Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Bystander behavior in relation to violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered high school students
(USC Thesis Other)
Bystander behavior in relation to violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered high school students
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
BYSTANDER BEHAVIOR IN RELATION TO VIOLENCE AGAINST
LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDERED
HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
by
Brian Richard O‟Rourke
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2010
Copyright 2010 Brian Richard O‟Rourke
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank and acknowledge the many people who helped me reach this
point in my life. First and foremost, I would like to thank my dissertation chair, Dr.
Helena Seli, who not only guided me through this process, but encouraged my choice of
topic and continued to push me to excel, even when I pushed back. Dr. Selis‟ dedication
to the process inspired me and my cohort to persist at all times.
I would also like to thank the members of my dissertation committee, Dr. Melora
Sundt and Dr. Dom Brewer. In spite of monumental responsibilities as Associate Deans,
they both were always available to me. Thank you for the laughter when I needed it most.
I owe the deepest gratitude to my brothers Thom and Buddy, and my sister-in-law
Arlene. Your support and guidance throughout my life has been immeasurable. You have
each inspired me to reach beyond what I thought I was capable of. I love you all very
much.
Thank you to Anita Schackmann, my principal at LBMS, who allowed me the
flexibility and time to complete this process. And a special thank you to Theresa
Crawford who provided invaluable editing and proofreading efforts.
This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of my mother Lillian. What an
incredible lady. She would be very proud.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES v
ABSTRACT vi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
Introduction 1
Statement of Problem 5
Purpose of the Study 6
Research Questions 7
Implications of the Study 8
Methodology 9
Assumptions 10
Limitations 10
Delimitations 12
Definition of Terms 12
Organization of the Study 14
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 15
Introduction 15
Historical Perspective 17
The LGBT Population and Violence 19
The Effect of Social Influence on Bystander Reporting 20
Gender Differences and Violence Reporting 21
Reporting Behavior Affected by Social Norms Theory 23
Barriers to Reporting 25
Gay/Straight Alliances 26
Attribution of Responsibility and Blame 29
Self-Efficacy 31
Outcome Expectations 33
Reporting Behaviors/Gaps in the Research 35
Conclusion 37
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 38
Introduction 38
Research Questions 38
Research Design 39
iv
Population Sample 40
Instrumentation 41
Data Collection 42
Data Analysis 43
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS 48
Introduction 48
Research Question #1 49
Research Question #2 51
Research Question #3 53
Research Question #4 54
Research Question #5 55
Scale Creation: Perceived Value of Reporting 55
Research Question #6 56
Summary of Findings 57
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 59
Summary of Findings 60
Gender Differences and Reporting Behaviors 61
Fear of Retaliation 62
Perceived LGBT Acceptance 64
Knowledge of Reporting Procedures 65
Implications 66
Practitioners 66
Further Research 67
Conclusion 69
REFERENCES 71
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Bystander Behavior Survey 75
Appendix B: Recruitment Day Speech 79
Appendix C: Youth Consent Form 80
Appendix D: Survey Day Speech 81
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Research Questions, Independent and Dependent Variables, and
Statistical Tests 45
Table 2: Summary of T-Test Comparisons by Gender on Perceived LGBT
Acceptance, Blaming LGBT, Knowing Reporting Procedures, and Risk
of Retaliation 50
Table 3: Summary of Chi-Square Analyses by Gender on Presence/Absence of
GSA, Having Reported LGBT Violence 50
Table 4: Summary of T-Test Comparisons on Presence/Absence of GSA and
Reporting Behaviors 52
Table 5: Summary of Chi-Square Analyses on Presence of GSA and Reporting of
LGBT Violence 52
Table 6: Final Model: Predicting Likelihood to Report LGBT Bullying 55
Table 7: Summary of Stepwise Regression Modeling of the Value of
Reporting & Knowledge of Reporting Procedures 56
Table 8: Summary of Simple Regression Modeling of Likelihood of Retaliation
on Likelihood to Report LGBT Violence 57
vi
ABSTRACT
This study examined the personal and school site characteristics that influence
violent incidents and reporting behaviors of high school students, including victims who
may be perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered. Findings of this study
suggested that one major factor significantly impacted a high school students‟ decision to
report violent incidents. Variables included the presence or absence of a Gay/Straight
Alliance (GSA), gender, knowledge of reporting procedures, perceived sexual orientation
of victims, and fear of retaliation. The study found that fear of retaliation stood out as a
statistically significant variable to reporting behavior. Both males and females reported
fear of retaliation as the most significant factor affecting their decision to report or not,
however, females reported higher rates of fear of retaliation. Females also reported higher
rates of GSA awareness. Overall, students reported a lack of willingness to report violent
incidents. These findings present many implications for school communities wishing to
prevent violence against LGBT students and suggest possible recommendations for
school sites such as anonymous reporting procedures, prevention methods designed to
reduce perceived or actual retaliation.
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Introduction
Public health and educational research has documented that lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transgendered (LGBT) students face increased risk of violent victimization,
harassment, and discrimination, impeding their ability to succeed in school
(Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 1993). About 6
percent of American teen-agers are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT)
according to most estimates (Women‟s E News, 2002) and 83 percent report
experiencing name-calling and threats at school, according to a national study conducted
by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (2000).
The American Psychological Association (1998) reported that the most socially
acceptable, and probably the most widespread, form of bullying behaviors among
teenagers and young adults were those targeting sexual minorities. Of nearly 2,000 gay
and lesbian people surveyed in Sacramento, CA, one-fifth of the women and one-fourth
of the men reported being the victim of some form of bullying since age 16. Lesbian and
gay victims suffer more serious psychological effects from violence when the violence is
related to their perceived sexuality than they do from other kinds of criminal injury. In
their case, the association between vulnerability and sexual orientation is particularly
harmful, because sexual identity is such an important part of one‟s self-concept (APA,
1998).
2
Violence against LGBT youth ranged from verbal harassment to physical assault
and property damage (National Gay Task Force, 1984). Studies of LGBT youth in school
settings revealed that they experienced a significantly higher frequency of verbal
harassment and physical assault than their heterosexual peers (Mishna, Newman, Daley,
& Solomon, 2007). Physical acts of violence against LGBT youth in schools were almost
always part of an ongoing pattern of abuse (Boland, 1998). LGBT students were often the
victims of shoving in hallways, sexual harassment (both physical and verbal) in locker
rooms, and often find their property destroyed or vandalized. Public health and
educational research has documented that gay and lesbian students face increased risk of
violent victimization, harassment, and discrimination, impeding their ability to succeed in
school (Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 1993).
Academic success is a stepping-stone to a successful life. School districts need to provide
LGBT students with the same unfettered access to academic success as non-LGBT
students
A report by GLSEN (2002) looked at 42 of the largest public school districts in
the country. The report found that only 8 percent of the districts received a grade of „A‟
on support systems for LGBT victims of harassment. Almost half the districts received a
failing grade. While some school systems have written policies, the LGBT youth in these
schools may view the policies as inadequate because they are not enforced, or will not
prevent retaliation by the perpetrator when a student does report a violent incident. When
policies are not enforced, the implicit message is that LGBT students are not important or
3
worth protecting, increasing the odds that crimes against LGBT students will not be
reported.
The work of Fein et al (2002) entitled: “Threat Assessment in Schools: A Guide
to Managing Threatening Situations and to Creating Safe School Climates,” a publication
of the United States Secret Service and the United States Department of Education relates
that since 1999 both of these organizations have been working in coordination in order to
gain a better understanding and to create school climates that encourage bystanders to
report (Fein, et al, 2002). At no point do Fein et al specifically address violence against
LGBT students. As previously stated, about 6 percent of American teen-agers are lesbian,
gay, bisexual or transgender (Women‟s E News, 2002). If the United States Department
of Education and the Secret Service do not consider violence against LGBT students
important enough to study, how can high school students be expected to take violence
against LGBT students seriously enough to report? What are the barriers that prevent
bystanders from reporting violence?
One possible barrier to reporting faced by all students is the „bystander effect‟.
When it comes to helping others, such as reporting violent incidents, studies have
uncovered a paradox in social psychology called the „bystander effect‟ (Weiten, 2007).
The bystander effect is a theory of pro-social or helping behavior (Vaughan & Hogg,
2005) and is defined as “the phenomenon that the more people present when help is
needed, the less likely any one of them is to provide assistance” (Penguin Dictionary of
Psychology, 1985, p.104). According to Latane and Nida (1981), people are less likely to
4
intervene when they are not alone in witnessing the incident. For LGBT students who are
bystanders to violent incidents, the bystander effect described by Vaughan and Hogg is
often intensified by the need to hide their sexual orientation at all costs (National Gay and
Lesbian Task Force, 1982). Looking at the role of gender in bystander reporting behavior,
Berkowitz (2003) found that social norms may inhibit male bystanders from intervening
when observing violence, perhaps assuming that since other males are not intervening, it
is not appropriate for the male bystander to report, making gender of the bystander a
possible factor when the bystander is deciding whether to report or not to report observed
violence. Additionally, Heider (1958) uses attribution theory to point out that bystanders
to violence can sometimes blame victims for their fate. Will this be heightened when the
victim of violence is LGBT? Does the presence of a Gay/Straight Alliance (GSA)
increase or decrease victims being blamed for their fate by bystanders? An additional
factor possibly influencing bystanders decision to report or not is the concept of self-
efficacy, the belief that one is capable of performing an action (Bandura, 1986). Self-
efficacy may be diminished by the need for LGBT bystanders to hide their sexual
orientation. Lastly, outcome expectations are an individual‟s imagined consequences of
performing certain behaviors (Boland, 2002). One may distinguish types of outcome
expectations based on the reason for a particular outcome: outcomes may arise from
external sources, internal sources, or naturally through enacting the behavior itself.
Outcome expectations arise through learning experiences (Lent, Brown, & Hackett,
1996). If bystanders, LGBT or not, experience negative consequences, or see that little is
5
done by school authorities when reporting violence against LGBT students, their outcome
expectations may be lessened in the future. Knowing what barriers students face when
choosing to report or not, when they are the bystander to violence against LGBT students,
may provide the knowledge needed to increase positive reporting behaviors.
Statement of the Problem
There was a lack of research and therefore a lack of understanding as to why
bystanders in general, and especially bystanders to violence against LGBT students, do
not report incidents. All students face barriers and facilitators when choosing to report or
not report violent incidents in which they are the bystanders. The sexual identity of the
victim and/or the bystander may be a barrier for some students. Homophobia on the part
of non-LGBT bystanders and internalized homophobia on the part of LGBT bystanders
may also be a barrier to reporting. The California Healthy Kids survey, a yearly study
conducted by the California Department of Education to assess the safety and health
needs of students attending California public schools, includes not one question related to
sexual orientation and violence or harassment, nor does it ask why students do not report
violent incidents that they observe or where they may be the victim. The choice to report
or not is intensified for LGBT students as potential bystanders. Gay and lesbian youth
often feel vulnerable due to the need to hide their sexual orientation out of fear of further
harassment and bullying (National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 2009). Significant
numbers of LGBT students report, in the limited existing surveys, that they have been
verbally and physically assaulted, robbed, raped, or sexually abused by their peers, but
6
were not comfortable going to authorities at the time of the incident, nor was any report
made by a bystander to the incident (NGLTF, 2009) contributing to the lack of research
on bystander behavior when the victim is LGBT. When the victim does not report the
crime, and bystanders do nothing, how can bystanders‟ reactions be studied? In one of the
few studies existing, Sears (1991) found that 97% of 36 lesbian youth studied recalled
negative attitudes by classmates and over one half feared being harassed, especially if
they openly declared their sexual orientation in high school furthering the desire to not
report incidents of violence that may be connected to their perceived sexuality. Without
timely reporting by bystanders, the prevalence of violence against LGBT students cannot
be accurately measured. Without a defined need, support programs for LGBT students
will continue to go unmet (NGLFT, 2009) In May 2009; U.S. Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-
Calif.) introduced the Safe Schools Improvement Act. This legislation would amend the
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act to require schools and districts
receiving federal funds to adopt codes of conduct that prohibit bullying and harassment,
including on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. It would also require that
states report data on bullying and harassment to the Department of Education (NGLFT,
2009). If this legislation passes, schools and school districts will need to educate
themselves on the barriers to reporting that LGBT students face.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine high school students‟ patterns of
violence reporting and what steps can be taken to increase the likelihood that students
7
will report violent incidents in which they are the bystander, especially when the victim is
a member of the LGBT student population. In addition, the bystander behaviors of LGBT
students were examined. In order for schools to be a healthy and safe environment they
must be free from violence and be nurturing, caring and respectful of everyone, including
LGBT students. Schools must be physically and psychologically healthy, promote
sensible risk taking and enhance the self-esteem of all (CHKS, 2007). When students
witness violence, and are not comfortable reporting that violence, then the school may
not be a psychologically healthy environment. It was the intent of this research that by
studying the reporting behaviors of high school students, both LGBT and non-LGBT,
school administrators, teachers, and counselors may have increased knowledge to take
action against all forms of school violence. This study specifically examined the
reporting behaviors of high school students and the possible barriers to reporting that
LGBT students and non-LGBT students may face when faced with violence against
LGBT students.
Research Questions
The research questions that guided this investigation are:
1. Are there any differences between male and female students‟ perceptions of
campus-wide LGBT acceptance, blaming of LGBT students, knowing how to report
violent incidents at school, knowing who to report school violence to, perceived risk of
retaliation, awareness of school Gay/Straight Alliances, or rates of having reported past
LGBT violence?
8
2. Are there any differences between schools with or without GSA‟s in terms of
students‟ perceptions of campus-wide LGBT acceptance, blaming of LGBT students,
knowing how to report violent incidents at school, knowing who to report school violence
to, perceived risk of retaliation, or rates of having reported past LGBT violence?
3. Is there any difference between bystander behavior when the victim is
perceived to be LGBT and when the victim is not perceived to be LGBT?
4. Does the likelihood of reporting LGBT bullying/harassment depend on whether
the student perceived LGBT bullying/harassment as deserved, on perceptions of school
LGBT acceptance, and/or on an interaction of these two?
5. To what extent does student knowledge of reporting procedures and perceived
value of reporting relate to a student‟s willingness to report LGBT harassment?
6. Does a student‟s perceptions of the likelihood of retaliation inhibit the reporting
of LGBT bullying or harassment?
Implications of the Study
The results of this research study may be beneficial to high school students as
well as school administrators, counselors and teachers. First, they can inform school
personnel to the barriers students face when deciding to report or not. Secondly, research
results, could be used by school administrators to take steps to protect LGBT students on
their campus. The National Education Association (NEA), the National Association of
Social Workers (NASW) and the National School Boards Association (NSBA) all agree
that schools need to respect and appreciate diversity in their student population, including
9
the presence of LGBT students. A study by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education
Network (GLSEN) showed that the most common official school response to harassment
was to do nothing: 82 % of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students said faculty or
staff never or only sometimes intervened to protect them (GLSEN, 2001). By raising
awareness of the need to report violence, this study may provide knowledge of the
reporting behaviors of other students and possibly increase the likelihood of all students
to report crimes against the LGBT community and others, and to demand action by
school administrators.
Methodology
The researcher distributed surveys to all students taking health classes at three
Southern California high schools. Each school is located in a similarly urban
neighborhood outside of Los Angeles providing a consistent study population. All
students had equal access to the survey. The survey gathered information regarding the
participants‟ demographic background, social factors, environmental characteristics and
reporting behaviors. The demographic background portion of the survey explored the
aspects of sexual orientation, gender, race, and socio-economic status. The social factors
portion included the consequences of reporting such as fear of retaliation, identification
with the victim (i.e. having the same characteristics as are being targeted by the
perpetrator), and possible “outing” as a LGBT student. The next portion, environmental
characteristics, examined the resources available to students who wished to report violent
incidents. The dependent variable in this study was the likelihood to report or not report.
10
The independent variables in this study were sexual orientation, gender, grade level, and
size of bystander group. The data was collected and analyzed using SPSS.
Assumptions
For the purposes of this study, it was assumed that the subjects would respond
truthfully to the questionnaire. It was also assumed that most respondents had some
experience with being a bystander or witness to violence and others will have been
victims of violence. Additionally, the researcher assumed that the measures used for
reporting barriers reliably and validly reflected the study populations experiences and
expectations.
Limitations
The current study presented a range of limitations. The major limitation to this
study was that it was correlational, therefore cause and effect could not be determined.
The researcher could only determine that the independent and dependent variables imply
a relationship, but could not infer that the differences in the dependent variables were
caused by the independent variables. A second major limitation was the assumption of
honesty, therefore, this study also considered that privacy was a major factor for many
LGBT students and therefore some may have chosen not to disclose their sexual
orientation, even in an anonymous survey. It is also possible that bystanders may not
have recognized their behavior as significant and therefore underreported the likelihood
of reporting in the survey instrument. In addition, homophobia may have inhibited
bystanders‟ perceptions of violence against LGBT youth and caused the bystanders to
11
underreport violent incidents by blaming the victim. Students who are homophobic may
feel that it is acceptable for LGBT students to be the target of violence.
Other limitations included consistency and self-selection. Consistency bias occurs
when participants‟ words do not match their actions. This study was only able to measure
what high school students reported they would do in a hypothetical situation, but did not
measure what they actually do in a situation where they are the bystander to an act of
violence. Respondents could also misinterpret survey items, answer them inaccurately, or
have someone else complete the survey. Self-selection bias may also occur when
perpetrators of violence may hesitate to answer truthfully in a survey, even with the
assurance of anonymity.
Although the study had several limitations, the researcher was able to control for
factors such as the quantity of students receiving the survey, the method of survey
administration, the topics to be addressed, and how the survey items were phrased. To
control how the survey was administered, the researcher provided school administrators
with an instruction sheet for survey completion. In order to control how the questions
were phrased, the researcher carefully developed the phrasing of the survey items and
distributed one final survey to all participants. There was an information sheet attached
explaining the confidentiality of the study between the researcher and participants. The
factors within the researchers‟ control provided internal and external validity as well as
reliability by reducing the possible limitations of the study.
12
Delimitations
This study was confined to high school students attending large urban schools.
Both LGBT and non-LGBT students were studied. The understandings gained from this
study may be generalizable to LGBT and non-LGBT students attending similar schools.
The findings do not apply to all students and do not represent adult bystander behaviors.
Definition of Terms
Within the context of this study, the following terms are used extensively.
Thorough explanations of the following terms will be provided in Chapter 2.
Attribution Theory
Attribution Theory is s concerned with the manner in which people explain (or
attribute) the behavior of others or themselves (self-attribution). Attribution theory
explores how individuals attribute causes to events (Weiner, 1980, 1992).
Bias
Bias is a term used to describe a tendency or preference towards a particular
perspective, ideology, or result, especially when the tendency interferes with the ability to
be impartial, unprejudiced, or objective (Ormrod, 2008). In this study, bias refers to a
dislike or disapproval of LGBT students.
Bullying
Bullying is the act of intentionally causing harm to others, through verbal
harassment, physical assault, or other more subtle methods of coercion such as
manipulation (Mishna, Newman, Daley & Solomon, 2007).
13
Bystander
A person present, but not involved; onlooker; spectator (Banyard, 2008).
Gay/Straight Alliances
A Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) is a student-run club, typically in a high school,
which provides a safe place for students to meet, support each other, talk about issues
related to sexual orientation, and work to end homophobia (Gay Straight Alliance
Network, 2008).
Hate Crimes
A criminal offense committed against a person or property, which is motivated, in
whole or in part by the offender‟s bias against a race, religion, ethnic/national origin
group, or sexual orientation group (Reidel & Welsh, 2008).
Homophobia
Homophobia describes hostility or fear of gay people and homosexuality(Kimmel,
2003).
LGBT
Acronym for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered.
Self Efficacy Theory
Self-efficacy is defined as one‟s beliefs about their capabilities to produce
designated levels of performance (Bandura, 1994).
Sexual Orientation
Sexual orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional
14
attraction toward others (APA, 2004).
Violence
Behavior by person against person that intentionally threatens, attempts, or
actually inflicts physical harm (Reiss & Roth, 1993).
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 of the present study provided a brief overview of the issues of violence
and violence reporting facing high school students in general, specifically highlighting
the significant barriers to reporting faced by LGBT students. It provided background
about the topic, defined key terms and explained the significance of studying the barriers
to reporting by all students. This chapter also described the methodology to be used,
identified the research hypotheses and identified assumptions, limitations and
delimitations of the proposed study. Chapter 2 reviews existing literature regarding
violence against LGBT students and the reporting behaviors associated with it. Chapter 3
details the methodology to be used in this study. It includes the research design, sampling
procedure and the instruments used to collect and analyze the data. Each of these sections
concludes with the rationale, as well as the strengths and limitations of the study
elements.
15
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
Chapter 1 of this dissertation outlined the need for further research in the area of
bystander behavior concerning violence in schools, specifically toward the LGBT
community. Students who are, or are perceived to be LGBT, are especially vulnerable to
the likelihood of being the victim of a violent incident. Violence against LGBT youth can
range from verbal harassment to physical assault and property damage (National Gay
Task Force, 1984). Studies of LGBT youth in school settings reveal that they experience
a significantly higher frequency of verbal harassment and physical assault than their
heterosexual peers (Mishna, Newman, Daley, & Solomon, 2007). Physical acts of
violence against LGBT youth in schools are almost always part of an ongoing pattern of
bullying (Boland, 1998). Specifically, LGBT students are often the victims of shoving in
hallways, sexual harassment (both physical and verbal) in locker rooms, and often find
their property destroyed or vandalized. Public health and educational research has
documented that gay and lesbian students dealing with sexual identity issues face
increased risk of violent victimization, harassment, and discrimination, impeding their
ability to succeed in school (Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education, 1993). About 6% of American teen-agers are gay, lesbian, bisexual or
transgender according to most estimates (Women‟s E News, 2002) and 83% report
experiencing name-calling and threats at school, according to a national study conducted
by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (2000); representing a tremendously
16
disproportionate number of victims when compared to the estimate of LGBT students in
America.
In an effort to develop a more focused understanding of the problems facing
LGBT students, the main purpose of this literature review was to gain knowledge about
the possible factors which influence high school students in their decision to report
observed violence, especially when the victim is perceived to be LGBT, and when the
bystander is LGBT. These factors include: a sense of emergency among bystanders,
gender differences, and barriers to reporting such as fear of retaliation, lack of supportive
resources and an acceptance of homophobia among high school students. In addition, a
final factor that Latane and Darley (1970) propose as a deciding issue for bystanders
when deciding whether to report or not is the phenomenon of social inhibition.
Bystanders are less likely to intervene when they are not alone in witnessing the incident.
Could the number of bystanders witnessing a violent act and choosing to report decrease
even more when the victim is LGBT? This chapter also includes a summation of the
critical theories surrounding violence reporting including attribution theory (Weiner,
1980, 1992), and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1994). Also explored in this literature review is
the current research on outcome expectations; the perceived result of reporting or not
reporting. Lastly, this chapter concludes with discussion regarding the scarcity of
research in the area of violence reporting by and for LGBT students. The majority of
violence and bullying research neither addresses nor acknowledges sexual orientation as
a possible factor among both bystanders and victims (Poteat & Espelage, 2005). Clearly,
17
much research needs to be completed if schools and school staff are to intervene
appropriately.
Historical Perspective
The literature describing the history of gay rights in America is an important
foundation for the study of violence against LGBT students and the study of reporting
behaviors of bystanders to violent incidents. The modern gay rights movement can be
traced back to the Kinsey study Sexual Behavior in the Male (Kinsey, 1948) establishing
the fact that homosexuality was far more widespread than commonly believed. In the
1960‟s, influenced by the model of a militant black civil rights movement, the
“homophile movement” (Garraty & Foner, 1991, p. 227), as the participants dubbed it
became more visible. Activists, such as Franklin Kameny and Barbara Gittings, picketed
government agencies in Washington to protest discriminatory employment policies. In
San Francisco, Martin, Lyon, and others targeted police harassment. By 1969, perhaps
fifty homophile organizations existed in the Unites States, with membership estimated at
a few thousand. The turning point for the Gay Rights movement is undeniably the riots at
the Stonewall Inn in New York. On June 27, 1969, the police in New York City raided a
Greenwich Village gay bar, the Stonewall Inn. Contrary to expectations, the patrons
fought back, beginning the Gay Power movement. Owing much to the radical protests of
blacks, women, and college students, gays challenged all forms of hostility and
punishment (Garraty & Foner, 1991).
18
Over the next two decades, half the states decriminalized homosexual behavior,
and police harassment was sharply contained (Garraty & Foner, 1991). The LGBT
community was no longer an underground subculture, but, especially in large cities, a
well-organized community. The onset of the AIDS epidemic in the 1980‟s, although it
intensified the anti-gay rhetoric of the New Right, also stimulated further organizing
within the gay community. AIDS made political mobilization a matter of life and death.
A personal and social tragedy of immense proportions, AIDS paradoxically strengthened
the political arm of the LGBT movement.
History shows the societal acceptance of homophobia and the lack of resources
available to victims of homophobic violence. According to the social norms theory
(Perkins & Berkowitz, 1986), described later in this chapter, bystander intervention is
less likely to occur when violence against one group is the accepted social norm. As the
history of the gay rights movement showed above, violence against the LGBT
community has a long tradition of acceptance in American culture making it less likely
that bystanders will choose to report when the victim is LGBT or that LGBT students
themselves will report violence against another LGBT student.
The next section of this review will synthesize the literature specifically
addressing the issue of violence toward the LGBT community and subsequent reporting
practices of the LGBT community. In a search of the ERIC online research database,
there was minimal research found which directly addresses the issue of violence reporting
when the bystander or victim is LGBT.
19
The LGBT Population and Violence
Bullying is often viewed as a normal part of childhood and adolescence. Bullying
is broadly defined as a group of intentional and repeated acts that occur through physical,
verbal, and relational forms in situations where a power difference is present (Olweus,
1993). According to Rigby (2001), students who are chronically bullied are more likely
to present physical and psychological problems. Carney and Merrell (2001) noted that
regular victims of bullying and school violence are more likely than their non-victimized
peers to bring weapons to school. Researchers tend to agree that approximately 15-20%
of students will encounter bullying at some point in their school lives (Batsche, 1997).
For students who are victimized by bullies, along with those who are simply bystanders,
bullying creates an atmosphere of fear and anxiety, thereby limiting the potential for
optimal success in school (Greenbaum, Turner, & Stephens, 1989). Despite
acknowledgment that societal attitudes such as homophobia contribute to bullying
(Clarke and Kiselica, 1997), the majority of violence research neither addresses nor
acknowledges sexual orientation as a possible factor (Poteat & Espelage, 2005).
In spite of many anti-bullying programs implemented in California schools
(PeaceBuilders, Character Counts, etc.), the total number of victims reporting anti-LGBT
violence rose 24% over the 2006 data. Bias violence based on perceived homosexuality
from non-strangers rose 25% showing the risk LGBT students face even when
surrounded by people they know, such as fellow students. Beighley (2007) reports that
86% of LGBT students report being verbally harassed and that 44% of LGBT students
20
report being physically harassed. Finally, approximately one in four students report being
physically assaulted in school over the past twelve months due to their sexual orientation
or gender expression or identity (GLSEN 2007 National School Climate Survey). It has
been suggested that homophobic bullying is pervasive, insidious and starts early (Mallon,
2001; Solomon & Russel, 2004).
Violence against LGBT students is an important issue to address because
adolescent development, in general, is not an easy task (Erikson, 1968). LGBT students
face many challenges during a time of rapid development, such as rising peer influences,
and identity formation. Additionally, sexuality is a complex and controversial subject,
but, also, it is an inherent part of what it means to be human and, for most, it is an integral
part of one‟s individual identity (Wainryb, Smetana, & Turiel, 2008). Adolescents who
feel unable to risk being open about their emerging sexual identities at school are less
likely to identify schoolmates as safe sources of support in potentially dangerous settings.
Moreover, sexual minority youth who asserted that there was no adult to talk to in the
school about a problem, were more likely to have faced harassment and abuse at school
(Hansen, 2007). In addition, lesbian and gay students face differing styles of harassment
and violence based on their gender.
The Effect of Social Influence on Bystander Reporting
Bystander reporting has been shown to be particularly susceptible to social
influence (Berkowitz, 2000). Social influence describes the rules that a group uses for
appropriate and inappropriate values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors (Perkins &
21
Berkowitz, 1986). When students do not know how to behave, they copy others, leading
to such effects as bystanders ignoring public muggings. This section will examine the
aspects of social influence most likely to affect bystander behavior when the victim is
LGBT such as gender, gender roles, sexual orientation, and social norms.
Gender Differences and Violence Reporting
The differences in reporting behaviors between the genders is an especially
serious issue for LGBT students. As discussed below, the social norms for males and
females differs vastly and has a profound impact on the type of violence LGBT students
are susceptible to. It is highly likely that gender and social norms are important factors to
be considered when LGBT students and non LGBT students are deciding whether to
report or not, as well as looking at the LGBT victim through the lens of social norm
theory.
Mosher and Sirkin (1984) emphasized that the ideals of masculinity are instilled
while boys are still young and the focus on males in most studies accounts for the gender
difference in physically aggressive perpetrators. Groups of males as opposed to males by
themselves, typically reward displays of exaggerated masculinity as a way to conform to
the observed social norm. Boys in American high schools are called and call each other
“fag”, “homo”, “queer” and multiple permutations of these sexualized insults every day.
School shootings demonstrate that this teasing can have deadly results (Kimmel, 2003).
Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, the two gunmen at Columbine High School had been
tormented by and thus focused their murder spree on the “jocks” who had repeatedly
22
harassed them for being “faggots” and “gay”, although neither boy identified as
homosexual. This violence is inspired by this sort of sexualized teasing because the
specter of “fag” actually constitutes what it means to be masculine in adolescence.
Being called a “fag” is the ultimate insult for adolescent males and often leads to
violent reactions. Social influence is a possible explanation why male bystanders, often
join in the tormenting of a student who is perceived as a “fag” in order to avoid being
called one as well. Adolescent boys become masculine through the repudiation of the
“faggot”. Masculinity, in recent American history, has been defined more by what it is
not than what it is (Chodorow, 1978). Contemporary American adolescent masculinities,
especially, are based on heterosexuality and homophobia (Lehne, 1998; Kimmel, 2001).
The term “fag” is particularly powerful because any boy can become a fag, regardless of
his actual orientation. Boys cannot prove that they are not a fag, and in many cases,
reporting the harassment only confirms the accusation to the perpetrator (Plummer,
2001). Plummer (2001) found that girls don‟t harass each other in the same manner. For
girls, the term “bitch” is the ultimate insult and is not based on sexuality. Researchers
have documented the centrality of homophobic insults and harassment to social
interaction in high schools (Wood, 1984; Epstein, 1994; Epstein & Smith, 1998;
Plummer, 2001).
Patterns of victimization vary for girls and boys, possibly influencing bystander‟s
reporting behaviors. Plummer (2001) found that females tend to participate in more
concealed forms of indirect aggressive behaviors which makes reporting and intervening
23
even more difficult. Girls use snubbing, gossiping, and excluding as weapons. As noted
in the previous paragraph, the ultimate insult to a girl is to be called a “bitch,” which will
almost always lead to a fight. Girls are more likely to use terms such as “stuck up”,
“bitch”, “flat-chested”, “fat”, “ugly”, “slut”, and “goody-goody” to harass other girls.
Studies have shown that male bullies are three to four times more likely to cause physical
attacks than girls are. However, females tend to lean toward subtler and psychologically
manipulative techniques which often result in physical retaliation (Plummer, 2001). As
stated above, substantial research shows that victimization differs by gender, yet no
studies specifically look at reporting behaviors by gender or reporting behaviors when the
victim is LGBT. In summary, the patterns of victimization vary by gender (Plummer,
2001), leading to the conclusion that gender plays a role in the reporting behaviors all
students. This study will contribute to the scant body of knowledge currently existing.
Reporting Behaviors Affected by Social Norms Theory
Social norms are basic to understanding human behavior. Norms are the
behaviors that most people in groups follow. Research has shown a steady pattern of
misunderstandings about peer norms, possibly explaining some bystander behavior
(Perkins, 1986). What peers think and do influences the behavior of most adolescents.
When peers do not report violent incidents, students may believe that is the norm for
bystander behavior.
In discussing socialization among males, Berkowitz (2003) found that men fail to
act on their beliefs or to express their discomfort because they “think that other men do
24
not feel the same” (p.17) In fact, Berkowitz (2003) states: “What men and boys think
other men and boys think and do is one of the strongest determinants of how men act –
even when these perceptions and beliefs are mistaken. Thus, most men feel
uncomfortable with characteristics and attributes of male socialization but falsely think
that other men are comfortable with cultural definitions of masculinity” (p. 17).
Berkowitz (2003) additionally found that men and boys internally reject violent
language and behavior, but falsely assume that men approve of, and are not
uncomfortable with other men‟s violent behaviors, reflecting a possible difference in
reporting behavior by gender as discussed above (Berkowitz, 2003B; Bruce, 2002,
Fabiano et al, 2003, Kilmartin, et al 1999; White et al. 2003). The effect on men and boys
is that they fail to act on their true beliefs and become passive witnesses to violence
(Berkowitz, 2002, 2003B). At the same time Berkowitz (2002) found that men and boys
who engage in verbal and physical violence incorrectly interpret other men‟s silence as
approval, thus feeling emboldened to express and act violently towards others. Thus,
when values and violent behaviors are seen as common, they cause most men to hide the
parts of themselves that seem inconsistent with it. Engaging men and boys as part of the
solution to violent acts requires that men come out of hiding to express attitudes and
behaviors that will serve to inhibit violence by other men (Berkowitz, 2002).
Health media campaigns have used the social norms approach (Bruce, 2003) and
it has been utilized in the small workshop setting (Far and Miller, 2003). The work of
Smolinsky (2002) reports use of the social norms approach in the development of small
25
group norms intervention “…to foster heterosexual ally behaviors towards LGBT
individuals by revealing that most straight individuals overestimate the homophobia of
their straight peers” (p. 2).
Berkowitz (2002) relates that social norms interventions require collection of data
concerning actual and perceived norms and then the actual norms should be reported
back to the target population. Possession of the knowledge that “…one is not alone in
one‟s beliefs and desired actions and enables the individual the freedom to act upon those
beliefs and actions. “In the case of men and boys, it provides permission to censor and
express discomfort with the attitudes and behaviors of other males” (Berkowitz, 2002, p.
14). Does the silence of men and boys when witnessing violence cause bystanders to feel
that the situation is not serious and does not require reporting?
Social norms theory provides one framework for the purposes of this study. The
next section will examine possible barriers to reporting faced by bystanders when
deciding whether or not to report.
Barriers to Reporting
Most high school students face a variety of barriers that may affect their decision
of whether to report or not. These barriers to reporting include: the absence of a
Gay/Straight Alliance (GSA), perceived lack of support by school personnel, attribution
of blame and responsibility, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations.
The work of Banyard (2008) entitled: “Measurement and correlates of prosocial
bystander behavior: The case of interpersonal violence” reports a study that examined the
26
effects specific personality characteristics on bystander attitudes and behaviors. Findings
of the study are stated to have been “…consistent with previous findings in that prosocial
behaviors were higher among individuals with greater knowledge of sexual violence.
Those who perceived higher effectiveness as a bystander were more willing to practice
prosocial behaviors, and reported a greater number of actual behaviors” (Banyard, 2008).
Recognized barriers to reporting by children and youth are more pronounced for youth
who are lesbian and gay. LGBT students report that educators often did not intervene,
even when they witnessed harassment of students perceived to be gay or lesbian (Ryan &
Rivers, 2003). Responses by educators to homophobic bullying were seen as crucial in
either fostering or mitigating bullying. Inaction on the part of school staff sends a
message that it is permissable to continue bullying. By collecting data regarding the
reasons LGBT students do not intervene when they are bystanders to violence towards
other LGBT youth, this study may provide insight to school administrators, counselors
and teachers attempting to encourage students to report violent incidents. One way for
schools to increase bystander reporting is by providing safe, effective methods for
reporting. The next section will examine the effect of Gay/Straight Alliances (GSA‟s) on
bystander reporting behavior by providing safe and effective methods for bystanders to
report.
Gay/Straight Alliances
As a possible barrier to bystander reporting, the presence or absence of a
Gay/Straight Alliance (GSA) can have a significant impact on the likelihood bystander
27
reporting when the victim is LGBT. A GSA is generally a student-run club, typically in a
high school, which provides a safe place for students to meet, support each other, talk
about issues related to sexual orientation, and work to prevent violence against LGBT
students. Some GSA‟s organize a “Teach the Teachers” staff development day which
focuses on teaching school staff how to better respond to the needs of LGBT students,
including what to do when any student reports a violent incident toward a LGBT student.
The work of Beighley (2007) entitled: “Creating a Triangle of Protection: From
Home to School to Community” states that one in every four youth who are LGBT are
asked to leave home by their parents when they „declare their sexual orientation‟ and that
according to the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force‟s 2007 Study "Lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender youth: An epidemic of homelessness” the role of school‟s needs
to be rewritten to: (1) Re-channel the controlling behavior of the bully positively into
leadership activities; (2) Acknowledge and develop into strengths the non-aggressive
behaviors of the bullied child; and (3) Transform the role of the bystander into that of the
witness: someone who is willing to stand up, speak out, and act against injustice.
Stated as solutions for bringing about a decrease of the violence against LBGT
students and for increasing these students feelings of safety in school are the following:
(1) The presence of a Gay-Straight Alliances (GSA‟s);
(2) Supportive educators; and
(3) A comprehensive, enumerated anti-bullying policy (GLSEN 2007
National School Climate Survey in Beighley, 2007).
28
The number of Gay/Straight Alliances in high schools across the United States
has grown from two in 1989 to over 2,000 by the year 2004. One important factor in the
creation of these alliances has been the assistance of several state, regional and national
organizations such as the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN), Project 10,
The Massachusetts Safe Schools Coalition, and the GSA Network. Research by the
GLSEN has shown that Gay/Straight Alliances have been very successful in establishing
the need for an understanding of the harassment faced by LGBT students. Students in
schools with a Gay-Straight Alliance are stated to have reported “hearing fewer
homophobic remarks” experiencing less “harassment and assault” and as well were more
likely to report such incidents and less likely to feel unsafe due to their gender expression
or sexual orientation. Finally, these students were less likely to miss school due to
concerns relating to harassment and assault and as well “reported a greater sense of
belonging to their school community” (GLSEN 2007 National School Climate Survey).
Students who reported that their teachers were supportive of LGBT rights were
reported to have better grades and further educational goals (Beighley, 2007). In schools
with comprehensive policies for reporting such incidents students reported lower levels
of victimization and were “more likely to report that school staff intervened most of the
time or always when hearing homophobic language” (Beighley, 2007, p. 5). How does
the presence of a GSA contribute to the understanding of violence against LGBT students
and the assignment of blame when a bystander is choosing whether or not to report? The
next section will examine the framework of attribution theory and bystander reporting.
29
Attribution of Responsibility and Blame
Attribution theory is concerned with how individuals interpret events and
therefore may contribute to the understanding of bystander behavior when reporting or
not reporting violent incidents where the victim is LGBT (Heider, 1958). Attribution
theory is one framework which may be used to explain why some bystanders to violence
can blame victims for their fate and seek to distance themselves from becoming the
victim. The attribution of responsibility and blame is activated when confronted with
unexpected behavior, unwanted consequences, or stressful, puzzling and serious events
(Wong & Weiner, 1981). According to attribution theory, the explanations that people
tend to make to explain success or failure can be analyzed in terms of three
characteristics: first, the cause of success or failure may be internal or external. That is,
we may succeed or fail because of factors that we believe have their origin within us or
because of factors that originate in our environment. Second, the cause of success or
failure may be either stable or unstable. If we believe the cause is stable, then the
outcome is likely to be the same if we perform the same behavior on another occasion. If
it is unstable, the result is likely to be different on a similar occasion. Third, the perceived
cause of the success or failure may be either controllable or uncontrollable. A
controllable factor is one which we believe we can change if we want to. An
uncontrollable factor is one that we do not perceive can be changed. There are four
factors related to attribution theory that may influence the decision-making process of
bystander‟s to report or not: ability, task difficulty, effort, and luck. Attribution theory
30
can also explain why some victims blame themselves for assaults or harassment from
others. When victims blame themselves for their situation, they are assigning an internal
locus of control, taking responsibility for their status as victim. In the LGBT community
this is described as internalized homophobia (Kimmel, 1994). When bystanders blame
the victim of violence, they are assigning an internal locus of control to the victim,
blaming the victim for choosing to be gay, a controllable factor possibly explained by the
homophobia of the bystander. Homophobia is an irrational fear of, aversion to, or
discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. In a 1998 address, Coretta Scott
King asserted that “Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of
bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity,
their dignity and personhood” (McCarty, 2009, p. 196).
The failure to report violence against LGBT students by LGBT students can
possibly be explained by the idea of internalized homophobia. Internalized homophobia
refers to homophobia as a prejudice carried by LGBT individuals against homosexual
manifestations in themselves and others. The taunting of boys perceived as gay is claimed
to be endemic in American schools (Kimmel, 1994), and has been associated with risk-
taking behavior and outburst of violence (such as a spate of school shootings) by boys
seeking revenge or trying to assert their masculinity. An important assumption of
attribution theory is that people will interpret their environment in such a way as to
maintain a positive self-image. Is it possible that LGBT students do not intervene in
violent situations in order to not confront their internalized homophobia? The 2008
31
murder of Larry King in Ventura, California is a prime example of the effect that
homophobia has on adolescent‟s self-efficacy. By the third grade, King began to be
bullied by his fellow students due to his effeminacy and openness about being gay. In
middle school, King had openly expressed his attraction to fellow eighth grader, Brandon
McInerny. McInerny attempted to recruit other students to assault King, but when no one
expressed interest, McInerny decided to act alone. The day before the shooting,
McInerney told one of King‟s friends, “Say goodbye to your friend Larry because you‟re
never going to see him again”. The following day, McInerney shot King twice in the head
using a .22 caliber revolver he withdrew from his backpack. No one had reported the
threats made by McInerney on the previous day. Could it be that not a single bystander
possessed the efficacy to report to a school official? The next section will examine the
theory of self-efficacy and its‟ effects on bystander behavior.
Self-Efficacy
Another factor which can support or prevent bystanders‟ from reporting is the
concept of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986). Self-efficacy is the extent to which people
believe they are capable of executing certain behaviors or reaching certain goals
(Ormrod, 2008). Self-efficacy beliefs determine how students feel, think, motivate
themselves and behave. A well-developed sense of efficacy adds to student
accomplishment and personal well-being in many ways. Students with a high level of
efficacy approach threatening situations with the confidence that they can exercise
control over them (Bandura, 1994). In contrast, students who doubt their abilities avoid
32
tasks which they view as threatening. When faced with difficult situations, students focus
on their perceived lack of abilities, the obstacles they will encounter, and the negative
outcomes rather than the possible successful outcome. The self-efficacy of LGBT
students regarding bystander reporting behavior can be affected by violence in several
ways. According to Bandura (1986), self-efficacy contributes to the development of a set
of skills, which could include the ability to intervene in a violent situation. Self-
perception of capabilities acts as one determinant of how respond to violence, the thought
process involved in making the decision to report or not, and the emotional state of the
bystander. Belief in one‟s self-efficacy, accurate or not, influence a bystander‟s emotional
state and choice of action (Bandura, 1982). Students who fear possible retaliation by a
perpetrator of violence against someone else, are likely to have low self-efficacy and
believe that there is little they can do. Students who witness violence against a perceived
homosexual and consider intervening, may also perceive they have little control of the
situation in addition to the fear that they may be identified with the victim. Also, students
who have reported anti-gay acts may believe that little is done to protect the victim,
further decreasing their level of self-efficacy. In contrast to actions which decrease levels
of self-efficacy, Daniel Goleman (1995) proposes that developing abilities of any kind
contributes to the sense of self-efficacy, increasing the likelihood that a bystander to
violence will be more willing to take action. Goleman (1995) also states that self-efficacy
is a learned trait and can be enhanced by experience. Is it possible that students who
report violent incidents and see violence reduced, will have an increased sense of self-
33
efficacy and be more inclined to report future incidents of violence? The next section
examines the outcome expectations which may contribute to a students‟ likelihood of
reporting.
Outcome Expectations
As discussed previously, the self-efficacy of bystanders to violence can be
enhanced or diminished by the outcome of the decision to report or not. When a
bystander perceives that nothing will be done, the outcome expectation, or the situation
will be worsened and he or she chooses to do nothing, his or her self-efficacy for
reporting in the future will be diminished.
Much of the difficulty surrounding school violence prevention efforts appears to
stem from the perceptual differences between staff and students. Moreover, teachers and
other school staff tend to underestimate the number of students being bullied at their
school, perhaps due to underreporting (Houndoumadi & Pateraki, 2001). There appears to
be a difference between student and teacher perceptions in the likelihood that adults will
intervene, such that teachers typically believe they intervene in situations more than they
actually do (Newman & Murray, 2005). Pepler, Craig, Ziegler, and Charach (1994) found
that 84% of teachers believed they intervened always or often in bullying incidents,
whereas just 35% of students reported that teachers intervened. In fact, many students
believe teachers make the situation worse when they intervene (Rigby & Bagshaw, 2003;
Tigby & Barnes, 2002) and thus rarely report bullying incidents to school staff.
Consequently, because of the low outcome expectations related to possible reporting,
34
students at the middle and high school levels tend to report bullying incidents to their
friends rather than school staff (Rigby & Barnes, 2002). Few studies have examined this
issue closely using data from large, diverse samples of students and staff from multiple
schools.
In a study by Bradshaw, Sawyer & O‟Brennan (2006) 71.5% of high school
students reported having witnessed bullying within the last month. When high school
students were asked what they did when they witnessed bullying, the most frequently
reported response was to ignore it or do nothing. Students most often reported having
been bullied during the past month about the way they look, talk, or dress, confirming the
National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP) data concerning violence based
on perceived homosexuality. The vast majority of students felt their school was not doing
enough to prevent bullying. Approximately 13% of staff agreed that bullying is a part of
life that everyone has to go through. Staff who agreed with this statement were more
likely to report it was acceptable for students to respond aggressively to threat,
confirming student attitudes that staff were not responsive.
Rigby & Bradshaw (2003) found that most students believed school staff made
the situation worse when they intervened. In contrast, relatively few staff believed they
had negatively impacted the situation by intervening. The vast majority of staff believed
they had effective strategies for handling bullying situations, contradicting the work of
Wynne (2008).
35
As stated previously, many students believe that reporting violence to school staff
will make the situation worse, decreasing the likelihood that bystanders to violence will
report to school staff. When the outcome expectation is perceived as negative, bystanders
have no reason to report.
Reporting Behaviors/Gaps in the Research
As was stated in the opening paragraph of this chapter, very little research has
been done specifically targeting the reporting behaviors of LGBT students or non- LGBT
students when the victim is LGBT. The 2007 Indicators of School Crime and Safety
(U.S. Department of Justice) claimed that out of 11% of students reporting verbal
bullying in school, only 1% report bullying directed at the perceived sexuality of the
student. No other mention of sexual orientation could be found.
As a substitute for the lack of studies specifically examining the reporting
behaviors of LGBT and non LGBT students when the victim is LGBT, studying data
from research conducted at the college level may provide a correlation to the reporting
behaviors and lack of research at the high school level. According to Carr (2005)
“Campus crime statistics have found to be flawed due to a significant underreporting
among victims” (p.12). In a study conducted among 3400 students randomly selected
from 12 colleges and universities, only 25% of campus crimes were reported to any
authority (Carr, 2004). Primary reasons stated by students as to why they did not report
these crimes are those reasons as follows: first, crimes were too minor (39%); second, the
situation was a private matter (16%); and third, bystanders were not clear that a crime had
36
been committed (5%). Once again, there were no statistics regarding the LGBT
community and reasons for not reporting. In a survey encompassing 3400 students, using
the estimate of the total LGBT school population of 6% (GLESN), that would mean that
at least 244 of the respondents were LGBT. How were their needs served by a survey
which included no questions regarding the sexuality of the victim or the bystander?
Carr (2005) states that when students did report crimes that 83% of the crimes
reported were reported to security personnel. The attitudes and perceptions of the security
personnel toward the LGBT community were not measured and therefore no relation can
be shown between the LGBT students and their outcome expectations. Nowhere in Carr‟s
research is the presence or absence of a Gay/Straight Alliance (GSA) noted. Interviews
by telephone with the 3,400 students revealed that personal crimes made up 45% of
victimizations, with 8% acts of violence and 37% theft. Living quarter‟s crimes consisted
of burglary, larceny, and vandalism, and constituted up to 30% of all crimes experienced.
Threats and harassments made up 25% of the crimes. (Carr, 2005) It is reported that
students“…may be too ashamed to report interpersonal violence or to get help for her/his
victimization. Students who are victimized can feel overwhelmed and need a great deal of
support. If they do not sense that this support is there, they will be less likely to report
and seek help” (Carr, 2005). Again, the outcome expectations of the LGBT student
population were not studied. The current study may provide needed data prompting
school officials to develop new programs of support for bystander intervention.
37
Conclusion
This chapter summarizes existing research regarding violence against LGBT
students as well as predictors of reporting behaviors among all high school students.
Social norms theory (Berkowitz, 2002) and attribution theory (Heider, 1958) significantly
affects perceptions of bystanders to violent acts. These perceptions in turn affect the
reporting behaviors of bystanders. The existing research analyzes bystander and victim
characteristics, including sexual orientation, but does not address the LGBT population
and reporting behaviors specifically. This study will focus on the reporting behaviors of
high school students in relation to the LGBT population and the potential for impacting
such behaviors. Variables in the study will include the presence or absence of
Gay/Straight Alliances (GSA), outcome expectations, and the perception of support by
school personnel.
38
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to examine high school students‟ patterns of
violence reporting in relation to the LGBT population as victims and gain knowledge of
the steps which could be taken to increase the likelihood that all students will report
crimes in which they are the bystander, including when the victim is perceived to be
LGBT. This study specifically examined the reporting behaviors of high school students,
both LGBT and not, and the possible barriers to reporting that all students may face in the
event of violence against LGBT students. In addition, bystander reporting behaviors at
schools with Gay/Straight Alliances and those without were compared.
Chapter 3 describes the design of this research study. Included in this chapter are
the research questions, descriptions of the population and sample, instrumentation, data
collection, and data analysis.
Research Questions
The research questions that guide this investigation are:
1. Are there any differences between male and female students‟ perceptions
of campus-wide LGBT acceptance, blaming of LGBT students, knowing how to report
violent incidents at school, knowing who to report school violence to, perceived risk of
retaliation, awareness of school Gay/Straight Alliances, or rates of having reported past
LGBT violence?
39
2. Are there any differences between schools with or without GSA‟s in terms
of students‟ perceptions of campus-wide LGBT acceptance, blaming of LGBT students,
knowing how to report violent incidents at school, knowing who to report school violence
to, perceived risk of retaliation, or rates of having reported past LGBT violence?
3. Is there any difference between bystander behavior when the victim is
perceived to be LGBT and when the victim is not perceived to be LGBT?
4. Does the likelihood of reporting LGBT bullying/harassment depend on
whether the student perceived LGBT bullying/harassment as deserved, on perceptions of
school LGBT acceptance, and/or on an interaction of these two?
5. To what extent does student knowledge of reporting procedures and
perceived value of reporting relate to a student‟s willingness to report LGBT harassment?
6. Does a student‟s perceptions of the likelihood of retaliation inhibit the
reporting of LGBT bullying or harassment?
Research Design
In order to measure the attitudes and behaviors of high students, both LGBT and
not, the purpose of this study completed by the use of a non-experimental research
design. The dependent variable in this study was the likelihood of reporting by students
who are bystanders to violence. The independent variables in this study were grade level,
gender, sexual orientation of victim and bystander, barriers to reporting, social influences
(group size, fear of retaliation, homophobia), knowledge of how to report, perception of
administrative support, and lastly the presence or absence of a Gay/Straight Alliance
40
(GSA). This study analyzed data from three, southern California, urban high schools with
a proportionate representation of schools with GSA‟s and schools without GSA‟s. This
study used quantitative data due to large size of the population study and the use of
random sampling in order to generalize the findings of the study. The use of quantitative
data provided a numeric representation of the attitudes and behaviors of the study
population (Creswell, 2003). The study also required stratification of the population,
meaning that specific traits of individuals (i.e., gay and straight students) were
represented in the sample and the sample reflected the true proportion of individuals with
the desired traits of the study and the population (Fowler, 1988).
Population Sample
This study examined the reporting attitudes and behaviors of a large sample of
high school students, both heterosexual and homosexual. As indicated in the research
design, the sample was drawn from three large southern California high schools. The
sample contained both male and female, heterosexual and homosexual students, and four
grade levels. The sample included a variety of ethnic groups, socio-economic groups,
and student interest groups. The researchers‟ goal was to obtain between 200 and 400
responses by use of paper and pen surveys to draw valid and reliable conclusions from a
total of approximately 4,000 possible respondents. A total of 900 responses were
obtained. From all the completed surveys, in order to obtain an equal representation of
the three demographic variables (gender, sexual orientation, and grade level) random
41
sampling was used. This possibly allowed the results of the study to be generalized to the
population of interest.
Instrumentation
For the purpose of this study, the researcher employed a paper and pen survey to
maximize the data gathering process. The researcher developed items of relevance to his
population such as demographics, perceptions of violence, reactions to vignettes, and
personal experiences with violence in the school setting. The questionnaire consisted of
five sections, each addressing the specific independent variables to be studied including
student background information, victim characteristics, bystander relationship to
victim/perpetrator, bystander group size, and outcome expectations. The survey consisted
of 20 questions requiring Likert-type responses.
Section 3 of the questionnaire, “Opportunities for Reporting,” addressed research
questions 1 and 2: Does the likelihood of reporting violent incidents differ between
students who identify as LGBT vs. not? And is there a difference in likelihood of
reporting among all students when the victim is perceived to be LGBT? In this section,
the responses from LGBT and non - LGBT students will be compared for similarities or
differences, as well as responses which address the perceived sexual identity of the
victim. Section 4, “Reporting Options,” will address research question 4: Are there
differences between LGBT and non-LGBT students when it comes to knowing who to
report to, how to report, and whether they believe it will make a difference, measuring the
student‟s knowledge of resources and outcome expectations. Section 5, “Reporting
42
Consequences,” addresses research question 5 about possible barriers to reporting.
Research question 5 asks: “Do LGBT students report different barriers to reporting than
non-LGBT students?” Section 2, “Student Background Information,” will collect data
for research question 6: “Does the presence of a GSA impact the likelihood of reporting
of all students in relation to violence against LGBT students?” And, “Does group size
(more than one bystander) impact the likelihood of all students in relation to violence
against LGBT students” as well as data for the independent variables of grade, gender,
and sexual orientation (see Table 1).
Data Collection
Permission was obtained from the University of Southern California‟s Internal
Review Board (IRB) and the Burbank Unified School District. Once IRB permission
from both organizations was granted, a copy of the survey was sent to the students in one
health class for the purposes of conducting a pilot study. The pilot test, with a sample of
twenty-five high school students, was conducted to measure the reliability of the survey
items. Reliability is the trustworthiness or the accuracy of the measurement (Kurpius and
Stafford, 2006). Items were analyzed using SPSS to measure the reliability coefficient.
The researcher hoped to obtain a reliability coefficient of at least 0.70 for all survey
items. In order to determine internal consistency, the researcher calculated Cronbach‟s
alpha to measure the correlation between questions measuring the same concept.
Cronbach‟s alpha is a measure of reliability known as internal consistency, where the
more consistently individual item scores vary with the total scores, the higher the value
43
and the higher the value, the more consistent are the measures (Salkind, 2008). Validity is
the measure of the survey confirming the results as a true statement of the intent of the
measures. The researcher tested for content validity to be sure that the survey items
accurately measured the attitudes of reporting behaviors of the study population. Once
the pilot survey was evaluated and adapted, the same student procedures were followed
for the actual survey. Since the survey was conducted among a large variety of high
school students, the researcher concluded that the results were valid and representative of
the subject population (see Appendix A).
In order to collect data, the researcher obtained three participating high schools through
the office of Burbank Unified School District. The subject schools are 2 miles apart and
share similar demographics. School # 1 had 2,740 students in grades 9-12, and had an
active Gay/Straight Alliance. School # 2 had 3,102 students in grades 9-12 and also had
an Gay/Straight Alliance. School # 3 had 450 students in grades 9-12 and did not have a
GSA. E-mail communication was conducted with an administrator at each site. The e-
mail contained a brief description of the study, a declaration of confidentiality and
directions for administering the survey. The survey was conducted as part of the students‟
health class, a required class for all students. The students completed the survey during
class by responding to a paper and pen format.
Data Analysis
After data was collected, all data was coded and entered into SPSS to be analyzed
using a variety of statistical tests. To determine if gender, actual or perceived sexual
44
orientation, presence of a Gay/Straight Alliance, or grade level predicted reporting
behaviors, students were asked simple demographic questions. The responses were
analyzed using a T-test for independent means. A T-test for independent means indicates
that a single group of the same participants (high school students) is being studied under
two conditions, in this case, heterosexual or homosexual (Salkind, 2008). To determine if
actual sexual orientation predicted violent incident reporting behaviors (RQ 2), students
were asked their likelihood to report in three theoretical violent scenarios. The responses
were analyzed using a one-way ANOVA test. One-way ANOVA tests the equality of
multiple independent variables (scenarios) against the dependent variable of sexual
orientation (Salkind, 2008). To determine LGBT students‟ perception of administrative
support when reporting violent incidents (RQ 3), students were asked to express their
likelihood of reporting a violent incident to a variety of adult resources. The responses
were analyzed using MANOVA to predict an outcome based on the two dependent
variables of student sexual identity and reporting resources. Possible consequences of
reporting were measured by asking for students‟ likelihood for reporting when the
additional independent variables of peer pressure, possible retaliation, and expectations of
support were added. To determine if LGBT students differ from non-LGBT students in
their perceptions of reporting consequences, responses were analyzed using a T-Test to
compare the means of one interval level dependent variable (perception of consequences)
with the means of two independent variables (respondent sexual identity).
45
Using the data from the survey, the intention was to gain additional knowledge of
the relationships between the variables of sexual identity, knowledge of reporting
resources, barriers to reporting and a student‟s willingness to report violent incidents.
Additionally, the information amassed may be used to adapt school policies which
increase a student‟s willingness to report violent incidents on a school campus. Chapter 4
will discuss the findings of the research project.
TABLE 1: RESEARCH QUESTIONS, INDEPENDENT AND DEPENDENT
VARIABLES, AND STATISTICAL TESTS
Research Question Independent
Variable
Dependent Variable Statistical
Test
RQ 1
Are there any
differences between
male and female
students‟
perceptions of
campus-wide
LGBT acceptance,
blaming of LGBT
students, knowing
how to report
violent incidents at
school, knowing
who to report
school violence to,
perceived risk of
retaliation,
awareness of school
Gay/Straight
Alliances, or rates
of having reported
past LGBT
violence.
SQ 4
Bystander gender.
(Nominal)
SQ
5,6,8,12,15,16,19
Likelihood of
reporting.
(Interval)
2
independent
sample t-test
46
TABLE 1, continued
Research Question Independent
Variable
Dependent Variable Statistical
Test
RQ 2
Are there any
differences between
schools with or
without GSA‟s in
terms of students‟
perceptions of
campus-wide
LGBT acceptance,
blaming of LGBT
students, knowing
how to report
violent incidents at
school, knowing
who to report
school violence to,
perceived risk of
retaliation, or rates
of having reported
past LGBT
violence.
SQ 2
Presence of GSA
(Nominal scale)
SQ
5,6,8,12,15,16,19
Likelihood of
reporting. (Interval)
2
independent
samples T-
Test,
Fisher‟s exact
test
RQ 3
Is there any
difference between
bystander behavior
when the victim is
perceived to be
LGBT and when
the victim is not
perceived to be
LGBT?
SQ 8
Reporting of LGBT
violence
(Interval)
SQ 11
Any violence
reporting
(Interval scale)
Independent
samples T-
Test
RQ 4
Does likelihood of
reporting LGBT
bullying/harassment
depend on whether
the student
perceived LGBT
bullying as
deserved, on
perceptions of
school LGBT
acceptance, and/or
on an interaction of
these two?
SQ 6,12
LGBT acceptance.
Victim blaming.
(Interval)
SQ
5,6,8,12,15,16,19
Likelihood of
reporting.
(Interval)
Linear
regression
47
TABLE 1, continued
Research Question Independent
Variable
Dependent Variable Statistical
Test
RQ 5
To what extent
does student
knowledge of
reporting
procedures and
perceived value of
reporting relate to
students‟
willingness to
report LGBT
harassment?
SQ 3, 13, 14, 15, 16,
17, 18
Bystander‟s sexual
identity.
(Nominal)
SQ 3,4,11,14,15,
16,17,18,19,20
Outcome
expectations
(Nominal/interval
scale)
Barriers to
reporting.
(Interval)
Simple linear
regression
RQ 6
Does a student‟s
perceptions of the
likelihood of
retaliation inhibit
reporting of LGBT
bullying or
harassment?
SQ 4
Presence of GSA.
(nominal)
SQ
5,6,8,12,15,16,19
Likelihood of
reporting.
(Interval)
Outcome
expectations
(Interval)
Simple linear
regression
48
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
Introduction
This chapter presents the statistical outcomes for the previously stated research
questions: 1) Are there any differences between male and female students‟ perceptions of
campus-wide LGBT acceptance, blaming of LGBT students, knowing how to report
violent incidents at school, knowing who to report school violence to, perceived risk of
retaliation, awareness of school Gay/Straight Alliances, or rates of having reported past
LGBT violence; 2) Are there any differences between schools with or without GSAs in
terms of students‟ perceptions of campus-wide LGBT acceptance, blaming of LGBT
students, knowing how to report violent incidents at school, knowing who to report
school violence to, perceived risk of retaliation, or rates of having reported past LGBT
violence; 3) Is there any difference between bystander behavior when the victim is
perceived to be LGBT and when the victim is not perceived to be LGBT?; 4) Does
likelihood of reporting LGBT bullying/harassment depend on whether the student
perceived LGBT bullying as deserved, on perceptions of school LGBT acceptance,
and/or on an interaction of these two; 5) To what extent does student knowledge of
reporting procedures and perceived value of reporting relate to their willingness to report
LGBT harassment; 6) Does a student‟s perceptions of the likelihood or retaliation inhibit
reporting LGBT bullying/harassment?
49
Research Question #1:
Are there any differences between male and female students‟ perceptions of
campus-wide LGBT acceptance, blaming of LGBT students, knowing how to report
violent incidents at school, knowing who to report school violence to, perceived risk of
retaliation, awareness of school Gay/Straight Alliances, or rates of having reported past
LGBT violence.
In order to assess the impact of gender on perceptions of campus-wide LGBT
acceptance, blaming of LGBT students, knowing how to report violent incidents at
school, knowing who to report school violence to, perceived risk of retaliation,
knowledge of school Gay/Straight Alliances, and rates of having reported past LGBT
violence, a series of independent samples t-tests and Fisher‟s exact tests were conducted.
To adjust for the large family-wise error rate resulting from this multiple testing, a
Bonferroni correction was applied by dividing the standard alpha level by the number of
comparisons being made. Thus, results were considered statistically reliable only if they
had a significance of p 0.008 (.05/6 comparisons).
As shown in Tables 2 and 3, only two measures were found to vary by gender,
risk of retaliation and knowledge of school GSAs. Specifically, these analyses revealed
that male students were less likely to perceive any risk of retaliation from reporting
school violence and that female students were more likely than expected to be able to
correctly identify whether their campus had a GSA when compared to male.
50
TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF T-TEST COMPARISONS BY GENDER ON PERCEIVED
LGBT ACCEPTANCE, BLAMING LGBT, KNOWING REPORTING PROCEDURES,
AND RISK OF RETALIATION (N = 700)
Means
Variable
Males
Females
Test
Statistic
Df
Sig
Perceived LGBT
Acceptance
3.22 2.43 -1.66 917 .10
Blaming LGBT
3.20 3.18 0.30 874 .76
Knowing Reporting
Procedure
3.19 3.30 -1.58 871 .11
Risk of Retaliation
2.86 3.17 -4.40 861 <.001*
p < 0.008
TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF CHI-SQUARE ANALYSES BY GENDER ON
PRESENCE/ABSENCE OF
GSA, HAVING REPORTED LGBT VIOLENCE (N = 700)
Variable
Males
Females
sig
a
Correctly Identified Presence/Absence of
GSA
O: 277.0
E: 294.1
O: 332.0
E: 314.9
<0.000*
Incorrectly Identified Presence/Absence of
GSA
O: 61.0
E: 43.9
O: 30.0
E: 47.1
51
TABLE 3, continued
Have reported LGBT violence
O: 13
E: 15.2
O: 457
E: 454.8
0.46
Have not reported LGBT violence
O: 17
E: 14.8
O: 443
E: 445.2
* p < 0.008
a
Sig reported for Fisher‟s Exact Test. No test statistics are associated with this analysis.
Research Question #2:
Are there any differences between schools with or without GSAs in terms of
students‟ perceptions of campus-wide LGBT acceptance, blaming of LGBT students,
knowing how to report violent incidents at school, knowing who to report school violence
to, perceived risk of retaliation, or rates of having reported past LGBT violence.
In order to assess the impact of the presence of a campus-based GSA on
perceptions of campus-wide LGBT acceptance, blaming of LGBT students, knowing how
to report violent incidents at school, knowing who to report school violence to, perceived
risk of retaliation, and rates of having reported past LGBT violence, a series of
independent samples t-tests and Fisher‟s exact tests were conducted.
To adjust for the large family-wise error rate resulting from this multiple testing, a
Bonferroni correction was applied by dividing the standard alpha level by the number of
52
comparisons being made. Thus, results were considered statistically reliable only if they
had a significance of p 0.01 (.05/5 comparisons).
As shown in Tables 4 and 5, there appeared to be no statistically significant
differences in any of the variables assessed between schools with or without GSAs.
TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF T-TEST COMPARISONS ON PRESENCE/ABSENCE
OF GSA AND REPORTING BEHAVIORS (N = 867 – 923)
Means
Variable GSA No GSA
Test
Statistic
Df
sig
Perceived LGBT
Acceptance
3.29 3.23 -0.63 921 .53
Blaming LGBT
3.20 3.15 -0.63 878 .53
Knowing Reporting
Procedure
a
3.24 3.25 0.08 285.15 .93
Risk of Retaliation
3.01 2.96 -0.69 865 .49
a
The assumption of equality of variance was violated, so degrees of freedom were adjusted to compensate
TABLE 5: SUMMARY OF CHI-SQUARE ANALYSES ON PRESENCE OF GSA
AND REPORTING OF LGBT VIOLENCE (N = 700)
Variable
GSA
No GSA
sig
a
Have reported LGBT violence
O: 27.0
E: 24.2
O: 3.0
E: 5.8
0.24
53
TABLE 5, continued
Have not reported LGBT violence
O: 725.0
E: 727.8
O: 179.0
E: 176.2
a
Sig reported for Fisher‟s Exact Test. No test statistics are associated with this analysis.
Research Question #3:
Is there any difference between bystander behavior when the victim is perceived
to be LGBT and when the victim is not perceived to be LGBT?
In order to determine whether the students‟ self-reported likelihood to report
violence or harassment varies based on the victims‟ sexuality, an independent samples t-
test was conducted to compare student responses to the questions, “If I witness or heard
about a LGBT student being bullied or harassed, I am likely to report the incident to a
school official,” and, “Overall, if you heard about or witnessed a violent act at school,
how likely would you be to report it to a school adult staff member.” Despite slight
structural differences in the wording of the questions, response options to each were
recorded on substantively similar 5-point scales and were deemed close enough to
facilitate direct comparison.
After running an independent samples t-test it was revealed that there was no
statistically significant difference in students‟ self-reported likelihood to report LGBT
harassment (M = 3.16, n = 896) and self-reported likelihood to report violent acts in
general (M = 3.26, n = 360; t
(1254)
= -1.45, p = 0.15).
54
Research Question #4:
Does likelihood of reporting LGBT bullying/harassment depend on whether the
student perceived LGBT bullying as deserved, on perceptions of school LGBT
acceptance, and/or on an interaction of these two?
In order to determine whether students‟ self-reported likelihood to report LGBT
bullying or harassment varies as a function of perceptions that LGBT students deserve
bullying, on perceptions of school LGBT acceptance, or on an interaction of these two
factors hierarchical linear regression modeling was conducted in two steps (see Table 6).
In the first block perceptions that LGBT students deserve bullying and
perceptions of school LGBT acceptance were entered using a forced entry approach. In
the second block an additional interaction term was force entered into the model to
examine whether the impact of student perceptions of bullying as deserved would vary as
a function of perceptions of the school environment.
While the overall model served to predict students‟ self-reported likelihood to
report LGBT bullying or harassment, neither blaming of LGBT students nor an
interaction between blaming and campus environment contributed meaningfully to the
model (p > 0.05 for both). As a result these terms were excluded from the final model
presented below.
55
TABLE 6: FINAL MODEL: PREDICTING LIKELIHOOD TO REPORT LGBT
BULLYING
Variable
B
SE B
Final Model
LGBT Acceptance 0.11 0.04 0.11
Note. R
2
= .01; p < 0.01
** p < 0.01
Research Question #5:
To what extent does student knowledge of reporting procedures and perceived
value of reporting relate to their willingness to report LGBT harassment?
Scale Creation: Perceived Value of Reporting
In order to test the suitability of combining the 2 questions regarding knowledge
of reporting procedures into a single scale, Cronbach‟s alpha was computed to assess
internal consistency. Analysis revealed that the 2-item scale had an adequate level of
reliability ( = 0.72) despite a reasonable item-total correlation of 0.43. As alpha is
influenced in part simply by the number of items entered into the scale, the reliability of
these two items is difficult to assuage. As a result the decision was made to err on the
side of conservatism and keep these two items separated for analyses.
In order to determine whether students‟ self-reported likelihood to report LGBT
bullying or harassment varies as a function of knowledge of reporting procedures (two
56
separate questions) or the perceived value of reporting (3-item scale) simple linear
regression modeling was conducted.
In the absence of a guiding theory as to the order of entry of the three predictors,
the items were entered using a stepwise procedure to minimize the risk of type I and II
errors (see Table 7).
TABLE 7: SUMMARY OF STEPWISE REGRESSION MODELING OF THE
VALUE OF REPORTING & KNOWLEDGE OF REPORTING PROCEDURES
Variable
B
SE B
Model 1
Value of Reporting 0.12 0.01 0.36
Model 2
Value of Reporting 0.14 0.01 0.44
Knowing Who to Report To -0.14 0.05 -0.13
Note. R
2
= .13 for Step 1; R
2
= .01 (ps < 0.01).
** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001
Research Question #6:
Does a student‟s perceptions of the likelihood or retaliation inhibit reporting
LGBT bullying/harassment?
In order to determine whether students‟ self-reported likelihood to report
LGBT bullying or harassment varies as a function of whether they expect retaliation in
57
response to reporting, simple linear regression modeling was conducted between these
two variables (see Table 8).
TABLE 8: SUMMARY OF SIMPLE REGRESSION MODELING OF LIKELIHOOD
OF RETALIATION
ON LIKELIHOOD TO REPORT LGBT VIOLENCE
Variable
B
SE B
Likelihood of Retaliation 0.24 0.04
0.24*
**
Note. R
2
= .06 (p < 0.001).
*** p < 0.001
Summary of Findings
The analyses of the dependent and independent variables are summarized in
this section, with a concentration on significant findings. Results of the intercorrelations
between the demographic variable of gender, perceived LGBT acceptance, blaming of
LGBT students, knowing the reporting procedures, and risk of retaliation revealed
specific findings (see Table 2).
There were a number of weak intercorrelative findings. Two weak associations
were detected between gender and fear of retaliation. Specifically, male students were
less likely to perceive any risk of retaliation from reporting school violence. And female
students were more likely than expected to be able to correctly identify whether their
campus had a GSA when compared to male students. In addition, there appeared to be no
58
significant difference when analyzing the impact of a GSA with the 4 major variables
(see Table 4).
Student respondents did not relate a significant difference in their willingness to
report violent acts in general when compared to their willingness to report violent acts
aimed at LGBT students. As a result, the perceived sexuality of the victim did not appear
to have a significant impact on the willingness to report violent acts. In addition, although
the acceptance of LGBT students showed a statistically significant finding, LGBT
acceptance only appears to predict 1% of the variability in students‟ likelihood to report
LGBT bullying (see Table 6).
Finally, students who reported their willingness to report violent acts appeared to
be willing to report regardless of the victimology, in this case LGBT students. However,
after controlling for individual‟s perceptions of the value of reporting, it appeared that
knowing who to report to was negatively associated with the likelihood to report (see
Table 7). These contradictory findings may be the result of researcher error or data entry.
In the discussion to follow, Chapter 5 analyzes these data further and discusses
implications from the results of this study. Recommendations for further research and
possible solutions schools may take to promote bystander reporting by reducing fear of
retaliation are also discussed.
59
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION
The current study sought to explore the relationship between violence reporting
behaviors of high school students and the perceived sexual orientation of the victim.
Specifically, the study offered possible insights into the barriers to reporting faced by
students at three Los Angeles area high schools. These barriers include: a sense of
emergency among bystanders, gender differences in reporting behaviors, and fear of
retaliation. An expectation existed based on previous research that the sexual orientation
of the victim would have a large degree of influence in the determination of reporting
behavior by other students. Violence against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered
(LGBT) youth can range from verbal harassment to physical assault and property damage
(National Gay Task Force, 1984). Specifically, LGBT students are often the victims of
shoving in hallways, sexual harassment (both physical and verbal) in locker rooms, and
often find their property destroyed or vandalized. The issue has not been directly
addressed in prior research concerned with reporting behaviors, with most research into
violence and bullying failing to acknowledge societal attitudes such as homophobia as a
factor despite the knowledge that such factors do greatly influence the degree and
incidence level of bullying, especially in schools (Poteat & Espelage, 2005; Clarke &
Kiselica, 1997; Beighley 2007). The avoidance of the issue in the academic literature and
the increased proportion of self-reported bullying among students identifying as LGBT
taken together suggest that the problem is ignored by most communities, and this led to
the expectation that sexual orientation would be an inhibitive factor of intervention and
60
reporting behaviors. The results indicated, however, that the fear of retaliation by
perpetrators of violence superseded all other variables when students were deciding to
report violence or not, rendering the issue of the perceived or stated sexual orientation of
the victim to not be a significant predictor. The variables of perceived sexual orientation
of the student, acceptance of LGBT students at the school site, presence of a Gay Straight
Alliance (GSA), or gender did not significantly impact the decision of bystanders to
violent incidents. The following discussion provides possible explanations for the lack of
a visible impact of sexual orientation on the reporting of violence in high schools, such as
one variable that did appear to reduce the fear of retaliation: males reported less fear of
retaliation than females.
Summary of Findings
The hypotheses that developed from the research questions of the study were
supported or not supported in varying degrees for the sample population of high school
students from three high schools within a common school district in an urban city in
Southern California. Additionally, some findings appear to be contrary to current
research in the areas of bystander behavior, acceptance of LGBT students, and barriers to
reporting of violence in a high school setting. These contradictions may be explained by
the specifics of the site studied and the support of administration within the school
district. Findings within this category are discussed by the researcher and framed by
current, related research.
61
Gender Differences and Reporting Behaviors
Patterns of victimization vary for males and females, possibly influencing
bystander‟s reporting behaviors (Plummer, 2001). In this study, females being found to
be statistically more likely to report violence than males could be viewed through the lens
of the Berkowitz and Perkins (1986) social influence study. The current study found that
females reported greater awareness of GSA‟s on campus and greater acceptance of LGBT
students than did male students. Additionally, Furlong (2005) found that males are more
likely to meet violence with violence while females are more likely to be victimized
perhaps explaining females‟ greater fear of retaliation. It may be that males feel
empowered to handle retaliation with additional violence?
The current study found that males were less likely to report fear of retaliation,
calling into question the applicability of previous studies of social influence by Berkowitz
and Perkins (1986) which found that social influence describes the rules that a group uses
for appropriate and inappropriate values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors (Perkins &
Berkowitz, 1986). Berkowitz (2003) stresses that it is the perception of what others
consider normative and appropriate that dictates the exact effects of social influence in a
given scenario, and that while most men internally disapprove of violence, they believe
that other men are more tolerant of violence. At the same time, informational conformity
is another component of social influence, meaning that fear of retaliation might be
reduced simply based on the truth of the information and the availability of other
witnesses (Berkowitz 2003). The theory of social influence as described by Berkowitz
62
(2003) and Berkowitz and Perkins (1986) would seem to explain why males would report
less fear of retaliation, as they would expect a greater level of comfort with violence from
any male bullies or attackers that they may report. This explanation is somewhat
complex, however, and has little in the way of empirical evidence from this study with
which to verify it. The reduced fear of retaliation observed in males, then, remains
unexplained at this time, though possibilities are suggested in the research. Further
research should include items probing the attitudes of male students in relationship to
violence reporting and fear of retaliation.
Fear of Retaliation
The major finding in this study was that fear of retaliation stood out as the major
barrier to reporting violent acts. This study found that even when students were aware of
reporting procedures and knew who to report to, they still reported that fear of retaliation
prevented them from reporting. It is clear that schools continue to need procedures that
encourage reporting and prevent retaliation. This also seems to initially reject Bandura‟s
(1994) assertion that the perception of self-efficacy is the primary determinant of
behavior, as this, too, is shown to be of no real importance in the face of a fear of
retaliation.
One way for schools to increase bystander reporting is by providing safe,
effective methods for reporting. At a middle school that was not part of the study, but
located in the same school district, administrators have developed a procedure for
anonymous reporting that was not available at the high school study sites. Anonymous
63
reporting procedures may reduce the fear of retaliation in some student witnesses.
Anonymous reporting may allow administrators to investigate issues of violence without
placing student witnesses at risk of being seen in the office. In addition, students who are
disciplined for violent acts or bullying are told that they may not discuss the incident with
other students. An anonymous “box” is placed in the main office where students may
report any bullying or violence, along with other student concerns. Administrators check
the box on a daily basis and investigate the student concerns. Also, students who are
involved in any type of bullying or violence against another student are told that they
may only discuss the incident with an adult at school or their parents. Any discussion
with fellow students will lead to a five-day suspension and possible further discipline. All
of these measures are put into place as a means of assuring the anonymity and the safety
of those who report acts of violence; prohibiting the discussion of cases of bullying and
violence limits the degree to which these events are known among potential friends of the
bully or perpetrator, and also decreases the amount of attention paid to those who report
violence. This greatly reduces the fear of retaliation against those who report on acts of
violence, increasing levels of reporting and decreasing incidents of bullying and other
violence across the board. Further research into reporting behavior, possibly following
the middle school students described above, while they progress through high school may
show a decrease in fear of retaliation as a barrier to reporting violence in the school place.
Additionally, Berkowitz (2002) relates that social norms interventions require collection
of data concerning actual and perceived norms, such as the results of this study, and then
64
the actual norms should be reported back to the target population. This study suggests
that the summary findings should be presented to students as an alternative to accepted
norms. Perhaps with greater education of peer behavior, fear of retaliation may be
reduced on school campuses.
Perceived LGBT Acceptance
Although acceptance of LGBT students at the study schools was generally
reported as high, with a mean of approximately 2.8 on the five-point scale used in this
study, as derived from items one and two on the research instrument, this finding was
probably site specific and may not be generalizable to all schools in the country. Two of
the study sites have active GSA‟s and the third site was composed of students from
within the same community. In addition, the researcher had the full support of district and
site administration, parents, and the school board. By omission, most anti-bullying
programs in California may be promoting the acceptance of LGBT bullying (Poteat &
Espelage, 2005; Beighley, 2007). That is, due to a lack of specific focus or
acknowledgement of the role that sexual orientation plays in instances of violence in
schools, current programs might be contributing to such violence by allowing it to persist
hidden in plain view. When the issue of sexual orientation is not purposely discussed,
students may interpret the message to be that bullying or violence based on a student‟s
perceived sexual orientation is acceptable. Beighly (2007) reports that 86% of LGBT
students report being verbally harassed and that 44 % of LGBT students report being
physically harassed. This study did not ask for students to identify as LGBT or not, and
65
therefore the study does not predict reporting behaviors based on the sexual orientation of
the bystander. It is recommended that further study include the option of student sexual
identity as a demographic variable.
The findings of the study show that male students are less likely to report
acceptance of LGBT students and are also less likely to be aware of a GSA support group
on campus. This data confirms the work of Mosher and Sirkin (1984) who found that
males continue to value the accepted forms of masculinity and still fear the label of “fag,”
presumably because it identifies those labeled with this moniker with members of the
LGBT community. Fear of such labeling, while not really constituting fear of retaliation
as defined in this study, might be a major factor in males‟ resistance to reporting acts of
violence where the victim‟s sexual orientation was a factor in the violence. As stated
above, when anti-violence and anti-bullying programs omit the specific vocabulary of the
LGBT community, it is implied that LGBT students are acceptable targets. Schools that
currently have GSA‟s on their campus need to increase male awareness and membership.
Schools that do not have a GSA on campus should develop a GSA club. Two of the
schools in the current study have active GSA‟s, which may account for the acceptance of
LGBT students at these schools.
Knowledge of Reporting Procedures
The current study provided an interesting contradiction in the area of reporting
procedures. The value attributed to reporting does appear to predict the likelihood of
reporting school violence directed against LGBT students. This is also the case for
66
knowing who to report to. However, after controlling for an individual‟s perceptions of
the value of reporting, it appeared that knowing who to report to was negatively
associated with the likelihood to report. It is possible that in the current study, students
knew who to report to, but did not believe that reporting to that specific individual would
be effective. In this way, Bandura‟s (1994) self-efficacy explanation of behavior can be
seen as having a secondary influence on non-reporting behaviors in response to violent
incidents. Bystanders who felt that their reporting actions would not likely yield any
meaningful results would be far less likely to engage in any reporting or otherwise
actively responsive manner, and the results of this current research suggest that those who
were better acquainted with reporting procedures and a responsible adult to report to,
continued to hesitate to report violence when they were the bystander. Also, fear of
retaliation may act as a barrier to reporting even when the students are aware of reporting
procedures and know who to report to. Self-efficacy itself might be somewhat high, given
the number of students who have knowledge of reporting procedures and the
circumstances that warrant such intervention, but if outcome expectations are low enough
this erodes the ultimate value of self-efficacy. Further study determining the effectiveness
of specific reporting procedures and administrator effectiveness is recommended.
Implications
Practitioners
As stated above, fear of retaliation was the major barrier to reporting according to
the findings in this study. It is recommended that school develop safe, anonymous
67
reporting procedures such as that described above. In addition, students must feel that
retaliation will be addressed and every attempt will be made to protect the student from
retaliation, both inside the school and outside the school. Perpetrators must be informed
that retaliation will carry serious consequences and that administrators will follow
through. Students must be told that any discussion of disciplinary actions discussed
among students will cause further disciplinary actions to be instituted.
The 2008 murder of Larry King in Ventura, California is a prime example of the
need to provide safe, effective reporting methods for all students. In middle school, King
had openly expressed his attraction to a fellow eighth grader, Brandon McInerny. The
day before the shooting of King, McInerny told one of King‟s friends, “Say goodbye to
your friend Larry because you‟re never going to see him again” (Salliant & Covarrubias,
2008). The following day, McInerny shot King twice in the head using a .22 caliber
revolver. No one had reported the threats made by McInerny on the previous day. Could
it be that safe, anonymous reporting procedures could have prevented the death of one
student and the incarceration of a fellow student?
Further Research
Research into bystander behavior and student willingness to report violence needs
to continue. The 2007 Indicators of School Crime and Safety (U.S. Department of
Justice) claimed that out of 11% of students reporting verbal bullying in school, only 1%
report bullying directed at the perceived sexual orientation of the student. No other
mention of sexual orientation could be found, showing a profound gap in the research.
68
The schools involved in the current study are known as being very LGBT-friendly. Two
of the schools have very strong GSA‟s. The school without a GSA receives students from
the other two schools and therefore may have a similar acceptance of LGBT students.
The reported acceptance of LGBT students may be site specific and therefore not
generalizable to most high schools. It is recommended that the research be replicated at a
number of schools with and without GSA‟s.
The original design of the study included an item asking students to identify as
LGBT or not. After discussion with the dissertation committee, the researcher withdrew
that item from the research instrument over concerns about approval from the Internal
review Board. The lack of sexual orientation as a variable impacted the findings. It is
recommended that sexual orientation be included in further research within that specific
community.
Additional research needs to be conducted in the reported barrier to reporting
defined as fear of retaliation. As this study showed, after all other variables to reporting
behavior are taken into account, fear of retaliation remains a major barrier to reporting for
all students, although males report less fear of retaliation. Social influence as described
by Berkowitz (2000) may explain the phenomena of “No Rats” or “Snitches Get
Stitches” as expected behavior among adolescents. When students do not know how to
behave, they copy others, leading to such effects bystanders ignoring violence on school
campuses. Social influence may also increase the perception of retaliation, when in fact,
retaliation may not be as widespread as bystanders believe. It may be rumor or peer
69
discussion which makes fear of retaliation a significant factor to reporting behavior.
Further research into variables affecting the fear of retaliation would be beneficial
to administrators who are attempting to develop programs facilitating alternative methods
of reporting violence on campus and avoiding retaliation for student reporters. Variables
for further study should include the actual frequency of retaliation along with the form of
retaliation taking place. Data showing the actual frequency of retaliation may show that
fear of retaliation is unfounded.
The form of retaliation needs to be explored further in relation to gender. As
Berkowitz (2003) found, retaliation between females and violent perpetrators differs from
retaliation between males and violent perpetrators. Female retaliation is less overt and
may include gossip, rumors and shunning. Male retaliation is more likely to include overt
violence such as fights or physical harm.
In addition to further study of fear of retaliation, the victims‟ relationship to the
perpetrator should be explored. It is possible that when the perpetrator has a relationship
with the victim, bystanders may be less inclined to become involved. Bystanders may see
violence between friends or relatives as none of their business.
Conclusion
The design of the study presented a range of limitations. The major limitation to
this study was the lack of a demographic variable identifying respondents as LGBT or
not. In addition, the design of the study was correlational; therefore, no causal
relationships could be determined. The researcher could only determine that the
70
independent and dependent variables were related, but could not conclude that the
dependent variables were a result of the independent variables. Other limitations included
consistency and possible bias on the part of the respondents. It is assumed that a
percentage of students may have responded untruthfully, which may have had an impact
on the consistency of the data. Two of the schools surveyed included active GSA‟s and
the GSA advisor was the research contact. Both advisors are very popular at their
respective campuses and therefore may have had an influence on the student responses to
the acceptance of LGBT students.
Research into bystander behavior and student willingness to report violence needs
to continue. Fear of retaliation represented the major barrier to reporting according to the
findings. Future research should be designed to investigate what students report as
methods to reduce their fear of retaliation and therefore increase their likelihood of
reporting. This study was quantitative, but future research designed as qualitative in
nature may be able to further explore the fear of retaliation. In addition, further research
should compare the variables of anonymous reporting and fear of retaliation. With
additional information, school administrators may be better prepared to design programs
assuring the safety of student reporters.
71
REFERENCES
Banyard, V. L. (2008). Tools for bystander action: Engaging campus communities in
sexual violence prevention. The Resource: NSVRC Newsletter, 1-15.
Bear, G., Minke, K., & Thomas, A. (Eds.). (1997). Bullying. In Children's needs II:
Development, problems, and alternatives (pp. 171-180). Bethesda, MD: National
Association of School Psychologists.
Beighley, C. (2007). Creating a triangle of protection: From home to school to
community (Brief No. 25). Washington, DC: Triangle Foundation.
Berkowitz, A. (2002). Fostering men's responsibility for preventing sexual assault. In P.
Schewe (Ed.), Preventing intimate partner violence: Developmentally appropriate
interventions across the life span (Chapter 7). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Press.
Boland, P. (1998). National Association of School Psychologists. Vulnerability to
violence among gay, lesbian and bisexual youth. Bethesda, MD
Bradshaw, C., Sawyer, A., & O'Brennan, L. (2006). Examining the relationship among
frequent involvement in bullying, school connectedness, and attitudes toward retaliation.
Manuscript in preparation.
Bruce, S. (2002). The "A" man campaign: Marketing social norms to men to prevent
sexual assault. (The report on social norms: Working paper #5). Little Falls, NJ:
PaperClip Communications.
Carney, A., & Merrell, K. (2001). Bullying in schools: Perspectives on understanding and
preventing an international problem. School Psychology International, 22, 364-382.
Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothering. Berkely: University of California
Press.
Clarke, E., & Kiselica, S. (1997). A systematic counseling approach to the problem of
bullying. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 21(1), 310-325.
Dinkes, R., Cataldi, E., & Lin-Kelly, W. (2008). Indicators of school crime and safety:
2007 (NCJ 219553). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice.
72
Fabiano, P., Perkins, H., Berkowitz, A., Linkenbach, J., & Stark, C. (2003). Engaging
men as social justice allies in ending violence against women: Evidence for a social
norms approach. Journal of American College Health, 52(3), 105-111.
Far, J., & Miller, J. (2003). The small group norms challenging model: Social norms
interventions with targeted high risk groups. In H. Perkins (Ed.), The social norms
approach to preventing school and college age substance abuse: A handbook for
educators, counselors, clinicians. (Chapter 7). San francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Foner, E., & Garraty, J. (Eds.). (1991). The reader's companion to american history. New
York: Houghton Mifflin.
Gay/Straight alliances: A student guide. Recommendations on the support and safety of
gay and lesbian students. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from http://www.doe.mass.edu/
cnp/GSA/safegl.html
Greenbaum, S., Stephens, R., & Turner, B. (1989). Set straight on bullies. Malibu, CA:
Pepperdine Press.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Houndoumadi, A., & Pateraki, L. (2001). Bullying and bullies in Greek elemenmtary
schools: Pupils attitudes and teachers'/parents' awareness. Educational Review, 53, 19-26.
Kimmel, M. (1997). The contemporary 'crisis' of masculinity in historical perspective. In
H. Brod (Ed.), The making of masculinities: The new men's studies Boston: Allen &
Unwin.
Kimmel, M. (2003). Adolescent masculinity, homophobia, and violence: Random school
shootings, 1982-2001. American Behavioral Scientist, 46(10), 1439-1458.
Lehne, G. (1998). Homophobia among men: Supporting and defining the male role. In M.
Kimmel & M. Messner (Eds.), Men's Lives (pp. 237-249). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Mallon, G. (2001). Sticks and stones can break your bones: Verbal harassment and
physical violence in the lives of gay and lesbian youth in child welfare settings. Journal
of Gay and Lesbian Services, 13(1/2), 63-81.
Mishna, F., Newman, P., Daley, A., & Solomon, S. (2007). Bullying of lesbian and gay
youth: A qualitative investigation. British Journal of Social Work, 148, 1-17.
73
National gay Task Force. (1984). Task force creates first-ever LGBT ant-violence project
(Issue Overview 357). Washington, DC
Newman, R., & Murray, B. (2005). How students and teachers view the seriousness of
peer harassment: When is it appropriate to seek help? Journal of Educational Psychology,
97, 347-365.
Olweus, D. (1994). Annotation: Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a school
based intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied
Disciplines, 35(7), 1171-1190.
Plummer, D. (2001). The quest for Modern Manhood: Masculine stereotypes, peer
culture and the social significance of homophobia. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 15-23.
Poteat, V., & Espelage, D. (2005). Exploring the relation between bullying and
homophobic verbal content: The homophobic content agent target scale. Violence and
Victims, 20(5), 513-528.
Rigby, K. (2002). New perspectives on bullying. Philadelphia: Kingsley
Rigby, K., & Bagshaw, D. (2003). Prospects of adolescent students collaborating with
teachers in addressing issues of bullying and conflict in schools. Educational Psychology,
23, 535-546.
Rigby, K., & Barnes, D. (2002). The victimized student's dilemna: To Tell or not to tell
(Youth Studies). Sydney, Australia.
Russel, V., & Solomon, S. (2004). Addressing homophobic bullying in the elementary
classroom. Orbit, 34(2), 24.
Ryan, C., & Rivers, I. (2003). Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth:
Victimization and its correlates in the USA and UK. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 5(2),
103-119.
Smolinsky, T. (2002). What do we really think? A group exercise to increase
heterosexual ally behavior. (The report on social norms: Working paper #4, Vol. 1). Little
Falls, NJ: PaperClip Communications.
U.S. Secret Service, & U.S. Department of Education. (May 2002). Threat assessments in
schools: A guide to managing threatening situations and to creating safe school climates.
Washington, DC.
74
Weiner, B. (1974). Achievement motivation and attribution theory. Morristown, NJ:
General Learning Press.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York:
Springer Publishing.
Wood, J. (1984). Groping towards sexism: Boy's sex talk. In A. McRobbie & M. Nava
(Eds.), Gender and Generation London: Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
Wynne, N. (2008). An analysis of student teacher preparation in relation to homophobia.
Unpublished master's thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA.
75
APPENDIX A
BYSTANDER BEHAVIOR SURVEY
1. Student Information Cover Sheet
Thank you for choosing to participate in this survey. Your identity will be
protected, no personal information will be revealed at any time. The results of this survey
may assist in understanding the reactions of bystanders to violence against LGBT
students. You may choose NOT to answer any questions at any time.
2. Student Background Information
A. Indicate your age.
_14 _15 _16 _17 _18 _19
B. Indicate Your gender.
_Male _Female
C. Are you aware of a Gay/Straight Alliance at your school?
_Yes _No _Don‟t know _Prefer not to answer
D. Students who are perceived as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered are
generally accepted at my school.
_Strongly Agree _Agree _Neither Agree or Disagree _Strongly Disagree
_Prefer Not to Answer
E. Have you ever observed a student being assaulted or bullied because of his/her
perceived sexual orientation?
_Strongly Agree _Agree _Neither Agree or Disagree
76
_Strongly Disagree _Prefer Not to Answer
F. Have you ever reported a violent incident against a student who is perceived to be
lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered?
_Yes _No _Prefer Not to Answer
G. I have overheard homophobic remarks by my fellow students.
_Yes _No _Prefer Not to Answer
H. I have overheard homophobic remarks by adults on my campus.
_Yes _No _Prefer Not to Answer
I. Have you ever reported a violent incident against any student?
_Yes _No _Prefer Not to Answer
J. Indicate your agreement with the following statement:
_Strongly Agree _Agree _Neither Agree or Disagree _Strongly Disagree
_Prefer Not to Answer
3. Opportunities For Intervention
A. Indicate your agreement with the following statement: If I witness or hear about a
student being bullied or harassed, I am likely to report the incident to a school
official.
_Strongly Agree _Agree _Neither Agree or Disagree _Strongly Disagree
_Prefer Not to Answer
4. Reporting Options
77
A. I believe that my school‟s administration will take appropriate action if I report a
violent incident on our school campus.
_Strongly Agree _Agree _Neither Agree or Disagree _Strongly Disagree
_Prefer Not to Answer
B. I am aware of the reporting procedures used at my school should I need to report a
violent incident.
_Strongly Agree _Agree _Neither Agree or Disagree _Strongly Disagree
_Prefer Not to Answer
C. When I witness or hear about a violent incident on my campus, I know who I can
report it to.
_Strongly Agree _Agree _Neither Agree or Disagree _Strongly Disagree
_Prefer Not to Answer
5. Reporting Consequences
A. I believe that my reporting a violent incident will be handled appropriately by my
school‟s administration.
_Strongly Agree _Agree _Neither Agree or Disagree _Strongly Disagree
_Prefer Not to Answer
B. I believe that reporting violent incidents will make a positive difference on my
campus.
_Strongly Agree _Agree _Neither Agree or Disagree _Strongly Disagree
_Prefer Not to Answer
78
C. I believe that I will not suffer any retaliation should I report a violent incident.
_Strongly Agree _Agree _Neither Agree or Disagree
_Strongly Disagree _Prefer Not to Answer
D. I am more or less likely to report a violent incident if there are other witnesses
nearby.
_More likely _Less likely _Prefer not to answer
79
APPENDIX B
RECRUITMENT SPEECH
80
APPENDIX C
YOUTH CONSENT FORM
81
APPENDIX D
SURVEY DAY SPEECH
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Purpose of the Study
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Teachers as bystanders: the effect of teachers’ perceptions on reporting bullying behavior
PDF
Understanding the reporting behavior of international college student bystanders in sexual assault situations
PDF
Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender student center: a promising practice study
PDF
Student willingness to report violence in secondary schools
PDF
Who do we tell? School violence and reporting behavior among native Hawaiian high school students
PDF
Physical aggression in higher education: student-athletes’ perceptions and reporting behaviors
PDF
The influence of counselors and high school organization on the selection of participants for a dual credit program
PDF
Middle school GSAs: an analysis of strategies used in Los Angeles County
PDF
Understanding measures of school success: a study of a Wisconsin charter school
PDF
School funding and the evidence based model: an examination of high school budget allocation in Hawaii
PDF
The perceptions of faculty and administrators of remedial mathematics education in two higher education institutions
PDF
Recruiting and hiring online learning teachers for online high schools
PDF
Resource allocation strategies and educational adequacy: an examination of an academic & financial plan used to allocate resources to strategies that promote student achievement in Hawaii
PDF
Discovering the path to lesbian gay bisexual transgender support at a religious institution
PDF
Sexual misconduct against K-12 students: teachers' perceptions of incidents by school
PDF
The vortex of homophobic bullying: the reporting behavior of teachers
PDF
Reaching the mission through employee engagement and service orientation in a zoological setting: an evaluation study
PDF
How successful high school students cope with bullying: a qualitative study
PDF
An examination of resource allocation strategies and finance adequacy: case studies of American Samoa Department of Education secondary schools
PDF
Relational leadership: underrepresented student perspectives on diversity courses
Asset Metadata
Creator
O'Rourke, Brian Richard
(author)
Core Title
Bystander behavior in relation to violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered high school students
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
08/03/2010
Defense Date
06/23/2010
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
bullying,bystanders,gay/straight alliances,LGBT,OAI-PMH Harvest,Violence
Place Name
California
(states)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Seli, Helena (
committee chair
), Brewer, Dominic J. (
committee member
), Sundt, Melora A. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
BrianORourke@Burbankusd.org,mropus10@aol.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3262
Unique identifier
UC1205826
Identifier
etd-ORourke-3956 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-366692 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3262 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-ORourke-3956.pdf
Dmrecord
366692
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
O'Rourke, Brian Richard
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
bullying
bystanders
gay/straight alliances
LGBT