Journal Pre-Proof: Aggression and Violent Behavior

Journal Pre-proof
Homophobic bullying at schools: A systematic review of research,

prevalence, school-related predictors and consequences
Nieves Moyano, María del Mar Sánchez-Fuentes
PII: S1359-1789(20)30145-2
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2020.101441
Reference: AVB 101441
To appear in: Aggression and Violent Behavior
Received date: 8 August 2019

Revised date: 27 February 2020
Accepted date: 5 June 2020
Please cite this article as: N. Moyano and M. del Mar Sánchez-Fuentes, Homophobic
bullying at schools: A systematic review of research, prevalence, school-related predictors
and consequences, Aggression and Violent Behavior (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.avb.2020.101441
This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such
as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is
not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting,
typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this
version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production
process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers
that apply to the journal pertain.
© 2020 Published by Elsevier.

Journal Pre-proof
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF HOMOPHOBIC BULLYING 1
Homophobic bullying at schools: A systematic review of research, prevalence, school-
related predictors and consequences
Nieves Moyano1 & María del Mar Sánchez-Fuentes2,3

1
Faculty of Humanities and Education Sciences, University of Jaen, Jaen, Spain
2
Faculty of Social and Human Sciences, Department of Psychology and Sociology,
University of Zaragoza, Teruel, Spain
of
2
ro
Faculty of Human and Social Sciences, Department of Social Sciences, University of
Costa, Barranquilla, Colombia
-p
re
lP
Corresponding author:
María del Mar Sánchez-Fuentes. Faculty of Social and Human Sciences, Department of
na
Psychology and Sociology, University of Zaragoza, Teruel, Spain E-mail:

ur
marsanchez@unizar.es
Jo
Journal Pre-proof
Abstract
Recently, research on homophobic bullying has increased. School is a relevant environment
in which many bullying experiences take place. This study provides a systematic literature
review that examines homophobic bullying at schools by collecting information about its
prevalence, school-related predictors and consequences. We considered documents that
focused on the study of homophobic bullying in the school context, and provided empirical
information on the prevalence, frequency of homophobic bullying or the analysis of some
of
school-related predictor factors or consequences. Ninety documents met the criteria and
ro
were, therefore, reviewed. Most studies used samples of adolescents. Their design was
-p
based on quantitative methodologies, and they mostly focused on the prevalence and
re
school-related protective and risk factors, such as peer group and social support, followed
by school belonging. Some consequences of homophobic bullying are negative academic

lP
outcomes, truancy and school belonging. The findings from these studies also provide
na
information about useful strategies, as well as perceived barriers and facilitators. This
review may better guide prevention in the education field.

ur
Keywords: Homophobic bullying, school, prevalence, systematic review.

Jo
Journal Pre-proof
School bullying is a prevalent phenomenon worldwide. The Global Bullying Dataset,
conducted across 126 countries, reports bullying rates that range from 32% to 36% for boys
and girls, respectively (Richardson & Hiu, 2018). School is a relevant environment for
children and adolescents‘ socialization, where their psycho-social adjustment is built
(Sigfusdottir Kristjansson, Thorlindsson, & Allegrante, 2016). However, schools are
sometimes a hostile place for students who are likely to suffer from school passivity
of
(Martínez-Otero, 2017), considered to be lack of initiative to defend or intervene when they
ro
witness bullying (Carter, 2013). The students who feel more integrated into their education
-p
community tend to report less school violence because they believe they are a member of
re
their school and feel less threatened by violence and bullying (Gendron, Williams, &
Guerra, 2011). From a perpetrator´s viewpoint, poorly perceived peer support increases the
lP
likelihood of perpetrating violence (Díaz-Aguado, Martínez, & Martín 2013).School

na
bullying is quite often associated with some negative consequences and diminishes the
sense of school belonging or commitment and, therefore, absenteeism rates rise (Fry et al.,
ur
2018).
Jo
While bullying is considered a form of intentional intimidation or maltreatment
among peers, characterized by aggressive behavior that is repetitively perpetrated,
homophobic bullying comprises all these forms of violence against lesbian, gay bisexual,
transgender, and ―questioning‖ (LGBTQ) students, based on the victim‘s perceived or
actual sexual orientation (see Hong & Garbarino, 2012; Warwick, Aggleton, & Douglas,
2001). According to UNESCO (2013), homophobia is the attitude that underlies
homophobic bullying, and is the fear of, rejection of or aversion to homosexual people
and/or people who do not behave according to stereotyped gender roles. It is often
Journal Pre-proof
expressed in attitudes, stigmatization or discriminatory behavior shown to homosexual
people, homosexuality and also sexual diversity.
LGBTQ face significant discrimination at school and are at higher risk of suffering
several types of bullying compared to those with a heterosexual orientation (see Crothers et
al., 2017; Elipe, Oliva, & del Rey, 2018; Pollitt, Mallory, & Fish, 2018). The prevalence of
homophobic bullying ranges from 22% to 87%, which is higher than the prevalence of
traditional bullying (Earnshaw et al., 2018). A review by Fedewa and Ahn (2011) indicates
of
more frequent victimization among LGBTQ individuals compared to heterosexual
ro
individuals. More detailed information is provided by a report by the Gay, Lesbian, and
-p
Straight Education Network (GLSEN) in 2015. Based on this report, the majority of
re
LGBTQ students (85.2%) have experienced verbal harassment and 27% of LGBTQ
students have been physically harassed. In contrast, 20.8% of students in general have
lP
suffered bullying (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2016); that is, the values are
na
lower than LGBTQ students. Moreover, LGBTQ individuals reporting this situation at
school are often silenced. In particular, 57.6% of LGBTQ students who have been harassed
ur
or assaulted at school did not report the incident to school staff, mostly because they
Jo
doubted that effective intervention would occur or the situation would become worse if
they reported it. A ―School Report‖ in Great Britain found that 65% of young LGB reported
experiences of homophobic bullying at school. In Switzerland, 85.4% of students reported
having made homophobic statements in the last year (Weber & Gredig, 2018). According
to the report by the Spanish Federation of Lesbian, Gays, Trans and Bisexuals, in 2012,
81% of homosexual youngsters reported having endured bullying almost every day.
On the one hand, LGBTQ students are 91% more likely to be harassed or intimated
by their peers, and 3 times more likely to be sexually assaulted (Kosciw, Greytak,
Journal Pre-proof
Zongrone, Clark, & Truong, 2018). On the other hand, LGBTQ individuals who suffer
bullying are at higher risk of negative consequences, such as depression and anxiety
symptoms, low self-esteem, post-traumatic stress, substance abuse and isolation (D'augelli,
Pilkington, & Hershberger, 2002; Saewyc, 2011). In other cases, consequences may be
catastrophic, such as suicide or suicide attempts (Espelage & Holt, 2013; Nickerson &
Torchia, 2015). On the other hand, while the consequences of bullying are very negative,
these are even worst for LGBTQ students. This is probably because most teachers have not
of
received any training to support students, plus inclusion policies were previously lacking in
ro
schools (Kosciw et al., 2018). Therefore it is important to examine in-depth the
-p
understanding of homophobic bullying and the factors associated with it.
re
Given the vast amount of studies about bullying, in the last decade several systematic
reviews on bullying and some related interventions have been conducted to better
lP
understand this phenomenon and the strategies adopted to better cope with it (see Earnshaw
na
et al., 2018; Silva, de Oliveira, Zequinao, da Silva, Pereira, & Silva, 2018). There are two
systematic reviews that independently focus on our main review targets: 1) homophobic
ur
bullying and 2) school bullying. Regarding the review on ―homophobic bullying‖

Jo
(Espelage et al., 2019), the authors analyzed some protective factors and consequences
among children and adolescents within an ecological framework in which a few variables
from the school level were considered; in particular school policies and school climate were
the only school-related variables. The second review of school bullying, conducted by
Álvarez-García, García and Núñez (2015), examined some predictors of school bullying by
considering the perpetrator´s perspective among adolescents in which some school factors
for performing bullying were highlighted, such as poor academic achievement or lack of
interest in studies. However to date, no study has focused and systematically synthesized
Journal Pre-proof
publications about homophobic bullying in the school context, which could better provide
specific strategies for its prevention and promote co-existence practices.
The Present Study
As school is often the environment in which homophobic bullying may take place,
some studies analyzed certain school-related factors associated with it. However, these
findings have not been systematically reviewed. So despite several review and meta-
analytic studies having explored the bullying phenomenon, no studies have yet
of
systematically reviewed the phenomenon of this particular form of bullying: homophobic
ro
bullying and its respective school-related factors. Therefore, the aim of the present
-p
theoretical study was to conduct a systematic review of homophobic bullying and its
re
school-related factors. This review broadens our understanding about this phenomenon and
would provide us with specific knowledge for both the prevention and promotion of
lP
adequate educational programs.

na
Method
The literature search was conducted in the Scopus, Web of Science, and PsycInfo
ur
electronic databases because they are the main databases that include the journals with the
Jo
highest impact. The terms used with several searches were: ―bullying‖ and ―LGBT,‖
―homophobic bullying,‖ ―LGBT* bullying,‖, ―transphobic bullying,‖ ―gender-based
bullying,‖ ―homophobic victimization,‖ "transphobic victimization," ―homophobic
harassment,‖ and ―transphobic harassment‖. The search was limited to: Article title,
Abstract and Keywords, and in scientific articles and articles in press, with no restriction of
publication years and language.
This review was conducted by following the PRISMA standards: Preferred
Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (Liberati et al., 2009). The use
Journal Pre-proof
of such indicators improves the quality of systematic reviews and helps to provide more
transparency and reproducibility as regards the selected documents.
Inclusion Criteria
Scientific articles that met the following criteria were selected: a) documents that
focus on the study of homophobic bullying, homophobic victimization or homophobic
aggression in the school context; b) those that provide empirical information on the
prevalence, frequency of bullying or include the analysis of at least one school-related
of
predictor variable, or consequences, as well as school members (e.g., teachers, staff, etc.) or
ro
family relations‘ perceptions of this topic. We only considered that information from the
-p
included studies that provided data about school-related predictors and school-related
re
consequences. However, we did not consider other information about behavioral, health or
psychological variables.
lP
Exclusion Criteria
na
The exclusion criteria were: a) based on the type of study: theoretical, quasi-
experimental and experimental studies; b) regarding the sample, the documents that focused
ur
on the university context and those including samples from the general population; c)
Jo
regarding the methodology of the study, those using a retrospective methodology were
excluded; d) in addition, as for the topic, any publications that focused only on
cyberbullying were excluded; e) those that examined the relation between homophobic
bullying and health or behavioral-related issues, but those not related to the educational
context, were also excluded (e.g., studies in which the link between homophobic bullying
and suicide was analyzed, or those that studied the relation between homophobic bullying
and substance abuse); f) those studies that focused on homophobic language. Although the
use of ―homophobic language‖ may be a component of bullying, these studies dido not
Journal Pre-proof
study homophobic bullying per se, rather a particular expression of it; g) the studies whose
main objective was to carry out an intervention to reduce levels of homophobic bullying; h)
the studies whose main goal was to discuss policies to regulate homophobic bullying were
not considered.
Coding Strategies
This study complies with the guidelines of the PRISMA Group regarding the
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews (Moher et al., 2009), which establish a set
of
of clear objectives, specific search terms and eligibility criteria for previously defined
ro
studies. First, two independent reviewers conducted the literature search between January
-p
and March 2019 using the three databases. Second, having obtained the documents, they
re
were read and those that met the inclusion criteria were identified. To do so, the reviewers
met to resolve any conflicts in some of the documents that did not clearly meet the criteria.
lP
Therefore, they developed a table in which the references of the documents were entered.
na
Those for which they found ambiguity about the criteria were discussed. The documents
that were excluded by both reviewers were not further discussed, rather the reasons for their
ur
exclusion were considered. Finally, the following information was extracted from each
Jo
article that met the inclusion criteria: a) authors and year or publication; b) country; c)
characteristics of the participants (sample size, type of population, sexual orientation and
age or grade); d) methodological design, and also the assessment measure used to evaluate
homophobic bullying; e) main findings.
Results
As can be seen in Figure 1, the literature search yielded 650 research articles.
Duplicate articles (n = 505) and those that did not meet the inclusion criteria (n = 55) were
Journal Pre-proof
excluded, which left 90 articles which were the subject of this review. Table 1 shows the
documents included in the present study.
Year of publication and country
The documents were published between 1999 and 2019, but their frequency
increased in the last 6 years. Indeed 23.3% of the articles were published in 2018 and
11.1% in 2014. Most research has been carried out in the USA (63.3%), followed by
Canada (7.8%), Ireland (6.7%), Italy (5.6%), Spain (3.3%) and the UK (3.3%). Only four
of
research works had been carried out in Latin American countries and one research work in
ro
Africa.
-p
Characteristics of the participants (sample size, type of population, sexual orientation,
re
age or grade)
The reviewed studies covered several student grades, but mostly (46.7%) focused on
lP
the secondary, middle or high school grades, 14.4% did not report any grade, 7.8%
na
included all grades (from elementary to high school), and only one work (1.1%) was carried
out at elementary school. Regarding the participants, the majority of the studies focused on
ur
students (76.7%), followed by those that included educational personnel (16.7%), students
Jo
and teachers (3.3%), students, educators and families (2.2%), and families (1.1%).
Regarding sexual orientation and gender identity, 40% of the research recruited samples
made up of sexual minorities, 30% included heterosexual and sexual minority participants,
28.9% did not report any sexual orientation and only one study was conducted with
transgender population. Regarding the age of the participants, the minimum age was 8-9
years old to 18 years old, although most studies were conducted in adolescents and also
included individuals with a maximum age of 21, and other reviewed studies also included
Journal Pre-proof
older adults in their samples. In some other cases, apart from students, individuals included
staff members, teachers or other groups.
Methodological design and measures of homophobic bullying
Most of the studies were quantitative (73.3%), followed by qualitative (17.8%) and
mixed method (8.9%). The studies included: one or several items to assess bullying
(37.1%); questionnaires (21.3%); interviews (16.9%); items and interviews (11.2%); ad hoc
questionnaires (6.7%); items extracted from extended measures (5.6%) the combination of
of
interviews and observation (1.1%). No measure stands out as the most widely used. For
ro
example, the Homophobic Bullying Scale (Prati, 2012) was used in three research works
-p
(D‘Urso & Pace, 2019; D‘Urso, Petruccelli, & Pace, 2018; Orue & Calvete, 2018). Four
re
items from the University of Illinois Victimization Scale were highlighted (Espelage &
Holt, 2001; Espelage, Holt, & Henkel, 2003) and employed in four research works
lP
(Aragon, Poteat, Espelage, & Koenig, 2014; Hatchel, Merrin, & Espelage, 2018; Poteat,
na
Sinclair, Digiovanni, Koenig, & Russell 2013; Robinson & Espelage, 2012).
Main findings
ur
From the 90 reviewed documents, we extracted the main findings according to some
Jo
main topics. Specifically, we obtained 105 units of information, as some of the documents
provided information for more than one of the main aspects we were exploring. Therefore,
these ―units of information‖ were the specific results or findings from each document that
was related to one of the following: a) prevalence of homophobic bullying; b) school-
related predictors or associated factors; c) school-related consequences of homophobic
bullying; and d) others in which we entered information regarding: a) issues related to
intervention (barriers and facilitators); b) intervention; c) other miscellaneous topics related
to homophobic bullying.
Journal Pre-proof
a) Prevalence or frequency of homophobic bullying. About 29.5% of the studies
concluded more vulnerability for LGBTQ youth of being bullied compared to heterosexual
or cisgender individuals (see Crothers et al., 2017; Elipe, de la Oliva Muñoz, & Del Rey,
2018; Evans & Chapman, 2014; Hillard, Love, Franks, Laris, & Coyle, 2014; Kahle, 2017;
Mereish, Goldbach, Burgess, & DiBello, 2017; O'Malley, Kann, Vivolo-Kantor, Kinchen,
& McManus, 2014; Pedro & Esqueda, 2017; Pollitt, Mallory, & Fish, 2018). Particularly,
LGBTQ are at higher risk of polyvictimization (Sterzing, Ratliff, Gartner, McGeough, &
of
Johnson, 2017). Also, gender differences are observed, as boys are more likely than girls to
ro
be victim (D'Urso & Pace, 2019; Minton, 2014; Orue, Calvete, & Fernández-González,
-p
2018). Prevalence rates ranged from 3.6% (Cénat, Blais, Hébert, Lavoie, & Guerrier, 2015)
re
to 50% (Elipe et al., 2018). Details about the prevalence of specific types of bullying were
also provided from which verbal abuse was one of the most commonly reported (Teixeira-
lP
Filho, Rondini, & Bessa, 2011). Prevalence was also reported from an observer perspective,
na
ranging from 31.3% of participants that have witnessed homophobic bullying (Rodríguez,
2018) to 66.8% (Poteat & Vecho, 2016).

ur
b) School-related predictors or associated factors. Approximately 30.47% of the

Jo
studies reported information on protective and risk factors. Most of them were school-
related factors and had a direct association or a mediating role on homophobic bullying
such as: peer group and social support either from the parents or other adults at the school
(see Birkett & Espelage, 2015; D‘Urso & Pace, 2019; Erhard & Ben-Ami, 2016; Ybarra,
Mitchell, Palmer, & Reisner, 2015) followed by school belonging (Hatchel, Espelage, &
Huang, 2018; Hatchel, Merrin, & Espelage, 2018) and lack of trust between peers (D‘Urso
et al., 2018). Although not directly related to school, self-compassion was a protective
factor of homophobic bullying (Vigna, Poehlmann-Tynan, & Koenig, 2018). Finally, from
Journal Pre-proof
a school-related perspective, inclusive education, policies and supportive curricula also
reduce homophobic bullying (see Boyland, Kirkeby, & Boyland, 2018; Greytak, Kosciw, &
Boesen, 2013; Kull, Greytak, Kosciw, & Villenas, 2016).
Other socio-demographic variables were studied, such rural areas and age. In
particular, rural areas may contribute to greater victimization and hostile school climates
(Kosciw, Greytak, & Diaz, 2009; Kosciw, Palmer, & Kull, 2014), while age seemed to
have no effect on the range between 13 to 17 years (Minton, 2014), although one study
of
indicated that homophobic bullying increases throughout adolescence (Sterzing, Gibbs,
ro
Gartner, & Goldbach, 2018).
-p
Interestingly, some studies focused on some perpetrator-related variables that
re
fostered or diminished the homophobic bullying risk. For example, perpetrator´s beliefs
that behaviors are harmful or wrong or endorsing homophobic attitudes (Peter, Tasker, &
lP
Horn, 2016). Moreover, the greater the sexual prejudice, and fewer the contacts with
na
LGBTQ individuals, the greater the legitimization of homophobic bullying (Zotti,
Carnaghi, Piccoli, & Bianchi, 2018). Finally, being male and heterosexual and with moral
ur
disengagement and level of prejudice (Camodeca, Baiocco, & Posa, 2018) were related
Jo
with greater homophobic bullying.
c) School-related consequences. About 9.52% of the studies reported findings
about some homophobic bullying consequences. The studies indicated negative academic
outcomes (Kosciw et al., 2014), direct or indirect truancy (Darwich, Hymel, & Waterhouse,
2012; Robinson & Espelage, 2013), especially for females (Poteat & Espelage, 2007),
negative effects on school belonging (Poteat, Mereish, DiGiovanni, & Koenig, 2011),
especially for males (Poteat & Espelage, 2007) and more negative emotions (White,
Moeller, Ivcevic, Brackett, & Stern, 2018).

Journal Pre-proof
d) Other: intervention and miscellaneous findings. About 17.15% of the studies
focused on some useful strategies to reduce homophobic bullying. From a teacher´s
perspective, some variables were relevant such as: their awareness and self-efficacy
(Greytak & Kosciw 2014; Nappa, Palladino, Menesini, & Baiocco, 2018), rating physical
bullying of LGBTQ as being slightly less serious, having less empathy, and being less
likely to intervene in these situations compared to verbal and relational bullying, supportive
educators, seeing other teachers or staff (see Perez, Schanding, & Dao, 2013; Wernick,
of
Kulick, & Inglehart, 2013). Students were also motivated to intervene when they saw others
ro
intervene (Wernick, Kulick, & Inglehart, 2014). However, this was not true for staff, who
-p
tended to feel more ambivalent (Anagnostopoulos, Buchanan, Pereira, & Lichty, 2009).
re
Other studies focused on specific policies, such as gay–straight alliances (GSAs)
and LGBT-inclusive curricula. However, the consequences of these policies were mixed.
lP
As a result, it increased perceptions of more school safety and less homophobic bullying
na
(Boyland et al., 2018; Greytak, Kosciw, & Boesen, 2013; Kull, Greytak, Kosciw, &
Villenas, 2016). Overall, there was less truancy and more school belonging. Some studies
ur
perceived certain barriers / facilitators for tackling homophobic bullying. Based on the
Jo
qualitative studies their findings indicated lack of institutional support from administrators;
lack of formal education on the issue; inconsistent responses from colleagues; fear of parent
backlash; and a negative community response or the main barriers in tackling homophobic
and transphobic bullying: students' perceived discomfort about discussing their sexuality
with teachers, teachers' discomfort about discussing issues (including associated lack of
training), lack of priority given to these bullying types, and parental views on
homosexuality (O‘Donoghue & Guerin, 2017).

Journal Pre-proof
Some of the studies that were not easy to classify into the previous topics were
clustered into a ―miscellaneous theme‖, which comprised 8.5% of the reviewed studies.
Most used qualitative methodologies and dealt with diverse issues: a) teachers reported
ambiguity for issues of peer aggression and bullying LGBTQ youths; b) sexual minorities'
overall perspective of their school climate, the nature of aggression at school against sexual
minorities when present, the characteristics of victims and bullies, and the consequences of
being a sexual minority at school. Other worries about homophobic bullying that were
of
classified were as follows: the socio-cultural context shapes the school climate; victimized
ro
youths perceive being seen as deviant; victimized youths react to victimization differently.
-p
Among the themes to emerge, the influence of religion on teachers‘ morals and behaviors
re
was one of the topics to be reported for the homophobic bullying influence. Finally, some
barriers emerged in which the participants remarked about the following: culture of
lP
acceptance; need for policies; understanding homosexuality; perception of homosexual

na
learners; social difficulties and acts of verbal, physical, and emotional victimization;
learners' feelings (Marshall & Allison, 2019; Mostert, Gordon, & Kriegler, 2015; Newman,
ur
Fantus, Woodford, & Rwigema, 2018; O'Higgins-Norman, 2009; Preston, 2016; Singh,
Jo
2013; Varjas et al., 2006; Williams, Banks, & Blake, 2018).
Discussion
The current systematic review provides an overview of empirical evidence for the
homophobic bullying phenomenon at school, which especially focuses on both its
prevalence and school-related variables. Since the first publication in 1999, interest in this
research topic has significantly grown in the last 5 years, when 2018 witnessed the most
marked increase with 23.3% of the reviewed studies published that year. Most research on
homophobic bullying in a school context, in particular two thirds of the reviewed studies,
Journal Pre-proof
have focused on examining its prevalence/frequency and exploring the predictor factors
associated with it.
In line with the prevalence of homophobic bullying and the main school-related
factors associated with it, we emphasize that, on the one hand, having a nonheterosexual
orientation is a risk factor per se to suffer bullying. On the other hand, of the most relevant
school-related factors, the findings highlight peer group, social support and feelings of
school belonging. In contrast, the consequences of homophobic bullying in the school
of
context have received less attention, as have the policies and the role that intervention plays
ro
to reduce homophobic bullying.
-p
Therefore, while there is empirical evidence for many of the factors that lie beneath
re
homophobic bullying, other factors, such as the role of the responsibility that parents,
teachers and other educational staff have in reducing homophobic bullying, seem relatively
lP
unexplored. Further research could be fruitful for prevention and intervention programs that
na
require the combined action of several educational agents. In this sense, Ttofi and
Farrington (2011) revealed that of 44 reviewed evaluations, school-based anti-bullying

ur
programs were generally effective because bullying decreased by 20-23% on average.

Jo
Along these In lines, several studies from our review show the impact of these agents on
reducing homophobic bullying for teachers (O´Shaughnessy et al., 2004), parents
(O‘Donoghue & Guerin, 2017), and inclusive education, policies and supportive curricula
(see Boyland Kirkeby, & Boyland, 2018; Greytak, Kosciw, & Boesen, 2013; Kull, Greytak,
Kosciw, & Villenas, 2016).
Based on the reviewed literature, we highlight that prevention and intervention
should be differently approached by gender (Orue & Calvete, 2018) given the gender
differences in homophobic bullying, in which boys tend to suffer more homophobic

Journal Pre-proof
bullying than girls (D´Urso & Pace, 2019), and are also more likely to be perpetrators
(Minton, 2014). This is probably because boys tend to be more homophobic, they more
often endorse homophobic attitudes, act more aggressively, show less empathy (Chaux &
León, 2016) and display more hetero-normative behaviors (Korobov, 2004).
This study has several limitations: 1) due to the heterogeneity of the reviewed
studies, no meta-analytic methods were applied. Therefore, no further conclusions about the
power of the relations among the variables, or the efficacy of interventions, were provided;
of
2) only documents available in English and via the described databases were included, but
ro
some studies published in other languages could have been neglected and not included in
-p
the present review; 3) other forms of bullying, such as cyberbullying, are difficult to
re
control, e.g., whether this form of bullying happens in the school context. Therefore, future
research should include this form of bullying. Nonetheless, the present study provides a
lP
systematic review on a prevalent phenomenon: homophobic bullying at school.

na
Conclusions and future directions
Based on the reviewed literature, we aim to highlight these main findings which
ur
lead to several implications and future directions for research: (1) having a nonheterosexual
Jo
orientation is a risk factor per se to suffer bullying; (2) there are gender differences, for
which boys are at higher risk to both being victims and perpetrators of homophobic
bullying. Therefore, prevention and intervention programs should manage this gender
difference; (3) there is no comprehensive or specific measure for homophobic bullying,
which reduces the chance of establishing an equivalent comparison across countries and
diverse samples; (4) most studies attempt to link some variables to homophobic bullying in
an isolated way, while few studies perform more comprehensive and integrated analyses of
the variables corresponding to different levels of analysis or systems (e.g., based on

Journal Pre-proof
Bronfenbrenner´s model which integrates relevant variables from an ecological model (see
Hong & Espelage, 2012; Hong & Garbarino, 2012; Espelage et al., 2018; Kosciw, Greytak,
& Diaz, 2009; Sterzing, Ratliff, Gartner, McGeough, & Johnson, 2017); (5) several agents
from education, such as teachers and family factors related to parents, are scarcely
explored. In this sense, findings highlight teachers´ perceptions as a key factor to intervene.
However in many cases, teachers perceive some barriers to cope with homophobic
bullying. This can also be added to not applying specific school policies that must explicitly
of
acknowledge and address sexual orientations and gender matters in youth violence
ro
constructs to build safer learning environments for youths (Kahle, 2017). Teachers´
-p
empowerment to better detect, manage or intervene to face homophobic bullying should be
re
the focus of intervention and research.
lP
na
ur
Jo
Journal Pre-proof
References
*Adelman, M., & Woods, K. (2006). Identification without intervention: Transforming the
anti-LGBTQ school climate. Journal of Poverty, 10, 5-26.
doi:10.1300/J134v10n02_02
*Alexander, M. M., Santo, J. B., Da Cunha, J., Weber, L., & Russell, S. T. (2011). Effects
of homophobic versus nonhomophobic victimization on school commitment and the
moderating effect of teacher attitudes in Brazilian public schools. Journal of LGBT
of
Youth, 8, 289-308. doi:10.1080/19361653.2011.607317
ro
*Anagnostopoulos, D., Buchanan, N. T., Pereira, C., & Lichty, L. F. (2009). School staff
-p
responses to gender-based bullying as moral interpretation: An exploratory
re
study. Educational Policy, 23, 519-553. doi:10.1177/0895904807312469
*António, R., & Moleiro, C. (2015). Social and parental support as moderators of the
lP
effects of homophobic bullying on psychological distress in youth. Psychology in the

na
Schools, 52, 729-742. doi:10.1002/pits.21856

ur
*Aragon, S. R., Poteat, V. P., Espelage, D. L., & Koenig, B. W. (2014). The influence of
peer victimization on educational outcomes for LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ high

Jo
school students. Journal of LGBT Youth, 11, 1-19.
doi:10.1080/19361653.2014.840761
*Birkett, M., Espelage, D. L., & Koenig, B. (2009). LGB and questioning students in
schools: The moderating effects of homophobic bullying and school climate on
negative outcomes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 989-1000.
doi:10.1007/s10964-008-9389-1
Journal Pre-proof
Birkett, M., & Espelage, D. L. (2015). Homophobic name‐calling, peer‐groups, and
masculinity: The socialization of homophobic behavior in adolescents. Social
Development, 24, 184-205. doi:10.1111/sode.12085
*Blais, M., Gervais, J., & Hébert, M. (2014). Internalized homophobia as a partial mediator
between homophobic bullying and self-esteem among youths of sexual minorities in
Quebec (Canada). Ciencia & Saude Coletiva, 19, 727-735. doi:
10.1590/141381232014193.16082013
of
*Bouris, A., Everett, B. G., Heath, R. D., Elsaesser, C. E., & Neilands, T. B. (2016). Effects
ro
of victimization and violence on suicidal ideation and behaviors among sexual
-p
minority and heterosexual adolescents. LGBT Health, 3, 153-161.
re
doi:10.1089/lgbt.2015.0037
lP
Boyland, L. G., Kirkeby, K. M., & Boyland, M. I. (2018). Policies and practices supporting
LGBTQ students in Indiana‘s middle schools. NASSP Bulletin, 102, 111-140.

na
doi:10.1177/0192636518782427
ur
*Camodeca, M., Baiocco, R., & Posa, O. (2018). Homophobic bullying and victimization
Jo
among adolescents: The role of prejudice, moral disengagement, and sexual
orientation. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 1-19.
doi:10.1080/17405629.2018.1466699
Carter, M. A. (2013). Third party observers witnessing cyber bullying on social media sites.
Procedia-social and behavioral sciences, 84, 1296-1309.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.747
Journal Pre-proof
*Cénat, J. M., Blais, M., Hébert, M., Lavoie, F., & Guerrier, M. (2015). Correlates of
bullying in Quebec high school students: The vulnerability of sexual-minority
youth. Journal of Affective Disorders, 183, 315-321.doi:10.1016/j.jad.2015.05.01
Center for Disease Control, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (2017).
Preventing bullying. Retrieved
from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/bullying-factsheet508.pdf
Chaux, E., & León, M. (2016). Homophobic attitudes and associated factors among
of
adolescents: A comparison of six Latin American countries. Journal of
ro
Homosexuality, 63, 1253-1276. doi:10.1080/00918369.2016.1151697
-p
*Crothers, L. M., Kolbert, J. B., Berbary, C., Chatlos, S., Lattanzio, L., Tiberi, A., ... &
Meidl, C. (2017). Teachers‘, LGBTQ students‘, and student allies‘ perceptions of

re
bullying of sexually-diverse youth. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment &
lP
Trauma, 26, 972-988. doi:10.1080/10926771.2017.1344344

na
*Darwich, L., Hymel, S., & Waterhouse, T. (2012). School avoidance and substance use
among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and questioning youths: The impact of peer
ur
victimization and adult support. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 381-392.

Jo
doi:10.1037/a0026684
D'augelli, A. R., Pilkington, N. W., & Hershberger, S. L. (2002). Incidence and mental
health impact of sexual orientation victimization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths
in high school. School Psychology Quarterly, 17, 148-167.
doi:10.1521/scpq.17.2.148.20854
Journal Pre-proof
*Day, J. K., Snapp, S. D., & Russell, S. T. (2016). Supportive, not punitive, practices
reduce homophobic bullying and improve school connectedness. Psychology of
Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 3, 416-425. doi:10.1037/sgd0000195
Díaz-Aguado, M. J., Martínez, R., & Martín, J. (2013). El acoso entre adolescentes en
España. Prevalencia, papeles adoptados por todo el grupo y características a las que
atribuyen la victimización. Revista de Educación, 362. doi:10.4438/1988-592X-RE-
2011-362-164
of
*D‘Urso, G., & Pace, U. (2019). Homophobic bullying among adolescents: The role of
ro
insecure-dismissing attachment and peer support. Journal of LGBT Youth, 16, 173-
191. doi:10.1080/19361653.2018.1552225
-p
re
*D‘Urso, G., Petruccelli, I., & Pace, U. (2018). The interplay between trust among peers
lP
and interpersonal characteristics in homophobic bullying among Italian
adolescents. Sexuality & Culture, 22, 1310-1320. doi:10.1007/s12119-018-9527-1

na
*Douglas, N., Warwick, I., Whitty, G., Aggleton, P., & Kemp, S. (1999). Homophobic
bullying in secondary schools in England and Wales-teachers‘ experiences. Health

ur
Education, 99, 53-60. doi:10.1108/09654289910256914

Jo
Earnshaw, V. A., Reisner, S. L., Menino, D. D., Poteat, V. P., Bogart, L. M., Barnes, T. N.,
& Schuster, M. A. (2018). Stigma-based bullying interventions: A systematic
review. Developmental. Review, 48, 178–200. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2018.02.001.
*Elipe, P., de la Oliva, M., & Del Rey, R. (2018). Homophobic bullying and cyberbullying:
Study of a silenced problem. Journal of Homosexuality, 65, 672-686.
doi:10.1080/00918369.2017.1333809
Journal Pre-proof
*Erhard, R. L., & Ben-Ami, E. (2016). The schooling experience of lesbian, gay, and
bisexual youth in lsrael: Falling below and rising above as a matter of social
ecology. Journal of Homosexuality, 63, 193-227.
doi:10.1080/00918369.2015.1083778
*Espelage, D. L., Basile, K. C., & Hamburger, M. E. (2012). Bullying perpetration and
subsequent sexual violence perpetration among middle school students. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 50, 60-65. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.07.015
of
*Espelage, D. L., & Holt, M. K. (2001). Bullying and victimization during early
ro
adolescence: Peer influences and psychosocial correlates. Journal of Emotional
-p
Abuse, 2, 123-142. doi:10.1300/J135v02n02_08
re
Espelage, D. L., & Holt, M. K. (2013). Suicidal ideation and school bullying experiences
after controlling for depression and delinquency. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53,
lP
S27-S31. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.09.017
na
Espelage, D. L., Holt, M. K., & Henkel, R. R. (2003). Examination of peer–group
contextual effects on aggression during early adolescence. Child Development, 74,

ur
205-220. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00531
Jo
Espelage, D. L., Valido, A., Hatchel, T., Ingram, K. M., Huang, Y., & Torgal, C. (2019). A
literature review of protective factors associated with homophobic bullying and its
consequences among children & adolescents. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 45,
98-110. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2018.07.003
*Evans, C. B., & Chapman, M. V. (2014). Bullied youth: The impact of bullying through
lesbian, gay, and bisexual name-calling. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 84,
644-652. doi:10.1037/ort0000031
Journal Pre-proof
*Farrelly, G., O‘Higgins Norman, J., & O‘Leary, M. (2016). Custodians of silences?
School principal perspectives on the incidence and nature of homophobic bullying in
primary schools in Ireland. Irish Educational Studies, 36, 151–167.
doi:10.1080/03323315.2016.1246258
Fedewa, A. L., & Ahn, S. (2011). The effects of physical activity and physical fitness on
children's achievement and cognitive outcomes: a meta-analysis. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82, 521-535.
of
doi:10.1080/02701367.2011.10599785
ro
*Fisher, B. W., & Tanner-Smith, E. E. (2016). Examining school security measures as
-p
moderators of the association between homophobic victimization and school
re
avoidance. Journal of School Violence, 15, 234-257.
doi:10.1080/15388220.2014.983644
lP
Fry, D., Fang, X., Elliott, S., Casey, T., Zheng, X., Li, J., Florian, L., & McCluskey, G.
na
(2018). The relationships between violence in childhood and educational outcomes:
a global systematic review and meta-analysis. Child Abuse and Neglect, 75, 6–28.
ur
doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.06.021.
Jo
Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (2015). The National School Climate
Survey. Retrieved February 11, 2019, from
https://www.glsen.org/sites/default/files/2015%20National%20GLSEN%202015%2
0National%20School%20Climate%20Survey%20%28NSCS%29%20-
%20Full%20Report_0.pdf
Gendron, B. P., Williams, K. R., & Guerra, N. G. (2011). An analysis of bullying among
students within schools: Estimating the effects of individual normative beliefs, self-
Journal Pre-proof
esteem, and school climate. Journal of School Violence, 10, 150-164.
doi:10.1080/15388220.2010.539166
*Gower, A. L., Forster, M., Gloppen, K., Johnson, A. Z., Eisenberg, M. E., Connett, J. E.,
& Borowsky, I. W. (2018). School practices to foster LGBT-supportive climate:
Associations with adolescent bullying involvement. Prevention Science, 19, 813–821.
doi:10.1007/s11121-017-0847-4
*Greytak, E. A., & Kosciw, J. G. (2014). Predictors of US teachers‘ intervention in anti-
of
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender bullying and harassment. Teaching
ro
Education, 25, 410-426. doi:10.1080/10476210.2014.920000
-p
*Greytak, E. A., Kosciw, J. G., & Boesen, M. J. (2013). Putting the ―T‖ in ―resource‖: The
re
benefits of LGBT-related school resources for transgender youth. Journal of LGBT
Youth, 10, 45-63. doi:10.1080/19361653.2012.718522

lP
Grugeon, E., & Woods, P. (2017). Educating All: multicultural perspectives in the primary
na
school. London: Routledge.
*Hafford-Letchfield, T., Cocker, C., Ryan, P., & Melonowska, J. (2016). Rights through
ur
alliances: Findings from a European project tackling homophobic and transphobic

Jo
bullying in schools through the engagement of families and young people. The British
Journal of Social Work, 46, 2338-2356. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcw104
*Hatchel, T., Espelage, D. L., & Huang, Y. (2018). Sexual harassment victimization,
school belonging, and depressive symptoms among LGBTQ adolescents: Temporal
insights. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 88, 422-430. doi:
10.1037/ort0000279
Journal Pre-proof
*Hatchel, T., Merrin, G. J., & Espelage, A. D. (2018). Peer victimization and suicidality
among LGBTQ youth: the roles of school belonging, self-compassion, and parental
support. Journal of LGBT Youth, 134-156. doi:10.1080/19361653.2018.1543036
*Hillard, P., Love, L., Franks, H. M., Laris, B. A., & Coyle, K. K. (2014). ―They were only
joking‖: efforts to decrease LGBTQ bullying and harassment in Seattle public
schools. Journal of School Health, 84, 1-9. doi:10.1111/josh.12120
Hong, J. S., & Espelage, D. L. (2012). A review of research on bullying and peer
of
victimization in school: An ecological system analysis. Aggression and Violent
ro
Behavior, 17, 311-322. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2012.03.003
-p
Hong, J. S., & Garbarino, J. (2012). Risk and protective factors for homophobic bullying in
re
schools: An application of the social–ecological framework. Educational
lP
Psychology Review, 24, 271-285. doi:10.1007/s10648-012-9194-y

na
*Ioverno, S., Belser, A. B., Baiocco, R., Grossman, A. H., & Russell, S. T. (2016). The
protective role of gay–straight alliances for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and questioning
ur
students: A prospective analysis. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender

Jo
Diversity, 3, 397-406. doi:10.1037/sgd0000193
*Jones, L. M., Mitchell, K. J., Turner, H. A., & Ybarra, M. L. (2018). Characteristics of
bias-based harassment incidents reported by a national sample of US
adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 65, 50-60.
doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.02.013
Kahle, L. (2017). Are sexual minorities more at risk? Bullying victimization among lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and questioning youth. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1-19.
doi:10.1177/0886260517718830
Journal Pre-proof
Korobov, N. B. (2004). ‘Hetero-normative masculinity’as double-edgeddiscourse: A
discursive psychological investigation of how adolescent malesnegotiate their
social identities in conversational interaction (Doctoral dissertation, Clark
University).
*Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., & Diaz, E. M. (2009). Who, what, where, when, and why:
Demographic and ecological factors contributing to hostile school climate for lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and transgender youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 976-
of
988. doi:10.1007/s10964-009-9412-1
ro
Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Zongrone, A. D., Clark, C. M., & Truong, N. L. (2018). The
-p
2017 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, and queer youth in our nation’s schools. New York: GLSEN.
re
*Kosciw, J. G., Palmer, N. A., & Kull, R. M. (2015). Reflecting resiliency: Openness about
lP
sexual orientation and/or gender identity and its relationship to well-being and
na
educational outcomes for LGBT students. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 55, 167-178. doi:10.1007/s10464-014-9642-6

ur
*Kosciw, J. G., Palmer, N. A., Kull, R. M., & Greytak, E. A. (2013). The effect of negative
Jo
school climate on academic outcomes for LGBT youth and the role of in-school
supports. Journal of School Violence, 12, 45-63. doi:10.1080/15388220.2012.732546
*Kull, R. M., Greytak, E. A., Kosciw, J. G., & Villenas, C. (2016). Effectiveness of school
district antibullying policies in improving LGBT youths‘ school climate. Psychology
of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 3, 407-415. doi: 0.1037/sgd0000196
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A.,
Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA
Journal Pre-proof
statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analysis of studies that evaluate
health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine, 6, 1–6.
doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00136
*Marshall, S. A., & Allison, M. K. (2019). Midwestern misfits: Bullying experienced by
perceived sexual and gender minority youth in the Midwestern United States. Youth
& Society, 51, 318-338. doi:10.1177/0044118X17697885
*Marshall, A., Yarber, W. L., Sherwood‐Laughlin, C. M., Gray, M. L., & Estell, D. B.
of
(2015). Coping and survival skills: The role school personnel play regarding support
ro
for bullied sexual minority‐oriented youth. Journal of School Health, 85, 334-340.
doi:10.1111/josh.12254
-p
re
Martínez-Otero, V. (2017). Acoso y ciberacoso en una muestra de alumnos de
secundaria. Revista Curricular Formación Profesorado, 21, 277-298.

lP
*McNamee, H., Lloyd, K., & Schubotz, D. (2008). Same sex attraction, homophobic
na
bullying and mental health of young people in Northern Ireland. Journal of Youth
Studies, 11, 33-46. doi:10.1080/13676260701726222

ur
*Mereish, E. H., Goldbach, J. T., Burgess, C., & DiBello, A. M. (2017). Sexual orientation,
Jo
minority stress, social norms, and substance use among racially diverse
adolescents. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 178, 49-56.
doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.04.013
*Meyer, E. J. (2008). Gendered harassment in secondary schools: Understanding
teachers‘(non) interventions. Gender and Education, 20, 555-570.
doi:10.1080/09540250802213115
Journal Pre-proof
*Meyer, E. J., Taylor, C., & Peter, T. (2015). Perspectives on gender and sexual diversity
(GSD)-inclusive education: Comparisons between gay/lesbian/bisexual and straight
educators. Sex Education, 15, 221-234. doi:10.1080/14681811.2014.979341
*Minton, S. (2014). Homophobic bullying: evidence-based suggestions for intervention
programmes. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 6, 164-173.
doi:10.1108/JACPR-10-2013-002
*Minton, S. J., Dahl, T., O‘Moore, A. M., & Tuck, D. (2008). An exploratory survey of the
of
experiences of homophobic bullying among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered
ro
young people in Ireland. Irish Educational Studies, 27, 177-191.
doi:10.1080/03323310802021961 -p
re
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009).
lP
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA
Statement. International Journal of Surgery, 8, 336–341.

na
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
ur
Moore, S. E., Norman, R. E., Suetani, S., Thomas, H. J., Sly, P. D., & Scott, J. G. (2017).
Jo
Consequences of bullying victimization in childhood and adolescence: A systematic
review and meta-analysis. World Journal of Psychiatry, 7, 60–76.
doi:10.5498/wjp.v7.i1.60
*Mostert, H. P., Gordon, C., & Kriegler, S. (2015). Educators‘ perceptions of homophobic
victimization of learners at private secondary schools. South African Journal of
Psychology, 45, 116-129. doi:10.1177/0081246314555595

Journal Pre-proof
*Nappa, M. R., Palladino, B. E., 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, 208-218. doi:10.1007/s13178-
017-0306-9
National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Indicators of School Crime and Safety:
2016. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved
from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2017/2017064.pdf
of
*Newman, P. A., Fantus, S., Woodford, M. R., & Rwigema, M.-J. (2018). ―Pray That God
ro
Will Change You‖: The religious social ecology of bias-based bullying targeting
-p
sexual and gender minority youth—a qualitative study of service providers and
re
educators. Journal of Adolescent Research, 33, 523–548.
lP
doi:10.1177/0743558417712013
Nickerson, A. B., & Torchia, T. O. (2015). Bullying and mental health. In. P. Goldblum, D.
na
L. Espelage, J. Chu & B. Bongar (Eds.), Youth suicide and bullying: Challenges
ur
and strategies for prevention and intervention, 39-49. New York, NY: OXFORD
Jo
University Press.
*O‘Donoghue, K., & Guerin, S. (2017). Homophobic and transphobic bullying: Barriers
and supports to school intervention. Sex Education, 17, 220-234.
doi:10.1080/14681811.2016.1267003
*O‘Higgins-Norman, J. (2009). Still catching up: Schools, sexual orientation and
homophobia in Ireland. Sexuality & Culture, 13, 1-16. doi:10.1007/s12119-008-9030-
1
Journal Pre-proof
*O'Malley, E., Kann, L., Vivolo-Kantor, A., Kinchen, S., & McManus, T. (2014). School
violence and bullying among sexual minority high school students, 2009–
2011. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55, 432-438.
doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.03.002
*Orue, I., & Calvete, E. (2018). Homophobic bullying in schools: The role of homophobic
attitudes and exposure to homophobic aggression. School Psychology Review, 47,
95–105. doi:10.17105/spr-2017-0063.v47-1
of
*Orue, I., Calvete, E., & Fernández-González, L. (2018). Adaptación de la ―Escala de
ro
acoso homofóbico‖ y magnitud del problema en adolescentes españoles. Revista
-p
Internacional de Psicología Clínica y de la Salud, 26, 437-455.
re
*Pedro, K. T. D., & Esqueda, M. C. (2017). Exploring school victimization and weapon
carrying among military-connected lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth in

lP
California schools. Journal of Interpersonal Violence.

na
doi:10.1177/0886260517719537
*Perez, E. R., Schanding Jr, G. T., & Dao, T. K. (2013). Educators' perceptions in
ur
addressing bullying of LGBTQ/gender nonconforming youth. Journal of School

Jo
Violence, 12, 64-79. doi:10.1080/15388220.2012.731663
*Peter, C. R., Tasker, T. B., & Horn, S. S. (2016). Adolescents‘ beliefs about harm,
wrongness, and school policies as predictors of sexual and gender-based
harassment. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 3, 426-431.
doi:10.1037/sgd0000199
*Pollitt, A. M., Mallory, A. B., & Fish, J. N. (2018). Homophobic bullying and sexual
minority youth alcohol use: Do sex and race/ethnicity matter? LGBT health, 5, 412-
420. doi:10.1089/lgbt.2018.0031
Journal Pre-proof
*Poteat, V. P., Berger, C., & Dantas, J. (2017). How victimization, climate, and safety
around sexual orientation and gender expression relate to truancy. Journal of LGBT
Youth, 14, 424-435. doi:10.1080/19361653.2017.1365037
*Poteat, V. P., & Espelage, D. L. (2007). Predicting psychosocial consequences of
homophobic victimization in middle school students. The Journal of Early
Adolescence, 27, 175-191. doi:10.1177/0272431606294839
*Poteat, V. P., Mereish, E. H., DiGiovanni, C. D., & Koenig, B. W. (2011). The effects of
of
general and homophobic victimization on adolescents' psychosocial and educational
ro
concerns: the importance of intersecting identities and parent support. Journal of
-p
Counseling Psychology, 58, 597-609. doi:10.1037/a0025095
re
*Poteat, V. P., Scheer, J. R., DiGiovanni, C. D., & Mereish, E. H. (2014). Short-term
prospective effects of homophobic victimization on the mental health of heterosexual

lP
adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 1240-1251. doi:10.1007/s10964-

na
013-0078-3
*Poteat, V. P., Sinclair, K. O., DiGiovanni, C. D., Koenig, B. W., & Russell, S. T. (2013).
ur
Gay–straight alliances are associated with student health: A multischool comparison

Jo
of LGBTQ and heterosexual youth. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23, 319-
330. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2012.00832.x
*Poteat, V. P., & Vecho, O. (2016). Who intervenes against homophobic behavior?
Attributes that distinguish active bystanders. Journal of School Psychology, 54, 17-
28. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2015.10.002
*Prati, G. (2012). Development and psychometric properties of the homophobic bullying
scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72, 649-664.
doi:10.1177/0013164412440169
Journal Pre-proof
*Preston, M. J. (2016). ‗They're just not mature right now‘: teachers' complicated
perceptions of gender and anti-queer bullying. Sex Education, 16, 22-34.
doi:10.1080/14681811.2015.1019665
*Price-Feeney, M., Jones, L. M., Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2018). The relationship
between bias-based peer victimization and depressive symptomatology across sexual
and gender identity. Psychology of Violence, 8, 680-691. doi: 0.1037/vio0000219
*Proulx, C. N., Coulter, R. W. S., Egan, J. E., Matthews, D. D., & Mair, C. (2019).
of
Associations of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning–inclusive sex
ro
education with mental health outcomes and school-based victimization in U.S. high
-p
school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 64, 608-614.
re
doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.11.012
*Raymond, G., Blais, M., Bergeron, F. A., & Hébert, M. (2015). Victimization, mental
lP
health and well-being among trans youths in the province of Quebec. Sante Mentale
na
au Quebec, 40, 77-92.
Richardson, D. & Hiu, C. F. (2018). Developing a global indicator on bullying of school-

ur
aged children. Retrieved from https://www.unicef-

Jo
irc.org/publications/pdf/WP%202018-11.pdf
Robinson, J. P., & Espelage, D. L. (2012). Bullying explains only part of LGBTQ–
heterosexual risk disparities: Implications for policy and practice. Educational
Researcher, 41, 309-319. doi: 10.3102/0013189X12457023
*Robinson, J. P., & Espelage, D. L. (2013). Peer victimization and sexual risk differences
between lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or questioning and nontransgender

Journal Pre-proof
heterosexual youths in grades 7–12. American Journal of Public Health, 103, 1810-
1819.doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301387
*Rodríguez, L. M. (2018). Bullying homofóbico en México a nivel de secundaria: el
contexto de Nuevo León. Revista de Psicología (PUCP), 36, 631-659.
doi:10.18800/psico.201802.009
*Russell, S. T., Day, J. K., Ioverno, S., & Toomey, R. B. (2016). Are school policies
of
focused on sexual orientation and gender identity associated with less bullying?
ro
Teachers' perspectives. Journal of School Psychology, 54, 29-38.
doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2015.10.005
-p
*Russell, S. T., McGuire, J. K., Lee, S. A., Larriva, J. C., & Laub, C. (2008). Adolescent
re
perceptions of school safety for students with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
lP
parents. Journal of LGBT Youth, 5, 11-27. doi:10.1080/19361650802222880

na
Saewyc, E. M. (2011). Research on adolescent sexual orientation: Development, health
disparities, stigma, and resilience. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 256-

ur
272. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00727.x
Jo
*Shoshilou, P. A., & Vasiliou, E. (2016). Teachers reflect on homophobia in the Cypriot
education system: A qualitative study. Journal of LGBT Youth, 13, 89-111.
doi:10.1080/19361653.2015.1087928
Sigfusdottir, I. D., Kristjansson, A. L., Thorlindsson, T., & Allegrante, J. P. (2016). Stress
and adolescent well-being: the need for an interdisciplinary framework. Health
Promotion International, 32, 1081-1090. doi:10.1093/heapro/daw038

Journal Pre-proof
*Singh, A. A. (2013). The use of popular opinion leader (POL) groups and the reduction of
―gay bullying‖ in middle school: A case study inquiry of group leader
experiences. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 38, 184-206.
doi:10.1080/01933922.2013.800177
*Snapp, S. D., Burdge, H., Licona, A. C., Moody, R. L., & Russell, S. T. (2015). Students‘
perspectives on LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum. Equity & Excellence in Education, 48,
249-265. doi:10.1080/10665684.2015.1025614
of
Spanish Federation of Lesbian, Gays, Trans and Bisexuals (2012). LGBT people and
ro
discrimination in the area of health in Spain. Retrieved 12 march from
-p
www.felgtb.org/rs/7129/d112d6ad-54ec.../estado-salud-poblacion-lgtb-2015.pdf
re
*Sterzing, P. R., Gibbs, J. J., Gartner, R. E., & Goldbach, J. T. (2018). Bullying
victimization trajectories for sexual minority adolescents: Stable victims, desisters,

lP
and late‐onset victims. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 28, 368-378.

na
doi:10.1111/jora.12336
*Sterzing, P. R., Ratliff, G. A., Gartner, R. E., McGeough, B. L., & Johnson, K. C. (2017).
ur
Social ecological correlates of polyvictimization among a national sample of

Jo
transgender, genderqueer, and cisgender sexual minority adolescents. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 67, 1-12. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.02.017
*Teixeira-Filho, F. S., Rondini, C. A., & Bessa, J. C. (2011). Reflections on homophobia
and education in schools in the interior of Sao Paulo state. Educação e Pesquisa, 37,
725-741. doi:10.1590/S1517-97022011000400004
Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2011). Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce
bullying: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental
Criminology, 7, 27-56. doi:10.1007/s11292-010-9109-1

Journal Pre-proof
UNESCO (2013). Respuestas del sector de educación frente al bullying homofóbico. París:
UNESCO. Retrieved from
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002229/222918S.pdf
*Varjas, K., Mahan, W. C., Meyers, J., Birckbichler, L., Lopp, G., & Dew, B. J. (2007).
Assessing school climate among sexual minority high school students. Journal of
LGBT Issues in Counseling, 1, 49-75. doi:10.1300/J462v01n03_05
*Vigna, A. J., Poehlmann-Tynan, J., & Koenig, B. W. (2017). Does self-compassion
of
facilitate resilience to stigma? A school-based study of sexual and gender minority
ro
youth. Mindfulness, 9, 914–924. doi:10.1007/s12671-017-0831-x
-p
Vreeman, R. C., & Carroll, A. E. (2007). A systematic review of school-based interventions
re
to prevent bullying. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent medicine, 161, 78-88.
doi:10.1001/archpedi.161.1.78
lP
*Warwick, I., & Aggleton, P. (2014). Bullying, ‗cussing‘and ‗mucking about‘:

na
Complexities in tackling homophobia in three secondary schools in south London,
UK. Sex Education, 14, 159-173. doi:10.1080/14681811.2013.854204

ur
*Warwick, I., Aggleton, P., & Douglas, N. (2001). Playing it safe: Addressing the
Jo
emotional and physical health of lesbian and gay pupils in the UK. Journal of
Adolescence, 24, 129-140. doi:10.1006/jado.2000.0367
*Watson, R. J., Wheldon, C. W., & Russell, S. T. (2015). How does sexual identity
disclosure impact school experiences? Journal of LGBT Youth, 12, 385-396.
doi:10.1080/19361653.2015.1077764
Journal Pre-proof
Weber, P., & Gredig, D. (2018). Prevalence and predictors of homophobic behavior among
high school students in Switzerland. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 30,
128-153. doi:10.1080/10538720.2018.1440683
*Wernick, L. J., Dessel, A. B., Kulick, A., & Graham, L. F. (2013). LGBTQQ youth
creating change: Developing allies against bullying through performance and
dialogue. Children and Youth Services Review, 35, 1576-1586.
doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.06.005
of
*Wernick, L. J., Kulick, A., & Inglehart, M. H. (2013). Factors predicting student
ro
intervention when witnessing anti-LGBTQ harassment: The influence of peers,
-p
teachers, and climate. Children and Youth Services Review, 35, 296-301.
re
doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.11.003
*Wernick, L. J., Kulick, A., & Inglehart, M. H. (2014). Influences of peers, teachers, and
lP
climate on students' willingness to intervene when witnessing anti-transgender

na
harassment. Journal of Adolescence, 37, 927-935.
doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.06.008
ur
*White, A. E., Moeller, J., Ivcevic, Z., Brackett, M. A., & Stern, R. (2018). LGBTQ
Jo
adolescents‘ positive and negative emotions and experiences in U.S. high schools.
Sex Roles. doi:10.1007/s11199-017-0885-1
Williams, A., & Fox, A. (2018). Respecto y tolerancia, claves para la convivencia y la
resolución de conflictos [Respect and tolerance, keys for coexistence and conflict
resolution]. (Master's thesis, University of the Costa).
*Williams, A. J., Banks, C. S., & Blake, J. J. (2018). High school bystanders motivation
and response during bias-based bullying. Psychology in the School, 55, 1259-1273.
doi:10.1002/pits.22186
Journal Pre-proof
*Ybarra, M. L., Mitchell, K. J., Palmer, N. A., & Reisner, S. L. (2015). Online social
support as a buffer against online and offline peer and sexual victimization among US
LGBT and non-LGBT youth. Child Abuse & Neglect, 39, 123-136.
doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.08.006
*Zotti, D., Carnaghi, A., Piccoli, V., & Bianchi, M. (2018). Individual and Contextual
Factors Associated with School Staff Responses to Homophobic Bullying. Sexuality
Research and Social Policy, 1-16. doi:10.1007/s13178-018-0362-9
of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
Journal
Running head: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF HOMOPHOBIC Pre-proof
BULLYING 38
Table 1
Main examined aspects from the reviewed documents
Authors (year) Country Sample Method/Measures

f
Main findings
o
1 Adelman & Woods
(2006)
USA N = 46 students (age
14-20 years)
Mixed method,
r
GLSEN Local School o Main four reasons to not intervene: (1) institutional
norms too risky to challenge; (2) ubiquitous nature
Climate Survey
- p of such remarks; (3) personal worries about loss of

social status; and (4) adult reinforcement of
2 Alexander, Santo, Brazil N = 339 students (age

r e
Quantitative, some
unacceptable student remarks
Supportive teachers moderate relationship between
da Cunha, Weber,
& Russell (2011)
11-18 years)
l P
items homophobic victimization and school commitment
3 Anagnostopoulos,
Buchanan, Pereira,
USA N = 172, n = 157
n
students, n = 10 a Mixed method, survey
and interviews (no
Staff members felt reluctant to intervene in abusive
heterosexual dating relationships and were
& Lichty (2009)
u
membersr
teachers, n = 5 staff informed name of
scale)
ambivalent about their responsibility toward gay and
lesbian targets of bullying
Jo
4 António & Moleiro Portugal N = 211 students, Quantitative, Emotional impact on victims was higher when social
(2015) sexual minorities (age Speakout Survey support was low, including school difficulties
12-20 years)
5 Aragon, Poteat, USA N = 11,447 students, Quantitative, 4-item 1) LGBTQ reported more truancy, lower grades,
Espelage, & LGBTQ and University of Illinois greater expectations not to finish high school, and
Koenig (2014) heterosexuals (grades Victimization Scale lower expectations to attend a four-year college. (2)
9-12) Victimization mediated these differences between
LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ
6 Birkett, Espelage, USA N = 7,376 students, Quantitative, 1 item (1) Students who were questioning their sexual
& Koenig (2009) sexual minorities and Illinois Bully orientation reported more bullying, homophobic
(grade 7-8) Scale victimization and truancy than either heterosexual or
Journal Pre-proof
LGB students. (2) Positive school climate and a lack

of homophobic victimization moderated differences
among sexual orientation status and outcomes. (3)
Schools can lessen negative outcomes for LGBQ
students through creating positive climates and
reducing homophobic teasing
7 Blais,
Gervais,
& Hébert (2014)
Canada N = 300 students,
sexual minorities (age
14-22 years)
Quantitative, 3 items
of
psychological/verbal
o f
The 60.7% reported at least one form of
verbal/psychological homophobic bullying
prejudice
r o
p
8 Bouris, Everett, USA N = 1,907 students, A greater percentage of sexual minority reported
Heath, Elsaesser, &
Neilands
LGB and heterosexuals
e -
Quantitative, 3-items homophobic harassment, skipping school, electronic
bullying, and sexual abuse
9
(2016)
Boyland, Kirkeby, USA N = 116 principals
P r
Quantitative, 2-items (1) More than half of principals reported situations
l
& Boyland (2018) of homophobic bullying. (2) Anti-bullying policies
were associated with less bullying
10 Camodeca, Italy N = 197 students,
n a Quantitative, 2-items (1) Higher homophobic and non-homophobic
r
Baiocco, & Posa heterosexuals and victimization among LGBQ than heterosexual
(2018) homosexuals (age 15- students. (2) Homophobic bullying was associated
u
18 years) with being male and heterosexual, and with moral
Jo
disengagement, whereas homophobic victimization
was related to a low level of prejudice, in particular
for LGBQ youths
11 Cénat, Blais, Canada N = 8,194 students, Quantitative, some Prevalence of homophobic bullying was 3.6%, the
Hébert, Lavoie, & sexual minorities (age items lowest form of bullying in contrast to bullying and
Guerrier (2015) 14-20 years) cyberbullying
12 Crothers et al. USA N = 299, n = 98 Quantitative, LGBTQ report more bullying than heterosexual
(2017) students, and n = 201 questionnaire ad hoc students, as well as educators for all forms of
teachers, LGBTQ and bullying assessed. Educators perceive higher levels
heterosexuals of support for students from school personnel and
Journal Pre-proof
students than reported by students

13 Darwich, Hymel, & USA N = 19,551 students, Quantitative, Sexual (1) Bisexual reported significantly higher SOV,
Waterhouse (2012) sexual minority (grade Orientation school avoidance than did straight youths. (2) Adult
8-12) Victimization support is an important contributor to school
adjustment
14 Day, Snapp, & USA N = 62,448 teachers Quantitative, 1 item (1) Supportive practices are associated with less
Russell (2016) and N = 337,945
students (age 10-18
f
homophobic bullying and higher school
o
connectedness. (2) Supportive practices serve as a
o
years) protective factor for students who have experienced
p r homophobic bullying. (3) Students in schools with

less supportive practices, and who have not
e - experienced homophobic bullying, report low levels

of school connectedness comparable with students
15 D'Urso & Pace Italy N = 334 students,
P r
Quantitative,
who have been bullied
(1) Boys manifested a higher level of homophobic
l
(2019) sexual minorities (age Homophobic Bullying bullying than girls and girls reported higher level of
15-20 years) Scale peer‘s support than boys. (2) Security and safety
n a among peers are positive predictors of homophobic
r
bullying and communication among peers is a
negative predictor. (3) Peer support moderates the
u relationship between insecure-dismissing attachment
Jo
and homophobic bullying
16 D‘Urso, Italy N = 334 students, Quantitative, (1) Lack of trust between peers predicts homophobic
Petruccelli, & Pace sexual minorities (age Homophobic Bullying bullying. (2) Lack of interpersonal characteristics
(2018) 15-20 years) Scale represents a variable that likely mediates
relationship between lack of trust in peers and
homophobic bullying
17 Douglas, Warwick, UK N = 307 students Mixed method, (1) Barriers to tackling homophobic bullying, but
Whitty, Aggleton, questionnaires and most thought schools were appropriately placed to
& Kemp (1999) brief interview provide information on lesbian and gay issues. (2)
Some recommendations: making in schools through
Journal Pre-proof
training, new initiatives in citizenship education, and

encouraging schools to build collaborative
relationships with other local community agencies
18 Elipe, de la Oliva Spain N = 533 students, Quantitative, (1) Almost 50% of non-heterosexual declared that
Muñoz, & Del Rey heterosexuals and European Bullying they had been victimized. (2) Prevalence of all kinds
(2018) homosexuals (age 12- Intervention Project of bullying was higher among homosexual‘s
20 years) Questionnaire
f
students. (3) Sexual orientation is a risk factor for
o
suffering these aggressions
o
19 Erhard & Ben-Ami Israel N = 20 students, LGB Qualitative, semi- (1) School peer group interpersonal interactions
(2016) (age 15-18 years)
r
structured interviews
p
during adolescence function as a risk and protective
factor. (2) Peers represent a more proximal
e - protective factor for LGB youth compared with

general social support. (3) Participants become less
P r susceptible to peers‘ homophobic attitudes and

behaviors and learned to confront them with diverse
l
coping mechanisms
20 Espelage, Basile, & EEUU N = 1,391 students (age Quantitative, modified (1) 12% of males and 12% of females could be
Hamburger (2012) 10-15 years)
n a version of the considered bully perpetrators. Thirty-two percent of
r
American Association the boys (22% of girls) reported making sexual
of University Women comments to other students, 5% of boys (7% of
u Sexual Harassment girls) spread a sexual rumor, and 4% of boys (2% of
Jo
Survey girls) pulled at someone's clothing. (2) Bullying
perpetration and homophobic teasing were
significant predictors of sexual harassment
21 Evans & Chapman USA N = 3,379 students, Quantitative, 13 item Students who are bullied for being called LGB are at
(2014) LGB and heterosexuals greater risk of experiencing all forms of bullying
(grade 3 to 10) behavior
22 Farrelly, O‘Higgins Ireland N = 238 principals Quantitative, One in every two school principals had responded to
Norman, & Questionnaire homophobic bullying
O‘Leary (2017) Homophobic Bullying
23 Fisher & Tanner- USA N = 41,229 students Quantitative, 1 item (1) Homophobic victimization is associated with
Journal Pre-proof
Smith (2016) (age 12- 18 years) greater fear at school and avoiding certain places.
(2) Visible security measures did not meaningfully
moderate the association between homophobic
bullying and school avoidance
24 Gower et al. (2018) USA N = 31,183 students, Quantitative, several To study in schools with higher LGBT acceptance
LGBTQ and items was associated with lower probability of
heterosexuals (grade 9-
11)
o f
victimization, physical aggression and homophobic
bullying
o
25 Greytak & Kosciw USA N = 726 teachers, Quantitative, some Knowing LGBT people, awareness of general
(2014) LGBTQ and
heterosexuals
items
p r bullying and harassment, awareness anti-LGBT

bullying and harassment, and self-efficacy related to
e - intervention in homophobic remarks were predictors

of teachers‘ frequency of intervention in
26 Greytak, Kosciw, USA N = 6,853 students,
P r
homophobic remarks
Three of the four resources gay–straight alliances
l
& Boesen (2013) LGBT (age 13-21 (GSAs), supportive educators, LGBT-inclusive
years) curricula (except for comprehensive anti-bullying /
n a anti-harassment policies) were related to lower
r
levels of victimization
27 Hafford-Letchfield, Bulgaria, N = 174 families LGB Qualitative, semi- (1) Parents feel alienated from this situation,
Cocker, Ryan, & Italy,
u
and heterosexual structured teachers do not have enough tools to combat it and
Jo
Melonowska Poland, parents and careers interviews students are frustrated. (2) There is misinformation
(2016) Spain in schools regarding homophobic bullying
and UK
28 Hatchel, Espelage, USA N = 404 students, Quantitative, 6 items School belonging mediates the association between
& Huang (2018) LGBTQ (age 15-19 of the American peer victimization and depressive symptoms
years) Association
University Women
Sexual Harassment
Survey
29 Hatchel & Marx USA N = 4,721 students, Quantitative, Peer Victimization was associated with school belonging
Journal Pre-proof
(2018) transgender (age 10-18 Victimization

years)
30 Hatchel, Merrin, & USA N = 934 students, Quantitative, ex post Victimization was associated with low school
Espelage (2018) LGBT (age 14-18 facto, 4-item belonging and self-compassion. Parental support
years) University of Illinois was associated with improved school belonging
Victimization Scale
31 Hillard, Love,
Franks, Laris, &
USA N = 261 students,
LGBTQ
Mixed, interview and
questionnaire
f
(1) LGBQ were significantly more likely to
o
experience of harassment. (2) Teachers intervened in
o
Coyle (2014) physical harassment by trying to stop it
32 Ioverno, Belser,
Baiocco,
USA N = 327 students, LGB
(age 15-21 years)
r
Quantitative, 1 item
p
LGBQ students who had GSAs in their schools
reported in the following year: (1) No differences in
Grossman, &
Russell (2016)
e - psychological adjustment. (2) Perceptions of more
school safety and less homophobic bullying
33 Jones, Mitchell,
Turner, & Ybarra
USA N =7912 students,
sexual minority (age
P r
Quantitative, some
items
times m 6% reported harassment about their sexual
orientation
l
(2018) 10-20 years)
34 Kahle (2017) USA N = 12,642 students, Quantitative, 1 item (1) LGBQ and heterosexual females are almost 2 to
heterosexual and
n a 3 times more likely to experience traditional
r
LGBQ (grade 9-12) bullying than heterosexual males. (2) LGBQ females
are 7.7 times more likely to experience sexual
u orientation bullying than heterosexual males
Jo
35 Kosciw, Greytak, USA N = 5,420 students, Quantitative, 3 items (1) LGBT in rural communities and communities
& Diaz (2009) LGBT (age 13-21 with lower adult educational attainment may face
years) particularly hostile school climates. (2) School
district characteristics contributed little to variation
in LGBT youth's experiences
36 Kosciw, Palmer, & USA N = 7,816 students, Quantitative, 3 items (1) Outness was related to higher victimization. (2)
Kull (2014) LGBT (age 13-20 Greater victimization was related to negative
years) academic outcomes via diminished well-being. (3)
Increases in victimization associated with outness
were larger for rural
Journal Pre-proof
37 Kosciw, Palmer, USA N = 5,730 students, Quantitative, 3 items Victimization was associated with lower academic
Kull, & Greytak LGBT (age 13-21 outcomes and lower self-esteem; but, school-based
(2013) years) supports contributed to lower victimization and
better academic outcomes
38 Kull, Greytak, USA N = 7,040 students, Quantitative, 3-items LGBT, in districts with protections in their policies
Kosciw, & Villenas LGBTQ (grade 6-12) anti-bullying, reported greater school safety, less
39
(2016)
Marshall & Allison USA N = 16 students
f
homophobic bullying, and less social aggression
o
Qualitative, interviews (1) Gender nonconformity was a common factor in
o
(2019) victimized, sexual being bullied. (2) Subthemes are as follows:
minorities (age 15-20
years)
p r sociocultural context shapes school climate;

victimized youth felt a perception of being seen as
e - deviant; and, victimized youth react to victimization

differently. (3) Bullying for gender nonconformity is
40 Marshall, Yarber, USA N = 16 victims LGB
P r a sociocultural issue
Qualitative, interview Supportive school staff were relevant to the coping
l
Sherwood- (age 15 to 20 years) and survival
Laughlin, Gray, &
Estell (2015)
n a
r
41 McNamee, Lloyd, Ireland N = 819 students, Quantitative, several (1) Those who have felt attracted to a person of the
& Schubotz (2008) sexual minorities (age items same sex at least once are significantly more likely
u
16 years) to report experiences of school bullying. (2) They
Jo
perceive school provided help to those who are
being bullied
42 Mereish, Goldbach, EEUU N = 3,012 students, Quantitative, 1 item Sexual minority adolescents were more likely than
Burgess, & DiBello sexual minorities (age heterosexual adolescents to experience homophobic
(2017) 11-18 years) bullying, and report higher descriptive norms for
close friends and more permissive injunctive norms
for friends and parents
43 Meyer (2008) Canada N = 6 teachers Qualitative, interviews Educators experience some barriers: lack of
institutional support from administrators; lack of
formal education on the issue; inconsistent response
Journal Pre-proof
from colleagues; fear of parent backlash; and

negative community response
44 Meyer, Taylor, & Canada Over 3,400 educators, Mixed, open questions High level of support for LGBTQ-inclusive
Peter (2015) LGBQ and and items education; but, actual practice is much lower and
heterosexuals there are significant differences in the perspectives
of LGB educators compared with their colleagues in
o f
terms of curriculum integration and bullying
interventions
o
45 Minton Ireland N = 1,036 students (age Quantitative, Bullying (1) No effect of age. (2) Males are more likely than
(2014) 13-17 years). questionnaire
p r females to report involvement (as both perpetrators

and targets) in homophobic bullying
46 Minton, Dahl,
O'Moore, & Tuck
Ireland N = 123 students,
LGBT (age 15-31 items
e -
Quantitative, several LGBT population is one 'at risk' of bullying,
therefore homophobic bullying should be explicitly
47
(2008)
Mostert, Gordon, & Africa
years)
N = 103 educators
P r considered in school anti-bullying policy
Qualitative, interview (1) Six themes emerged: culture of acceptance; the
l
Kriegler (2015) need for policies; understanding of homosexuality;
perception of homosexual learners; social
n a difficulties and acts of verbal, physical, and
r
emotional victimization; and the learners' feelings.
(2) These themes were organized by: school context;
u educators' perceptions; and learners' difficulties
Jo
48 Nappa, Palladino, Italy N = 213 teachers Quantitative, Lower levels of perceived self-efficacy in managing
Menesini, & Teachers‘ Reaction to homophobic bullying incidents and higher levels of
Baiocco (2018) Homophobic homophobic attitudes predict feeling of
Victimized Students‘ powerlessness, while higher levels of perceived self-
Requests, Modern efficacy as a teacher and lower levels of
Homophobia Scale- homophobic attitudes predict positive activation
Revised and Self- toward the victimized student
efficacy in Managing
Homophobic Bullying
49 Newman, Fantus, Canada N = 16 educational Qualitative, semi- Ideology of ―sin‖ and ―conversion‖ were evidenced
Journal Pre-proof
Woodford, & staff structured interviews in direct religiously based bullying of sexual and
Rwigema (2018) gender minority youth, and victimization in places
of worship and family microsystems, as well as
serving as a rationale for bullying and
nonintervention by school staff and family members
50 O‘Donoghue & Ireland N = 15 teachers and Qualitative, semi- (1) Main barriers in tackling homophobic and
Guerin (2017) non-teacher qualified
staff
structured interviews
f
transphobic bullying: students' perceived discomfort
o
in discussing their sexuality with teachers, teachers'
discomfort in discussing issues, a lack of priority
r o given to these types of bullying, and parental views
p
on homosexuality. (2) Perceived supports included
e - consistency in dealing with these types of bullying,

appropriate training, and support from management
51 O'Higgins-Norman
(2009)
Ireland N = 20, students,
parents, teacher and
P r
Qualitative, interview
and observation
(1) Sexual orientation is a peripheral issue. (2)
Religious influence on teachers‘ morals and
l
senior managers (age behaviors was one of the topics that was reported as
15-17 years) to influence homophobic bullying
52 O'Malley, Kann,
Vivolo-Kantor,
USA
n a
N = 71,950 students,
LGB and heterosexuals
Quantitative, 5 item Sexual minority were at greater risk for all five
r
behaviors (physical fight, threatened or injured with
Kinchen, & (grade 9-12) a weapon, carried a weapon, did not go to school
McManus (2014)
u because of safety and bullied) than heterosexual
Jo
53 Orue & Calvete Spain N = 791 students (age Quantitative, Homophobic attitudes predicted homophobic
(2018) 12-17 years) Homophobic Bullying bullying, and homophobic bullying predicted
Scale homophobic attitudes, homophobic bullying at the
school predicted homophobic bullying, in time (T1,
T2)
54 Orue, Calvete, & Spain N = 791 students (age Quantitative, Gays reported more harassment than lesbians
Fernández- 12-17 years) instrumental, Escala
González (2018) de Acoso Homofóbico
55 Pedro & Esqueda USA N = 634,978 students, Quantitative, Drawing Military connection and LGBT identity were
(2017) LGB and heterosexuals from the California associated with an increased odds of physical
Journal Pre-proof
(grade 7, 9 & 11) Healthy Kids Survey violence, nonphysical victimization, and weapon
carrying
56 Perez, Schanding, USA N = 186 educator Quantitative, Bullying Educators rating physical bullying of LGBTQ as
& Dao (2013) Attitude slightly less serious, having less empathy, and less
Questionnaire- likely to intervene in those situations compared to
Modified verbal and relational bullying
57 Peter, Tasker, &
Horn (2016)
LGBQ and
Quantitative, multiple
questions
f
(1) Beliefs that the behaviors were harmful or wrong
o
were associated with fewer perpetrations. (2) Beliefs
o
heterosexuals (age 12- about harm mediated association between judgments
58 Pollitt, Mallory, & EEUU

18 years)
N = 20,744 students,
p r
Quantitative, 1 item
of wrongness and lesser perpetration
Sexual minority youths at the intersection of
Fish (2018) sexual minorities
(grade 9-12)
e - race/ethnicity and sex were more likely than their
heterosexual counterparts to report homophobic
59 Poteat, Berger, & Chile N = 886 students,

P r
Quantitative, some
bullying
Victimization predicted truancy through its
l
Dantas (2017) sexual minority (grade items associations with students feeling unsafe at school-
9-12) in general and specifically related to their SOGE
60 Poteat & Espelage USA
a
N = 143 students (age
n
Quantitative, (1) Homophobic victimization is associated with
r
(2007) 13-15 years) Homophobic Content lower school belonging in males. (2) Homophobic
Agent Target Scale victimization is associated with greater withdrawal
u in females
Jo
61 Poteat, Mereish, USA N = 15,923 students, Quantitative, 1 item Homophobic victimization had negative effects on
DiGiovanni, & sexual minorities school belonging
Koenig (2011) (grade 7-12)
62 Poteat, Scheer, DiG USA N = 572 students, Quantitative, 2 items Men reported more homophobic bullying than
iovanni, & Mereish heterosexuals (grade 9- women
(2014) 12)
63 Poteat, Sinclair, USA N = 15,965 students, Quantitative, 4 items (1) Youth in schools with GSAs reported less
Digiovanni, sexual minorities (age University of Illinois truancy, than those in schools without GSAs. (2)
Koenig, & Russell 10-18 years) Victimization scale GSA effects were non-significant for homophobic
(2013) victimization, grades, and school belonging
Journal Pre-proof
64 Poteat & Vecho USA N = 722 students, Quantitative, 4-items (1) To be girls, leadership, courage, altruism, justice
(2016) LGBTQ and sensitivity, and number of LGBT friends were
heterosexuals (age 14- associated with engagement in more active
19 years) bystander behavior in response to observing
homophobic behavior. (2) The 66.8% had observed
at least one instance of homophobic behavior in the
65 Preston (2016) USA N = 15 teachers, LGB

and heterosexuals
Qualitative, interview
o f
past 30 days
(1) Teachers reported ambiguity around issues of
peer aggression and bullying of LGBTQ youth. (2)
r o There was a contradiction in their answers, since it
p
was a bullying problem, but on the other hand, there
66 Price-Feeney, USA N = 5,542 students,

e -
were no queer students
(1) Half of participants informed experiencing of
Jones, Ybarra, &
Mitchell (2018)
LGBT and
heterosexuals (age 13-
P r bias-based victimization. (2) Sexual and gender

minority were more likely to perceive that they had
l
19 years) been targeted because of their sexual orientation,
gender, gender expression, physical appearance, or
n a religion. (3) Cisgender girls were also more likely to

informed bias-based victimization compared with
67 Proulx, Coulter, USA

u r
N = 47,730 students, Quantitative, 1-item
cisgender boys
Lesbians and gays were less likely to suffer bullying
Jo
Egan, Matthews, & LGB and heterosexuals at school with inclusive LGBTQ education
Mair (2019) (grade 9-12)
Raymond,
6 Blais, Canada N = 111, students, trans Qualitative, open- We identified six themes: culture of acceptance; the
Bergeron,
6 & and cisgender (age 14- ended need for policies; understanding of homosexuality;
Hébert
6 (2015) 22 years) perception of homosexual learners; social
8 difficulties and acts of verbal, physical, and
6 emotional victimization; and the learners' feelings.
6 These themes were organized under three categories,
68 namely, school context, educators' perceptions, and
learners' difficulties
Journal Pre-proof
69 Robinson & USA N = 11,033 students, Quantitative, four- LGBTQ were 1.4 times as likely to skip school
Espelage (2013) LGBT and item University of
heterosexuals (grades Illinois Victimization
7-12) Scale
70 Rodríguez (2018) Mexico N = 330 students (age Mixed method, ad hoc The 31.3% participants have witnessed bullying
15-16 years) questionnaire related to sexual orientation
71 Russell, Day,
Ioverno, &
USA N = 3,404 principals
and teachers
Quantitative, several
items
f
(1) Principals reported that Sexual Orientation and
o
Gender Identity (SOGI) focused policies not have a
o
Toomey (2016) strong independent association with teachers' reports
p r of bullying problems in schools. (2) But, in schools

with more SOGI-focused policies, the association
e - between teachers' assessments of school safety and

bullying problems was stronger
72 Russell, McGuire,
Lee, Larriva, &
USA N = 2,257 students,
LGBT and
P r
Quantitative, several
items
(1) LGBT were less likely to perceive their schools
as safe for students with LGBT parents. (2) Students
l
Laub (2008) heterosexuals (grades who received education on LGBT issues knew
6-12) where to get information about LGBT issues and
n a had teachers that step in to prevent harassment were
r
more likely to say that their schools were safe for
students with LGBT parents
73 Shoshilou & Cyprus
u
N = 23 teachers Qualitative, interview Homophobia presents from situations of bullying
Jo
Vasiliou (2016)
74 Singh (2013) USA N = 40 students (grade Qualitative, interview (1) Basic group leadership skills are a necessary
7) foundation for the leadership of Popular Opinion
Leader (POL) groups. (2) Additional LGBTQQ and
POL training were critical to the success according
to participants
75 Snapp, McGuire, USA N = 1,232 students, Quantitative, 1 item (1) LGBTQ-inclusive curricula were related with
Sinclair, Gabrion, LGBTQ and non- high reports of safety and low levels of bullying. (2)
& Russell (2015) LGBTQ (age 12-18 Supportive curricula were associated to feeling
years) awareness and safer of bullying
Journal Pre-proof
76 Sterzing, Gibbs, USA N = 52 students, sexual Qualitative, Life Sexual orientation bullying increases throughout
Gartner, & minority (age 14-20 history calendar adolescence
Goldbach (2018) years) method and thematic
analysis
77 Sterzing, Ratliff, USA N = 1,177 students, Quantitative, Swearer (1) Trans participants reported greater
Gartner, LGBT (age 14-19 Bullying Survey polyvictimization than the cisgender people,
McGeough, &
Johnson (2017)
years)
o f
including school-based bullying. (2) Risk factors:
gender identity and with higher levels of post-
traumatic stress, micro-aggressions at family level
r o and rejection of classmates
p
78 Teixeira-Filho, Brazil N = 2,282 students, Quantitative, Prevalence of homophobic victimization was: 41.9%
Rondini, & Bessa
(2011)
sexual minorities
e -
Questionnaire had experienced verbal abuse, 29% were threatened
with having their sexual orientation revealed to
P r others, 25.8% said they were being looked upon or

appointed by other people with contempt or
l
rejection, and 23.3% were the target of jokes and/or
mockery
79 Varjas et al. (2006) USA
a
N = 16 students, LGB
n
Qualitative, interviews Results showed four categories: Sexual minorities'
r
(age 15-18 years) overall perspective on their school climate, the
nature of aggression in schools against sexual
u minorities when present, the characteristics of the
Jo
victims and bullies, and the consequences of being a
sexual minority in schools
80 Vigna, Poehlmann- USA N = 1,872 students, Quantitative, some High self-compassion appears to be protective
Tynan, & Koenig LGBT and items although rates of bias-based bullying erode its
(2018) heterosexuals protective effects
81 Warwick & U.K. n = 9 staff and n = 58 Qualitative, interviews (1) Pupils stated that they were keen that
Aggleton (2014) (age 9-11 years) homophobic bullying should be tackled. (2) Work
carried out in schools had influenced pupils them to
consider homophobia and its effects
82 Warwick, UK N = 307 students Mixed method, Teachers are aware of homophobic bullying but
Journal Pre-proof
Aggleton, & Questionnaires and unwilling to address the needs of lesbian and gay
Douglas (2001) brief interview pupils
83 Watson, Wheldon, USA N = 375 students, LGB Quantitative, 1 item More complex patterns of ―outness‖ were
& Russell (2015) (age 12-18 years) associated with lower academic achievement and
more harassment, whereas being out to no one or
everyone was associated with the best outcomes
84 Wernick, Dessel,
Kulick, & Graham
LGBTQ and
Mixed methods,
interview and 2 items
f
Qualitative findings shown barriers to intervention
o
and decision-making processes when intervening
ro
(2013) heterosexuals (grade 8)
85 Wernick, Kulick, & USA N = 1,171 students, Quantitative, items ad (1) The following increases the likelihood to
p
Inglehart (2013) heterosexuals and LGB hoc derived from the intervene: (a) Seeing teachers or staff intervene (b)
e -
Gay, Lesbian, Straight
Education Network
Seeing other students intervene. (2) Seeing other
students intervene had a more significant positive
P r
survey effect on a students' own likelihood to intervene than
seeing teachers intervene
l
86 Wernick, Kulick, & USA N = 1,171 students, Quantitative, some Seeing other students intervene had a more
Inglehart (2014) LGB and non-LGB items significant positive effect on a students' own
n a likelihood to intervene than seeing teachers
r
intervene
87 White, Moeller, USA N = 21,678 students, Quantitative, 2 items LGBTQ reported more frequent negative emotions
Ivcevic, Brackett,
u
LGBTQ and and bullying, and less frequent experiences of
Jo
& Stern (2018) heterosexuals (age 13- positive emotions
19 years)
88 Williams, Banks, & USA N = 14 victims, Qualitative, narrative Responses that are classified as passive avoidance,
Blake (2018) victimizers and inquiry via interviews victim support or joining the bullying situation
observers,
heterosexuals and
homosexuals (age 14-
18 years)
89 Ybarra, Mitchell, USA N = 5,542 students, Quantitative, several (1) LGBT reported more peer victimization and
Palmer, & Reisner LGBT and items unwanted sexual experiences. (2) In-person social
Journal Pre-proof
(2015) heterosexuals (age 13 support was associated with reduced odds of bully
to 18 years) victimization and sexual harassment
90 Zotti, Carnaghi, Italy N = 273 school staff Quantitative, 3 items (1) Higher sexual prejudice and lower contact with
Piccoli, & Bianchi members to assess sexual LG individuals, higher legitimization of
(2018) stigma, 3 descriptions homophobic bullying. (2) Perceiving colleagues as
concerning two legitimizing or intervening in cases of homophobic
individuals kissing
each other (affective
scale towards same-
o f
bullying predicted similar reactions on school staff
participants
r o
sex sexual behaviors),
p
and Questions
e -
regarding gender role
non-conformity
P r
a l
r n
u
Jo
Journal Pre-proof
Figure 1. Flow Chart of the systematic review of homophobic bullying at schools.
of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

Journal Pre-Proof: Aggression and Violent Behavior

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal Pre-Proof: Aggression and Violent Behavior

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal Pre-proof

Homophobic bullying at schools: A systematic review of research,

Nieves Moyano, María del Mar Sánchez-Fuentes

To appear in: Aggression and Violent Behavior

Received date: 8 August 2019

© 2020 Published by Elsevier.

Homophobic bullying at schools: A systematic review of research, prevalence, school-

related predictors and consequences

Nieves Moyano1 & María del Mar Sánchez-Fuentes2,3

University of Zaragoza, Teruel, Spain

Psychology and Sociology, University of Zaragoza, Teruel, Spain E-mail:

Recently, research on homophobic bullying has increased. School is a relevant environment

prevalence, school-related predictors and consequences. We considered documents that

information on the prevalence, frequency of homophobic bullying or the analysis of some

by school belonging. Some consequences of homophobic bullying are negative academic

review may better guide prevention in the education field.

Keywords: Homophobic bullying, school, prevalence, systematic review.

School bullying is a prevalent phenomenon worldwide. The Global Bullying Dataset,

children and adolescents‘ socialization, where their psycho-social adjustment is built

(Sigfusdottir Kristjansson, Thorlindsson, & Allegrante, 2016). However, schools are

likelihood of perpetrating violence (Díaz-Aguado, Martínez, & Martín 2013).School

While bullying is considered a form of intentional intimidation or maltreatment

among peers, characterized by aggressive behavior that is repetitively perpetrated,

transgender, and ―questioning‖ (LGBTQ) students, based on the victim‘s perceived or

2001). According to UNESCO (2013), homophobia is the attitude that underlies

expressed in attitudes, stigmatization or discriminatory behavior shown to homosexual

people, homosexuality and also sexual diversity.

experiences of homophobic bullying at school. In Switzerland, 85.4% of students reported

bullying and 2) school bullying. Regarding the review on ―homophobic bullying‖

specific strategies for its prevention and promote co-existence practices.

The Present Study

adequate educational programs.

―homophobic bullying,‖ ―LGBT* bullying,‖, ―transphobic bullying,‖ ―gender-based

bullying,‖ ―homophobic victimization,‖ "transphobic victimization," ―homophobic

publication years and language.

This review was conducted by following the PRISMA standards: Preferred

transparency and reproducibility as regards the selected documents.

focus on the study of homophobic bullying, homophobic victimization or homophobic

prevalence, frequency of bullying or include the analysis of at least one school-related

homophobic bullying; e) main findings.

documents included in the present study.

Year of publication and country

staff members, teachers or other groups.

Methodological design and measures of homophobic bullying

was related to one of the following: a) prevalence of homophobic bullying; b) school-

related predictors or associated factors; c) school-related consequences of homophobic

bullying; and d) others in which we entered information regarding: a) issues related to

intervention (barriers and facilitators); b) intervention; c) other miscellaneous topics related

a) Prevalence or frequency of homophobic bullying. About 29.5% of the studies

2018) to 66.8% (Poteat & Vecho, 2016).

b) School-related predictors or associated factors. Approximately 30.47% of the

a school-related perspective, inclusive education, policies and supportive curricula also

Boesen, 2013; Kull, Greytak, Kosciw, & Villenas, 2016).

LGBTQ individuals, the greater the legitimization of homophobic bullying (Zotti,

with greater homophobic bullying.

c) School-related consequences. About 9.52% of the studies reported findings

Moeller, Ivcevic, Brackett, & Stern, 2018).

d) Other: intervention and miscellaneous findings. About 17.15% of the studies

focused on some useful strategies to reduce homophobic bullying. From a teacher´s

homosexuality (O‘Donoghue & Guerin, 2017).

acceptance; need for policies; understanding homosexuality; perception of homosexual

2013; Varjas et al., 2006; Williams, Banks, & Blake, 2018).

homophobic bullying phenomenon at school, which especially focuses on both its