Paul Poteat Boston College
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Paul Poteat Boston College
Acknowledgments
to
these
(and
many
other)
collaborators:
Michelle
Birkett,
Jerel
Calzo,
Stacey
Horn,
Arthur
Lipkin,
Ethan
Mereish,
Jeff
Perrotti,
Ian
Rivers,
Stephen
Russell,
Jillian
Scheer,
Hirokazu
Yoshikawa
¡ Large
(but
largely
separate)
fields
of
research
§ Focus
on
similar
predictors
(e.g.,
empathy)
and
outcomes
(e.g.,
mental
health)
¡ As
a
consequence,
we
fail
to
capture:
§ Bias/prejudice
underlying
bullying
§ Whether
bias
carries
added
consequences
§ Ways
to
directly
counter
bias-‐based
bullying
1
¡ Large
majority
of
LGBT
youth
face
victimization
¡ LGBT
youth
face
disproportionately
greater
2
victimization
than
heterosexual
youth
3
¡ Meta-‐analyses
show
medium-‐sized
disparities
1.
Coker
et
al.,
2010;
D’Augelli
et
al.,
2002;
GLSEN,
2012
2.
Poteat
et
al.,
2011;
Russell
et
al.,
2014;
Williams
et
al.,
2003
3.
Katz-‐Wise
&
Hyde,
2012;
Toomey
&
Russell,
in
press
1
¡ Minority
Stress
Model
§ Unique,
chronic
stressors
due
to
marginalized
status
underlie
health
disparities
Minority
Health
Discrimination
Status
Disparities
¡ Robustly
documented
physical,
behavioral,
mental
health
disparities,
academic
disparities2
1.
Meyer,
2003
2.
Corliss
et
al.,
2008;
Huebner
et
al.,
2004;
IOM
Report,
2011;
Marshal
et
al.,
2008,
2012;
Mustanski
et
al.,
2010;
Pearson
et
al.,
2007;
Poteat
et
al.,
2011;
Russell
et
al.,
2001,
2010
¡ Bullying,
harassment
based
on
one’s
actual
or
perceived
sexual
orientation
known
as
bias-‐
based
or
identity-‐based
harassment/bullying
§ 40%
of
those
harassed
perceive
i1t
as
bias-‐based
(disability,
gender,
race,
religion,
sexual
orientation)
§ Bias-‐harassed
youth
report
higher
risks
than
non-‐
harassed
and
harassed
youth
(absent
of
bias)
1.
Russell,
Sinclair,
Poteat,
&
Koenig,
2012
18
Odds
vs.
non-‐harassed
students
16.47
16
Harassed
(absent
bias)
Bias-‐Harassed
14
12.12
12
10
8
6
4.96
5.33
4.6
4
2.52
2.45
2.5
1.67
1.79
2
0
Binge
Drinking
Depression
Truancy
Threatened
w/
Property
weapon
Damaged
¡ Why
are
risks
magnified
for
bias-‐based
victimization?
§ Invokes
larger
societal
marginalization,
stigma
§ A
denigration
of
their
identity
and
their
larger
group
A
Part
of
Minority
Stress
Theory
¡ Victimization
tends
to
be
chronic,
w
ith
relative
1
stability
in
who
is
more
victimized
¡ Prospective
longitudinal
findings
show
prolonged
effects
of
victimization1
1.
Liu
&
Mustanski,
2012;
Poteat
et
al.,
2012;
Robinson
et
al.,
2013;
Rosario
et
al.,
2002
2.4
Called
Homophobic
Epithets
Boys
Girls
2.2
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
Grade
7/8
Grade
9
Grade
10
Grade
11
Grade
12
Grade
Level
Poteat,
O’Dwyer,
&
Mereish,
2012
H.
Victim
T2
H.
Victim
T1
*
Anxiety
T2
Anxiety
T1
*
Moderated
by
gender
¡ Parallel
processes
of
coming
out
for
LGBT
1
youth,
changing
views
for
heterosexual
youth
Contemporary
LGBT
youth
are
coming
out
earlier
when
prejudice
beliefs
are
higher
among
heterosexual
youth
1.
D’Augelli
et
al.,
2005;
Floyd
&
Bakeman,
2006;
Grov
et
al.,
2006;
Horn,
2006;
Poteat
&
Anderson,
2012
§ Programs
must
address
a
range
of
underlying
contributors
to
be
most
effective
Prejudice
Bullying
Historically
the
primary
focus
§ Individual
factors
underlying
this
behavior
Dominance
Masculinity
Beliefs
Norms
Centrality
Empathy,
of
Sexual
Perspective
Orientation
Taking
Media
Messages
LGBT
Friends
Parent
Attitudes
Prejudice
Identity
Importance
Homophobic
Behavior
Class
Respect
Norms
Bullying
Perspective-‐
Taking
Empathy
Poteat,
DiGiovanni,
&
Scheer,
2013
¡ Peer
Context
of
Homophobic
Bullying 1
§ Language
used
and
socialized
among
peer
groups
§ Peers
use
homophobic
language
across
bullying
roles
in
a
group-‐based
process
§ Students
in
homophobic
groups
use
more
banter
than
those
in
non-‐homophobic
groups
1.
Poteat,
2007,
2008;
Poteat
&
Rivers,
2010
¡ Group
norms
predict
which
peers
call
others
epithets
when
they
are
targeted
Moderation
effect
Fostering,
Supporting
Heterosexual
Allies
Promoting
Youth
Resilience
Advancing
Policies
at
the
Systems
Level
¡ From
a
dyadic
to
group-‐based
model,
bystanders
1
and
their
central
role
§ Active
vs.
passive
bystanders
2
§ Critical:
many
peers
and
adults
fail
to
intercede
¡ Who
is
more
likely
to
counter
homophobic
3
behavior
when
they
observe
it?
1.
Frey
et
al.,
2005;
Gini
et
al.,
2008;
Nickerson
et
al.,
2008;
Pozzoli
&
Gini,
2013;
Salmivalli
et
al.,
1996,
2004;
Thornberg
&
Jungert,
2013
2.
GLSEN,
2012;
Wernick
et
al.,
2014
3.
Poteat
&
Vecho,
under
review
4
4
Rate
of
Defending
Behavior
Rate
of
Defending
Behavior
Low
Altruism
High
Altruism
Low
Justice
High
Justice
3.5
3.5
3
3
2.5
2.5
2
2
1.5
1.5
1
1
Low
Observation
High
Observation
Low
Observation
High
Observation
4
Rate
of
Defending
Behavior
No
LGBT
Friends
Have
LGBT
Friends
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
Low
Observation
High
Observation
Programs
that
encourage
affirming
behavior
likely
to
be
more
effective
at
changing
school
climates
than
those
that
only
prohibit,
punish
blatant
harassment
Critical
Thinking
LGBT-‐Affirming
Self-‐Reflection
Behavior
Sexual
Prejudice
Sexual
Orientation-‐
LGBT-‐Affirming
Based
Discussions
Behavior
with
Peers
Tone
of
Discussions
Positive
Problem
Solving
Sexual
Prejudice
LGBT-‐Affirming
Having
LGBT
Friends
Behavior
Level
of
Connection
Discussing
LGBT
Issues
Support
Advocacy
Socializing
Education
§ GSAs
in
key
position
to
provide
resources,
address
school-‐based
bias
for
many
youth 1
§ Functions
are
critical
to
promote
belonging,
wellbeing,
empowerment
2
1.
Griffin
et
al.,
2004;
Fields
&
Russell,
2005
2.
Berndt,
2002;
Russell
et
al.,
2009;
Toomey
&
Russell,
2013
§ Standard
approach
has
been
to
compare
youth
based
on
presence/absence
of
GSA
at
school
Youth
in
schools
with
GSAs
report
greater
safety,
wellbeing,
lower
suicidality,
less
truancy
Fundamental
Limitation
Neither
GSAs
nor
the
youth
they
serve
are
as
homogenous
as
they
have
been
treated
50
Percent
Youth
Reporting
Reason
40
30
25.7
20
15.2
13.4
12.9
11.2
10.7
10
8.3
2
0
N
=
448
youth
in
48
GSAs
from
2012
GSA
Youth
Survey
50
Percent
Youth
Reporting
Reason
40
30
25.7
20
15.2
13.4
12.9
11.2
10.7
10
8.3
2
0
50
Percent
Youth
Reporting
Reason
Longer
serving
members,
more
involved,
40
greater
social
justice
self-‐efficacy
30
25.7
20
15.2
13.4
12.9
11.2
10.7
10
8.3
2
0
50
Percent
Youth
Reporting
Reason
Reported
less
advocacy
40
engagement
30
25.7
20
15.2
13.4
12.9
11.2
10.7
10
8.3
2
0
50
Percent
Youth
Reporting
Reason
Greater
odds
of
heterosexual
youth
joining
to
provide
40
4.61 support
30
25.7
20
15.2
13.4
12.9
11.2
10.7
10
8.3
2
0
50
Percent
Youth
Reporting
Reason
Greater
odds
of
heterosexual
youth
joining
for
advocacy,
40
2.12 values
reasons
30
25.7
20
15.2
13.4
12.9
11.2
10.7
10
8.3
2
0
50
Percent
Youth
Reporting
Reason
40
11 Greater
odds
of
sexual
minority
youth
joining
to
seek
support
30
25.7
20
15.2
13.4
12.9
11.2
10.7
10
8.3
2
0
§ Individual,
advisor,
and
contextual
factors
associated
with
purpose,
agency,
self-‐esteem1
§ Support
provided
by
GSA,
attendance
frequency,
holding
a
leadership
position
§ Advisor
support,
balanced
advisor
control
in
decision-‐
making,
number
of
years
as
advisor
§ GSA
emphasis
on
advocacy,
school
support
for
GSA
1.
Poteat
et
al.,
in
press
¡ LGBT
students
report
better
health
outcomes
in
schools
with
enumerated
anti-‐bullying
and
1
protective
policies
¡ Students
in
schools
with
curricula
inclusive
and
representative
of
LGBT
populations
feel
safer
2
and
report
less
victimization
1.
GLSEN
2008;
Hatzenbuehler
&
Keyes,
2013;
O’Shaughnessy
et
al.,
2004
2.
GLSEN
2008;
Russell
et
al.,
2006;
Szalacha,
2003
¡ What
are
specific
pathways
by
which
policies
and
curricula
counter
and
reduce
victimization?
¡ What
factors
promote
or
inhibit
this
process?
¡ Failure
to
assess
for
bias
in
bullying
masks
its
added
impact
on
youth
¡ Must
address
a
range
of
individual
and
peer
factors
related
to
bias-‐based
bullying
¡ A
need
to
focus
on
roles
of
heterosexual
allies
¡ School-‐
and
district-‐based
resources
can
make
a
difference
Paul Poteat Boston College PoteatP@bc.edu
You can also read
