Violence Reporting Behaviors of High

¶ … violence reporting behaviors of high school students and the perceived sexual orientation of the victim. Specifically, the study offered possible insights into the barriers to reporting faced by students at three Los Angeles area high schools. An expectation existed based on previous research that the sexual orientation of the victim would have a large degree of influence in the determination of reporting behavior by other students. The issue has not been directly addressed in prior research, with most research into violence and bullying failing to acknowledge societal attitudes such as homophobia as a factor despite the knowledge that such factors do greatly influence the degree and incidence level of bullying, especially in schools (Poteat & Espelage, 2005; Clarke & Kiselica, 1997; Beighley 2007). The avoidance of the issue in the academic literature and the increased proportion of self-reported bullying among students identifying as LGBT taken together suggest that the problem is ignored by most communities, and this led to the expectation that sexual orientation would be an inhibitive factor of intervention and reporting behaviors. The results indicated, however, that the fear of retaliation by perpetrators of violence superseded all other variables when students were deciding to report violence or not, rendering the issue of the perceived or stated sexual orientation of the victim moot. The variables of perceived sexual orientation of the student, acceptance of LGBT students at the school site, presence of a GSA, or gender did not significantly impact the decision of bystanders to violent incidents. The following discussion provides possible explanations for the lack of a visible impact of sexual orientation on the reporting of violence in high schools, such as one variable that did appear to reduce the fear of retaliation: males reported less fear of retaliation than females.

Gender Differences and Reporting Behaviors

The current study found that males were less likely to report fear of retaliation and also less likely to be aware of the presence of a GSA on campus, calling into question the applicability of previous studies of social influence by Berkowitz and Perkins (1986) which found that social influence describes the rules that a group uses for appropriate and inappropriate values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors (Perkins & Berkowitz, 1986). Berkowitz (2003) stresses that it is the perception of what others consider normative and appropriate that dictates the exact effects of social influence in a given scenario, and that while most men internally disapprove of violence, they believe that other men are more tolerant of violence (Berkowitz, 2003). The theory of social influence as described by Berkowitz (2003) and Berkowitz and Perkins (1986) would seem to suggest that males would have an increased fear of retaliation, as they would expect a greater level of comfort with violence from any male bullies or attackers that they may report. At the same time, informational conformity is another component of social influence, meaning that fear of retaliation might be reduced simply based on the truth of the information and the availability of other witnesses (Berkowitz 2003). This explanation is somewhat complex, however, and has little in the way of empirical evidence from this study with which to verify it. The reduced fear of retaliation observed in males, then, remains unexplained at this time, though possibilities are suggested in the research.

Fear of Retaliation

The major finding in this study was that fear of retaliation stands out as the major barrier to reporting violent acts. This study found that even when students were aware of reporting procedures and knew who to report to, they still reported that fear of retaliation prevented them from reporting. It is clear that schools continue to need procedures that encourage reporting and prevent retaliation. This also seems to initially reject Bandura's (1994) assertion that the perception of self-efficacy is the primary determinant of behavior, as this, too, is shown to be of no real importance in the face of a fear of retaliation.

At a middle school that was not part of the study, administrators have developed a procedure for anonymous reporting. In addition, students who are disciplined for violent acts or bullying are told that they may not discuss the incident with other students. An anonymous "box" is placed in the main office where students may report any bullying or violence, along with other student concerns. Administrators check the box on a daily basis and investigate the student concerns. Also, students who are involved in any type of bullying or violence against another student are told that they may only discuss the incident with an adult at school or their parents. Any discussion with fellow students will lead to a five-day suspension and possible further discipline. All of these measures are put into place as a means of assuring the anonymity and the safety of those who report acts of violence; prohibiting the discussion of cases of bullying and violence limits the degree to which these events are known among potential friends of the bully or perpetrator, and also decreases the amount of attention paid to those who report violence. This greatly reduces the fear of retaliation against those who report on acts of violence, increasing levels of reporting and decreasing incidents of bullying and other violence across the board.

Perceived LGBT Acceptance

Although acceptance of LGBT students at the study schools was generally reported as high, with a men of approximately 2.8 on the five-point scale used in this study, as derived form items one and two on the research instrument. This was probably site specific and may not be generalizable to all schools in the country. By omission, most anti-bullying programs in California may be promoting the acceptance of LGBT bullying (Poteat & Espelage, 2005; Beighley, 2007; Peacebuilders, Cahracetr Counts, etc.). That is, due to a lack of specific focus or acknowledgement of the role that sexual orientation plays in instances of violence in schools, current programs might be contributing to such violence by allowing it to persist hidden in plain view. When the issue of sexual orientation is not purposely discussed, students may interpret the message to be that bullying or violence based on a student's perceived sexual orientation is acceptable. Beighly (2007) reports that 86% of LGBT students report being verbally harassed and that 44% of LGBT students report being physically harassed. This study did not ask for students to identify as LGBT or not, and therefore the study does not predict reporting behaviors based on the sexual orientation of the bystander. It is recommended that further study include the option of student sexual identity as a demographic variable.

Knowledge of Reporting Procedures

The current study provided an interesting contradiction in the area of reporting procedures. The value attributed to reporting does appear to predict the likelihood of reporting school violence directed against LGBT students. This is also the case for knowing who to report to. However, after controlling for an individual's perceptions of the value of reporting, it appeared that knowing who to report to was negatively associated with the likelihood to report. It is possible that in the current study, students knew who to report to, but did not believe that reporting to that specific individual would be effective. In this way, Bandura's (1994) self-efficacy explanation of behavior can be seen as having a secondary influence on non-reporting behaviors in response to violent incidents. Bystanders who felt that their reporting actions would not likely yield any meaningful results would be far less likely to engage in any reporting or otherwise actively responsive manner, and the results of this current research suggest that those who were better acquainted Also, fear of retaliation may act as a barrier to reporting even when the students are aware of reporting procedures and know who to report to. Self-efficacy itself might be somewhat high, given the number of students who have knowledge of reporting procedures and the circumstances/observations that warrant such intervention, but if outcome expectations are low enough this erodes the ultimate value of self-efficacy. Further study determining the effectiveness of specific reporting procedures and administrator effectiveness is recommended.

The findings of the study show that male students are less likely to report acceptance of LGBT students and are also less likely to be aware of a GSA support group on campus. This data confirms the work of Mosher and Sirkin (1984) who found that males continue to value the accepted forms of masculinity and still fear the label of "fag," presumably because it identifies those labeled with this moniker with members of the LGBT community. Fear of such labeling, while not really constituting fear of retaliation as defined in this study, might be a major factor in males' resistance to reporting acts of violence where the victim's sexual orientation was a factor in the violence. As stated above, when anti-violence and anti-bullying programs omit the specific vocabulary of the LGBT community. It is implied that LGBT students are acceptable targets. Schools that currently have GSA's on their campus need to increase male awareness and membership. Schools that do not have a GSA on campus should develop a GSA club. Two of the schools in the current study have active GSA's which may account for the acceptance of LGBT students at these schools.

IMPLICATIONS

Practitioners

Procedures for anonymous reporting (Fear of retaliation)

As stated above, fear of retaliation was the major barrier to reporting according to the findings in this study. It is recommended that school develop safe, anonymous reporting procedures such as that described above. In addition, students must feel that retaliation will be addressed and every attempt will be made to protect the student from retaliation, both inside the school and outside the school. Perpetrators must be informed that retaliation will carry serious consequences and that administrators will follow through. Students must be told that any discussion of disciplinary actions discussed among students will cause further disciplinary actions to be instituted.

Further Research

The schools involved in the current study are known as being very gay-friendly. Two of the schools have very strong GSA's. The school without a GSA receives students from the other two schools and therefore may have a similar acceptance of LGBT students. The reported acceptance of LGBT students may be site specific and therefore not generalizable to most high schools. It is recommended that the research be replicated at a number of schools with and without GSA's.