes in organizational contexts (pp. 1–12).
Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Horne, J., & Wiggins, S. (2009). Doing being “on the edge”:Managing the dilemma of being
authentically suicidal in an online forum. Sociology of Health & Illness,31, 170–184.
doi:10.1111/shil.2009.31.issue-2
HRC. (2012). Growing up LGBT in America. HRC Youth Survey Report Key Findings.
Retrieved from http://www.hrc.org/youth/about-the-survey-report#.U5W4UC-3zcQ
Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., & Silvestre, B. S. (2011). Social media? Get
serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business Horizons,
54, 241–251. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2011.01.005
Kim, H., Zheng, J. R., & Gupta, S. (2011). Examining knowledge contribution from the
perspective of an online identity in blogging communities. Computers in Human Behavior,
27, 1760–1770. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.03.003
Laukkanen, M. (2007). Young queers online: The limits and possibilities of non- heterosexual
self-representation in online conversations. In K. O’Riordan & D. J. Phillips (Eds.), Queer
online: Media, technology & sexuality (pp. 81–100). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
LeRoux, K., & Goerdel, H. T. (2009). Political advocacy by nonprofit organizations: A
strategic management explanation. Public Performance & Management Review,32, 514–
536. doi:10.2753/PMR1530-9576320402
Livingstone, S. (2007). The challenge of engaging youth online: Contrasting producers’and
teenagers’interpretations of websites. European Journal of Communication,22, 165–184.
doi:10.1177/0267323107076768
2008 E. L. CISZEK

Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1995). Loyal from day one: Biodata, organizational identification,
and turnover among newcomers. Personnel Psychology,48, 309–333. doi:10.1111/
peps.1995.48.issue-2
Marra, A. (2013, July 10). GLSEN’s“Out online: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender youth”First national report to look in-depth at LGBT youth experience online.
Retrieved from http://glsen.org/press/study-finds-lgbt-youth-face-greater-harassment-
online
McCallum, C., & McLaren, S. (2011). Sense of belonging and depressive symptoms among
GLB adolescents. Journal of Homosexuality,58,83–96. doi:10.1080/
00918369.2011.533629
McKenna, K., & Bargh, J. (1998). Coming out in the age of the Internet: Identity “demargi-
nalization”through virtual group participation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,75, 681–694. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.681
Mehra, B., Merkel, C., & Bishop, A. P. (2004). The Internet for empowerment of minority
and marginalized users. New Media & Society,6, 781–802. doi:10.1177/146144804047513
Morton, T. A., & Duck, J. M. (2000). Social identity and media dependency in the gay
community: The prediction of safe sex attitudes. Communication Research,27, 438–460.
doi:10.1177/009365000027004002
O’Connell, B. (1994). People power: Service, advocacy, empowerment. New York, NY:
Foundation Center.
O’Connor, A. (1995). Breaking the silence: Writing about gay, lesbian, and bisexual teenagers.
In G. Unks (Ed.), The gay teen: Educational practice and theory for lesbian, gay, and
bisexual adolescents (pp. 13–15). New York, NY: Routledge.
O’Neill, M. (2014). Transgender youth and YouTube videos: Self-representation and five
identifiable trans youth narratives. In C. Pullen (Ed.), Queer youth and media cultures (pp.
34–45). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Obar, J. A., Zube, P., & Lampe, C. (2012). Advocacy 2.0: An analysis of how advocacy groups
in the United States perceive and use social media as tools for facilitating civic engagement
and collective action. Journal of Information Policy,2,1–25. doi:10.5325/
jinfopoli.2.2012.0001
Owens, R. (1998). Queer kids: The challenges and promises of gay, lesbian and bisexual youth.
New York, NY: Haworth.
Pascoe, C. J. (2011). Resource and risk: Youth sexuality and new media use. Sexuality
Research and Social Policy,8,5–17. doi:10.1007/s13178-011-0042-5
Postmes, T., Spears, R., Sakhel, K., & De Groot, D. (2001). Social influence in computer
mediated communication: The effects of anonymity on group behavior. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin,27, 1243–1254. doi:10.1177/01461672012710001
Pratt, M. G. (1998). To be or not to be? Central questions in organizational identification. In
D. A. Whetten & P. C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations: Building theory through
conversations (pp. 171–207). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pratt, M. G. (2001). Social identity dynamics in modern organizations: An organizational psychol-
ogy/organizational behavior perspective. In M. A. Hogg & D. J. Terry (Eds.), Social identity
processes in organizational contexts (pp. 13–30). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Quarry, W., & Ramirez, R. (2009). Communication for another development: Listening before
telling. London, UK: Zed Books.
Saxton, G. D., Niyirora, J. N., Guo, C., & Waters, R. D. (2015). #AdvocatingForChange: The
strategic use of hashtags in social media advocacy. Advances in Social Work,16, 154–169.
Schmid, H., Bar, M., & Nirel, R. (2008). Advocacy activities in nonprofit human service
organizations: Implications for policy. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly,37, 581–
602. doi:10.1177/0899764007312666
JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY 2009

Schwämmlein, E., & Wodzicki, K. (2012). What to tell about me?: Self-presentation in online
communities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,17, 387–407. doi:10.1111/
j.1083-6101.2012.01582.x
Scott, C. R. (2007). Communication and social identity theory: Existing and potential con-
nections in organizational identification research. Communication Studies,58, 123–138.
doi:10.1080/10510970701341063
Suárez, D. F., & Hwang, H. (2008). Civic engagement and nonprofit lobbying in California,
1998–2003. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly,37,93–112. doi:10.1177/
0899764007304467
Subrahmanyam, K., Greenfield, P. M., & Tynes, B. (2004). Constructing sexuality and identity
in an online teen chat room. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,25, 651–666.
doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2004.09.007
Suzuki, L. K., & Calzo, J. P. (2004). The search for peer advice in cyberspace: An examination
of online teen bulletin boards about health and sexuality. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology,25, 685–698. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2004.09.002
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G.
Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47).
Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Tajfel, H. T., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In W.
G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL:
Nelson.
The Trevor Project. (2016). About The Trevor Project. Retrieved from http://www.thetrevor
project.org/section/about
Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of
group behavior. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes: Theory and research (vol.
2, pp. 77–122). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987).
Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory (pp. 1255–1280). Oxford, UK:
Blackwell.
Turner, J. C., & Oaks, P. J. (1986). The significance of the social identity concept for social
psychology with reference to individualism, interactionism, and social influence. British
Journal of Social Psychology,25, 237–252. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1986.tb00732.x
Utz, S. (2003). Social identification and interpersonal attraction in MUDs. Swiss Journal of
Psychology,62,91–101. doi:10.1024//1421-0185.62.2.91
Wilkins, K. (2014). Advocacy communication. In K. G. Wilkins, T. Tufte, & R. Obregon
(Eds.), The handbook of development communication and social change (pp. 57–71). New
York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Yee, N. (2006). The psychology of MMORPGs: Emotional investment, motivations, relation-
ship formation, and problematic usage. In R. Schroeder & A. Axelsson (Eds.), Avatars at
work and play: Collaboration and interaction in shared virtual environments (pp. 187–207).
London, UK: Springer.
2010 E. L. CISZEK