Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Aug 8.
Published in final edited form as: J Youth Adolesc. 2020 Jul 24;50(2):353–366. doi: 10.1007/s10964-020-01297-9

Homophobic Bullying in Positive and Negative School Climates: The Moderating Role of Gender Sexuality Alliances

Salvatore Ioverno 1, Stephen T Russell 2
PMCID: PMC10409600  NIHMSID: NIHMS1908693  PMID: 32710242

Abstract

The presence of Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs) in schools has been linked to low rates of bullying for lesbian, gay, bisexual, questioning (LGBQ), transgender, and all students. However, little is known about how the heterogeneity in GSA functioning and school climates may affect these rates. This study examines whether a well-functioning GSA would limit the effect of a negative school climate as a risk factor for homophobic victimization experiences. The sample included 38,872 students (3401 LGBQ and 453 transgender) from 58 California high schools. Several independent databases were combined. Students reported on homophobic victimization, the school climate, and demographic information. At the school level, reports from all students were aggregated for school climate; reports from GSA members were aggregated on their perceptions of GSA functioning; publicly-available data were used for school characteristics. The results suggest that greater GSA functioning may be beneficial for all students in schools that have a negative school climate, and particularly protective for transgender students.

Keywords: Gay-straight alliance, Youth advocacy, Homophobic bullying, School climate, LGBT Transgender

Introduction

There has been a growing interest in research about school strategies and practices designed to reduce homophobic victimization and address academic and health disparities among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) youth (Toomey and Russell 2016). Gay-Straight Alliances (or Genders and Sexualities Alliances, GSAs) have emerged as one of these strategies; GSAs are school-based and student-led clubs with the primary purpose of promoting respect for all students regardless of their sexual orientation and gender identity (Poteat et al. 2017; Saewyc et al. 2014). A robust body of research has documented that the presence of a GSA at school is associated with less risk for homophobic bullying among LGBTQ students (see Marx and Kettrey 2016 for a meta-analytic review). However, existing knowledge has been truncated due to several limitations. First, prior studies have focused largely on the presence or absence of GSAs in schools and few studies have taken into consideration the heterogeneity of GSA functioning. Second, the existing research on GSA functioning (Poteat et al. 2016; Poteat et al. 2015b) has not examined homophobic bullying as an outcome and has been based on reports from GSA members independent of the experiences of students in the general school population. Third, little research has examined whether GSAs may be beneficial for transgender (as distinct from LGB) students (Greytak et al. 2013). Fourth, prior studies have not considered the quality of the school climate when analyzing the association between GSA and homophobic bullying. Depending on the quality of the school climate, GSAs may engage in more or fewer advocacy activities or be more or less focused on providing a safe space for LGBTQ students (Poteat et al. 2015a). This study aimed to address some of these limitations by examining how different levels of GSA functioning across schools may be linked to rates of homophobic bullying for LGBQ, transgender, and non-LGBTQ students, taking into account the overall school climate.

GSAs and Homophobic Bullying

Several cross-sectional studies have provided evidence of the association between GSA presence and reports of less homophobic victimization (see Marx and Kettrey 2016 for a meta-analytic review). This association was confirmed in a longitudinal study that found that presence of or participation in a GSA by LGBQ youth was associated with reports of less homophobic bullying at school 1 year later (Ioverno et al. 2016). Most of this research has assessed the effect of GSAs in samples of LGBTQ students. Little research examines whether GSAs are effective in preventing discriminatory bullying for transgender (as distinct from LGBQ) students. Of note, only one known study has shown that for transgender students, GSA presence was associated with lower levels of victimization based on sexual orientation or gender identity and fewer missed days of school because of feeling unsafe (Greytak et al. 2013). More research is needed to understand how GSAs may be specifically beneficial for transgender students considering that some challenges are unique to this population. For example, some distinct challenges include the right to be called by their chosen name, or by their gender-appropriate pronouns (Pollitt et al. 2019) or the right to use dress codes and school facilities aligned with their gender identity (Kosciw et al. 2018).

Although the majority of research has suggested that GSA presence is associated with less victimization, other published studies have found different results. One population-based study of students in 45 Wisconsin schools (Poteat et al. 2013) tested the association of GSA presence at school, students’ sexual orientation, and the interaction between the two variables on both general and homophobic victimization. No main or interacting effects of GSA presence were found. Another study analyzed a sample of 297 LGBTQ students recruited through community-based organizations. Each participant individually reported on the presence of GSAs in their schools and experiences of victimization (Walls et al. 2010). No significant difference was found for general or homophobic victimization experiences between participants with and without GSAs in their schools. Some scholars have argued that these mixed findings may be because the measure of GSA presence does not capture the distinctive meaning or function of GSAs (Ioverno et al. 2016; Poteat et al. 2015b), or because other contextual characteristics of communities or schools may affect the efficacy of GSAs. In an effort to better clarify how GSAs may prevent homophobic victimization, a series of recent studies have examined the heterogeneity of the functioning of GSAs, as well as the important role of contextual factors and school climate (Poteat et al. 2015a; Poteat et al. 2015b).

Heterogeneity among GSAs

Despite shared objectives, the structure and function of GSAs significantly vary from school to school. Some GSAs focus on providing support and creating safe spaces for LGBTQ students through social and recreational activities; other GSAs engage in advocacy through awareness-raising (e.g., Day of Silence, Ally Week, Youth Pride), leadership development, peer and staff training, or school-wide recreational and social events (e.g., parties, dances, talent shows; Griffin et al. 2004; Poteat et al. 2015b). Given this diversity, researchers have begun to shift from considering GSAs as either present or absent to recognizing the need to understand heterogeneity in the functions of GSAs. For example, two studies showed that youth who accessed resources and did more advocacy within GSAs also more frequently engaged in discussions of substance use, mental health, sexual health (Poteat et al. 2017) and issues related to gender-diversity (Poteat et al. 2018a). Another recent study (Calzo et al. 2020) showed that GSA members that received information, socializing/support, and advocacy reported higher levels of self-reflection, bravery, civic engagement, and agency. Similarly, another study showed that support from GSAs was associated with students’ sense of purpose, mastery, and self-esteem (Poteat et al. 2015b).

Although prior research has highlighted the importance of considering GSA functioning, none of these prior studies have examined how GSA functioning may be associated with one of the key focal points of the literature on LGBTQ students: bullying. Moreover, most prior studies have been based on reports from GSA members: no known studies have examined how variability in the functioning of GSAs across schools may influence the school experience of the general student population. Notably, several prior studies have shown that the presence of a GSA is associated with healthier student outcomes and lower rates of bullying regardless of whether students were GSA members (Ioverno et al. 2016; Toomey et al. 2011). Given these findings, GSA functioning may be associated with the quality of the school experiences for all students—not only those who are involved in GSAs.

School Climate and Homophobic Bullying

Although there are multiple definitions of “school climate”, generally the term describes the culture and character of school life (Cohen et al. 2009). School climate has been described as a function of multiple dimensions: academic climate, community, perceived safety (Thapa et al. 2013). Given its multidimensional nature, there have been heterogeneous approaches to examine this construct. The present study focuses on a holistic conceptualization of school climate measured through multiple dimensions: students’ experiences of feeling safe at school, school connectedness (i.e., being a valued and accepted member of the school community), positive relationships with adults at school (i.e., beliefs that adults in the school support and care about students as individuals) and opportunities for meaningful participation (i.e., the perceived control over the learning process by students) (Day et al. 2019; Malley et al. 2015).

Addressing the school climate has been considered a critical way to prevent bullying (National School Climate Center 2007; U.S. Department of Education 2012). Consistent with social control theories, students in school climates defined by weak interpersonal bonds (e.g., lack of caring adults, no school connectedness, and low participation in school) are more likely to engage in aggressive behaviors (Wang et al. 2013). Longitudinal findings supported this perspective by finding that school climates based on positive peer and student-teacher relationships and school connectedness were associated with decreases in peer victimization over time (Elsaesser et al. 2013; Loukas and Pasch 2013).

When assessing the role of school climate in influencing the rates of aggression at school, special attention needs to be paid to sexual and gender identity disparities. Overall, LGBQ and transgender students often perceive the climate in their schools as more negative compared to heterosexual and cisgender students (Berlan et al. 2011; Toomey and Russell 2016). Thus, because LGBTQ students are a numeric minority, an aggregated school-level indicator of school climate may obscure the personal experience of LGBQ and transgender students. In line with this point, several studies have suggested that the effect of school climate on students’ experiences may vary depending on the unit of analysis taken into consideration (i.e., student-level vs school-level measures of school climate). For example, Anderman (2002) found that student-level perceptions and school-level aggregated measures of school belonging were differently associated with less depression, social rejection, school problems, and higher grades. Another study (Wang et al. 2014) found that school-level (rather than student-level) measures of positive school climate were associated with students’ academic success. Distinguishing between a contextual (school-level) and an individual (students-level) perception of school climate may be crucial for understanding sexual and gender identity disparities on homophobic bullying victimization.

Current Study

By combining multiple data sources, this study aimed to examine GSA functioning, school climate, and homophobic bullying for over 38,000 students in 58 high schools where GSAs were present. GSA functioning in this study refers to the level of achievement of some of the most general GSA purposes, such as providing a “safe space” for students, instilling a sense of belongingness and empowerment to their members, and paving the way for social changes at school. Based on the literature reviewed, the following hypotheses were tested.

Given that GSA presence at school is associated with more positive outcomes for all students regardless of their sexual or gender identity (Saewyc et al. 2014) or their GSA membership (Ioverno et al. 2016), in schools characterized by high levels of GSA functioning, students would report lower levels of homophobic bullying (Hypothesis 1).

High GSA functioning may limit the impact of a hostile school climate as a risk factor for peer victimization (Elsaesser et al. 2013; Loukas and Pasch 2013). Thus, in negative school climates, homophobic bullying victimization experiences would be more common in schools with low GSA functioning compared to schools with high GSA functioning. For this hypothesis, a two-way interaction at the school level (level-2) was tested between aggregated indicators of GSA functioning and school climate (GSA functioning X school climate) (Hypothesis 2).

In negative school climates, homophobic bullying victimization experiences would be more common for LGBQ and transgender students in schools with low GSA functioning compared to schools with high GSA functioning (whereas smaller differences between schools with high and low GSA functioning are expected for heterosexual and cisgender students). Because the focus is on the unique experiences of LGBQ and transgender students, student-level reports of school climate were used instead of an aggregate measure at the school level. Thus, two three-way, cross-level interactions were tested between GSA functioning at the school level, student-level reports of school climate, and students’ sexual or gender identities (GSA functioning X student-level school climate X students’ sexual or gender identity) (Hypothesis 3).

Methods

Sample

This study analyzed the experiences of high school students in 58 schools with GSAs. After we gained approval from the institutional review board, several independent data sources were matched at the school level. The first consisted of student reports from the California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS) from 2013 to 2015, a statewide survey conducted biennially in public middle and high schools, administered by WestEd with support from the California Department of Education to track health risks and resilience among youth in California (Austin et al. 2015). The second data source was reports of student members of 127 California high school GSAs for the years 2013–2014 on an annual survey to evaluate the experiences and needs of GSA members conducted by the statewide youth organization GSA Network (Russell et al. 2010). Third, sociodemographic characteristics of schools came from publicly available from the California Department of Education (CDE). The final analytical sample included 58 schools for which we were able to match data from the CHKS, GSA annual surveys, and the CDE between 2013 and 2015.

Participants

Based on recommendations from WestEd, reports from the CHKS were excluded if their response validity were questionable based on meeting two or more criteria related to inconsistent or exaggerated responses, or answering dishonestly to all or most of the questions on the survey (Austin et al. 2015). Excluded youth based on these criteria constituted 1.85% of the CHKS sample. The analytical sample consisted of 38,872 students. It included students in Grades 6 to 12: 3.70% were in Grades 6–8; 53.71% in Grades 9–10; 42.40% in Grades 11–12; 0.19% were ungraded or reported other grade. The ethnic and racial composition was diverse: 44.54% of students identified as Hispanic, 3.07% as American Indian or Alaska Native, 13.04% as Asian, 4.38% as African American, 2.20% as Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 32.10% as White, 32.15% as multiracial, and 13.05% reported no race. Age ranged from 10 to 18, M = 15.18; SD = 1.28. Half of the students (50.43%) identified their sex as female and the other half (49.57%) as male. One percent of the sample self-identified as transgender and 8.75% as LGBQ. Eight percent of non-transgender students reported being LGBQ, while 53.64% of transgender students self-identified also as LGBQ. The demographic composition across participants’ sexual orientation and gender identity is shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographic and descriptive statistics across sexual orientation and gender identity

Sexual orientation
 Gender identity
Non-LGBQ (n = 35,471)
 LGBQ (n = 3401)
 Non-transgender (n = 38,419)
 Transgender (n = 453)
%/Mean (SD) n %/Mean (SD) n %/Mean (SD) n %/Mean (SD) n
Grade
 6th-8th 3.70% 1294 3.96% 134 3.71% 1405 5.13% 23
 9th-10th 53.71% 18,760 54.42% 1842 53.78% 20,365 52.90% 237
 11th-12th 42.40% 14,811 41.24% 1396 42.32% 16,026 40.40% 181
 Other grade/ungraded 0.19% 66 0.38% 13 0.19% 72 1.56% 7
Age 15.18 (1.27) 34,981 15.17 (1.32) 3383 15.18 (1.27) 37,914 15.16 (149) 450
Sex
 Female 49.30% 17,124 62.19% 2074 50.58% 19,041 36.85% 157
 Male 50.70% 17,613 37.81% 1261 49.42% 18,605 63.15% 269
Race
 American Indian/Alaskan Native 3.00% 1065 3.76% 128 3.03% 1164 6.40% 29
 Asian 13.06% 4634 12.79% 435 13.07% 5023 10.15% 46
 Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 4.32% 1533 5.03% 171 2.19% 843 3.09% 14
 African American 2.20% 780 2.26% 77 4.33% 1665 8.61% 39
 White 32.39% 11,490 29.05% 988 32.14% 12,348 28.70% 130
 Multiple 31.79% 11,276 35.96% 1223 32.12% 12,341 34.88% 158
 No race reported 13.23% 4693 11.14% 379 13.11% 5035 8.17% 37
Ethnicity
 Hispanic 44.51% 15,370 44.83% 1487 44.50% 16,652 48.35% 205
 Non-Hispanic 55.49% 19,158 55.17% 1830 55.50% 20,769 51.65% 219
Homophobic bullying
 Yes 5.54% 1861 31.54% 1057 7.56% 2757 36.93% 161
 No 94.46% 31,702 68.46% 2294 92.44% 33,721 63.07% 275
School climate (L1) 0.02 (0.63) 34,966 −0.18 (0.67) 3401 0.01 (0.64) 37,890 −0.36 (0.74) 453
Open in a new tab

School climate means are based on standardized scores

Measures

School-level GSA functioning

GSA members reported their perceptions of the functioning of their GSAs described by the following four items: (1) “The GSA was a safe place for me to go”; (2) “Being part of GSA made me feel like I belong”; (3) “Being part of the GSA makes me feel more confident about fighting homophobia, transphobia, and other injustices”; (4) “I feel that my GSA paves the way for social change at my school”. Overall, GSA functioning reflects a subjective feeling of the effect and benefits of GSA activities. Response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The internal consistency estimate was 0.84. An aggregate mean score for each GSA (school) based on all members’ responses to this measure was created. The number of GSA members who reported on their GSAs vary across schools from 1 to 21 (M= 2.57; SD = 3.11). Finally, the GSA functioning measure was combined with CHKS data as a school-level variable.

School-level and student-level school climate

The CHKS school climate measure combines four subsets of questions (Day et al. 2019; Malley et al. 2015): caring relationships with adults (six items; an example item is “At my school, there is a teacher or some other adult who listens to me when I have something to say”), perceived school safety (two items; an example item is “I feel safe in my school”), meaningful participation (three items; an example item is “At my school, I do interesting activities”), and school connectedness (four items; an example item is “I feel like I am part of this school”). Response options ranged from 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) for school connectedness and one item of perceived school safety, and from 0 (not at all true) to 3 (very true) for caring relationships with adults and students’ meaningful participation. The remaining perceived safety item had five response options ranging from “Very safe” to “Very unsafe”. This item was reverse coded so that higher scores indicated greater safety at school. Consistent with recent studies (Day et al. 2019), the mean for this construct was calculated from the standardized z-score of each of the items. The internal consistency estimate was 0.89. For the present study, school climate was calculated as both and individual-level student measure as well as an aggregated school-level indicator of school climate following the approach of previous studies (Anderman 2002; Wang et al. 2014).

Student-level homophobic bullying victimization

On the CHKS survey, students were asked: “During the past 12 months, how many times on school property were you harassed or bullied for any of the following reasons?” This prompt was accompanied by a short definition of bullying: “You were bullied if you were shoved, hit, threatened, called mean names, teased, or had other unpleasant physical or verbal things done to you repeatedly or in a severe way. It is not bullying when two students of about the same strength quarrel or fight”. Among different potential reasons for bullying or harassment, after the stem, participants could report how often they were bullied “Because you are gay or lesbian or someone thought you were”. Response options ranged from 0 (0 times) to 3 (4 or more times). Since descriptive information revealed significantly high skewness and kurtosis, the homophobic bullying item was transformed into a binary variable (0 = no report of homophobic bullying; 1 = reported homophobic bullying).

Background information

Background variables include age, sex, sexual identity, gender identity, race, and ethnicity from CHKS. Participants’ sexual identity and gender identity were examined through responses to a single item including the following categories: “Heterosexual”, “lesbian, gay, bisexual”, “transgender”, “unsure”, “decline to respond”. Participants were asked to mark all the categories that apply. From this item, two dichotomous variables were created: one for sexual identity based on whether students marked “lesbian, gay, bisexual” or “unsure” (0 = non-LGBQ; 1 = LGBQ) and one for gender identity based on whether students marked “transgender” (0 = non-transgender; 1 = transgender). For ethnicity, youth were asked whether they were “of Hispanic or Latino origin” (0 = No; 1 = Yes). Finally, youth could check any of seven categories for race which were coded as dichotomous variables indicating whether respondents were American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, African American, Multiracial or no race reported, with White as the reference group.

To adjust for socioeconomic differences between schools, data from the California Department of Education on school enrollment and the percentage of students eligible for free and reduced-price meals were included.

Analytic Strategy

Preliminary analyses tested whether schools that participated in the GSA annual survey and thus were included in the analytic sample differed from the general sample of California schools. Bivariate analyses showed that schools in the analytic sample were larger and had a lower percentage of students who self-identified as multiracial. No differences were found on the percentages of students of other races or ethnicities, on the number of LGBQ and transgender students, on the proportion of female and male students, or on the percentage of students who were eligible for free and reduced-price meals. Moreover, the schools did not significantly differ in terms of school climate and incidence of homophobic bullying. These results suggested that the analytic sample did not differ substantially from the full statewide sample of the CHKS except for the enrollment rates and the number of students who self-identified as multiracial.

For the focal analyses, paired t-tests were used to compare mean scores on school climate at the student level between LGBQ and non–LGBQ students, and between transgender and non-transgender students. Chi-square tests were used to compare the proportion of students who experienced homophobic bullying. Pearson’s bivariate correlations were performed to examine the associations among the school-level variables (i.e., GSA functioning, number of GSA members who responded to the survey, aggregated scores on school climate, enrollment, and percentage of students qualifying free or reduced-price meals). Then, a series of multilevel logistic models were fitted to account for the dichotomous nature of the outcome variable. Multilevel analyses were employed to account for the nested nature of the data and to test for the associations between school-level and student-level variables. Parameters were estimated with maximum likelihood estimation using adaptive quadrature with standard 7 integration points.

First, an unconditional model to determine the variance explained by differences between schools on homophobic bullying was tested, followed by a conditional model (Model 1) to examine the main effects of student- and school-level variables on the outcome. A same-level interaction at the school level was tested to examine the moderating role of GSA functioning on the association of the aggregated measure of school climate with homophobic bullying (Model 2). Next, two cross-level, three-way interactions were tested to examine whether the moderating role of GSA functioning on the association between perceived school climate and homophobic bullying victimization may differ based on students’ sexual identity (GSA functioning X school climate at the student level X sexual identity; Model 3) and gender identity (GSA functioning X school climate at the student level X gender identity; Model 4). For the economy of presentation, only the significant interaction terms were reported in the table, while the estimates for non-significant interactions were reported in the text. Simple slope analyses were conducted to decompose the significant interaction effect. Analyses were performed in Stata version 15.1. Given that the total percentage of missing data was small (7.28%) and did not substantially limit the statistical power of the CHKS sample, missing data were handled with listwise deletion following the recommendations of Allison (2010). Finally, methodological considerations related to the combination of distinct data sources prompted some sensitivity analyses, the results of which are discussed at the end of the results section.

Results

Descriptive Analysis at the Student and School Levels

The proportion of LGBQ and transgender students who experienced homophobic bullying was significantly higher compared to the proportion of non-LGBQ, diff = 36.92%, χ2 [1] = 2800.00, p < 0.001, and non-transgender students, diff = 26.14%, χ2 [1] = 510.46, p < 0.001 (see Table 1 for the percentages of victims of homophobic bullying across sexual and gender identities). Moreover, independent t-tests showed that, on average, LGBQ and transgender students reported less positive school climate compared to non-LGBQ, t (38,365) = 17.15, p < 0.001, d = 0.31, and non-transgender students, t (38,365) = 12.24, p < 0.001, d = 0.58. Descriptive and bivariate correlations of school-level variables are shown in Table 2. None of the school-level variables were significantly correlated except that the proportion of students who received free or reduced-price meals in schools was negatively correlated with school climate.

Table 2.

Correlations between school-level variables

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. M (SD) Range
1. % of victims homophobic bullying 1.00 8.34% (2.68%) 4.42%; 16.75%
2. GSA functioning 0.07 1.00 3.70 (0.35) 2.75; 4.00
3. GSA members −0.22 −0.02 1.00 2.57 (3.11) 1; 21
4. School climate −0.09 −0.26 0.18 1.00 −0.01 (0.16) −0.35; 0.28
5. % FRPM 0.24 0.11 0.09 −0.58* 1.00 51.08% (28.38%) 4.43%; 97.22%
6. Enrollment −0.16 −0.11 −0.10 −0.15 −0.20 1.00 1761.40 (777.19) 101; 3241
Open in a new tab

n = 58; FRPM indicates the percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price meals. School climate means are based on standardized scores

*

p < 0.001

GSA Functioning as Predictor and Moderator of Homophobic Bullying Victimization

The unconditional model showed that there was significant variation across schools in homophobic victimization (ICC = 0.02, p < 0.001). However, a relatively small intraclass correlation (2%) suggested that most of the variance of homophobic victimization lies in student-level variables.

Results of a conditional model including student-level and school-level indicators (Model 1 in Table 3) show that female and young students reported less homophobic bullying compared to male and older students, and, across ethnic groups, Asian youth and students who did not report their race reported less homophobic bullying compared to White youth. LGBQ and transgender students reported more bullying compared to non-LGBQ and non-transgender students, and a positive perception of school climate at the student-level was associated with fewer reports of homophobic bullying. Results do not support the first hypothesis: there was no association between GSA functioning and homophobic bullying. Further, the school climate at the school level was not significantly associated with homophobic bullying. However, homophobic bullying was less common in schools in which more GSA members participated in the annual survey.

Table 3.

Multilevel models of Gay-Straight Alliances (GSA), school and individual characteristics associated with experiences of homophobic bullying

Homophobic bullying
Model 1 OR (SE) Model 2 OR (SE) Model 3 OR (SE) Model 4 OR (SE)
Student
 Femalea 0.75 (0.04)*** 0.75 (0.04)*** 0.76 (0.04)*** 0.76 (0.04)***
 Age 0.88 (0.02)*** 0.88 (0.02)*** 0.88 (0.02)*** 0.88 (0.02)***
 Latinob 0.91 (0.06) 0.91 (0.06) 0.91 (0.06) 0.91 (0.06)
 Am. Indian/Alaska Natc. 1.07 (0.11) 1.07 (0.11) 1.06 (0.11) 1.06 (0.11)
 Asianc 0.68 (0.05)*** 0.69 (0.05)*** 0.69 (0.05)*** 0.69 (0.05)***
 Blackc 0.97 (0.11) 0.98 (0.11) 0.98 (0.11) 0.97 (0.1)
 Nat. Haw./ Pac. Isl.c 1.23 (0.14) 1.24 (0.14) 1.24 (0.14) 1.24 (0.14)
 Mixed racesc 1.01 (0.05) 1.01 (0.05) 1.01 (0.05) 1.01 (0.05)
 No race reportedc 0.72 (0.06)*** 0.72 (0.06)*** 0.72 (0.06)*** 0.72 (0.06)***
 LGBQd 7.68 (0.38)*** 7.68 (0.38)*** 8.18 (0.38)*** 8.21 (0.38)***
 Transgendere 2.21 (0.46)*** 2.2 (0.45)*** 2.25 (0.46)*** 2.21 (0.52)***
 School climate (stud.) 0.58 (0.02)*** 0.58 (0.02)*** 0.53 (0.02)*** 0.53 (0.02)***
School
 Enrollment 1.01 (0.01) 1.01 (0.01) 1.01 (0.01) 1.01 (0.01)
 %FRMP 1.34 (0.26) 1.48 (0.29) 1.46 (0.29) 1.46 (0.28)
 N GSA members 0.95 (0.01)*** 0.95 (0.01)*** 0.95 (0.01)*** 0.95 (0.01)***
 GSA functioning 0.98 (0.04) 0.95 (0.04) 0.95 (0.04) 0.96 (0.04)
 School climate (school) 1.01 (0.06) 1.02 (0.05) 1.02 (0.05) 1.02 (0.05)
Interactions
 GSA functioning X School climate (school) 1.12 (0.04) 1.12 (0.04)** 1.12 (0.04)**
LGBQ
 School climate (stud.) X LGBQ 1.37 (0.11)*** 1.37 (0.12)***
Transgender
 GSA functioning X School climate (stud.) 1.01 (0.04)
 GSA functioning X Trans 1.23 (0.26)
 School climate (stud.) X Trans 0.88 (0.17)
 GSA functioning X School climate (stud.) X Trans 1.86 (0.35)***
Open in a new tab
*

p < 0.05

**

p < 0.01

***

p < 0.001

Reference groups for categorical variables are:

a

Male

b

Non-Latino

c

White

d

Non-LGBQ

e

Cisgender

The next model included a two-way same-level interaction between GSA functioning and school climate at the school level (see Model 2 in Table 3). Consistent with the second hypothesis, the interaction was significant. As shown in Fig. 1, in schools where GSA members reported the lowest functioning (values below an average of 3, or “agree”), there were higher rates of homophobic victimization in negative school climates compared to the other schools. Simple slopes revealed that at the lowest values of GSA functioning, the association between school climate and homophobic bullying victimization was significant, OR = 0.74, SE = 0.12, p = 0.014, while at the highest values of GSA functioning the associations was not significant, OR = 1.12, SE = 0.07, p = 0.058.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Expected probabilities of homophobic bullying based on the interaction between school climate at the school level and GSA functioning. High GSA functioning = highest values on GSA functioning measure. Low GSA functioning = lowest values on GSA functioning measure

To summarize, GSA functioning was not significantly associated with homophobic bullying. However, in schools with negative school climate, reports of homophobic bullying were least frequent if there were high levels of GSA functioning.

The Moderating Role of GSA Functioning for LGBQ and Transgender Students

The next model examined whether the association of perceived school climate on homophobic bullying victimization and the moderating role of GSA functioning would differ based on students’ sexual identity. Specifically, a series of models were tested including two-way and three-way cross-level interactions between sexual identity, school climate at the student level, and GSA functioning. First, the combinations of two-way interactions were tested: (1) student-level school climate X sexual identity, OR = 1.37, SE = 0.11, p < 0.001; (2) GSA functioning X sexual identity, OR = 1.07, SE = 0.04, p = 0.073; and (3) GSA functioning X student-level school climate, OR = 1.03, SE = 0.04, p = 0.525. Subsequently, the three-way interaction between student-level school climate, sexual identity, and GSA functioning was tested; the interaction was not significant, OR = 0.89, SE = 0.06, p = 0.095. Thus, only the significant interaction between student-level school climate and sexual identity was added to Model 3 (see Table 3). As shown in Fig. 2, simple slope tests revealed that the association between perceived school climate and homophobic bullying was stronger among non-LGBQ students, OR = 0.53, SE = 0.02, p < 0.001, compared to LGBQ students, OR = 0.73, SE = 0.06, p < 0.001.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Expected probabilities of homophobic bullying based on the two-way interaction between school climate at the student level and sexual identity

The next step was to test whether the moderating role of GSA functioning on the association of perceived school climate on homophobic bullying victimization would differ based on students’ gender identity. With the prior two-way interaction of GSA functioning by student-level school climate reported above, the following two-way interactions were tested: (1) student-level school climate X gender identity, OR = 0.93, SE = 0.19, p = 0.713; (2) GSA functioning X gender identity, OR = 0.95, SE = 0.15, p = 0.750; none of the interactions were significant. Finally, a three-way interaction was tested between GSA functioning, gender identity, and student-level school climate; the interaction was significant (see Model 4 in Table 3). As shown in Fig. 3, at 1 standard deviation below GSA functioning mean, transgender students in negative school climates reported more homophobic bullying victimization than transgender students in positive school climates, OR = 3.89, SE = 0.30, p < 0.001. On the contrary, at 1 standard deviation above GSA functioning mean, there was no difference in homophobic bullying victimization between transgender students in negative and positive school climate, OR = 1.17, SE = 0.24, p = 0.496. At both one standard deviation below, OR = 1.84, SE = 0.05, p < 0.001, and above GSA functioning mean, OR = 1.83, SE = 0.05, p < 0.001, non-transgender students in negative school climate reported more homophobic bullying victimization than non-transgender students in positive school climates.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Expected probabilities of homophobic bullying based on the three-way interaction between school climate at the student level, GSA functioning, and gender identity. Low GSA functioning = 1 standard deviation below the mean. High GSA functioning = 1 standard deviation above the mean

To summarize, in analyses of individual student-level school climate, results show that with respect to homophobic bullying victimization, LGBQ students did not get the same benefit of a positive school climate compared to non-LGBQ students. A more complex pattern was found for transgender students: those in schools with a negative school climate reported lower levels of homophobic bullying victimization if their GSA was rated as high in functioning.

Sensitivity and Alternative Analyses

The measure of GSA functioning in this study was reported typically by one or two GSA members, but in some schools, as many as 21. Post-hoc sensitivity analyses excluded schools with fewer than three GSA members, and results did not substantially differ. These sensitivity analyses bolstered confidence in the results presented here.

Conceptually, two alternative mediation models are plausible: one model in which GSA functioning mediates the association between school climate and homophobic bullying and another in which school climate mediates the association between GSA functioning and homophobic bullying. However, preliminary analyses showed no significant associations between GSA functioning and school climate, or between GSA functioning and homophobic bullying. Given these conditions, it was not possible to test the two alternative mediation models.

Discussion

Reports of homophobic bullying were least frequent in schools collectively judged by students as having a negative school climate as well as higher levels of GSA functioning. When analyzing the school climate from the reports of individual students rather than aggregated reports, which represent the collective experience at a school, we find this pattern to be particularly strong for transgender students.

The first hypothesis was that school-wide GSA functioning would have a direct association with students’ reports of homophobic bullying; we found no strong effect (see the main effect of GSA functioning in Model 1 of Table 3). The structure and functioning of GSAs are determined by student members, and vary from school to school (Poteat et al. 2015b). It may be that the heterogeneity of GSA functioning precludes a strong, direct effect. For example, in schools without supportive resources and personnel, GSA activities may focus on preventing victimization and discrimination, whereas, in schools with positive climates, GSAs may be oriented toward other initiatives such as the introduction of inclusive curricula, comprehensive sex education, or efforts to secure gender-neutral bathrooms (indeed, although the association was not statistically significant, GSA functioning was inversely correlated with school climate, r =−0.26). This measure captures members’ general perception of the functioning of their GSAs but does not capture specific types of activities, or motivations for those activities within GSAs. Another interpretation is that the non-significant association could be an artifact of a school-wide sample of predominately cisgender and heterosexual students, who would be less likely to be victimized for homophobic reasons compared to their LGBTQ peers. This may also explain the non-significant association between the aggregate measure of school climate and homophobic bullying. However, heterosexual and cisgender students may also be targets of homophobic bullying, although to a lesser extent (Parent et al. 2020). Thus, GSAs may play a protective function for all students (not only for LGBTQ students). The lack of association between the aggregate measure of school climate and homophobic bullying could also be an artifact of a sample that only includes schools with GSAs: in these schools, the association between school climate and homophobic bullying may be influenced by the functioning of GSAs.

Given prior research on the crucial role of school climate (Wang et al. 2013), the second hypothesis was that the influence of school climate on homophobic bullying might depend on the quality of GSA functioning. In line with other studies (Anderman 2002; Wang et al. 2014), this study incorporated measures of school climate at the individual as well as school levels: school climate aggregated at the school level represents a contextual measure of the overall quality and character of school life, whereas at the individual level it represents the personal experience of life at school. Results indicated that the moderation effects varied depending on the unit of analysis. Although the variability of homophobic bullying victimization across schools was relatively small, the contextual (school-level) association of school climate on homophobic bullying was moderated by GSA functioning (also a school-level indicator). Specifically, when adding a same-level two-way interaction between GSA functioning and school climate to our model (see Model 2 in Table 3), results suggested that in schools that need it the most—those collectively judged by students as having a negative school climate—reports of homophobic bullying were least frequent in schools with high levels of GSA functioning. Notably, this association was independent of students’ sexual or gender identity, and reflects the fact that the majority of students in the sample were non-LGBQ. These results may suggest that high levels of GSA functioning in negative school climates may benefit all students, not only LGBTQ students. Indeed, consistent with other studies (Parent et al. 2020; Russell and Horn 2016), results indicate that heterosexual and non-transgender youth experience homophobic victimization, albeit at lower rates compared to their LGBQ and transgender peers.

The third hypothesis tested whether sexual and gender identity disparities in homophobic bullying victimization may be influenced by the school-level quality of GSA functioning and individual experiences of school climate. Assessing the school climate at the student level allows consideration of the distinct perceptions of the school experiences of LGBQ and transgender students. In fact, most LGBQ and transgender youth are at disproportionate risk for experiencing identity-related discrimination and victimization at school (Berlan et al. 2011; Toomey and Russell 2016) and, as descriptive results show, tend to perceive their school climate as negative compared to their heterosexual and non-transgender peers. The three-way interaction of student-level school climate, GSA functioning, and sexual identity was not significant: the level of GSA functioning in a school may be similarly beneficial for both LGBQ and heterosexual students. Motivations for homophobic bullying are often similar for LGBQ and heterosexual students: it often reflects a social process to establish dominance hierarchies among peers by enforcing traditional masculine and feminine behaviors (Ioverno et al. 2019; Parent et al. 2020). Although LGBQ students are more likely to experience homophobic bullying victimization, heterosexual victims may be youth whose gender expressions are gender atypical, and thus are similarly likely to be targeted (Salvati et al. 2016, 2018). One of the most common objectives of GSA advocacy or support activities is aimed at challenging gender-related biases that feed homophobic violence at school (Poteat et al. 2017). Further, this null result accords with the finding that the association of GSA functioning with homophobic bullying victimization was associated with school climate as a contextual factor rather than an individual experience; high GSA functioning may benefit all students regardless of their sexual identities.

Notably, we found an interaction between student-level school climate with sexual identity (see Model 3 in Table 3) indicating that positive perceptions of school climate were associated with fewer experiences of homophobic bullying victimization, with a stronger association for heterosexual students compared to LGBQ students. This finding may suggest that regardless of the school climate, LGBQ students may be less likely than non-LGBQ students to rely on resources at school (e.g., support from the teachers, principals, and school community) that might prevent experiences of homophobic bullying. Overall, the smaller difference for LGBQ students on homophobic bullying between schools with positive and negative climates when compared to non-LGBQ students affirmed prior recommendations for school leaders to address the attitudes that school personnel and students hold toward LGBQ students (Russell et al. 2010). In inclusive schools, LGBQ and non-LGBQ students would probably gain the same benefits from school resources when dealing with homophobic bullying.

In contrast to the results for sexual identity, the three-way interaction of student-level school climate and GSA functioning with gender identity was significant (see Model 4 in Table 3). We found that in schools with negative school climates, transgender students reported less homophobic bullying when the GSA had high functioning compared to transgender students in schools with low GSA functioning. The different patterns of results (compared to those for sexual identity) may have to do with distinct school climate perceptions of transgender students. Similar to LGBQ peers, the majority of transgender students report discrimination and harassment and perceive their school environments as unsupportive, intolerant, or even hostile (Day et al. 2018; McGuire et al. 2010). However, some challenges and barriers are unique to this population. In many schools, transgender youth are prevented from using their chosen names or the pronouns aligned with their gender identity (Pollitt et al. 2019) and required to use dress codes and facilities (bathrooms and locker rooms) aligned with their sex assigned at birth (Kosciw et al. 2018). Moreover, school policies often do not specifically acknowledge transgender issues, and many transgender students may not have access to appropriate resources and supports (McGuire et al. 2010). The finding suggested that GSA functioning may be particularly beneficial for transgender students who experience a negative school climate. This is consistent with previous studies showing that the presence of a GSA at school was especially protective for transgender youth (Greytak et al. 2013). There are a number of possible explanations for this finding. A previous study found that transgender youth are more likely to attend GSA meetings compared to their non-transgender peers (Greytak et al. 2009), and thus may often influence the activities and associated GSA functioning. Also, a recent study documented that involvement in discussions about transgender and gender-diversity issues is more frequent in GSAs that do more advocacy and support (Poteat et al. 2018a, 2018b). Moreover, there is some evidence that GSA members’ involvement in such discussions promotes their critical consciousness and action to counter discrimination based on gender identity (Chong et al. 2019). Finally, given that the majority of school policies on bullying and discrimination often do not acknowledge transgender issues, students and school personnel are more likely to be educated about LGBQ issues compared to transgender issues (McGuire et al. 2010). It is possible that GSAs with high levels of functioning tend to address this disparity by organizing events and sharing important information about gender identity with students and school personnel, resulting in more supportive school climates for transgender students.

This study has a number of limitations. Data were cross-sectional and unable to address the temporal associations between GSA functioning, school climate, and experiences of homophobic bullying. An alternate explanation could be that high rates of discriminatory bullying activate more GSA activities (although it stands to reason that GSAs may be less likely to be present in schools with hostile climates in the first place, although, of note, no previous quantitative studies specifically test this hypothesis). Further longitudinal and experimental approaches in which homophobic bullying is treated as a predictor or as a moderator of the association between GSA functioning and school climate are needed to test temporal associations.

Although the combination of a survey of GSA members with an independent statewide student survey is novel, the survey of GSA members was voluntary and sent only to registered GSA clubs. It is unclear whether the participating GSAs are representative of all GSAs in the state. GSAs participating in the GSA Network annual survey may have different objectives compared to the other GSAs. Evidence on this potential difference is lacking in research and future studies should consider this information when analyzing the role of GSA functioning.

Also, the measure of GSA functioning has a number of limitations. It captures members’ perceptions of the quality of the functioning but does not include the range of activities in which GSAs may be engaged. Further studies, like several cited here (Calzo et al. 2020; Chong et al. 2019), should give more attention to specific GSA activities and their implications for students. For example, given the particular benefits of GSA functioning for transgender youth found here, further efforts should be made to recognize how the needs of transgender youth may be different from the needs of LGBQ youth, and in what ways transgender students may derive greater benefits from a strong GSA. Another limitation of the measure of GSA functioning is that it was reported typically by one or two GSA members, but in some schools, as many as 21. This is clearly a limitation, yet confidence in the measure is bolstered for several reasons. Respondents to the GSA Network annual survey are likely to have been among the most engaged in their GSA by virtue of their receipt and active response to the survey; this measure likely represents perspectives from students with the closest “insider” knowledge about the GSA. Further, the measure represents a general perspective of the GSA’s functioning, which would likely be generally shared by members. Also, several analytic strategies were used to test the robustness of the findings: the number of GSA survey participants was included as a covariate, and post-hoc sensitivity analyses excluded schools with fewer than three GSA members. Ultimately, even despite these limitations with the GSA survey and the measure of GSA functioning, it is notable that findings were consistent with the hypothesis that GSA functioning would moderate the association between school climate and homophobic bullying.

Another limitation is that there is little additional information at the school level that might influence the associations studied here. For example, GSAs represent one of many forms of clubs at school; the datasets used here did not provide information that allowed for analyses to account for students’ participation in other clubs or the presence of other extra-curricular activities at the school. Moreover, in addition to GSAs, other strategies and policies have been identified in research to improve LGBTQ students’ school experience: enumerated school nondiscrimination and anti-bullying policies; the availability of services designed to address the unique needs of LGBTQ students; teacher professional development to address LGBTQ issues; the presence of safe spaces for LGBTQ youth; and LGBTQ-inclusive curricula (Russell et al. 2010; Russell and Horn 2016). For a more accurate study on the role of GSAs, future studies should take into consideration the presence of these policies and practices to distinguish GSAs that are a primary vehicle for preventing homophobic bullying from GSAs that are part of a broader school anti-discrimination effort.

A further limitation is that the CHKS did not assess sexual and gender identity independently, raising the potential for misclassification. In addition, given that students were only asked about their sex and not about their sex assigned at birth, this study was unable to make comparisons between male-to-female and female-to-male transgender students. Finally, the homophobic bullying item asks about bullying “because you are gay or lesbian or someone thought you were”; a bullying item specific to gender identity would have been more appropriate for the objectives of this study. It stands to reason that in the absence of an option to report bullying specific to gender identity, transgender students might endorse bullying due to sexual orientation. Negative attitudes toward gender nonconformity are a persistent element of homophobic bias. Stereotypes regarding sexual orientation view gay males as less or not masculine and lesbians as less or not feminine (Blashill and Powlishta 2009). That means that gender-related attributes are very often used as cues for one’s sexual orientation. Thus, similar to LGBQ students, transgender and heterosexual cisgender students whose gender expression is not considered typical by their peers are potential targets of homophobic bullying (Parent et al. 2020).

Conclusion

There is consistent evidence that GSAs provide a series of benefits for students, particularly LGBTQ students (see Marx and Kettrey 2016 for a meta-analytical review). Yet no prior studies have examined variability in GSA functioning, and whether such functioning may be linked to less homophobic bullying. Most studies have focused on GSA members and LGBTQ students as one group (Poteat et al. 2015a; Poteat et al. 2015b); no studies have examined how GSA functioning may affect students’ bullying experiences school-wide, and transgender students as distinct from LGBQ students. Finally, no previous study has analyzed the quality of the school climate in examining the role of GSAs. This study aimed at addressing these gaps. A series of multilevel regression analyses revealed that in schools with a negative school climate, reports of homophobic bullying were least frequent when GSAs had high functioning. An examination of the individual experiences of school climate rather than a collective experience showed that this finding was particularly pronounced among transgender students.

Findings from this study provide further evidence in support of the understanding that GSAs may be an effective way of reducing school challenges for LGBQ, transgender, and all students. Results helped decipher contradictory findings from previous studies that show no associations between the presence of GSAs and experiences of victimization (Poteat et al. 2013; Walls et al. 2010). Those studies may have captured GSAs with different levels of functioning, and in schools with different qualities of school climate. In fact, this study suggests that greater GSA functioning may be most beneficial in schools that have a negative school climate. For schools with a positive overall school climate, results likely indicate a ceiling effect. Future studies should closely examine the role of the GSA in schools with a positive climate to prevent situations of “healthy context paradox”. According to this paradox, in schools with highly salient anti-bullying efforts, the presence of anti-bullying intervention may have adverse effects on the mental health of bullying victims who would feel worse about themselves when victimization in their schools decreases (Huitsing et al. 2019). Importantly, our results suggest that GSA activities seem to be particularly beneficial for transgender students experiencing a negative school climate. In sum, school administrators and GSA advisors who aim to reduce homophobic bullying should not only sustain GSAs but promote their functioning.

Acknowledgements

The California Healthy Kids Survey was developed by WestEd under contract to the California Department of Education.

Funding

This work was supported by the Research Foundation—Flanders (FWO), [grant number 12V8120N], and by grant, P2CHD042849, Population Research Center, awarded to the Population Research Center at The University of Texas at Austin by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The authors acknowledge generous support from the Communities for Just Schools Fund, and for Russell from the Priscilla Pond Flawn Endowment at the University of Texas at Austin.

Biographies

Salvatore Ioverno is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the Department of Sociology at Ghent University. His research interests include the identification of risk and protective factors for minority stress, mental health and school achievement among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and questioning students using cross-national methodologies.

Stephen T. Russell is Priscilla Pond Flawn Regents Professor in Child Development and the Department Chair, Human Development and Family Sciences at The University of Texas at Austin. His research is focused on adolescent development with an emphasis on adolescent sexuality, LGBT youth, and parent-adolescent relationships.

Footnotes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval This study was approved by the University of Texas at Austin Review Board. IRB Amendment Approval for Protocol Number 2017-04-0070. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Data Sharing and Declaration

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Allison P (2010). Missing data. In Marsden PV & Wright JD (Eds), Handbook of survey research: 2nd revised edition (pp. 631–658). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderman EM (2002). School effects on psychological outcomes during adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 795–809. 10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.795. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Austin G, Bates S, & Duerr M (2015). Guidebook for the California Healthy Kids Survey part II: data use and dissemination (2013–14 Edition). San Francisco, CA: WestEd. [Google Scholar]
  4. Berlan ED, Corliss HL, Field AE, Austin SB, Goodman E, Bryn Austin S et al. (2011). Sexual orientation and bullying among adolescents in the Growing Up Today study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 46(4), 366–371. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.10.015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Blashill AJ, & Powlishta KK (2009). Gay stereotypes: the use of sexual orientation as a cue for gender-related attributes. Sex Roles, 61(11–12), 783–793. 10.1007/s11199-009-9684-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Calzo JP, Poteat VP, Yoshikawa H, Russell ST, & Bogart LM (2020). Person-environment fit and positive youth development in the context of high school gay–straight alliances. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 30(S1), 158–176. 10.1111/jora.12456. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Chong ESK, Poteat PV, Yoshikawa H, & Calzo JP (2019). Fostering youth self-efficacy to address transgender and racial diversity issues: the role of gay-straight alliances. School Psychology Quarterly, 34(1), 54–63. 10.1037/spq0000258. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cohen J, Mccabe EM, & Michelli NM (2009). School climate: research, policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 180–213. [Google Scholar]
  9. Day JK, Ioverno S, & Russell ST (2019). Safe and supportive schools for LGBT youth: addressing educational inequities through inclusive policies and practices. Journal of School Psychology, 74, 29–43. 10.1016/j.jsp.2019.05.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Day JK, Perez-Brumer A, & Russell ST (2018). Safe schools? Transgender youth’s school experiences and perceptions of school climate. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(8), 1731–1742. 10.1007/s10964-018-0866-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Elsaesser C, Gorman-Smith D, & Henry D (2013). The role of the school environment in relational aggression and victimization. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(2), 235–249. 10.1007/s10964-012-9839-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Greytak EA, Kosciw JG, & Boesen MJ (2013). Putting the “T” in “resource”: the benefits of LGBT-related school resources for transgender youth. Journal of LGBT Youth, 10(1–2), 45–63. 10.1080/19361653.2012.718522. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Greytak EA, Kosciw JG, & Diaz EM (2009). Harsh realities: the experiences of transgender youth in our nation’s school. New York, NY: GLSEN. [Google Scholar]
  14. Griffin P, Lee C, Waugh J, & Beyer C (2004). Describing roles that gay-straight alliances play in schools. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues In Education, 1(3), 7–22. 10.1300/J367v01n03. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Huitsing G, Lodder GMA, Oldenburg B, Schacter HL, Salmivalli C, Juvonen J, & Veenstra R (2019). The healthy context paradox: victims’ adjustment during an anti-bullying intervention. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28(9), 2499–2509. 10.1007/s10826-018-1194-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Ioverno S, Baiocco R, Lingiardi V, Verrastro V, D’Amore S, & Green RJ (2019). Attitudes towards same-sex parenting in Italy: the influence of traditional gender ideology. Culture, Health and Sexuality, 21(2), 188–204. 10.1080/13691058.2018.1459846. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Ioverno S, Belser AB, Baiocco R, Grossman AH, & Russell ST (2016). The protective role of gay–straight alliances for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and questioning students: a prospective analysis. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 3(4), 397–406. 10.1037/sgd0000193. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Kosciw JG, Greytak EA, Zoningrone AD, Clark CM, & Truong NL (2018). The 2017 National School Climate Survey: the experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer youth in our nation’s schools. New York, NY, US: GLSEN. [Google Scholar]
  19. Loukas A, & Pasch KE (2013). Does school connectedness buffer the impact of peer victimization on early adolescents’ subsequent adjustment problems? Journal of Early Adolescence, 33(2), 245–266. 10.1177/0272431611435117. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Malley MO, Voight A, Renshaw TL, & Eklund K (2015). School climate, family structure, and academic achievement: a study of moderation effects. School Psychology Quarterly, 30(1), 142–157. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Marx RA, & Kettrey HH (2016). Gay-straight alliances are associated with lower levels of school-based victimization of LGBTQ+ youth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(7), 1269–1282. 10.1007/s10964-016-0501-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. McGuire JK, Anderson CR, Toomey RB, & Russell ST (2010). School climate for transgender youth: a mixed method investigation of student experiences and school responses. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(10), 1175–1188. 10.1007/s10964-010-9540-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. National School Climate Council. (2007). The school climate challenge: Narrowing the gap between school climate research and school climate policy, practice guidelines and teacher education policy. New York, NY: National School Climate Council. Retrieved from https://www.schoolclimate.org/climate/documents/policy/school-climate-challenge-web.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  24. Parent MC, Johnson KE, Russell S, & Gobble T (2020). Homophobic bullying and suicidal behavior among US heterosexual youth. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 59(2), 205–208.e1. 10.1016/j.jaac.2019.08.473. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Pollitt AM, Ioverno S, Russell ST, Li G, & Grossman AH (2019). Predictors and mental health benefits of chosen name use among transgender youth. Youth & Society, 1–22, 0044118X1985589. 10.1177/0044118X19855898. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Poteat PV, Calzo JP, & Yoshikawa H (2016). Promoting youth agency through dimensions of gay-straight alliance involvement and conditions that maximize associations. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(7), 1438–1451. 10.1007/s10964-016-0421-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Poteat PV, Calzo JP, & Yoshikawa H (2018a). Gay-straight alliance involvement and youths’ participation in civic engagement, advocacy, and awareness-raising. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 56, 13–20. 10.1016/j.appdev.2018.01.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Poteat PV, Calzo JP, Yoshikawa H, Miller S, Ceccolini CJ, Rosenbach S et al. (2018b). Discussing transgender topics within gay-straight alliances: factors that could promote more frequent conversations. International Journal of Transgenderism, 2739(2), 1–13. 10.1080/15532739.2017.1407983. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Poteat PV, Heck NC, Yoshikawa H, & Calzo JP (2017). Gay-straight alliances as settings to discuss health topics: individual and group factors associated with substance use, mental health, and sexual health discussions. Health Education Research, 32(3), 258–268. 10.1093/her/cyx044. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Poteat PV, Sinclair KO, Digiovanni CD, Koenig BW, & Russell ST (2013). Gay-straight alliances are associated with student health: a multischool comparison of LGBTQ and heterosexual youth. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23(2), 319–330. 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2012.00832.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Poteat PV, Scheer JR, Marx RA, Calzo JP, & Yoshikawa H (2015a). Gay-straight alliances vary on dimensions of youth socializing and advocacy: factors accounting for individual and setting-level difference. American Journal of Community Psychology, 55(3–4), 422–432. 10.1007/s10464-015-9722-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Poteat PV, Yoshikawa H, Calzo JP, Gray ML, DiGiovanni CD, Lipkin A et al. (2015b). Contextualizing gay-straight alliances: student, advisor, and structural factors related to positive youth development among members. Child Development, 86(1), 176–193. 10.1111/cdev.12289. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Poteat PV, Yoshikawa H, Calzo JP, Russell ST, & Horn S (2017). Gay-straight alliances as settings for youth inclusion and development: future conceptual and methodological directions for research on these and other student groups in schools. Educational Researcher, 46(9), 508–516. 10.3102/0013189X17738760. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Russell ST, & Horn SS (2016). Sexual orientation, gender identity, and schooling. The nexus of research, practice, and policy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  35. Russell ST, Kosciw JG, Horn S, & Saewyc E (2010). Safe schools policy for LGBTQ students. Social Policy Report, 24(4), 1–25. [Google Scholar]
  36. Russell ST, Toomey RB, Crockett JL, & Laub C (2010). LGBT politics, youth activism, and civic engagement. In Handbook of research on civic engagement in youth (pp. 471–494). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 10.1002/9780470767603.ch18. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Saewyc EM, Konishi C, Rose HA, & Homma Y (2014). School-based strategies to reduce suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and discrimination among sexual minority and heterosexual adolescents in Western Canada. International Journal of Child, Youth & Family Studies, 5(1), 89–112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Salvati M, Ioverno S, Giacomantonio M, & Baiocco R (2016). Attitude toward gay men in an Italian sample: masculinity and sexual orientation make a difference. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 13(2), 109–118. 10.1007/s13178-016-0218-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Salvati M, Pistella J, Ioverno S, Giacomantonio M, & Baiocco R (2018). Attitude of Italian gay men and Italian lesbian women towards gay and lesbian gender-typed scenarios. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 15(3), 312–328. 10.1007/s13178-017-0296-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Thapa A, Cohen J, Guffey S, & Higgins-D’Alessandro A (2013). A review of school climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 357–385. 10.3102/0034654313483907. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Toomey RB, & Russell ST (2016). The role of sexual orientation in school-based victimization: a meta-analysis. Youth & Society, 48(2), 176–201. 10.1177/0044118X13483778. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Toomey RB., Ryan C., Diaz RM., & Russell ST. (2011). High school gay–straight alliances (GSAs) and young adult well-being: an examination of GSA presence, participation, and perceived effectiveness. Applied Developmental Science, 15(4), 175–185. 10.1080/10888691.2011.607378. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Department of Education US. (2012). Digest of education statistics, national center for education statistics, common core data set, table 46. Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office. [Google Scholar]
  44. Walls NE, Kane SB, & Wisneski H (2010). Gay-straight alliances and school experiences of sexual minority youth. Youth & Society, 41(3), 307–332. 10.1177/0044118X09334957. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Wang C, Berry B, & Swearer SM (2013). The critical role of school climate in effective bullying prevention. Theory into Practice, 52(4), 296–302. 10.1080/00405841.2013.829735. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Wang W, Vaillancourt T, Brittain HL, McDougall P, Krygsman A, Smith D et al. (2014). School climate, peer victimization, and academic achievement: results from a multi-informant study. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(3), 360–377. 10.1037/spq0000084. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

RESOURCES