Violence reporting behaviors and victim sexual orientation in high schools

¶ … 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 The results indicated, however, that the fear of retaliation by perpetrators of violence superseded all other variables when students were deciding to report violence or not, rendering the issue of the perceived or stated sexual orientation of the victim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.

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.

The original design of the study included an item asking students to identify as LGBT or not. At the recommendation of the dissertation committee, that item was withdrawn from the research instrument. The committee was concerned that approval from the Internal Review Board would not be forthcoming if that item were included. The lack of sexual orientation as a variable seriously impacted the findings. In addition, it was discovered that the study sites were not only willing to include that data in the research instrument, they were anxious to have that data. As the IRB approval was not obtained until February 2010, there was not sufficient time to go back to the board for approval of the LGBT identifier. It is recommended that sexual orientation be included in for further research within that specific community.

Conclusion

The design of the study presented a range of limitations. The major limitation to this study was the lack of a demographic variable identifying respondents as LGBT or not. In addition, the design of the study was correlational; therefore, no causal relationships could be determined. The researcher could only determine that the independent and dependent variables were related, but could not conclude that the dependent variables were a result of the independent variables. Other limitations included consistency and possible bias on the part of the respondents. It is assumed that a percentage of students may have responded untruthfully which may have had an impact on the consistency of the data. Two of the schools surveyed included active GSA's and the GSA advisor was the research contact. Both advisors are very popular at their respective campuses and therefore may have had an influence on the student responses to the acceptance of LGBT students.

Research into bystander behavior and student willingness to report violence needs to continue. Fear of retaliation represented the major barrier to reporting according to the findings. Future research should be designed to investigate what students think would reduce their fear of retaliation and therefore increase their likelihood of reporting. This study was quantitative, but future research designed as qualitative in nature may be able to further explore the fear of retaliation. In addition, further research should compare the variables of anonymous reporting and fear of retaliation. With additional information, school administrators may be better prepared to design programs assuring the safety of student reporters.