Smoking Among LGBT Teens

One in three LGBT teens smoke, a rate that is 50% higher than other youths. The LGBT community generally faces more social stigma with additional stress on top of a regular heterosexual lifestyle, creating the need for smoking as a coping mechanism. A common myth is that smoking suppresses stress; however, it, in fact, contributes to heightened anxiety issues.

In the 1990s, a well-known tobacco company targeted the LGBT community with a marketing plan dubbed “Project SCUM.” This scheme was designed to lure in the LGBT community by centering advertisements around the characteristics of rebellious, nontraditional behavior, leading the community to believe that they were being understood due to their orientation (CSULB).

Our writers can help you with any type of essay. For any subject

Order now

While we as Americans have grown into a more openly accepting society of the LGBT community, it goes without saying that the community still faces many challenges. Unfortunately, for the extremely high percentage of LGBT members who smoke, there seems to be a higher likelihood that they are less likely to quit smoking. Although gay marriage was legalized in America in 2015, the negative associations with the LGBT community have not fully diminished, and for some, it has even worsened.

The social acceptance of LGBT lifestyles continues to be a persistent struggle. The added stress of the process of “coming out” to loved ones can be a significant source of stress for an individual, leading to a considerable psychological impact. All of these factors contribute to widespread stress in the lives of individuals in the LGBT community, making smoking – seen as a stress suppressant – an appealing coping mechanism despite it only providing superficial relief.

In a homosexual teen’s day-to-day life, constant assessments are made about situations and the level of safety to be themselves. As Livingston notes, “Experiences of adversity, referred to as minority stressors, are associated with higher rates of substance use among sexual minority individuals.” Many LGBT people discuss the powerful, long-lasting impact of a negative experience, and the ways they’ve coped with those feelings. Approximately 35.5% of LGBT-identified individuals reportedly turn towards some form of addictive behavior, such as tobacco, as a coping mechanism.

Depression and anxiety across the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community have always been worryingly high. This is largely due to frequent exposure to discrimination, much like most minority groups. A study done in Boston stated that “Experiencing one or more discrimination experiences was associated with a 299% greater odds of using nicotine” (Livingston). It is known that coming out at younger ages increases mental health risks. Primarily, the younger one comes out, the more factors they are likely to face, especially now that gay marriage is legal, prompting individuals in the LGBT community to come out at all ages.

Mental health and tobacco usage have been shown to directly correlate, as it provides a form of relief one may be lacking due to the negative associations they face as a person. Outside stress is not the only factor, there is also the factor of internalized struggle. It is commonly overlooked what strength a teen as young as fourteen has to have in order to come out, and if this goes negatively for them, it creates internalized and external issues. All the more reason why the reach for a substance like tobacco becomes more appealing.

Tobacco companies tend to market at highly attended LGBT youth events such as pride parades and LGBT advocacy marches. The smoking rates of LGBT teens are just as high as those of adults, with the percentage being just under 50% for gay men and women. Tobacco companies have also sponsored pride events and donated money to LGBT HIV/AIDS organizations, misleading you into thinking they are an ally.

The industry openly targets the LGBT community by placing ads in LGBT-populated areas. These ads twist cherished LGBT values like freedom, choice, and pride, manipulating them to make smoking seem appealing. Given that this false sense of support was created throughout the community, the lack of knowledge from individuals about this matter creates a dangerous environment. The tobacco industry has targeted the LGBT community since 1991, when a campaign featuring famous homosexual individuals smoking cigarettes positioned them as role models for younger LGBT youths. Depending on where you are raised, the level of support can vary greatly.

The idea tobacco companies market is “solidarity”, which is a significant attraction for potentially unsupported or closeted LGBT youths who may find relief in the form of nicotine. Other ad campaigns have targeted the community more secretly by labeling their ads with phrases like “freedom to choose,” “freedom to marry,” “freedom to inhale.” Tobacco companies are known for identifying major predictors of tobacco use and targeting those groups with the sole goal of profit. LGBT teens have ample reason to rebel against a society that ostracizes them. “A cigarette is not a delivery system for nicotine. It’s a delivery system for rebellion” (Livingston).

Apart from the rebellious culture homosexual teens feel, there is another attraction to nicotine centered around disrespect and counterculture towards conservative norms. LGBT youths are known for speaking out about the lack of support from their community, as they are more than frequently labeled as abnormal humans in these conservative cultures. The tobacco industry has directly contributed to many young LGBT youths’ experiences of oppression. For big tobacco companies, the LGBT teen is simply another convenient group of consumers.

Despite existing protections, the LGBT community faces disturbing rates of healthcare discrimination. Recently, there has been a push towards addressing the alarming numbers in the LGBT youth community surrounding nicotine use, but even with all its efforts, numbers are still high. Even though there has been a spike in younger individuals coming out and transitioning within the community, many individuals still remain closeted. For those teens who are not out, the idea of being outed is far more terrifying. Anti-smoking advocates have devoted their efforts to providing plenty of resources and hotlines for teens, but this assistance is not specific to the LGBT community.

Given that the forms of cessation are not specific to the community, LGBT teens are often afraid to reach out for fear of being outed. In the age group of 14-19, more than half of these teens are still not out, which implies that half of the community is missing the opportunity to quit smoking. LGBT youths often face greater challenges due to their young age, most likely still being in non-secondary education, and living at home under parental guidance.

Although anti-smoking campaigns have recently increased with television ads and print media, there is no guarantee an individual will receive these forms of help without them going unnoticed. “LGBT youths are five times more likely to never contact a smoking cessation quitline” (CDC). Most teens, if they have healthcare, get it through their parents. Furthermore, LGBT teens face discriminatory healthcare practices, driving them away from all forms of healthcare, thus making the stigma of quitting smoking harder to overcome.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender teens smoke at a significantly higher rate than the general population. The primary factors of LGBT disparities in tobacco use are stress due to social stigma, discrimination, and aggressive marketing by the tobacco industry. Given that the social stigma is often negative, peer pressure comes into effect and promotes the notion that individuals in the LGBT community would rather deal with tobacco than face judgements from their peers, which creates a negative association with seeking external help.

In recent years, LGBT advocacy groups have started to develop LGBT-friendly pro-quitting programs in the hope that the community will realize their safety and reach out for help. Companies like This Free Life have recently launched campaigns showing an LGBT tobacco-free lifestyle, with their slogan: “We own our labels, our identities are beautifully complex, so we refuse to let cigarettes damage our bodies, or any layer of who we are” (This Free Life).

To change LGBT smoking statistics, one must directly engage with the community to offer these cessation efforts and present them in a culturally competent manner. Since LGBT youths have already been exposed to many different forms of negative culture, it’s critical that we learn how to market positively to them.

Many younger LGBT teens lack the knowledge or education to support their journey towards quitting smoking. It requires research and advocacy to create effective tobacco control policies that ally with LGBT youths. With the recent surge in counter-marketing campaigns that connect with teens through social media channels they understand and trust, targeting youths has become a priority among anti-smoking advocates. Nevertheless, we must reach everyone; LGBT youths need advocates just as much as their peers.

Bias Of Gender Differences In Negotiation


Now that society is fast-paced, people tend to choose to do their jobs as a priority and ignore the importance of communication. Sometimes a very small thing can become a big contradiction, if there’s a lack of communication. One of the important methods about communication is negotiation. Negotiation is a method by which people settle differences. It is a process by which compromise or agreement is reached while avoiding argument and dispute.

Negotiation can take a wide variety of forms. The most commonly used is in the business. In business, negotiation skills are important in both informal day-to-day interactions and formal transactions such as negotiating conditions of sale, lease, service delivery, and other legal contracts. Because these contracts involve too many stakeholders, most of them want to maximum their own benefits. Sometimes they would keep quarrelling and the project cannot begin or continue. Thus, a good negotiation is necessary. A good negotiation can help you to build better relationships, deliver lasting, quality solutions – rather than poor short-term solutions that do not satisfy the needs of either party and avoid future problems and conflicts

Our writers can help you with any type of essay. For any subject

Order now

Negotiation can also be used in personal life situations, like person to person, or family. It plays an important role in how to better one’s relationship with others. Conflict has never benefited anyone, instead it adds to one’s tensions and anxiety. It is better to discuss things and reach to an alternative benefitting all. Issues must not be dragged unnecessarily and efforts must be made to come to a conclusion involving the interests of all. There is no point in being adamant and rigid. One should strive hard to negotiate with each other and consider the needs, interests, and expectations of all. Thus, negotiation is essential everywhere. We all must try our best to adopt negotiation skills to avoid misunderstandings and lead a peaceful and a stress free life. Although there are many strategies in how to successfully negotiate, some tactics include avoiding competitive negotiations, listening and understanding what the other person involved in the negotiation is wanting out of it, prepare and do research for what you want from the negotiation, and to try and seek creative solutions.


Through extensive research in understanding the differences between how men and women negotiate, we found a key factor in studies conducted. Ethics is the main contributor to how genders go about negotiations. Overwhelming evidence has been presented to better understand this idea, but it is important to first understand terminology in ethics and negotiation studies. Research shows an association between moral identity and ethicality. Moral identity is defined as “conceiving of self in terms of moral traits that indicate responsiveness to others needs and interests (Aquino & Reed, 2002).” Ethicality is distinguishing between right and wrong in the terms of a profession. Individuals that lack moral identity and ethicality possess what is known as moral disengagement, which allows them to violate ethics without feeling guilty. Negotiation tactics differ due to styles of ethical reasoning. Two styles of ethical reasoning are ethic of care and ethic of justice. Ethic of care considers others needs, while ethic of justice focuses on individual rights. While these ethics play a large role in the research, the differences in how men and women negotiate are due to moral identity, moral disengagement, and financial incentives.

When it comes to moral identity, we see the idea of “affect” come into play. Affect is defined as “the feelings, moods, or emotional states that individuals experience in circumstances or situations (Park, Sims, & Motowidlo, 1986).” Research brings to light the impact of “affect” in the difference in negotiations. Women are found to value moral traits more firmly than men do. In the context of negotiation, this means that they are less likely to use unethical procedures. In a course of 33 studies of 19,000 individuals, they found a 66% probability that a random chosen women will have stronger moral identity than a randomly chosen man (McGraw & Wong, 1992). They found a correlation of .19 to .22 regarding the value that women place on moral traits in comparison to men (Kish & Gephart, 2010). Despite that women negotiate with a high sense of moral identity, this doesn’t always work in their favor. Moral disengagement, while unethical, gives men an unfair advantage in negotiating.

“Holding a stronger moral identity prevents moral disengagement (McFerran, Acquino, & Duffy, 2010).” Moral disengagement lacks a consideration for underlying consequences. Moral identity works hand in hand with moral disengagement. Due to women valuing moral identity more than men, they in turn aren’t likely to morally disengage. The willingness of men to morally disengage leads to unethical negotiating behavior. “Unethical tactics can help negotiators to claim value (O’Connor & Carnevale, 1997).” While this allows men a monetary gain in employment, “women have negotiating advantage over men when capital and subjective value are important (Kennedy & Kray, 2013).” Men are able to gain incentive in the negotiating process, but women actually value financial incentives more than men.

Specific circumstances impact how women negotiate more than men. For example, research shows that women are more apt to be deceptive if performance based financial incentives are involved. While women have an ethical advantage over men, when financial incentives are involved women alter their negotiating style. The differing styles in negotiating between men and women “contribute to differences in pay, but can also build relational capital and subjective value (Curhan, Elfenbein, & Kilduff, 2007).” These negotiating styles lead to stereotypes that exist today. “Favorable stereotypes have been used to exclude women from high-status roles associated with toughness or aggressiveness (Eagly, 1995).” By understanding how women and men negotiate through moral identity, moral disengagement, and financial incentives, we can implement recommendations to improve the negotiations from both parties in a fair and equal manner.


It is clear that men and women negotiate in different ways and have different goals when negotiating. However, both genders have advantages in negotiating different objectives. Men tend to have an advantage negotiating financial incentives and women have an advantage negotiating with ethics. This can make a person feel mistreated because of their gender and lead to unintended sexism in a company. It is important for companies to realize the different ways men and women negotiate and try to close the gender bias in order to prevent these issues. One recommendation companies can implement to close the gender bias is to have both a male and female representative present in negotiations.

Having both a male and female representative present will close the bias by being informed how their gender negotiates. Both the representatives can collaborate and better understand how the person is negotiating and what their overall goal is. This will lessen the amount of moral disengagement present by men when negotiating incentives and women when negotiating financial incentives. This will also allow both genders to negotiate ethically and be able to state clearly what their objectives are. The management team will be able to understand what the goals are clearly and be unbiased when making a decision. A limitation to having both male and female representatives could be that since men tend to be more vocal while making negotiations, it could lead to the women becoming more silent while just the male representative and employee negotiate.

It is also not enough to just have both genders be present in negotiations. Due to the fact that both genders can negotiate unethically and be morally disengaged, they may be able to trick both genders in the negotiation process or use this to their advantage in getting their objective over the other gender. Along with having both male and female representatives present, they should also be trained to realize negotiation tactics and how different genders negotiate. A system should be implemented to properly train both representatives to understand the moral disengagement used by both genders and their objectives while negotiating. This will allow the representatives to properly assess the goal and qualifications of the negotiator as well as make an informed decision regarding their objective. Properly training management or human resource representatives in different ways of negotiation is vital in closing the gender bias gap and ensuring ethical negotiation practices. Not only will this benefit both the employee negotiating, but it will also benefit the company as well. This will help companies prevent gender bias and accidental gender discrimination by understanding the negotiation tactics of males and females and being able to fairly assess their goals and qualifications.

The first step to this proposed training system is to make sure companies and their human resource department understand the differences in the ways men and women negotiate. As stated in our research, men tend to morally disengage more when negotiating leaving them an unfair advantage when negotiating incentives. However, women tend to value financial incentives more and will morally disengage when negotiating them. This is important for every company to realize and properly inform their management and human resource staff. The second step in the proposed training system is that representatives from companies that are going to be negotiating should be trained in proper negotiation tactics. Being able to properly assess if a person deserves the objective they are negotiating and being able to tell if someone is morally disengaged is important in negotiations. It is important to know how the different genders negotiate but it is also important to know how to deal with the different negotiation methods. Having both male and female representatives that know the differences in negotiation styles between men and women and also know how to properly deal with these differences will be extremely valuable to companies by closing the gender gap and preventing gender discrimination.

Not only is it important to train these representatives, but it is important to continually train them as negotiation tactics evolve. In the future there may be different ways men and women negotiate and companies need to keep up with this information and continuously train their representatives to avoid gender bias. Not only can people negotiate differently depending on their gender, but the overall way everyone negotiates can change as well. Negotiations can shift to different channels of communication and representatives will need to know how to handle that shift and how to understand the objectives people are trying to negotiate while not being in the channel they are used to. This training system paired with both male and female representatives leaves a more ethical way to negotiate and allows companies to more accurately determine goals of the employees and fairly assess if employees deserve them. It will help stop gender bias when negotiating in companies and be completely ethical when making these decisions.

Along with training the human resources department to differentiate how men and women negotiate, the company should make all benefits and incentives equal between men and women. By making these opportunities equal, it will allow the human resources department to distinguish what their employees are trying to negotiate, and make fair decisions when presented from the opposite gender. This will eliminate any bias in negotiating between men and women, and give them equal rights in the workplace. A limitation to making all benefits and incentives equal for men and women is that the men and women involved may not feel as if the other gender is as deserving of the benefit or incentive as they are. It is up to human resources to listen to negotiations from each gender fairly and to make the best decision from there.

Another recommendation for management or human resource representatives is to clearly state what is expected from each employee. That is, whenever employees are presented with something worth negotiating, they will be given all the details of what is expected before they can do so. By doing so, it will make it harder for men and women to negotiate differently based off of their gender. If expectations are the same for both male and female, it will eliminate the gender gap and make it less competitive to negotiate what you want based off of if you are a man or a woman. Also, the goals of the organization should be obvious to all employees and should not differ based on gender. This will lead to better outcomes for employees as well as the company. The employees that are in the position to make decisions should also be clear about what they are basing their decision on and what they want from it when they are presented with a negotiation. By being clear in these situations, men and women will know what they are supposed to do and how they should negotiate. Although men and women have different negotiation tactics, making expectations known within the company will hopefully decrease the decision bias presented in the negotiation.

There are many companies that excel in training other businesses on how to improve their company. One company thats main goal is to teach other companies how to deal with change and how to make decisions is TiER1 Performance. What TiER1 Performance does is create training programs and solutions for other companies that are going through a major change. This could mean a management change, strategy change, or even a human resources change. By hiring a company like TiER1 Performance, management and human resources can learn an effective way to deal with how men and women negotiate differently and what they should base their decisions on. TiER1 Performance has helped improve many major companies, such as Oakley, Fifth Third Bank, Cintas, Macy’s, McDonalds, and many other companies. Hiring a company like this one would be an excellent way to see how men and women negotiate differently and what they could do to lead to fair outcomes. Also, hiring a consulting company would be helpful to managers and human resource representatives to learn ways on how gender affects negotiation and come up with strategies on how to deal with these different strategies.

Since men and women negotiate differently, it is important that businesses use these recommendations to fairly make decisions. It is known that the way different genders negotiate lead to different negotiated outcomes, which can be seen as unfair and unethical. By using training programs, male and female human resources representatives, making benefits and incentives equal, clearly stating what employee expectations are, and hiring businesses such as TiER1 Performance, companies can efficiently tackle negotiation problems and make decisions in the fairest way possible.


After our research, it is clear how important negotiating is in the business world. It is the method of communication used for searching for an agreed solution between two parties, whether that be a sale, salary, business to business, or even in the family unit. Not only does the skill of negotiating have many applications in the business world and everyday life, it is important to understand how many different variables affect how negotiations are made.

One of the biggest factors to consider when negotiating is ethics. Ethics plays the key role of being the motivation behind the negotiation tactics used. Ethics is not the only variable that affects negotiation. It is clear that a person’s gender also plays a key role in motives for negotiation, and how ethical people are in a setting where negotiation is present. It is found that women are much more ethically motivated, and men are more financially motivated. Therefore, men are more likely to be unethical when the matter being negotiated is financial. With men and women having different traits when negotiating, it gives them different advantages over each other in certain situations. For example, women are more morally driven when negotiating and men are more financially motivated and more willing to negotiate unethically to see financial gain. It is clear that if people are not educated in negotiation, these different factors can cause problems when negotiating if one does not know how recognize and approach these different problems.

After our research, we recommended that is important to educate employees on the different gender bias that can occur when negotiating. Also, when negotiating we believe it is important to have both men and women present to have both methods of negotiation present to avoid the gender bias as much as possible. Along with that solution, we have also suggested to get professional training from companies like TiER1 Performance to help other companies refine and better their human resources and management departments to limit the amount bias and problems when negotiating. With these solutions, overtime people in the workplace will become more educated on negotiation and its problems, so they can recognize and approach problems in an organized manner when they arise. This will help the company in the long run by, having their business professionals trained to negotiate in the most efficient way possible to avoid any bias that may occur, if the proper training was not implemented. Also having a company that is known for training their employees to negotiate in the most ethical way possible could be a big draw in for prospective employees. Knowing that a company would go above and beyond to further your ethics and overall knowledge of negotiation skills, could be the certain skill an employee is looking to attain and could attract them to the company. It is clear that negotiation is a big part of communication in the professional business world, and it helps all parties involved when negotiations are done ethically and in an educated fashion.


  1. Aquino, K., & Reed, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality

    and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423-1440. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1423

  2. Barry, B., & Oliver, R. L. (1996). Affect in Dyadic Negotiation: A Model and Propositions.

    Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(2), 127-143.


  3. Curhan, J. R., Elfenbein, H. A., & Kilduff, G. (2007). Getting Off on the Right Foot: Subjective

    Value versus Economic Value in Predicting Longitudinal Job Outcomes from Job Offer

    Negotiations. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.973825

  4. Eagly, A. H. (1995). The science and politics of comparing women and men. American

    Psychologist,50(3), 145-158. doi:10.1037//0003-066x.50.3.145

  5. Kennedy, J. A., Kray, L. J., & Ku, G. (2017). A social-cognitive approach to understanding

    gender differences in negotiator ethics: The role of moral identity. Organizational

    Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 138, 28-44. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.11.003

  6. Kennedy, J. A., & Kray, L. J. (2013). Who Is Willing to Sacrifice Ethical Values for Money and

    Social Status? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(1), 52-59.


  7. Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Treviño, L. K. (2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad

    barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of

    Applied Psychology, 95(1), 1-31. doi:10.1037/a0017103

  8. Mcferran, B., Aquino, K., & Duffy, M. (2010). How Personality and Moral Identity Relate to

    Individuals’ Ethical Ideology. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(01), 35-56.


  9. Mcgraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1992). A common language effect size statistic. Psychological

    Bulletin, 111(2), 361-365. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.111.2.361

  10. Oconnor, K. M., & Carnevale, P. J. (1997). A Nasty but Effective Negotiation Strategy:

    Misrepresentation of a Common-Value Issue. Personality and Social Psychology

    Bulletin, 23(5), 504-515. doi:10.1177/0146167297235006

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

× How can I help you?