Who Intervenes Against Homophobic Behavior? Individual Attributes of Active Bystanders

• In Event: 31.029 - New Directions in Research on Bullying and Homophobic Behavior

Abstract

Perspectives and Theoretical Framework: Homophobic behavior remains a widespread concern. This issue has been addressed from two primary perspectives. First, research has documented the consequences faced by students who experience homophobic victimization. Second, studies have focused on those engaging in this behavior. Beyond this dyadic framework, the bullying literature has underscored the social context in which bullying occurs. Notably, homophobic behavior often goes unchallenged, and there has been little attention to the large segment of students who witness homophobic behavior. It is important to distinguish those who actually intercede or support students when homophobic behavior occurs.

Objectives: Our objective was to identify attributes of students more likely than others to intervene when they observe homophobic behavior. Drawing on an ecological framework and based on Salmivalli’s typology of bystander involvement (Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004), we hypothesized that leadership, courage, altruism, openmindedness, and justice sensitivity would moderate the association between observing homophobic behavior and acting as a defender/active bystander.

Methods: Participants included 722 students in grades 9 through 12 at a New England high school (87.5% White, 55.7% female, 87.6% heterosexual) who completed a survey assessing leadership (10-items; α = .91), courage (10-items; α = .80), altruism (10-items; α = .86), openmindedness (9-items; α = .83), justice sensitivity (10-items; α = .85), observing homophobic behavior (4-items; α = .83), and defender behavior against homophobic behavior (8-items; α = .88).

Results: We tested five hierarchical regression models, one for each factor moderating the association between frequency of observing and of acting as a defender during homophobic behavior. On step 1, we entered the main effects of observing homophobic behavior and the respective moderator. We also included covariates: gender, age, sexual orientation, and students’ own frequency of victimization. On step 2, we entered the interaction effect between observing homophobic behavior and the moderator. Defending behavior was the dependent variable. As hypothesized, altruism, openmindedness, and justice sensitivity moderated the association between observing and defending (βs = .09, .14, .12, ps < .05). The association between observing homophobic behavior and defending behaviors was stronger among students who expressed higher levels of these attributes. However, leadership and courage (βs = -.02, .03, ps > .50) did not moderate this association.

Implications: By identifying several key factors that distinguish defenders/active bystanders specifically in cases of homophobic behavior, our findings could inform anti-bullying and discrimination programs that seek to encourage bystanders to be more active in working against homophobic behavior by cultivating these qualities in students. Of interest, the set of factors that reflect a particular focus on concern/interest in the experiences and needs of others (altruism, openmindedness, justice sensitivity) were significant moderators. Although certain forms of leadership or courage may be equally important, the factors as assessed in this study focus relatively more on leadership and courage with respect to standing up for one’s own position or values, which might not always be inclusive of sexual minorities. We will discuss several implications for research and practice based on these findings.

Authors

• Paul Poteat, Boston College

• Olivier Vecho, University of Paris