LGBT Discrimination on Campus and Heterosexual Bystanders: Understanding Intentions to Intervene

Purpose

Discrimination targeting LGBT students on college campuses occurs nationwide. Minority stress theory suggests discrimination can increase LGBT individual’s risks for negative outcomes. Colleges nationwide are committed to fostering an inclusive environment for LGBT students. Pro-social intervention in cases of LGBT discrimination is critical in this regard; however, little is known about the nature of bystander intervention in such situations. Research suggests that peer-familiarity context (i.e., who the bystander knows in the situation) can play a role in bystander intervention, generally. Researchers have not examined the factors associated with bystander intervention when witnessing LGBT discrimination across various peer-familiarity contexts. We investigate the nature of heterosexual students’ intentions to intervene when witnessing LGBT discrimination when knowing no one, only witnesses/targets, only perpetrators, and everyone.

Methods

We used data from a campus climate study; students completed an anonymous online survey. (heterosexuals n=1616; M=23 years; 61% female; 79% White; 62% undergraduate). Students read 12 hypothetical vignettes portraying LGBT discrimination, namely jokes, unfair treatment, and verbal harassment, and reported their intention to intervene (1=very unlikely, 7=very likely) considering the specified peer-familiarity context. Each outcome scale consists of 3 items (alpha range .88–.91). Using multivariate linear regression, we examined the influence of socio-demographics, political ideology, self-esteem, LGBT social contacts (friends; acquaintances), LGBT and social justice coursework, perceived climate for LGBT students and experiential climate (personal victimization alpha= .70; witnessing heterosexist harassment alpha=.78) and LGBT attitudes (alpha=.91) on the intentions to intervene in each peer-familiarity context.

Results

Based on mean scores (range 4.88–5.22), respondents generally reported they were “somewhat likely” to intervene in all contexts, except for when knowing no one, when they were collectively “somewhat unlikely” to intervene (M=3.42). Regression results suggest age, sex, self-esteem, LGBT friends, social justice course content, and affirming attitudes toward LGBT people were positively associated with each outcome. Graduate students were less likely to intervene than undergraduates when knowing no one. Males were more likely than females to intervene when they knew no one, while females were more likely to intervene in all other contexts. Christian students versus secular students reported greater of intentions to intervene when knowing the perpetrator or everyone. Positive perceptions of LGBT climate campus was negatively associated with intentions to intervene when knowing no one, and personal victimization was negatively associated with intentions to intervene when knowing no one and witnesses/targets. Across all models, LGBT attitudes demonstrated the largest effect size (range .28– .42); all other effect sizes were small.

Implications

This study advances knowledge concerning pro-social bystander behavior when witnessing LGBT discrimination across various peer-familiarity contexts. Results highlight the importance of interventions that address students’ attitudes toward LGBT individuals in order to promote pro-social bystander behavior across each context. Results suggest that by fostering students’ self-esteem, creating opportunities for LGBT friendships, and offering social justice curriculum pro-social bystander intervention can be furthered. The results have important implications for campus intervention programs, research on allyhood, and practitioners wanting to create inclusive spaces for LGBT individuals. Research investigating actual pro-social LGBT intervention is needed.