Content uploaded by Richard A. Brandon-Friedman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Richard A. Brandon-Friedman on Nov 01, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjly20
Journal of LGBT Youth
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjly20
Does it get better? Exploring “it gets better” videos
using visual sociology
Richard A. Brandon-Friedman & Mx M. Killian Kinney
To cite this article: Richard A. Brandon-Friedman & Mx M. Killian Kinney (2021) Does it get
better? Exploring “it gets better” videos using visual sociology, Journal of LGBT Youth, 18:4,
421-437, DOI: 10.1080/19361653.2019.1691107
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2019.1691107
Published online: 22 Nov 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 115
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Does it get better? Exploring “it gets better”videos
using visual sociology
Richard A. Brandon-Friedman and Mx M. Killian Kinney
School of Social Work, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA
ABSTRACT
In 2010, the It Gets Better (IGB) project website was launched
to house videos containing messages of support for youth
who identify as sexual and/or gender minorities (SGMs).
Despite success as a virtual social movement, scholars have
suggested that the imagery portrayed may unintentionally
exclude those who are most marginalized and that the videos
often implore individuals to endure suffering now to gain
happiness later. Using visual sociology methodology, the vis-
ual messaging and demographics of IGB video producers
were examined and compared against criticisms of the pro-
ject. Imagery portrayed was consistent with common concerns
about exclusions of minorities, those who do not fit social
standards of physical attractiveness, and those who challenge
heteronormativity and adherence to gender norms. Despite
IGB videos’intentions to promote hope, the tales of struggle
and hardship relayed often resulted in the depiction of nega-
tive emotions. Expressions of confidence, defiance, and
empathy were visible, but the most prevalent emotion was
sadness. Negative visual presentations and exclusion of signifi-
cant demographics within the SGM community suggest IGB
videos project more complex visual signals and different mes-
saging than would be expected from videos designed to be
supportive. Professionals should be attuned to these concerns
when working with SGM youth.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 28 January 2018
Revised 31 October 2019
Accepted 5 November 2019
KEYWORDS
It Gets Better; visual
sociology; sexual
orientation; Social support;
youth lgbt <youth; suicide;
LGBTQ Media
Following the highly publicized suicides of two gay teens in September
2010, Dan Savage, the popular advice columnist, and his husband, Terry
Miller, posted a video on their YouTube channel meant to reassure sexual
and/or gender minority (SGM) youth that even if they are struggling at
this point in their lives, they have a positive future ahead of them. By mid-
October, the It Gets Better (IGB) website was launched with a mission to
“inspire hope for young people facing harassment …to create a personal
way for supporters everywhere to tell LGBT youth that, yes, it does indeed
CONTACT Richard A. Brandon-Friedman rifriedm@iupui.edu Indiana University School of Social Work,
Indiana University Purdue University at Indianapolis, 902 W. New York Street, ES 4138, Indianapolis, IN
46202, USA.
ß2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
JOURNAL OF LGBT YOUTH
2021, VOL. 18, NO. 4, 421–437
https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2019.1691107
get better”(It Gets Better, 2016). Soon many individuals, celebrities, politi-
cians, and employees of major corporations began creating support videos
of their own. Since inception, the IGB project has collected over 50,000
videos, has over 500,000 followers on social media, has released a book of
video transcripts, and has created an online docuseries featuring well-
known SGM figures talking about the struggles they faced earlier in life
and successes since then (It Gets Better, 2016).
Despite success as an online social movement, the IGB project has been
criticized. Most prominently, SGM individuals have openly questioned
whether life really does “get better.”Undoubtedly, great strides have been
made in societal acceptance of SGMs, increased legal recognition and pro-
tection for them, and improved accessibility of services geared to their
unique needs, but the high rates of substance use, psychosocial difficulties,
and trauma among adult SGMs indicate that the future may not be as posi-
tive for SGM youth as projected (Pl€
oderl & Tremblay, 2015). Many SGMs
will continue to suffer bullying, harassment, and discrimination throughout
their lives and suffer psychosocial consequences from these experiences
(Bostwick, Boyd, Hughes, West, & McCabe, 2014), leading Femmephane
(2010), Lim (2010), and Nyong’o (2010) to suggest that the IGB project
provides false hope by implying life will improve for all SGMs.
A separate line of criticism emphasized the sociodemographic character-
istics of the founders and questioned their messaging. Muller (2012) and
Nyong’o (2010) noted that Savage and Miller are white, wealthy, and
attractive, suggesting that these aspects of their lives may have assisted with
overcoming negative early experiences and colored their recollection and
retelling of their stories. Others have noted Savage and Miller’s message is
heavily neoliberalist, and emphasizes economic wealth, career stability,
being in a coupled relationship, having children, being cisgender, and
adhering to a heteronormative and assimilationist middle to upper-class liv-
ing (Grzanka & Mann, 2014; Puar, 2010). Such messaging is concerning, as
feelings of not fitting within normative media images of SGMs can increase
feelings of isolation for SGM youth (McInroy & Craig, 2017). Despite these
critiques, the social success of the IGB project seemingly indicates some
individuals must be positively identifying with the videos.
SGM youth well-being
During adolescence, youth begin developing their independent identities as
they navigate a transition from childhood to adult roles that requires
exploring their personal beliefs, values, desires, and goals. Peers and social
interactions take on a heightened meaning as youth seek increasing auton-
omy from family members and emphasize peer engagement. Further, youth
422 R. A. BRANDON-FRIEDMAN AND M. K. KINNEY
begin experimenting with romantic and sexual relationships, leading to an
increase in the salience of their sexual identities. Correspondingly, middle
to late adolescence is when many SGM youth begin the process of develop-
ing their SGM identities and revealing that identity to others
(Arg€
uello, 2018).
Bullying based on LGB-identification is widespread across life domains
and perpetrated by peers, family members, teachers, coaches, clergy, sup-
port staff, police, and community leaders (Mishna, Newman, Daley, &
Solomon, 2009). Within the educational environment, over half of SMG
youth have felt unsafe, almost three-quarters have been verbally har-
assed, and over one-third have been physically harassed (Kosciw,
Greytak, Zongrone, Clark, & Truong, 2018). Unsurprisingly, SGM youth
experience increased rates of mental health disorders, substance misuse,
deliberate self-harm, suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, isolation, hope-
lessness, and completed suicide than heterosexual peers (Pl€
oderl &
Tremblay, 2015).
Institutional support such as discussions about SGMs in curriculum and
supportive programing, integrated social opportunities, enhancement of
truth in being (the importance of being true to oneself in spite of cultural
negativity), familial support, and gay and ally community supports for
SGM youth are effective ways to combat the negative impacts of bullying
(Higa et al., 2014). Sexual identity development in SGM youth is particu-
larly enhanced from supports by other SGMs (Brandon-Friedman & Kim,
2016). Yet, social supports are lacking for many SGM youth, especially
those in more rural locations; who come from a more religious back-
ground; who come from a more traditional culture, ethnicity, or family;
and/or who are socially isolated for other reasons (Page, Lindahl, & Malik,
2013; Swank, Frost, & Fahs, 2012). For these SGM youth and many others,
the internet is often a primary resource for support, self-understanding,
and construction of self-identities (Craig & McInroy, 2014; Harper, Bruce,
Serrano, & Jamil, 2009).
Virtual social supports provide some benefits to youth experiencing psy-
chosocial distress (Van Uden-Kraan, Drossaert, Taal, Seydel, & van de
Laar, 2009). The most beneficial aspects seem to be the sense of community
they create and normalization of difficult experiences, both of which are
goals of the IGB project. Alternatively, online support groups can have iat-
rogenic effects when individuals experiencing similar difficulties interact
and amplify negative behaviors or when unmoderated groups exacerbate
negative emotions (Dishion & Tipsord, 2011). As a project consisting of
self-produced videos and messaging about difficult life experiences that are
not regulated by any central authority, the IGB project may be particularly
susceptible to such occurrences.
JOURNAL OF LGBT YOUTH 423
Research on the It Gets Better project
Examinations of the IGB project have questioned the degree to which video
producers attempt to challenge the status quo. Rattan and Ambady (2014)
and Gal, Shifman, and Kampf (2015) noted that many videos consist of life
narratives adhering to a message of self-elevation rather than seeking to
spur individuals toward advancing societal change. Further, Majkowski
(2011) criticized IGB video messaging for seeming to place the onus on
youth to improve their own lives rather than challenging the politicians,
celebrities, corporations, and well-to-do individuals who produce videos
with messages of waiting out difficult times.
Further, Grzanka and Mann (2014) suggested that producers’emphasis
on past struggles might simultaneously imply to viewers it is normal or
expected that they be suffering now, thereby counteracting the intended
effect. For them, not criticizing social ills suggests a sluggish complacency
and acceptance of the current norms instead of propelling individuals to
confront a sociocultural milieu that seemingly accepts being bullied as a
rite of passage for SGM youth. These concerns notwithstanding, the litera-
ture supports the adage that if individuals survive a difficult period in their
lives, they may feel more prepared to tackle difficult situations later in life
(Samuels & Pryce, 2008), suggesting this narrative may have benefits.
Asakura and Craig (2014) explored IGB videos’verbal messaging, high-
lighting the resiliency present in many youths’stories as they accentuated
improvements as they left the more familially- and educationally-prescribed
environment of adolescence for an adulthood that allowed for more self-
selection of social environments. While these experiences are certainly posi-
tive, this messaging also emphasizes a degree of privilege as it assumes
individuals have the means to change environments as they reach adult-
hood, which is not the case for everyone. Youth who may not have these
opportunities could start to believe progress is less attainable for them,
unintentionally creating a sense of helplessness.
The use of visual methodologies
Critical interpretations often focus on verbal texts, but more is communi-
cated when videos are viewed. Visual analysis seeks to uncover the mean-
ings communicated through visual signals without the noise of non-visual
communication (Cipriani & Del Re, 2012). Further, it can also explore how
individuals present, construct, and interpret their identities (Jensen Schau
& Gilly, 2003). Identification Theory (Kelman, 1961) suggests individuals
consider how well they match the individuals communicating with them
and are more likely to identify with messaging from those interpreted as
similar. Conversely, individuals are less inclined to relate to, and may even
424 R. A. BRANDON-FRIEDMAN AND M. K. KINNEY
feel increased distance from, those who appear different. This theory has
been further developed and capitalized upon in media advertising, as com-
panies manipulate models’gender presentations, races/ethnicities, and
wealth projections depending on the demographic they intend to primarily
reach (Sierra, Hyman, & Heiser, 2012). While demographic similarities are
only a piece of what increases salience and enhances the impact of messag-
ing, if Muller’s(2012) critiques of producers’presentations are warranted,
IGB videos could be isolating those that they seek to embrace.
Going further, scholars have noted that visual emotional cues not only
can affect the recipients’emotional responses but also how recipients inter-
pret verbal messaging (Stouten & De Cremer, 2009). Emotional expression
is particularly salient for support messaging as it can convey warmth and
empathy, whereas incongruence between verbal messaging and the visual
cues can cause confusion and difficulties in processing the message (Henry,
Block, Ciesla, McGowan, & Vozenilek, 2016). Ultimately, the projection
and reception of emotions may provide the means through which individu-
als understand, experience, and internalize others’situations (Benski &
Fisher, 2014).
Even though emotions portrayed by speakers are just as important as
verbal message, no research has systematically examined the visual messag-
ing communicated through IGB videos. Seeking to remedy this gap, this
study incorporated a new type of analysis to examine how the images pro-
jected within IGB videos serve to either enhance or disrupt producers’abil-
ity to enhance positivity within viewers’lives. The presumed needs of
viewers are high, but so are the possible repercussions of further alienation
if the imagery leads to further distantiation. Thus, the central questions of
this study were:
1. What demographics are visually represented among the producers of
IGB videos?
2. What emotions do the producers of IGB videos portray?
3. Do the emotions portrayed align with the intended messaging of the
IGB project?
Methodology
Visual content analysis translates visual imagery into quantitative data that
can be analyzed for frequencies, correlations, or trends (Rose, 2001). This
study followed Bell’s(2001) protocols for visual content analysis: Form
hypotheses; define variables explicitly, clearly, and quantifiably; determine
study procedures, including rater assignment and testing of inter-rater reli-
ability; collect results; run analyses; and analyze results by exploring
JOURNAL OF LGBT YOUTH 425
conglomerated data, interpreting meaning using sociological theories, and
comparing findings to previous research.
Videos on the IGB project’s website are assigned identification numbers
and at the time of review, there were 2730 videos posted on the IGB proj-
ect’s website. Using a random number generator, videos were randomly
selected and examined to ensure they met inclusionary criteria of: Being in
English, being self-produced, including only one individual who was
American, and the producer self-identifying as an SGM. Demographic limi-
tations were due to significant inconsistencies in interpretations of the
emotions of individuals from different cultural backgrounds than the video
raters during pilot testing. A sample size of 50 videos was predetermined
to ensure sufficient variability. Over 600 videos were checked against inclu-
sion criteria to obtain the sample with an independent individual listening
to verbal text to ensure that inclusionary criteria were met. Primary exclu-
sionary reasons were being corporate-produced, being created by an ally
who did not identify as an SGM, and the producer being from outside the
United States or speaking a language other than English.
Inventory items were selected based on Muller’s(2012) critiques of the
original IGB video, common critiques of SGM mainstream presentations,
and common media stereotypes of SGMs. Categorical items included pro-
ducer’s perceived demographics and socioeconomic status as well the vid-
eo’s framing. Socioeconomic status was informed by the subcategories of
clothing style, presence of clear clothing branding, and estimated clothing
cost (with considerations for accessories and manicuring of persons’
appearance). Discrepancies on categorical items were discussed and consen-
sus reached. Perceived gender and mannerisms were triangulated to iden-
tify the final category of gender conformity using crosstabs of perceived
gender by gender mannerisms. A scaled estimation of the physical attract-
iveness of the video producer focused on facial and bodily features based
on social norms of beauty. While physical beauty is certainly subjective,
research has indicated most people agree on who is attractive (Langlois
et al., 2000).
Emotional evaluation consisted of scaled scores on joy, shame, sadness,
confidence, defiance, empathy, and overall emotional expression. Emotions
reviewed were selected based on reviewers watching a sample of videos and
noting the emotions they saw displayed. Reviewer notes were compared to
determine the most prevalent emotions. A consensus-based rater reference
sheet including a definition of each emotional expression, example visual
cues for emotions items, and anchors for scaled items (e.g., for overall
expressiveness, a zero rating would be equivalent to a flat affect) was then
developed. A second sample of videos was tested using the codebook and
comparisons made between raters to examine the comprehensiveness of
426 R. A. BRANDON-FRIEDMAN AND M. K. KINNEY
prevalent emotional expressions and reliability of the codebook and edits
were made as needed. Edits were compared to final pilot sample of videos
before analysis of the actual sample began.
Three independent raters viewed each video simultaneously and recorded
their ratings on the Video Data Sheet produced for this study
(Appendix A). Videos were muted to limit distractions from the sounds or
judgments based upon the verbal message. After the first image appeared,
the video was paused so reviewers could complete the variables of initial
perceptions (gender, race/ethnicity, age, framing of video, socioeconomic
indicators, and attractiveness). Inter-rater reliability was assessed using
Interclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) for the continuous variables
(Hallgren, 2012) and Cohen’s kappa for categorical variables (Lombard,
Snyder-Duch, & Bracken, 2004). Analyses indicated appropriate reliability
(all ICC 0.799, p<.001; all j.846, p<.001).
Results
The sample featured more males (n¼27, 54.0%; Table 1) than females
(n¼16, 32.0%), with 14% (n¼7) presenting as gender neutral or nonbi-
nary. Participants appeared to primarily be in their 20s or 30s (n¼38,
76%), with 98% being of average weight (n¼49) and 50% an average build
(n¼25). Eighty-four percent of the sample appeared to be White (n¼42).
Ninety-eight percent were coded as coming from the lower middle class or
above (n¼49), with 28% in the upper middle class or upper class (n¼14).
Table 1. Frequencies.
Item n
a
% Item n
a
%
Gender Clothing Branding
Female 16 32 Clearly branded 1 2
Gender neutral 2 4 Not branded 49 98
Male 27 54 Race
Nonbinary 5 10 African American 2 4
Age Asian American 2 4
Teens 7 14 Latinx 3 6
20s 26 52 Multiracial 1 2
30s 12 24 White 42 84
40s 4 8 Socioeconomic status
50þ1 2 Lower Class 1 2
Framing Lower Middle Class 35 70
Shoulder and up 40 80 Upper Middle Class 13 26
Waist and up 10 20 Upper Class 1 2
Weight Mannerisms
Under avg weight 0 0 Female 16 32
Average 49 98 Male 19 38
Over avg weight 1 2 Mixed 13 26
Build Neutral 2 4
Slim 13 26 Gender conformity
Average 25 50 Conforming 38 76
Stocky 9 18 Nonconforming 4 8
Muscular 3 6 Mixed 8 16
a
n¼50.
JOURNAL OF LGBT YOUTH 427
Mannerisms had more variability than gender presentation, but there was a
high preponderance of conformity between gender presentation and man-
nerisms (n¼38, 76%).
The highest mean scores were for confidence (M¼7.49, SD ¼1.72,
Table 2), physical attractiveness (M¼7.13, SD ¼1.23), and overall
expressiveness (M ¼6.03, SD ¼1.54). The lowest mean emotional scores
were joy (M¼3.53, SD ¼2.36) and shame (M¼3.34, SD ¼2.24), while
the largest variations were in defiance (range ¼10), sadness (range ¼
9.33), shame (range ¼8.67), and empathy (range ¼8.67). Four items –
Overall Expressiveness, Sadness, Confidence, and Defiance –had at least
one individual that received the maximum score of ten, whereas three
items –Joy, Shame, and Defiance –had individuals that received the
lowest score of zero, indicating that the emotion was not demonstrated.
Discussion
Videos made for the IGB project are intended to provide emotional sup-
port to SGM youth and help them realize that even if they are struggling
currently their lives will improve. While certainly a noble cause and a suc-
cessful media movement, critics have suggested the imagery portrayed in
the videos could alienate the intended audience through a lack diversity,
emphasizing a heteronormative and neoliberal lifestyle with which many
youth may not identify, introducing a contagion effect that suggests suffer-
ing is appropriate for SGM youth, and giving youth misplaced hope that
their lives will inevitably get better for them when this may not be the real-
ity for them. This study examined the validity of these criticisms using vis-
ual analysis to look beyond the videos’verbal texts and into what the
imagery represents.
Results support Muller’s(2012) assertion that the majority of videos fol-
low the presentation style of Savage and Miller’s original video and the
interpretation that one of the IGB project’s goals is to create a sense of
shared community dialogue. The tight, close-up framing and direct conver-
sational imagery of the videos convey a sense of intimacy. This desire to
Table 2. Item descriptives.
a
Item M SD Min. Max. Range
Overall Expressiveness 6.03 1.54 2.00 10.00 8.00
Joy 3.53 2.36 0.00 8.33 8.33
Shame 3.34 2.24 0.00 8.67 8.67
Sadness 5.56 2.30 0.67 10.00 9.33
Confidence 7.49 1.72 1.67 10.00 8.33
Defiance 5.55 2.37 0.00 10.00 10.00
Empathy 5.21 2.30 0.33 9.00 8.67
Physical Attractiveness 7.13 1.23 4.67 9.33 4.67
a
n¼50.
428 R. A. BRANDON-FRIEDMAN AND M. K. KINNEY
relate directly to the viewers was also demonstrated through attempts at
direct eye contact with the viewer, pausing at times during the conversation
as if to let the message sink in or for the viewer respond, and the high lev-
els of empathy projected.
This emotional realness undoubtedly contributes to the IGB project’s
success as a social movement. Producers’emotional investment and their
willing to show love, fear, anger, pain, and hope in such a public manner
enhances the messages’impact and provides the sense of connection
important within supporting relationships. While some question the propri-
ety of individuals trying to use virtual support communities in place of
real-world supports, the internet can be an important conduit for support-
ive messaging (Van Uden-Kraan et al., 2009) and for adolescents to do
sexuality-related identity work (Harper et al., 2009). Further, many SGM
youth live in locations without in-person support groups or community
centers, are uncomfortable visiting such a place, or are not out and there-
fore unable to access family transportation, thus receiving messages of sup-
port in the privacy of their own home may be extremely valuable.
Producer demographics were generally proportional to United States
population data with the exception of the ethnic/racial makeup. Eighty-four
percent of the producers were perceived to be White, disproportionately
high higher than their 76.9% makeup within United States population (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2017). Individuals who identify as African American/Black
make up just over 13% of the United States population, whereas only 4%
of producers were perceived African American/Black. It is important to
note classification of producers’racial/ethnic background was based on vis-
ual presentation, not producers’self-identities. This may underestimate the
proportion of racial/ethnic minority producers, but viewers also interpret
their similarity or difference from producers and consequent sense of
inclusion or exclusion based on visual presentations so this imagery
is important.
Underrepresentation of racial/ethnic minorities may undermine the self-
esteem of individuals who identify as such or reduce their engagement with
the messaging (Behm-Morawitz & Ortiz, 2013; Sierra et al., 2012). These
negative effects may be compounded among SGM youth, as youth who
identify as both sexual and/or gender minorities and racial and/or ethnic
minorities already report less supportive everyday environments in general
and therefore may be most in need of supportive messaging (Frost, Meyer,
& Schwartz, 2016). Unfortunately, these findings indicate Harris’(2009)
concerns about the marginalization of the marginalized within SGM com-
munities may be further occurring.
Savage and Miller’s presentation has been criticized for projecting wealth
through designer labels, but most producers were judged to be from the
JOURNAL OF LGBT YOUTH 429
middle class and expressed themselves casually. While some of the clothing
worn may have been designer label despite not having clearly visible insig-
nia, that type of presentation would not correspond with that line of criti-
cism. Individuals generally consciously choose how to present themselves
when interacting with others online (Jensen Schau & Gilly, 2003), which
would seem to lead to people wearing more clearly branded clothing if
they intended to highlight that aspect of their image.
This socioeconomic presentation likely mirrors the demographics of
most YouTube users. People in lower socioeconomic classes are less likely
to have internet service in their home (Jansen, 2010), whereas those in the
upper class make up a smaller proportion of the population. While people
in lower socioeconomic classes may have access to a computer at a library
or public location or on mobile phones, these are often not conducive to
making a serious video intended to be shared publicly. Unfortunately, this
presentation could further serve to alienate those who may already feel
they do not fit within the middle to upper class image often portrayed
within media geared to SGMs. Thus, while criticism of the upper-class
imagery present in the original video may be reasonable for that specific
video, other self-produced videos are more socioeconomically-inclusive
even while excluding others.
Media is often criticized for presenting only those who are physically
attractive and either negatively portraying or excluding those who are
above average body weight or do not fit within socially constructed
beauty standards (Ata & Thompson, 2010). Video producers’attractive-
ness ratings skewed toward the high end, indicating video producers were
perceived to be more attractive than average individuals. Further, while
over two-thirds of the United States population over the age of 20 are
considered overweight or obese (National Center for Health Statistics,
2013), only one individual in this sample was coded as weighing
above average.
These findings are perhaps not surprising, given that people who are over
average body weight or consider themselves less attractive are more likely to be
reserved and self-conscious about their image and self-presentation (Strauss,
2000), making them less likely to create a video of themselves for public view-
ing. Concerns about physical appearance may be especially relevant to this
sample, as research has shown that gay men place a stronger emphasis on phys-
ical attractiveness than heterosexual men and therefore may have heightened
concerns about judgement of their physical presentation (Yean et al., 2013).
There may be some positivity to the producers’attractiveness given many view
attractive individuals as more trustworthy and are more attentive to what they
say (Langlois et al., 2000), possibly making their supportive messages more
meaningful. Yet the lack of representation of individuals who are over average
430 R. A. BRANDON-FRIEDMAN AND M. K. KINNEY
body weight may further exacerbate feelings of social isolation and alienation
from the SGM community.
Conformity to gender stereotypes is especially important when exploring
the lives of SGM individuals as genderqueer and nonbinary individuals
report that gender-rejecting physical expression and behaviors form a core
aspect of their gender identity (Kinney, 2018). Further, visibility and
acceptance of gender diversity is crucial as harmful bullying and social har-
assment often is based upon judgments of these characteristics (Toomey,
Ryan, Diaz, Card, & Russell, 2013). Yet, contrary to stereotyping that SGM
individuals exhibit a gender inversion of physical features, mannerisms,
and social presentation, over three quarters of the producers of the videos
were judged to be gender-conforming.
While reasons for this were not clear, they may be related to how indi-
viduals choose to self-present when placing themselves in front of the
public in a way that may lead to social judgements. Further, despite the
emotional pain many participants expressed, their high levels of self-confi-
dence may be attributable to experiencing comparatively less (though still
significant) social harassment, bullying, and exclusion than those who defy
conventional standards more fully. In other words, producers’degrees of
gender conformity may have contributed to reduced negative social interac-
tions, leading to the development of the level of self-confidence required to
engage in as risky a social endeavor as making and publicly posting a video
about such personal experiences.
Contradictorily, youth who are bullied the most and are at the most risk
are those who the IGB campaign is targeting. If youth who reject gender
norms are unable to identify with video producers, they may feel further
alienated and ostracized based on differences in their gender presentation.
As with other concerns about producer representation, this would directly
contradict the IGB project’s expressed purpose.
The marked incongruence between the presumed intended messaging
and emotional expression is noteworthy. Previous research has indicated
that when verbal and nonverbal messaging conflict, the nonverbal commu-
nication achieves primacy during affective communication (Grebelsky-
Lichtman, 2017). This suggests the high level of sadness present may be
counteracting the positivity of the messaging. Further, if the messages pro-
vided are tinged with sadness, the visual presentation of sadness will impact
the viewer more strongly. This accentuation of negativity lends credence to
concerns about negative emotional contagions and their possible harmful-
ness to viewers.
Alternatively, the high level of confidence, empathy, and defiance dis-
played could be beneficial to viewers. Such displays emphasize strength in
presentation and an ability to overcome. If viewers internalize this
JOURNAL OF LGBT YOUTH 431
messaging and focus on inner strength, they may learn to focus on positiv-
ity and defiance of the status quo, as happens within many SGM youths’
lives (McInroy & Craig, 2017). At the same time, such a display could be
counteractive. As noted in criticisms of the IGB narrative, emphasizing the
need to overcome can be seen as a tacit acceptance of the narrative of suf-
fering in the present in the hopes of finding a better future.
Ultimately, interpretation and internalization of media messaging is an
individualized experience, but professionals need to be attuned to what
may potentially be being portrayed in social presentations. Many SGM
youth feel alienated by media presentations of the SGM community, coun-
teracting the benefits suggested by increased representation (McInroy &
Craig, 2017). When working with SGM youth, attention must be paid to
the social messaging they are receiving so that the benefits can be empha-
sized and concerns mitigated. This may require helping the youth with
interpretation of what they are seeing and hearing or discussing the mes-
saging to ensure they are internalizing the positive aspects and using the
negative parts to build resiliency and defiance rather than increasing their
hopelessness. Further, this is a reminder that professionals need to remain
aware of youths’socioeconomic and familial situations and current envi-
ronments so that they do not become part of a system that may project
false reassurances of neoliberal success or social emancipation if such
experiences may be less likely for the youth in the nearer future. Hope for
a better future and working toward life improvements are essential aspects
of social service provision, but denying or minimizing current realities can
increase isolation and inspire hopelessness –the antithesis of what
is desired.
Several limitations of this study must be noted. First, while fifty videos
were rated, this is a small number compared to the advertised 50,000þvid-
eos created as part of the IGB project. Second, video selections were made
from videos posted directly on the IGB website. The website only contained
2,730 videos, making it a limited population from which the sample was
drawn. The analysis also specifically excluded videos produced by celebri-
ties and other public officials. The social capital of these well-known indi-
viduals may contribute to their messages having more of an impact on
viewers. Similarly, group and corporate videos were excluded, some of
which may have also had a larger impact based on who they represent.
Finally, the ratings were based only on visual analysis, which may have
diluted the impact of the messaging. Positive verbal messaging likely
increases the videos’positive emotional impact, even if they are partially
contradicted by the visuals presented. Future analysis of IGB videos should
consider both visual cues and verbal messaging, preferably with a compari-
son of the two.
432 R. A. BRANDON-FRIEDMAN AND M. K. KINNEY
Conclusion
This study sought to examine the self-presentation styles and visual mes-
saging present in a sample of IGB videos to assess if they visually portray
the optimistic hope (“it gets better”) intended and if they represent the
diversity within the SGM community. Findings supported critiques of
the videos’overall messaging and representation. Even without hearing the
video producers’verbal messages it was clear that many producers were
experiencing strong negative emotions and either telling very personal
stories or making personal appeals, but the negativity present in their
emotional displays may be hampering the effectiveness of the positive
messaging. Displaying more sadness than joy projects mixed messages to
viewers, while the extensive display of defiance, while arguably also
positive, indicates that adversity is inherently a part of SGMs’lives.
Despite the heightened levels of suicidality and suicide attempts among
racial and ethnic minority SGMs, videos portrayed few racial/ethnic minor-
ities. This lack of diversity and that a vast majority of the producers
appeared to be from the middle class, to be more physically attractive than
the average person, and to be largely gender-conforming lend credence to
concerns about the alienation of many SGM youth. Despite the IGB
project’s intention to reach and provide messages of support to all SGM
youth in need, the historical marginalization of the marginalized may still
be occurring.
Producers of IGB videos clearly believe strongly in the cause and are
willing to place themselves into a public arena in an attempt to build sup-
ports for those whom they will likely never meet. Yet, the benefits to the
entirety of the intended audiences are suspect, raising questions about the
effectiveness of the project. Research examining the congruency between
the visual and verbal messaging, further analyses of verbal messaging, eval-
uating how a diverse group of SGMs perceive IGB videos, and an examin-
ation of whether the messages of support are being properly conveyed to
viewers would be valuable next steps. False hope could be harmful to
SGM youth as can further alienation from intended supports. Considering
the on-going sociopolitical marginalization of the SGM community, the
intent of IGB videos to project social support is still important, but new
mechanisms of explicit support and better representation of diversity
are needed.
Notes on contributors
Richard A. Brandon-Friedman, PhD, LCSW, LCAC is an Assistant Professor in the
Indiana University School of Social Work and the Social Work Services Supervisor for the
Gender Health Clinic at Riley Hospital for Children at Indiana University Health. His
JOURNAL OF LGBT YOUTH 433
academic foci include sexual and gender identity development among youth, youth sexual
wellbeing, LGBTQ þidentity development, youth sexual behaviors, sexuality discourse
within social work, and addressing sexuality within the child welfare system. Richard cur-
rently serves as a member several executive boards for community agencies and academic
councils focused on serving sexual and/or gender minorities.
Mx M. Killian Kinney, MSW, LSW is a doctoral candidate and associate faculty member
in the Indiana University School of Social Work. They work as an intake specialist at the
Riley Adolescent Gender Health Clinic, designer/facilitator of a therapeutic group for non-
binary individuals, and trainer on LGBTQIAþ-affirming healthcare. Mx. Kinney’s disserta-
tion explores identity development, health disparities, risk and protective factors, and
resilience among gender-diverse persons. Their other research areas include interprofes-
sional education, peer mentoring in higher education, and scholarship of teaching
and learning.
ORCID
Richard A. Brandon-Friedman http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5976-488X
Mx M. Killian Kinney http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9168-9226
References
Arg€
uello, T. A. (2018). Identity development. In M. P. Denato (Ed.), Social work practice
with the LGBTQ community: The history of history, health, mental health, and policy
factors. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Asakura, K., Craig, S. L. (2014). It Gets Better”…but how? Exploring resilience develop-
ment in the accounts of LGBTQ adults. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social
Environment,24(3), 253–266. doi:10.1080/10911359.2013.808971
Ata, R. N., & Thompson, J. K. (2010). Weight bias in the media: A review of recent
research. Obesity Facts,3(1), 41–46. doi:10.1159/000276547
Behm-Morawitz, E., & Ortiz, M. (2013). Race, ethnicity, and the media. In K. E. Dill (Ed.),
The Oxford handbook of media psychology (pp. 252–266). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Bell, P. (2001). Content analysis of visual images. In T. Van Leeuwen & C. Jewitt (Eds.), The
handbook of visual analysis (pp. 10–34). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Benski, T., & Fisher, E. (2014). Introduction: Investigating emotions and the Internet. In T.
Benski & E. Fisher (Eds.), Internet and emotions. New York, NY: Routledge.
Bostwick, W. B., Boyd, C. J., Hughes, T. L., West, B. T., & McCabe, S. E. (2014).
Discrimination and mental health among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United
States. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,84(1), 35–45. doi:10.1037/h0098851
Brandon-Friedman, R. A., & Kim, H.-W. (2016). Using social support levels to predict sex-
ual identity development among college students who identify as a sexual minority.
Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services,28(4), 1–25. doi:10.1080/10538720.2016.1221784
Cipriani, R., & Del Re, E. C. (2012). Imagination and society: The role of visual sociology.
Cognitive Processing,13(S2), 455–463. doi:10.1007/s10339-012-0433-4
Craig, S. L., & McInroy, L. B. (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(1), 95–109. doi:10.1080/19359705.2013.777007
434 R. A. BRANDON-FRIEDMAN AND M. K. KINNEY
Dishion, T. J., & Tipsord, J. M. (2011). Peer contagion in child and adolescent social and
emotional development. Annual Review of Psychology,62(1), 189–214. doi:10.1146/
annurev.psych.093008.100412
Femmephane. (2010). Why I don’t like Dan Savage’s‘‘It Gets Better’’ project as a response
to bullying. Retrieved from http://tempcontretemps.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/why-i-
dont-like-dan-savages-it-gets-better-project-as-a-response-to-bullying/
Frost, D. M., Meyer, I. H., & Schwartz, S. (2016). Social support networks among diverse
sexual minority populations. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,86(1), 91–102. doi:10.
1037/ort0000117
Gal, N., Shifman, L., & Kampf, Z. (2015). It Gets Better”: Internet memes and the construction
of collective identity. New Media & Society,18(8), 1698–1714. doi:10.1177/1461444814568784
Grebelsky-Lichtman, T. (2017). Verbal versus nonverbal primacy: Children’s response to
parental incongruent communication. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,34(5),
636–661. doi:10.1177/0265407516651158
Grzanka, P. R., & Mann, E. S. (2014). Queer youth suicide and the psychopolitics of “It
Gets Better. Sexualities,17(4), 369–393. doi:10.1177/1363460713516785
Hallgren, K. A. (2012). Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: An over-
view and tutorial. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology,8(1), 23–34. doi:10.
20982/tqmp.08.1.p023
Harper, G. W., Bruce, D., Serrano, P., & Jamil, O. B. (2009). The role of the Internet in the
sexual identity development of gay and bisexual male adolescents. In P. Hammack &
B. J. Cohler (Eds.), The story of sexual identity: Narrative perspectives on the gay and les-
bian life course (pp. 297–326). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Harris, A. C. (2009). Marginalization by the marginalized: Race, homophobia, heterosexism,
and “the problem of the 21st century. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services,21(4),
430–448. doi:10.1080/10538720903163171
Henry, B. W., Block, D. E., Ciesla, J. R., McGowan, B. A., & Vozenilek, J. A. (2016).
Clinician behaviors in telehealth care delivery: A systematic review. Advances in Health
Sciences Education,22(4), 869–888. doi:10.1007/s10459-016-9717-2
Higa, D., Hoppe, M. J., Lindhorst, T., Mincer, S., Beadnell, B., Morrison, D. M., …
Mountz, S. (2014). Negative and positive factors associated with the well-being of lesbian,
gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQ) youth. Youth & Society,
46(5), 663–687. doi:10.1177/0044118X12449630
It Gets Better. (2016). It Gets Better. Retrieved from http://www.itgetsbetter.org/
Jansen, J. (2010). Use of the Internet in higher-income households. Washington, DC: Pew
Internet & American Life Project.
Jensen Schau, H., & Gilly, M. C. (2003). Are we what we post? Self-presentation in personal
web space. Journal of Consumer Research,30(3), 385–404. doi:10.1086/378616
Kelman, H. C. (1961). Process of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly,25(1), 57–78.
doi:10.1086/266996
Kinney, M. K. (2018). A resilience-based approach to exploring non-binary identities.
Oral presentation at the 22nd Annual Conference of the Society for Social Work and
Research, San Francisco, CA. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.34467.35365
Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Zongrone, A. D., Clark, C. M., & Truong, N. L. (2018). The
2017 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans-
gender, and queer youth in our nation’s schools. New York, NY: GLSEN.
Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M.
(2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review.
Psychological Bulletin,126(3), 390–423. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.3.390
JOURNAL OF LGBT YOUTH 435
Lim, e-B. (2010). No kid play jSocial Text. Retrieved from http://socialtextjournal.org/peri-
scope_article/no_kid_play/
Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2004). Practical resources for assessing
and reporting intercoder reliability in content analysis research projects. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242785900_Practical_Resources_for_Assessing_
and_Reporting_Intercoder_Reliability_in_Content_Analysis_Research_Projects
Majkowski, T. (2011). The “It Gets Better Campaign”: An unfortunate use of queer futurity.
Women & Performance: A Journal of Feminist Theory,21(1), 163–165. doi:10.1080/
0740770X.2011.563048
McInroy, L. B., & Craig, S. L. (2017). Perspectives of LGBTQ emerging adults on the depic-
tion and impact of LGBTQ media representation. Journal of Youth Studies,20(1), 32–46.
doi:10.1080/13676261.2016.1184243
Mishna, F., Newman, P. A., Daley, A., & Solomon, S. (2009). Bullying of lesbian and gay
youth: A qualitative investigation. British Journal of Social Work,39(8), 1598–1614. doi:
10.1093/bjsw/bcm148
Muller, A. (2012). Virtual communities and translation into physical reality in the ‘It Gets
Better’project. Journal of Media Practice,12(3), 269–277. doi:10.1386/jmpr.12.3.269_1
National Center for Health Statistics. (2013). Health, United States, 2012: With special fea-
ture on emergency care. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.
Nyong’o, T. (2010). School daze jBully Bloggers. Retrieved from https://bullybloggers.
wordpress.com/2010/09/30/school-daze/
Page, M. J., Lindahl, K. M., & Malik, N. M. (2013). The role of religion and stress in sexual
identity and mental health among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Journal of Research
on Adolescence,23(4), 665–677. doi:10.1111/jora.12025
Pl€
oderl, M., & Tremblay, P. (2015). Mental health of sexual minorities: A systematic review.
International Review of Psychiatry,27(5), 367–385. doi:10.3109/09540261.2015.1083949
Puar, J. (2010). In the wake of it gets better. The Guardian,16(11). Retrieved from https://
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/nov/16/wake-it-gets-better-campaign
Rattan, A., & Ambady, N. (2014). How “It Gets Better”: Effectively communicating support
to targets of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,40(5), 555–566. doi:10.
1177/0146167213519480
Rose, G. (2001). Content analysis: Counting what you (think you) see. In G. Rose (Ed.),
Visual methodologies: An introduction to the interpretation of visual materials
(pp. 54–68). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Samuels, G. M., & Pryce, J. M. (2008). What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”:
Survivalist self-reliance as resilience and risk among young adults aging out of foster
care. Children and Youth Services Review,30(10), 1198–1210. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.
2008.03.005
Sierra, J. J., Hyman, M. R., & Heiser, R. S. (2012). Ethnic identity in advertising: A review
and meta-analysis. Journal of Promotion Management,18(4), 489–513. doi:10.1080/
10496491.2012.715123
Stouten, J., & De Cremer, D. (2009). Seeing is believing”: The effects of facial expressions
of emotion and verbal communication in social dilemmas. Journal of Behavioral Decision
Making,23(3), 271–287.
Strauss, R. S. (2000). Childhood obesity and self-esteem. Pediatrics,105(1), e15. doi:10.
1542/peds.105.1.e15
Swank, E., Frost, D. M., & Fahs, B. (2012). Rural location and exposure to minority stress
among sexual minorities in the United States. Psychology and Sexuality,3(3), 226–243.
doi:10.1080/19419899.2012.700026
436 R. A. BRANDON-FRIEDMAN AND M. K. KINNEY
Toomey, R. B., Ryan, C., Diaz, R. M., Card, N. A., & Russell, S. T. (2013). Gender-noncon-
forming lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth: School victimization and young
adult psychosocial adjustment. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity,
1(S), 71–80. doi:10.1037/2329-0382.1.S.71
U.S. Census Bureau. (2017). U.S. Census Bureau quick facts: United States. Retrieved from
www.census.gob/quickfacta/fact/tableUS/PST045216
Van Uden-Kraan, C. F., Drossaert, C. H., Taal, E., Seydel, E. R., & van de Laar, M. A.
(2009). Participation in online patient support groups endorses patients’empowerment.
Patient Education and Counseling,74(1), 61–69.
Yean, C., Benau, E. M., Dakanalis, A., Hormes, J. M., Perone, J., & Timko, C. A. (2013).
The relationship of sex and sexual orientation to self-esteem, body shape satisfaction,
and eating disorder symptomatology. Frontiers in Psychology,4,1–11. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.
2013.00887
Appendix A
Producer Rating Sheet
Gender Male Female Gender neutral Nonbinary
Race White African-
American
Asian Mixed/Other
Ethnicity Latinx Not Latinx
Age Early teens Late teens Early 20s Late 20s Early 30s
Late 30s Early 40s Late 40s 50þ
Framing of Video Close-up
(Head/
Shoulders)
Waist and Up Full Body
Socioeconomic
Socioeconomic
status
Lower class Lower middle class Upper
middle class
Upper class
Clothing
Branding
Generic (not
clearly
branded)
Branded
Estimated
Clothing Cost
Under $100 $100-150 Over $150
Attractiveness
Physical Attractiveness (1–10; 5 is average): ________
Weight Under
average
weight
Average Over
average
weight
Build Slim Average Stocky Muscular
Emotions
Expressiveness Overall (0 as minimal –10 as Extremely Expressive) - _______
Joy Shame Sadness Confidence Defiance Empathy
Gender Conformity
Mannerisms Male Female Neutral Mixed
Gender
conformity
Gender
Conforming
Gender
Nonconforming
Neutral Mixed
JOURNAL OF LGBT YOUTH 437
