Adolescents’ Judgment of Verbal Harassment related to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity/Expression: The Role of Perceived Intention and Outcome

• In Event: Poster Session 01
  In Poster Session: PS 01 Topic - Moral Development

Abstract

Harassment related to sexual orientation and gender identity/expression (SOGIE) in schools is common and can negatively impact adolescents. Verbal harassment, such as saying “that’s so gay” or calling someone a “fag” is the most common form of SOGIE-based harassment in schools (Poteat, 2018). However, very little research has investigated how adolescents view this type of harassment (e.g. do they think it is wrong), whether they view homophobic verbal harassment as hurtful, as well as what factors relate to adolescent’s reasoning regarding SOGIE-based harassment (Horn, 2019). Moral development literature provides evidence that children and adults make judgments of wrongness with consideration to both the intention of the perpetrator and the outcomes or impact on the victim (Griffin and Lombrazo, 2018). This study investigated the role of perceived perpetrator intention and outcome on victim on adolescents’ judgments about four types of SOGIE-based verbal harassment.

Participants’ ages 12- to 18-years-old (N = 560, MAge = 14.82 years, SD = 1.65 years, 53.1% female) evaluated four scenarios of SOGIE-based harassment. These scenarios included teasing a peer because of their sexual orientation or gender expression (two scenarios) and using homophobic language (two scenarios: homophobic name-calling, defined as using derogatory epithets such as “fag,” “dyke,” “lessie,” or “homo” and Anti-gay language, defined as using phrases such as “that’s so gay” and “you are so gay”. Adolescents provided evaluative judgments (3 point scale: 0- never wrong to 2- always wrong). In addition, we assessed adolescent’s perceptions of the likelihood of seven different motivations for why perpetrators engaged (intentions) in the behavior (0- not at all why they do it to 2- a large part of why they do it). Finally, adolescents were asked to evaluate if the victim would feel hurt or embarrassed if this happened to them (0- they don’t feel this way at all to 2- they feel this way strongly).

Three types of intentions were hypothesized and confirmed with CFA analysis across all four scenarios: Causing Harm (e.g., “to hurt”, “to embarrass”), Positive Image (e.g., “to look cool”, “to be funny”), and Dominance (e.g., “to prove that they are a man”, “to let the person know they should change”).

One-way repeated measure ANOVA revealed that adolescents made significantly different judgments of wrongness regarding the different types of verbal harassment. Wilks’ lambda = .72, F(3, 557) = 73.76, p < .001. Adolescents evaluated teasing someone because of sexual orientation and gender expression (M = 1.68 for both) as more wrong than homophobic name-calling (M = 1.56), which were more wrong than anti-gay language (M = 1.32).

In the full SEM models (shown in figure 2), perceived negative emotional outcome fully mediated the relationship between perceived intentions (Causing Harm and Positive image) for all four scenarios. Both perceived intentions positively predicted perceived negative emotional outcome, which positively predicted judgement of wrongness.

These results will be discussed in relation to the moral development and sexual prejudice and bullying literatures as well as the implications for prevention and intervention strategies.

Authors

• Yueyao Wang, University of Minnesota - Twin Cities
  Presenting Author

• Stacey Horn, University of Minnesota - Twin Cities
  Non-Presenting Author