Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2026 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: Sex Gend Divers Soc Serv. 2024 Nov 21;37(1):94–115. doi: 10.1080/29933021.2024.2413550

Beyond tolerance toward inclusion: Response to homo- and trans-negative language

Jack D Simons a,b,c, Aleš Kudrnáč d, Marci Kepic e, Irena Smetáčková b, Timothy McCajor Hall f
PMCID: PMC11922336  NIHMSID: NIHMS2039943  PMID: 40114717

Abstract

Greater numbers of youth in Czech schools identify as sexual and gender minorities (SGM). This is occurring in a highly homogenous country that has a history of tolerance, yet limited guidelines exist on how to support these increasingly more visible communities. This provides a unique environment to examine how, when, and why educators advocate for SGM youth in the Czech Republic, and it sets the stage for more research. In this study, 114 teachers working in Czech schools completed a survey about when they intervened and facilitated discussions in response to homo-negativity and trans-negativity (i.e., verbal prejudice). Regression models showed that intervention and discussion were significantly positively related to teachers’ self-efficacy to advocate for SGM youth. Additionally, educator training and attitudes were related to initiating classroom discussions about managing the consequences of verbal bullying.

Keywords: American School Counselor Association (ASCA), Czech Republic, homo-negativity, identity behavior theory, teacher, theory of interaction, trans-negativity

Bullying of youth based on sexual orientation and gender identity is common throughout the world (Simons & Fish, 2016). This includes the Czech Republic, a country in central Europe with few guidelines on how to support sexual and gender minority (SGM) youth (Pitoňák & Spilková, 2016). As a result, the negative effects of heterosexism persist in the country with more than 130,000 youth who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) (Czech Statistical Office, 2022; Kudrnáč, 2017). LGBT-inclusive sex education in the country is not mandated (Kudrnáč, 2017; Pitoňák & Spilková, 2016). No data exist on transgender advocacy competence among teachers in Czech schools. Additionally, as a point of reference based on research findings from the United States, many SGM youth have reported that not all teachers effectively support them (Kosciw et al., 2022). This study serves as an inaugural attempt to understand the perspectives of teachers concerning SGM youth in Czech schools. Only recently have data been collected in the Czech Republic to examine the ability of teachers to advocate effectively for sexual minorities. We now call for more LGBT research in Czech schools. A paucity of research in this area exists, and policies and training protocols considering the needs of LGBT youth and the responsibility of teachers to support them are nonexistent. We conducted a survey study in the Czech Republic. Teachers in Czech schools were recruited to complete an online survey to examine training, self-efficacy, and attitudes in relationship to intervening and having discussions with students about the bullying of LGBT peers. We hope our findings will lead to improved training and enumerated policies to promote more effective support of LGBT youth in Czech schools. We now review the topics of (1) training, (2) self-efficacy, and (3) attitudes in the context of the study.

Training

Knowledge of SGM topics and number of interactions with SGM people are related to quality and level of training, continuing education, and personal life experiences (Simons, 2018). Scholars have called for better training regarding SGM topics (Bradshaw et al., 2011; Katz-Wise et al., 2016; Simons et al., 2020, 2021). Better training may increase the likelihood that teachers intervene, for example, when SGM youth are bullied (Kull et al., 2017). However, it remains unclear about which type of SGM trainings are the best (Lloyd-Hazlett & Foster, 2013). More research is warranted beyond the scope of this article.

Self-efficacy

Simply having knowledge of SGM topics does not ensure that teachers will intervene when they witness homo-negativity and trans-negativity. Homo-negativity is the negative impact of heteronormative or anti-LGB+ attitudes and behaviors on individuals (Pitoňák & Čihák, 2023; Smetáčková et al., 2022), whereas trans-negativity is the negative impact of cis-normative or anti-trans attitudes and behaviors on individuals (Morrison et al., 2018). Both “lead to bullying … (jokes about LGBT people, mocking, direct or indirect harassment and physical violence) [and] have considerable influence on the feeling of safety and (non-) acceptance in schools” (Hajdíková et al., 2016, p. 9).

Along with training, personal forms of strength such as self-efficacy are important to study because they are central to predicting and promoting advocacy behaviors along with one’s beliefs (Simons, 2021). Self-efficacy has been widely assessed by scholars who study resilience and competence (Ajzen, 2012; Bandura, 1977, 1997; Yoon & Bauman, 2014). For example, teachers are more likely to demonstrate high levels of SGM advocacy competence (the ability to advocate for SGM youth) when they possess higher levels of self-efficacy (Dedousis-Wallace et al., 2014; Simons, 2021; Simons et al., 2017). Other research findings indicate that an association exists between self-efficacy and (1) intervention plans made in advance (behavioral intention), and (2) how teachers intervene when SGM youth are bullied (Collier et al., 2015; Greytak & Kosciw, 2014; Nappa et al., 2018; Smetáčková et al., 2022).

Attitudes

We now consider the impact of attitudes on teacher intervention and response. Like students who confront bullying when they feel positive about doing so (Wood et al., 2017), teachers meet the needs of SGM youth more effectively by identifying, creating, and utilizing positive affirmations or mindsets related to responding to prejudicial language aimed at these youth. According to Simons and Cuadrado (2019), examples of these attitudes include the following: (1) It is important to react to SGM-biased behaviors in schools. (2) It is beneficial to reflect over shared values and rules related to supporting SGM students, and (3) Teachers must intervene when SGM students are bullied even if they are not supported in doing so. Keeping these points in mind about attitudes, we now look at our hypotheses.

Hypotheses

In our study, we have examined the perceptions of teachers about intervening when they encounter homo-negative and trans-negative language focusing on the following aims:

  1. Does a relationship exist between teacher intervention in response to homo- and trans-negative language and attitudes toward prejudiced language, self-efficacy, collegial support, and SGM training?

  2. Does a relation exist between frequency of discussions with students about the effects of using homo- and trans-negative language and attitudes toward prejudiced language, self-efficacy, collegial support, and completed SGM training?

Given the aims of this study, data from a sample of teachers located throughout the Czech Republic were sought out. The data were predicted to show:

  • H1: Negative attitudes toward prejudiced language, higher levels of self-efficacy, collegial support, and completed SGM training will positively relate to teacher intervention in response to homo- and trans-negative language. Teacher intervention is defined as telling students about prohibited use of homo- and trans-negative language but not having a discussion.

  • H2: Negative attitudes toward prejudiced language, higher levels of self-efficacy, collegial support, and completed SGM training will positively relate to the frequency of discussions with students about the effects of using homo- and trans-negative language.

Method

The institutional review board at Mercy University in New York approved the study (IRB approval number 18–93). Email addresses from school websites were gathered to recruit 1,250 teachers located throughout the country. A teacher at each school was emailed a study recruitment statement to garner information from as many schools as possible. These teachers were sent an email describing the purpose and goals of the study, which included a weblink to participate in it. Considering recommendations by Dillman et al. (1998), three e-mail message reminders about the opportunity to participate in the study were sent out. Of the 1,250 teachers emailed, we can confirm that 154 (12.3%) accessed the survey. Of these 154, 114 completed at least 85% of the survey items. Thus, 74% of those who logged into the site completed the survey.

There are potential reasons for the low response rate among teachers (N = 1,250) as a whole. First, email addresses were gathered from websites, and some of the teachers may no longer have been working at the schools. Second, not all teachers in the Czech Republic have been required to use email regularly and thus may not have received recruitment messages, nor tried to access the survey. Third, some teachers may have been averse to completing a survey on SGM issues because the topic was viewed as too sensitive, taboo, or irrelevant.

Participants and sampling

The sample was comprised of 114 teacher respondents, each from a unique school, who completed the survey in its entirety (see Table 1). All respondents identified as teachers. Each teacher reported having on average 31 teachers per school. The number of students in schools ranged from 60 to 950, with an average of 447 per school. Using best-guess estimates, participants reported that the number of SGM youth in their schools ranged from 0 to 60, and five SGM students per school was the average. The length of time participants had worked in education ranged from one to 43 years, with an average of 18.5 years. Age of participants ranged from 27 to 65, with an average of 44 (SD = 9.8). While seven (6%) sexual minority educators were represented in the sample, no gender minority educators were represented. The response rate was satisfactory to conduct data analyses—for a power of .80 at an alpha level of .01 with a medium effect size of .15 to conduct regression with our predictor variables (Cohen, 1992).

Table 1.

Demographics.

Demographic item Response option Number Percentage
Age 26–35 24 21
36–45 43 38
46–55 32 28
56–65 15 13
Classification Part-time 11 10
Full-time 103 90
Gender Female 88 77
Male 26 23
Sexual orientation Heterosexual 107 94
Homosexual 4 4
Bisexual 3 2
Race/ethnicity White 32 28
Czech 35 31
Roma 1 1
Moravian 2 2
Slavic 6 7
No answer 37 32
Position Only administrator 98 86
Teacher and school administrator 5 4
Teacher and deputy administrator 6 5
Administrator and teaching assistant 4 4
Administrator and special education 1 1
SGM training Yes 11 10
No 103 90
Open in a new tab

Note: SGM = sexual and gender minority.

Measures

Participants completed the survey comprised of a demographic form and additional items that we either developed or modified from existing measures. Teachers completed the Frequency of Intervention in Response to Homo/Trans-Negativity Scale (FIRTS), the Frequency of Discussion in Response to Homo/Trans-Negativity Scale (FDRTS), the Attitudes Toward Use of Homo/Trans-Negative Language Scale (ATUTS), a collegial support item, the Teacher LGBT Self-Efficacy Scale (ELS), and the LGBT Training Scale. Survey items assessed: (a) intervening in response to homo-negative and trans-negative language, (b) having discussions with students about homo-negative and trans-negative language, (c) attitudes toward use of homo-negative and trans-negative language, (d) collegial support, (e) self-efficacy, and (f) training.

Survey items were developed from a comprehensive review of the research literature and translated into the Czech language by a panel of experts comprising two educational psychologists, one counselor educator, a psychiatrist with expertise on the experiences of SGM individuals in the Czech Republic, and a political scientist with expertise concerning prejudice in adolescence. Each panel member gave feedback on the wording, clarity, and relevancy of survey items. They also indicated which items were essential, useful but not essential, or unnecessary. Team members were Czech, or were of Czech descent, and were experts in SGM topics. All spoke the Czech language and self-identified as LGBT or as an LGBT ally. In this study, we used intervention against prejudiced language and discussion about prejudiced language as our two dependent variables, and attitudes toward homo-negative and trans-negative language, collegial support, training, and self-efficacy to intervene and have discussions about prejudicial language with students as the key independent variables.

Intervention and discussion

Teacher intervention and having discussions with students were assessed by using two scales, the FIRTS and the FDRTS. The FIRTS had five questions: (1) How often do you intervene when you hear a student say gay? (2) How often do you intervene when you hear a student say fag? (3) How often do you intervene when you hear a student say lez? (4) How often do you intervene when you hear a student say lesbian? (5) How often do you intervene when you hear a student say tranny? Educators were offered four response options to each of the five questions ranging from 1 = never to 4 = always. Three items were used in a previous study to assess reported intervention against use of homo-negative language (Poteat et al., 2019). We added two items to also examine intervention against prejudicial language related to use of the terms lesbian and tranny. To calculate the total scale score, individual item scores were summed and the sum was divided by the number of items (min/max = 1, 4). On average, the total FIRTS scale score was 3.3 (n = 107; SD = 0.83). Higher scores on the FIRTS indicated greater likelihood to intervene when encountering use of homo-negative and trans-negative language. The scale exhibited good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = .96).

The FDRTS had six Likert-type scale items about how often educators facilitated discussions with students based on six scenarios: (1) How often did you discuss the topic of homophobic teasing and bulling during the course of the last school year? (2) How often did you discuss the use of the words such as “gay,” “faggot,” “lezzie” or similar words as derogatory insults during the course of the last school year? (3) How often in the course of last school year did you discuss the consequences of calling someone “gay,” “hot,” “lesbian” or similar degrading insults? (4) How often did you discuss the topic of transphobic teasing or bullying during the course of the last school year? (5) How often did you discuss the use of the word “trans” or similar derogatory words during the course of the last school year? (6) How often in the course of the last school year did you discuss the consequences of calling someone trans or similar degrading insults? Educators were offered four response options to each of the questions ranging from 1 = never to 4 = always. Three items were modified from similar items used in a previous study to assess reported discussion of homo-negative language use with students (Poteat et al., 2019). We added three additional items to measure teacher experience related to bisexual students, transgender students, and student use of the word tranny. To calculate the total scale score, individual item scores were summed and the sum was divided by the number of items (min/max = 1, 3). On average, the total FDRTS scale score was 1.63 (n = 107; SD = 0.73). Higher scores on the FDRTS indicated greater likelihood to hold discussions with students after encountering use of homo-negative and trans-negative language. The scale exhibited good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = .94).

Attitudes

Attitudes toward homo-negative and trans-negative language were measured by four items on the ATUTS: (1) Males who are attracted to other males feel marginalized when they hear other people using words like gay, fag, or similar. (2) Females who are attracted to other females feel marginalized when they hear other people using words like gay, lesbian, or similar. (3) Students should be allowed to call other students gay, fag, lesbian, tranny, or something similar. (4) Students who are unclear about their gender identity may feel marginalized when they hear other people using words like tranny or similar. Respondents marked their answers on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = definitely agree to 5 = definitely disagree. Two ATUTS items were used previously by Poteat et al. (2019) to assess attitudes toward homo-negative language. We also added two more items to assess trans-negative language. To calculate scale scores, individual item scores were summed and the sum was divided by the number of items (min/max = 1, 5). On average, the total ATUTS scale score was 1.63 (n = 114; SD = 0.75). Higher scores indicated stronger beliefs that use of homo-negative and trans-negative language could be hurtful. The scale exhibited good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = .85).

Collegial support

Collegial support was assessed by one item: Based on your experience, to what extent will your colleagues support you when you intervene when students use words like gay, fag, lesbian, tranny, or something similar? Responses were as follows: 1 = very supportive, 2 = somewhat supportive, 3 = somewhat not supportive, 4 = not supportive at all. The item was modified from an item used in a previous study to assess perceived support from colleagues (Poteat et al., 2019). The total collegial support score was the summed total of individual item scores (min/max = 1, 3). The average total collegial support score was 1.88 (n = 114; SD = 0.57).

On average, the total collegial support item score was 1.6 (n = 114; SD = 0.58). Higher scores on the collegial support item indicated greater collegial support considering LGBT intervention and discussion.

Self-efficacy

Self-efficacy was measured using the ELS comprising two items—one to capture self-efficacy for intervention and another to capture discussion with students: (1) How competent do you feel to intervene when students use words such as gay, fag, lesbian, tranny, or something similar? and (2) How competent do you feel to discuss with students why should they not call others gay, fag, lesbian, tranny, or something similar? Responses were as follows: 1 = completely competent, 2 = somewhat competent, 3 = somewhat incompetent, 4 = completely incompetent. Scores on both items were reverse coded. These items were modified from two items used in a previous study by Poteat et al. (2019) to assess self-efficacy to address homo-negative language. To calculate the total self-efficacy to intervene and discuss score individual item scores were summed and the sum was divided by the number of items (min/max = 2, 4). On average, the total ELS scale score was 3.19 (n = 113; SD = 0.55). The average total self-efficacy to intervene score was 1.80 (n = 114; SD = 0.55). This score was found by summing the individual item scores on the self-efficacy to intervene item and then dividing it by the number of items (min/max = 1, 3). The average total self-efficacy to hold discussions when witnessing use of homo-negative and trans-negative language score was 1.88 (n = 114; SD = 0.57). This score was found by summing the individual item scores on the self-efficacy to intervene item and then dividing it by the number of items (min/max = 1, 4). Higher scores indicated greater self-efficacy to intervene and facilitate discussions. The ELS exhibited acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = .75).

LGBT training

The four-item LTS assesses training of educators to work with SGM topics and youth: (1) Have you been taught about homo-negative bullying during your training? (2) Have you been taught about how to prevent students from using words such as gay, fag, lesbian, tranny, or similar words? (3) Have you been taught how to intervene when students use words such as gay, fag, lesbian, tranny, or similar words? (4) Have you been taught about trans-negative bullying during your training? For each of the four dichotomous yes/no items, a response option of 0 (no) or 1 (yes) was used. Three items were modified from items used in a previous study by Poteat et al. (2019) to examine LGBT training to address homo-negative language. We also added one item to address if teachers had been trained as part of their education to respond to trans-negative bullying. To calculate total LTS score, individual item scores were summed and the sum was divided by the number of items (min/max = 0, 1). On average, the total LTS scale score was 0.37 (n = 114; SD = 0.49). Higher scores indicated having more training to interact with and discuss use of homo-negative and trans-negative language among students. The scale exhibited good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = .88).

Data analysis

Descriptive information for all variables was analyzed. Additionally, bivariate correlations were run between main study variables. As the sample size is relatively small (N = 114), results of this study should be interpreted with caution. To test the hypothesized relationships, two ordinary least squares (OLS) linear regression models were computed. To test Hypothesis 1, the first model predicted the likelihood of teacher intervention when teachers witnessed homo/trans-negative bullying. Hypothesis 2 was assessed with a second model that predicted the likelihood that teachers would initiate discussions with students about homo- and trans-negativity. Both models shared the same independent variables that included perceived collegial support, training, attitudes toward homo-negative and trans-negative language, and self-efficacy (Table 2).

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics.

N Mean SD Min Max
Frequency of intervention in response to Homo/Trans-Negativity Scale (FIRTS) 107 3.3 0.83 1 4
Frequency of discussion in response to Homo/Trans-Negativity Scale (FDRTS) 107 1.63 0.73 1 3.17
Educator LGBT Self-Efficacy Scale to Intervene (ELS-I) 113 3.19 0.55 2 4
Educator LGBT Self-Efficacy Scale to Discuss (ELS-D) 114 3.12 0.57 1 4
LGBT Training Scale (LTS) 114 0.37 0.49 0 1
Collegial LGBT Support Scale (CLS) 114 0.45 0.5 0 1
Attitudes Toward Use of Homo/Trans-Negative Language Scale (ATUTS) 114 1.63 0.75 1 5
Open in a new tab

Results

Prior to testing the hypotheses examining (a) collegial support, (b) self-efficacy, (c) training, and (d) attitudes toward homo-negativity and trans-negativity (use of prejudiced language) as predictors of intervention (Model 1) and engaging students in discussion (Model 2), initial bivariate Pearson’s product-moment correlations between main study variables were run (see Table 3). Descriptive statistics, which we will now review, were also undertaken to describe features of the sample.

Table 3.

Correlations between main study variables (N = 114).

Training Attitudes Collegial support Self-efficacy intervention Self-efficacy discussion Intervention Discussion
Training 1
Attitudes −.04 1
Collegial Support 0.05 −.02 1
Self-efficacy intervention −.01 0.09 0.06 1
Self-efficacy discussion −.02 0.03 0.08 .65** 1
Intervention 0.06 0.14 0.07 .28** .21* 1
Discussion 0.07 −.05 0.03 .24** .28** 0.06 1
Open in a new tab
**

p < .01,

*

p < .05.

Descriptive statistics

We start with descriptive statistics to provide information regarding our sample before we proceed to presentation of OLS models results. Sixty-three (55%) teachers completely agreed that homo-negative and trans-negative language was problematic, and 38 (33%) teachers somewhat agreed. Sixty (53%) teachers did not know how many SGM students were present in their schools. Of these 60, several shared comments (see Table 4). Thirty (26%) teachers felt completely competent, and 75 (66%) felt somewhat competent to intervene. Twenty-five (22%) felt completely competent, and 79 (69%) felt somewhat competent to hold discussions about homo/trans-negative language. Fifty-one (45%) teachers felt very supported by colleagues, 58 (51%) felt somewhat supported by colleagues, and five (5%) felt somewhat not supported.

Table 4.

Selected educator comments and indications regarding unknown number of LGBT students in schools.

Comment Indication
How am I supposed to know the number? Lack of knowledge/skills
I do not know the number. Lack of knowledge
I do not need to know the number. Negative attitude
I do not care about the number. Negative attitude
I do not know of any LGBT students in my school. Lack of knowledge
We can only suspect (not know) if students are LGBT if they are under the age of 15. Lack of knowledge/skills
I cannot determine the number. Lack of knowledge/skills
These are sensitive data. I do not know. Lack of knowledge
We do not keep statistics. Lack of knowledge
We do not collect this information. Lack of knowledge
I have no clue. Lack of knowledge
Cannot be detected. Lack of skills
Open in a new tab

Note: LGBT = lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender.

Regarding training, 41 (36%) teachers received training about homophobic bullying, 29 (25%) received training about trans bullying, 26 (23%) received training on how to prevent students from using homo-negative and trans-negative language, and 24 (21%) received training on how to intervene when students used homophobic language. About half of the teachers always intervened when they heard students using homo-negative and trans-negative language. The topics of homo-negativity and trans-negativity were not frequently discussed in Czech schools. Only one teacher reported having monthly discussions about both topics.

Testing hypotheses

To test the hypotheses of (a) collegial support, (b) self-efficacy, (c) training, and (d) attitudes toward homo-negativity and trans-negativity (use of prejudiced language) on intervention and discussion, Pearson’s product-moment correlations between main study variables were run (see Table 3). Small to moderate relationships were found between self-efficacy to intervene and intervening and holding discussions with students in response to use of prejudicial language, with r values of .28 and .24, respectively. Higher levels of self-efficacy to intervene appear related to more intervention and discussion. A moderate to large relationship was found between self-efficacy to intervene and self-efficacy to discuss (r = .65), meaning that higher levels of self-efficacy related to intervention were related to higher levels self-efficacy to have discussions. Small to moderate relationships between self-efficacy to discuss and intervening and holding discussions were found, with r values of .21 and .28, respectively. Higher levels of self-efficacy to discuss appear related to more intervention and discussion.

Regression analysis

Next, data were analyzed with two ordinary least squares regression models (see Table 5). The first model examining the relationship between the predictors and engaging in intervention explained 15% of the variance in engaging in intervention (B = .476, p = .001, 95% CI [.196, .757]). Self-efficacy was the only statistically significant predictor of intervention. The second model examining the relationship between the predictors and engaging in discussion explained 19% of the variance in engaging in discussion (B = .291, p = .013, 95% CI [.062, .520]). Self-efficacy was a statistically significant positive predictor of discussion, along with training (B = .444, p = .002, 95% CI [.168, .720]) and attitudes (B = .189, p = .036, 95% CI [.013, .367]).

Table 5.

Ordinary least squares regression models predicting intervention and discussions.

Model 1 Intervention Model 2 Discussion
Training 0.15 .44**
Self-efficacy to intervene .48** /
Self-efficacy to discuss / .29*
Collegial support 0.08 −.10
Attitudes toward use of prejudicial language −.14 .19*
Constant 1.31* 0.11
Observations 107 107
R-squared 0.15 0.19
Ll −121.8 −105.8
Open in a new tab
**

p < 0.01,

*

p < 0.05.

Discussion

Findings from our study, although with a relatively small sample, do represent new knowledge in an emerging area of scholarship. We surveyed 114 school teachers located throughout the Czech Republic about the impact of homo-negative and trans-negative language in their respective schools. The aim was to examine factors that might contribute to the willingness of teachers in Czech schools to intervene and hold classroom discussions when they encounter homo-negative and trans-negative language. The latter point has not been studied as part of the limited extant research that exists. In particular, our study advances the work of Poteat et al. (2019), who studied the area in relation to the experiences of teachers in Norway. However, our study contributes new knowledge to an area that has been understudied in the Czech Republic. It also expands study of the area to the topic of gender diversity by asking school teachers to assess their knowledge, not only in response to homo-negativity but also trans-negativity. We now interpret and connect our findings to other studies concerning our key study variables and discuss what this might mean for purposes of preservice education and post-service professional development.

Self-efficacy, training, attitudes

As hypothesized, self-efficacy was a statistically significant predictor of teacher’s decision to intervene in response to students’ use of homo-negative and trans-negative language and their decision to hold related discussions. This finding confirms and extends findings from prior studies that indicate that self-efficacy is significantly related to SGM advocacy (Collier et al., 2015; Dedousis-Wallace et al., 2014; Greytak & Kosciw, 2014; Nappa et al., 2018; Poteat et al., 2019). Differences were also found for training and attitudes. Training and attitudes toward use of homo-negative and trans-negative language positively related to more frequent classroom discussions; however, this outcome did not apply to respondents who intervened but did not facilitate discussion. Seemingly, training and attitudes are not as relevant for those respondents. More research is warranted to understand why. First, it might be because intervening can be more demanding to do than facilitating discussions, or vice versa. Second, it may be because training, attitudes, and self-efficacy are less related to intervening than facilitation of discussions. Last, self-efficacy may mediate differences based on nonpermissive attitudes (positive attitudes about intervening) and training concerning discussion. Contrary to what was expected, gender, collegial support, presence of counselors and psychologists, and nonpermissive attitudes did not relate to intervening.

Collegial support

Perceptions of collegial support were not significant in the regression models. This suggests that collegial support may need to be assessed differently. One option is that collegial support may not be related to intervention. Alternatively, collegial support may be mediated through other variables (Poteat et al., 2019). For instance, higher levels of collegial support could be related to feeling more confident about responding to homo-negativity and trans-negativity, which may lead to teachers having more classroom discussions.

In Model 2, training in SGM topics was a significant predictor of having discussions, yet it did not have a significant bivariate relationship with either discussions or intervention. Further, training in SGM topics was not significantly related to intervening (Model 1). Some types of training in SGM topics may vary in impact. Training programs need to be created to increase the likelihood that teachers will both successfully intervene as well as facilitate discussions in response to homo- and trans-negativity. Use of various content and pedagogical approaches to do this might help; see resources by Meyer (2009), Gilbert and Sinclair-Palm (2019), and others in the Appendix.

Future research

Researchers should consider collecting data from teachers and students simultaneously, as well as from LGBT teachers. These endeavors may shed more light on our findings. Poteat et al. (2019) have recommended collecting observational and longitudinal data to understand more about how to respond to bullying. Only recently has a theory of interaction (acceptance versus bullying) been proposed by scholars as part of the Generations Study (Simons & Russell, 2021). It is a theory that highlights the dynamics of interactions between students and teachers which has been extended upon as part of this study. This theory posits that teachers through their interactions with SGM youth either knowingly or unknowingly contribute to the bullying of these youth, and this may happen throughout the world including in the Czech Republic. Teachers may also reference training resources by Cover (2012), Fisher et al. (2012), and Vaccaro et al. (2012) to improve how they support SGM youth and respond to homo-negativity and trans-negativity. Another helpful resource is the ASCA Model, which we now review. This model challenges teachers to understand how the school environment impacts students.

The ASCA Model is an ecological framework that emphasizes cultural responsiveness through collaboration (American School Counselor Association, 2021a), as well as encouraging SGM students to succeed (American School Counselor Association, 2021b). This initial study in the Czech Republic, situated in this framework, sets the stage for more teachers to effectively support SGM youth in schools. Within the model, teachers are located across different contexts ranging from the individual level to group level (Frost and Meyer, 2023). Teachers (a) define standards to examine the effectiveness of their inclusive pedagogy, (b) develop mission-focused teaching protocols, (c) deliver services either directly or indirectly, and (d) self-reflect (American School Counselor Association, 2021c). Based on the ASCA Model, teachers’ behaviors (e.g., having discussion about LGBT topics) result from variables examined as part of our study (Alemi et al., 2003; Simons, 2021). Therefore, their behaviors (e.g., interactions with SGM youth) and those who bully may be studied across a variety of contexts. ASCA Model directives supported by position statements encourage school leaders to develop school policies that mandate SGM-inclusive curricula and push for the annual assessment of SGM students’ needs. The ASCA Model also emphasizes the importance of collecting data (McCabe & Rubinson, 2008; Simons, 2018, 2021; Simons et al., 2017).

To create new position statements and SGM-inclusive policies in Czech schools to explicitly counter homo-negativity and trans-negativity, resources from the Czech Moravian Psychological Society and the Union of Psychologists Association of the Czech may be reviewed. It may also be helpful to review the American School Counselor Association’s (2022) Position Statement on Transgender and Gender Nonbinary Youth; the National Association of School Psychologists’ (2014) Position Statement on Safe Schools for Transgender and Gender Diverse Students; and the Council on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression’s (2016) Guidelines for Transgender and Gender Nonconforming (TGNC) Affirmative Education.

A multitude of ways to address the impact of homo-negativity and trans-negativity exist, and protocols for each should be promoted in their own unique spaces. As such, the identities of LGBT youth and those who are charged to protect them (i.e., teachers) should also be considered. Identity is related to our main study variables of attitudes, self-efficacy, and behavior (Simons, 2021). By examining the role that identities play in the lives of Czech teachers, attention should also be given to intersectionality among salient identities (e.g., sexual orientation, gender identity, racial/ethnic identity, and advocacy identity). As more teachers come to identify as advocates and role models for SGM youth, this increases the likelihood that they will also become change agents in their schools (Simons et al., 2017). They may be viewed by others as individuals who embrace justice and respect beyond just tolerance. This is of special concern to the Czech Republic: Tolerance is a construct strongly tied to communism, when it was favored not to be interested in others but to keep to oneself (Prokůpková, 2021). In the past, more people believed that SGM individuals should not be openly out (Hall, 2009, 2013). This mindset, however, is changing. Hopefully in the future greater numbers of teachers in the Czech Republic may see the benefit of actively promoting more justice and respect for SGM youth while challenging the status quo.

Limitations

This study has served as a preliminary contribution to an emerging area of SGM research in the Czech Republic. However, this study possesses some limitations. First, the small sample size and focus only on the Czech Republic do not allow the generalizability of the results both in and outside of the country, yet power for data analysis was achieved and findings from the study set the stage for related cross-national research to compare data from the Czech Republic to data gathered from other countries (Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik & Harkness, 2005). Beyond partially confirming similar results by Poteat et al. (2019) in Norway, it remains unclear if our outcomes would hold true elsewhere. Moreover, the total number of values contained in the data set allowed for data analysis because the assumptions of OLS regression were met (normal distribution, etc.).

Second, we adapted existing intervention and discussion indices for use in this study because few measures existed. The indices, each of which had Cronbach alpha’s over 0.90, were used to meaningfully assess anti-LGBT prejudice in schools. However, in the future, we should separate (1) gender items from sexual orientation items on each scale, as well as (2) items that conflate both potentially acceptable (e.g., gay) and unacceptable terms (e.g., fag). For example, while the factors associated with intervention and discussion about sexual minority slurs might be like factors associated with intervention and discussion about gender-minority slurs, they are likely different. This may be an important avenue for future research because we cannot confirm that with our data. The challenges that gender-minority students face differ from the challenges that sexual-minority students face, and not all sexual-minority students identify as gender-minority students and vice versa (Simons et al., 2017). Similarly, the reasons for how and why teachers respond (or do not respond) to homo-negativity versus trans-negativity may vary depending on their views, training, and perceptions. Future research should focus on these differences to better understand how teachers’ personal characteristics are related to interventions depending on the type of nondominance and pedagogy.

Third, the study relied on self-reported data; respondents may have answered items in ways to make themselves look favorable (e.g., inflated nonpermissible attitudes) (Simons & On Behalf of the Simons Lab, 2021). As such, researchers might want to consider including social desirability items in future studies. Last, it is likely some teachers may have been averse to completing a survey on SGM issues because the topic was viewed as too sensitive, taboo, or irrelevant. Additionally, few sexual-minority teachers and no gender-minority teachers were represented in this study. This arguably puts our study and LGBT students in Czech schools at a disadvantage because a greater amount of data from teachers and SGM teachers to conduct data analysis would have allowed us to measure the degree of variance in intervening and discussing as an SGM teacher when homo-negative and trans-negative language is present in schools (Simons, 2021; Simons & On Behalf of the Simons Lab, 2021).

Conclusion

The aim of this study has been to examine factors that might contribute to the willingness of teachers in Czech schools to intervene and hold classroom discussions when they encounter homo-negative and trans-negative language. These factors included attitudes, self-efficacy, collegial support, and training. Our investigation using data from 114 school teachers in the Czech Republic has led to a better understanding of why teachers in the Czech Republic may or may not advocate on behalf of SGM youth (actual or presumed) who are bullied in this way. That is, having teachers who intervene (putting a halt to homo/trans-negative language) when they witness homo-negative and trans-negative language, and who hold discussions about the language use either after the intervention response or not. Teachers are authority figures expected to do what’s right to support the academic success of all students (Smetáčková & Braun, 2009). Additionally, they must be more than just tolerant and open to improving their SGM advocacy skills. Teachers are in a unique position to hold discussions with students when they witness verbal homonegativity and trans-negativity. This training should focus on improving attitudes and fostering self-efficacy. According to Bandura (1997), sources of self-efficacy include vicarious experiences, mastery of experiences, verbal persuasion, and emotional and physiological states (e.g., managing anxiety and improving mood during challenges). In addition, Maddux (2013) and Stephan and Sedikides (2024) have recommended imaginal experiences and mental time travel, respectively. These tasks require visualizing oneself achieving success at doing something.

We have learned that, unlike the tendency to intervene in response to homo-negativity and trans-negative language by teachers with high levels of self-efficacy, the tendency to hold discussions about these areas by these same teachers is also influenced by training in SGM topics and holding nonpermissive attitudes (i.e., attitudes that verbal bullying based on SGM topics is not acceptable). Along with self-efficacy, training in SGM topics and holding nonpermissive attitudes should be targeted to increase the likelihood of more discussions by teachers with students about the negative effects of homo-negative and trans-negative language. Unlike intervention, discussion involves sharing, and students learn more about SGM topics, about themselves, and about the experiences of others that differ from their own.

Use of homo-negative and trans-negative language in schools is common (Henderson et al., 2022). It is plausible to study this topic in different school settings, including those situated outside of the United States. The interest among teachers in the Czech Republic to participate in related research and training in this area is growing which is hopeful because response to the verbal bullying of LGBT youth among teachers in the Czech Republic varies (Smetáčková et al., 2022). Self-efficacy, attitudes, and training are statistically significant predictors of SGM advocacy among teachers in the form of intervention that may or may not subsequently involve discussion with students about the negative effects of homo- and trans-negative language (Simons & Russell, 2021).

Supplementary Material

title abstract and keywords in journal template form

Funding

This work was supported by Trans Justice Funding Project and the Czech Science Foundation (project no. 23-07934S). The second author’s work was supported by the “Dynamics of adolescents’ attitudes toward outgroups” project financed by the Czech Science Foundation (project no. 23-07283M). Research reported is also part of the Generations study, supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) of the National Institutes of Health under award number R01HD078526. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The Generations study investigators are: Ilan H. Meyer, Ph.D., (PI), David M. Frost, Ph.D., Phillip L. Hammack, Ph.D., Marguerita Lightfoot, Ph.D., Stephen T. Russell, Ph.D. and Bianca D.M. Wilson, Ph.D. (Co-Investigators, listed alphabetically).

Appendix. Resources concerning teacher response to homo- and trans-negative language

American School Counselor Association (2019). ASCA National Model: A framework for school counseling programs. Author.

Brant-Rajahn, S. N., Gibson, E. M., & Sandifer, M. C. (2022). Developing, delivering, and sustaining school counseling practices through a culturally affirming lens. IGI Global.

Besner, H. F. & Spungin, C. I. (1998). Training for professionals who work with gays & lesbians in educational and workplace settings. Accelerated Development.

Brown, C. B., & Mazza, G. J. (1997). Healing into action: A leadership guide for creating diverse communities. National Coalition Building Institute.

Brown, C. R., & Mazza, G. J. (2005). Leading diverse communities: A how-to guide for moving from healing into action. National Coalition Building Institute.

Cover (2012). Queer youth suicide, culture, and identity: Unlivable lives?

Fisher, S. K., Poirier, J. M., & Blau, G. M. (2012). Improving emotional & behavioral outcomes for LGBT youth: A guide for professionals. Paul Brookes.

Gilbert, J., & Sinclair-Palm, J. (Eds.) (2019). Trans youth in education. Routledge.

GLSEN (2016). Ready, set, respect: GLSEN’s Elementary school toolkit. Author.

Gray, M. L. (2009). Out in the country: Youth, media, and queer visibility in rural America. NYU Press.

Hamlet, H. S. (2022). School counseling practicum & internship: 30+ essential lessons. Cognella.

Hegarty, P., & Rutherford, A. (2019). Histories of psychology after Stonewall: Introduction to the special issue. American Psychologist, 74(8), 857–67.

Meyer, E. J. (2009). Gender, bullying, and harassment: Strategies to end sexism and homophobia in schools. Teachers College Press.

Stone, C. B., & Dahir, C. A. (2004). School counselor accountability: A MEASURE of student success. Pearson Education Incorporated.

Vaccaro, A., August, G., & Kennedy, M. S. (2012). Safe spaces: Making schools and communities welcoming to LGBT youth. Prager.

Footnotes

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/29933021.2024.2413550.

References

  1. Ajzen I (2012). The theory of planned behavior. In Van Lange PAM, Kruglanski AW, & Higgins ET (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 438–459). Sage Publications Ltd. 10.4135/9781446249215.n22 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Alemi F, Stephens R, Llorens S, Schaefer D, Nemes S, & Arendt R (2003). The orientation of social support measure. Addictive Behaviors, 28(7), 1285–1298. 10.1016/S0306-4603(02)00251-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. American School Counselor Association. (2019). The ASCA National Model: A framework for school counseling program.
  4. American School Counselor Association. (2021a). The school counselor and cultural diversity position statement. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/Standards-Positions/Position-Statements/ASCA-Position-Statements/The-School-Counselor-and-Cultural-Diversity
  5. American School Counselor Association. (2021b). The school counselor and LGBTQ youth. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/Standards-Positions/Position-Statements/ASCA-Position-Statements/The-School-Counselor-and-LGBTQ-Youth
  6. American School Counselor Association. (2021c). ASCA model executive summary. https://schoolcounselor.org/getmedia/bd376246-0b4f-413f-b3e0-1b9938f36e68/ANM-executive-summary-4th-ed.pdf
  7. American School Counselor Association. (2022). Position statement on transgender and gender non-binary youth. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/asca/media/asca/PositionStatements/PS_Transgender.pdf
  8. Bandura A (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. 10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bandura A (1997). Self-efficacy. The exercise of control W. H. Freeman and Company. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bradshaw CP, Waasdorp TE, O’Brennan LM, & Gulemetova M (2011). Findings from the National Education Association’s nationwide study of bullying: Teachers’ and education support professionals’ perspectives. National Education Association. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Cohen J (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.15 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Collier KL, Bos HM, & Sandfort TG (2015). Understanding teachers’ responses to enactments of sexual and gender stigma at school. Teaching and Teacher Education, 48, 34–43. 10.1016/j.tate.2015.02.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Cover R (2012). Queer youth suicide, culture, and identity: Unliveable lives?. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315603261 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Council on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression. (2016). Guidelines for transgender and gender nonconforming (TGNC) affirmative education: Enhancing the climate for TGNC students, staff and faculty in social work education. https://jobs.luc.edu/media/lucedu/wsgs/pdfs/CSWE_TGNC.pdf
  15. Czech Statistical Office. (2022). Age structure. https://www.czso.cz/csu/scitani2021/age-structure
  16. Dedousis-Wallace A, Shute R, Varlow M, Murrihy R, & Kidman T (2014). Predictors of teacher intervention in indirect bullying at school and outcome of a professional development presentation for teachers. Educational Psychology, 34(7), 862–875. 10.1080/01443410.2013.785385 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Dillman DA, Tortora RD, & Bowker D (1998). Principles for constructing web surveys. SESRC Technical Report 98–50 Retrieved May 30, 2024, from http://www.websm.org/uploadi/editor/Dillman_1998_Principles_for%20Constructing.pdf
  18. Fisher SK, Poirier JM, & Blau GM (2012). Improving emotional & behavioral outcomes for LGBT youth: A guide for professionals. Paul Brookes Publishing Co. [Google Scholar]
  19. Frost DM, & Meyer IH (2023). Minority stress theory: Application, critique, and continued relevance. Current Opinion in Psychology, 51, 101579 10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101579 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Greytak EA, & Kosciw JG (2014). Predictors of U.S. teachers’ intervention in anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender bullying and harassment. Teaching Education, 25(4), 410–426. 10.1080/10476210.2014.920000 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Gilbert J, & Sinclair-Palm J (Eds.) (2019). Trans youth in education. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  22. Hajdíková L, Slíva V, & Burešová Z (2016). Czech schools through the looking glass: National research on homophobia and transphobia. Proud, Praha. https://www.ilga-europe.org/sites/default/files/Attachments/cz_-proud_final_report.pdf [Google Scholar]
  23. Hall TM (2009). Stories from the Second World: narratives of sexual identity across three generations of Czech men who have sex with men. In Cohler BJ & Hammack PL (Eds.), The story of sexual identity: Narrative perspectives on the gay and lesbian life course (pp. 77–130). New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hall TM (2013). Czech homosexual identities in global and local perspective. In Himl P, Seidl J, & Schindler F (Eds.), Morávek J (Trans.), Miluji tvory svého pohlaví. Homosexualita v dějinách a společnosti českých zemí (Vol. 2, pp. 527–553). Argo. [Google Scholar]
  25. Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik JHP, & Harkness JA (2005). Methodological aspects in cross-national research. Zuma. [Google Scholar]
  26. Henderson ER, Sang JM, Louth-Marquez W, Egan JE, Espelage D, Friedman M, & Coulter RWS (2022). “Words aren’t supposed to hurt, but they do”: Sexual and gender minority youth’s bullying experiences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(11–12), NP8747–NP8766. 10.1177/0886260520978199 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Katz-Wise SL, Rosario M, & Tsappis M (2016). LGBT youth and family acceptance. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 63(6), 1011–1025. 10.1016/j.pcl.2016.07.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Kosciw JG, Clark CM, & Menard L (2022). The 2021 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of LGBTQ+ youth in our nation’s schools. New York: GLSEN. [Google Scholar]
  29. Kudrnáč A (2017). Gender differences among Czech youth in prejudice towards minorities. Journal of Youth Studies, 20(5), 583–604. 10.1080/13676261.2016.1254166 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kull RM, Kosciw JG, & Greytak EA (2017). Preparing school counselors to support LGBT youth: The roles of graduate education and professional development. Professional School Counseling, 20(1a), 13–20. 10.5330/1096-2409-20.1a.13 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Lloyd-Hazlett J, & Foster VA (2013). Enhancing school counselor preparation for work with LGBTQ students: Developmental strategies and interventions. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 7(4), 323–338. 10.1080/15538605.2013.839338 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Maddux JE (Ed.). (2013). Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application. Springer Science & Business Media. [Google Scholar]
  33. McCabe PC, & Rubinson F (2008). Committing to social justice: The behavioral intention of school psychology and education trainees to advocate for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered youth. School Psychology Review, 37(4), 469–486. 10.1080/02796015.2008.12087861 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Meyer EJ (2009). Gender, bullying, and harassment: Strategies to end sexism and homophobia in schools. Teachers College Press. [Google Scholar]
  35. Morrison MA, Bishop CJ, & Morrison TG (2018). What is the best measure of discrimination against trans people?: A systematic review of the psychometric literature. Psychology & Sexuality, 9(3), 269–287. 10.1080/19419899.2018.1484798 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Nappa MR, Palladino BE, Menesini E, & Baiocco R (2018). Teachers’ reaction in homophobic bullying incidents: The role of self-efficacy and homophobic attitudes. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 15(2), 208–218. 10.1007/s13178-017-0306-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. National Association of School Psychologists. (2014). Position statement on safe schools for transgender and gender diverse students. https://www.nasponline.org/x26826.xml
  38. Pitoňák M, & Čihák M (2023). Understanding broader LGB+ identity from a post-socialist perspective: Assessment of validity of the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identity Scale (LGBIS) on a Czech sample. Ceskoslovenska Psychologie, 67(2), 121–140. 10.51561/cspsych.67.2.121 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Pitoňák M, & Spilková J (2016). Homophobic prejudice in Czech youth: A sociodemographic analysis of young people’s opinions on homosexuality. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 13(3), 215–229. 10.1007/s13178-015-0215-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Poteat VP, Slaatten H, & Breivik K (2019). Factors associated with teachers discussing and intervening against homophobic language. Teaching and Teacher Education, 77, 31–42. 10.1016/j.tate.2018.09.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Prokůpková V (2021). The limits of tolerance for intolerance. Young democracy and skinhead violence in Czechia in the 1990s. Europe-Asia Studies, 73(10), 1771–1796. 10.1080/09668136.2021.1933390 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Simons JD (2018). School Counselor Sexual Minority Advocacy Competence Scale (SCSMACS): Development, validity, and reliability. Professional School Counseling, 21(1), 1–14. 10.1177/2156759X18761900 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Simons JD (2021). From identity to enaction: Identity Behavior Theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 679490. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.679490 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Simons JD, & Cuadrado M (2019). Narratives of school counselors regarding advocacy for LGBTQ students. Professional School Counseling, 22(1), 1–9. 10.1177/2156759X19861529 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Simons JD, & Fish J (2016, September). Sexual minorities in schools: A review of research and resources from outside the United States. Poster at the Association for Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual, and Transgender Issues in Counseling. [Google Scholar]
  46. Simons JD, Grant L, & Rodas J (2021). Transgender people of color: Experiences and coping during the school-age years. Journal of LGBTQ Issues in Counseling, 15(1), 16–37. 10.1080/15538605.2021.1868380 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Simons JD, Hutchison B, & Bahr M (2017). School counselor advocacy for lesbian, gay, and bisexual students: Intentions and practice. Professional School Counseling, 20(1a), 29–37. 10.5330/1096-2409-20.1a.29 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Simons JD, & on behalf of the Simons Lab. (2021). School counselor advocacy for gender minority students. PLoS One, 16(3), e0248022. 10.1371/journal.pone.0248022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Simons JD, Ramdas M, & Russell ST (2020). School-age coping: Themes across three generations of sexual minorities. Journal of School Counseling, 18(22), 1–28. http://www.jsc.montana.edu/articles/v18n22.pdf https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1267934.pdf [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Simons JD, & Russell ST (2021). Educator interaction with sexual minority students. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 33(4), 451–474. 10.1080/10538720.2021.1897052 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Smetáčková I, & Braun R (2009). Homofobie v žákovských kolektivech: homofobní obtěžování a šikana na základních a středních školách-jak se projevuje a jak se proti ní bránit: doplňkový výukový materiál pro ZŠ a SŠ včetně didaktické aplikace tématu. [Homophobia in school groups: Homophobic harassment and bullying in primary and secondary schools—How it manifests itself and how to defend against it: Supplementary teaching material for primary and secondary schools, including a didactic application of the topic]. Úřad vlády České republiky. [Google Scholar]
  52. Smetáčková I, Simons JD, & Pavlík P (2022). Postoje českých vyučujících k LGBT+ studujícím. [Czech teachers’ attitudes towards LGBT+ students]. Pedagogika, 72(4), 491–510. 10.14712/23362189.2023.2841 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Smith TE, Bauerband LA, Aguayo D, McCall CS, Huang FL, Reinke WM, & Herman KC (2022). School bullying and gender minority youth: Victimization experiences and perceived prevalence. School Psychology Review, 51, 1–14. 10.1080/2372966X.2021.2002123 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Stephan E, & Sedikides C (2024). Mental time travel as self-affirmation. Personality and Social Psychology Review : An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 28(2), 181–208. 10.1177/1088868323120314337876180 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Vaccaro A, August G, & Kennedy MS (2012). Safe spaces: Making schools and communities welcoming to LGBT youth. Prager Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  56. Wood L, Smith J, Varjas K, & Meyers J (2017). School personnel social support and nonsupport for bystanders of bullying: Exploring student perspectives. Journal of School Psychology, 61, 1–17. 10.1016/j.jsp.2016.12.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Yoon J, & Bauman S (2014). Teachers: A critical but overlooked component of bullying prevention and intervention. Theory Into Practice, 53(4), 308–314. 10.1080/00405841.2014.947226 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

title abstract and keywords in journal template form
NIHMS2039943-supplement-title_abstract_and_keywords_in_journal_template_form.docx (35.9KB, docx)

RESOURCES