Social cognitive theory journal article

A Social Cognitive Learning Theory of Homophobic
Aggression Among Adolescents
Gabriele Prati
University of Bologna
Abstract. The current study used social cognitive theory as a framework to
investigate self-reported homophobic aggressive behavior at school. Participants
included 863 students of 49 classes, enrolled in Grades 9–13 in 10 Italian public
high schools. The results from the multilevel mediation model (1–2–1) showed
that class-level homophobic attitudes toward gay males mediated the relationship
between student observations of peer homophobic aggression and self-reported
engagement in homophobic aggression toward schoolmates perceived as gay.
However, although student observations of peer aggression toward perceived
lesbians predicted self-reported engagement in homophobic aggression toward
perceived lesbians, this relationship appeared not to be mediated by class-level
homophobic attitudes. Student observations of peer aggression toward perceived
lesbians predicted the self-reported engagement in homophobic aggression to-
ward perceived lesbians. It was found that the social cognitive perspective
provided considerable insights into homophobic aggression at school. Consistent
with this perspective, social and cognitive factors accounted for students’ ho-
mophobic aggression.
Students who identify as or who are
perceived by their peers to be lesbian, gay,
bisexual, or transgender may be considered at
serious risk for victimization or homophobic
bullying (Kosciw, Greytak, Diaz, & Bartkie-
wicz, 2010; Rivers, 2011; Rivers & D’Augelli,
2001). The consequences of homophobic ag-
gression have been documented with respect
to mental health and educational attainment
(D’Augelli, Pilkington, & Hershberger, 2002;
Kosciw et al., 2010).
Given the prevalence and the conse-
quences of homophobic bullying, it is impor-
tant to understand the factors contributing to
this form of aggression occurring within
schools. However, a clear theoretical basis for
explaining homophobic aggression at school
needs to be developed. The importance of
developing a theoretical understanding of the
dynamics of homophobic bullying is crucial
not only for theoretical reasons, but also for
practical reasons related to the design of ef-
fective interventions (Swearer, Espelage, Vail-
lancourt, & Hymel, 2010).
In explaining the speciﬁc form of ag-
gression at school labeled “bullying” (Olweus,
1993), different perspectives have been ad-
opted, focusing on individual predictors and
The author acknowledges the contributions of Marco Coppola, Marco Sacca`, and Rosario Murdica (from
Arcigay) who supported the conduct of the survey. The author also thanks the school headmasters and all
the students who took the time to complete the questionnaire.
Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Gabriele Prati, University of Bologna,
Faculty of Psychology, Viale Europa, 115, Cesena, FC 47521, Italy; e-mail: gabriele.prati@unibo.it
Copyright 2012 by the National Association of School Psychologists, ISSN 0279-6015
School Psychology Review,
2012, Volume 41, No. 4, pp. 413–428
413

contextual predictors (for a meta-analytic re-
view, see Cook, Williams, Guerra, Kim, &
Sadek, 2010). Similarly, homophobia (a neg-
ative attitude toward homosexuality) and ho-
mophobic aggression or bullying (a set of be-
haviors motivated by homophobia) can be ex-
plained from either a sociological or
psychological perspective (see Parrott, 2008,
for a review). Homophobia is conceptualized
as having a broad ego-defensive function,
thereby protecting one’s unconscious anxiety
about experiencing homosexual impulses (Ad-
ams, Wright, & Lohr, 1996). Herek (1986)
underlines the social-expressive function of
homophobia that defines group boundaries and
makes distinctions between male and female
gender roles. According to Herek (1986), an-
other function of homophobia relates to the
reinforcement of a positive sense of belonging
to a group that includes hostility to homosex-
uality. However, although these theoretical
frameworks are useful for understanding the
psychological and social determinants of ho-
mophobia, they are limited. The main reason
is that the role of the context (e.g., peer rela-
tionship, school climate) as well as the group
norms in eliciting homophobia is partially ne-
glected (Franklin, 2000; Rivers, 2011). The
social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1973, 1986)
may be a useful framework to overcome these
limitations.
A Social Cognitive Perspective on
Homophobic Aggression
The social learning perspective (Ban-
dura, 1973, 1986) suggests that a combination
of environmental (social) and cognitive pro-
cesses influence behavior. More specifically,
according to social learning theory, the pro-
cess of learning is predicted by the observation
of models and, more generally, by social ex-
periences. The likelihood of modeling is influ-
enced by different conditions: (a) the model
should be a powerful figure; (b) the conse-
quences of the behavior of the model are re-
ward rather than punishment; (c) the model
should share similar characteristics with the
observer.
Empirical data have shown that bullies
are perceived by peers as powerful, popular,
and leaders in their schools (e.g., Vaillancourt,
Hymel, & McDougall, 2003), and that peers
and teachers seldom punish bullies for their
aggressive behavior (e.g., Craig & Pepler,
1997). At the same time, peers may reinforce
the aggressive behavior actively (e.g., joining)
or passively through their attention, or being
respectful and friendly to them (e.g.,
O’Connell, Pepler, & Craig, 1999). It is rea-
sonable to assume that, according to the social
learning perspective (Bandura, 1973, 1986),
becoming a bully is more likely under the
aforementioned conditions. The same mecha-
nisms apply even more to the determination of
homophobic bullying for several reasons. Stu-
dents tend to report that their teachers do not
label homophobic epithets as bullying and do
not punish the offenders (Phoenix, Frosh, &
Pattman, 2003). Moreover, at least among ad-
olescent males, homophobic behavior is used
to assert or demonstrate their heterosexuality
and adherence to gender-normative prescrip-
tions (Korobov, 2004; Pascoe, 2007; Plum-
mer, 2001), and to achieve or maintain domi-
nance among peers (Poteat & DiGiovanni,
2010). Indeed, claiming heterosexuality and
gender-normative behavior (especially mascu-
linity) is generally associated with high status
and dominance (Phoenix et al., 2003; Poteat &
DiGiovanni, 2010). These findings suggest
that the social learning perspective (Bandura,
1973, 1986) may be appropriate to understand
the origin of bullying, and that a positive re-
lationship may be expected between student
observations of peer homophobic aggression
and the perpetration of homophobic
aggression.
More recently, Bandura (1986) empha-
sized the role of cognition, abstraction, and
integration of the information derived from a
variety of social experiences, such as exposure
to models. The process of weighing and syn-
thesizing information derived from social ex-
periences are crucial to the acquisition or
learning of attitudes, beliefs, and values. The
development of homophobic attitudes should
be of great relevance to an understanding of
the process of attitudes acquisition following
School Psychology Review, 2012, Volume 41, No. 4
414

the observation of homophobic bullying be-
haviors exhibited by others. Consistent with
these expectations, a previous study showed
that the student observations of peer ho-
mophobic aggression exhibited by classmates
were associated with higher level of homopho-
bia (Prati, Pietrantoni, & D’Augelli, 2011).
The number of episodes of aggressive
behavior reported by class members may be
related to moral standards or social group
norms about the acceptance of homophobic
aggression. An increase in homophobic ag-
gressions in a specific class may lead to a
modification of the moral agency, which is not
only individually situated, but also socially
situated (Bandura, 1986). In the case of obser-
vation of homophobic aggression, however,
the elaboration of information provided by the
observation of classmates’ behavior should be
evaluated at a group level for two reasons.
First, group dynamic theories (e.g., Kelman
1958; Sherif, 1936) emphasize the role of
group socialization pressures and conformity
to group norms. For example, Kelman (1958)
conceptualized three different processes of at-
titude change: compliance, identification, and
internalization. The process of compliance is
of special interest here—that is, when a person
conforms to impress or gain favor/acceptance
from another person or group (e.g., high status
and powerful bullies or their group). More in
general, all three different processes of con-
formity are relevant for understanding how
group belonging and interpersonal interactions
determine the development of prejudiced atti-
tudes. Therefore, the peer group and the prox-
imal social environment play an important role
in socializing homophobic attitudes (Poteat,
2007).
Second, unlike other forms of aggres-
sive behavior in school, homophobic aggres-
sion is generally perpetrated by groups of
peers, rather than by lone students (Rivers,
2011). Indeed, in a sample of young male
college students it was found that nearly three
quarters of cases of aggression toward gay
individuals were perpetrated in the context of
a group (Franklin, 2000). According to Askew
and Ross (1988), homophobic behavior
strengthens each member of the group’s own
heterosexual identity. These data clearly indi-
cate that the group context is important in
understanding the cognitive operations in-
volved in this particular type of social experi-
ence. Moreover, because group-level ho-
mophobic attitudes are related to norms about
the acceptance of peer victimization, and in-
volve evaluations about outgroup members
and targets of aggression (Poteat, Espelage, &
Green, 2007), it is possible to hypothesize that
the experiences of witnessing homophobic ag-
gression may contribute to the homophobic
climate of the classroom (cross-level direct
effects).
Social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986)
is an extension of social learning theory and
focuses on the ways in which cognitive oper-
ations on social experiences are thought to
influence behavior. These cognitive processes
may explain why students learn aggressive
behavior by observing the actions of others
(e.g., peers). This influence may be mediated
by levels of homophobic attitudes, because
they express hostility or overt aggression to-
ward gay males and lesbians (Herek, 2000,
2009). According to Rivers (2011), homopho-
bic bullying is a product of dominant institu-
tions and groups that reinforce homophobic
attitudes. Homophobia, in turn, as an ideology
of heterosexual domination, may lead to de-
humanization, ascription of blame, and distor-
tion of injurious consequences, which also
play a heavy role in aggressive behavior (Ban-
dura, 1986). Indeed, homophobic attitudes are
associated with homophobic behavior (Frank-
lin, 2000; Poteat, 2007, 2008; Poteat, Kimmel,
& Wilchins, 2011; Rivers, 2011); therefore,
they may be conceptualized as prebullying
beliefs or beliefs that guide behavior. Atti-
tudes and perceptions of bullying play a role in
predicting student’s future bullying behavior
(Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004).
In the present study, influence of class-
level homophobic attitudes on homophobic
aggression was examined. Various areas of
research have shown that the social context of
adolescent peer groups may account for indi-
viduals’ bullying attitudes and behavior (Es-
pelage, Holt, & Henkel, 2003; Salmivalli &
Voeten, 2004; Sutton & Smith, 1999). Social
Explanation of Homophobic Aggression
415

norms may dictate legitimacy or illegitimacy
of behaviors: the legitimacy of discrimination
against homosexuals increases the likelihood
of homophobic aggression, such as gay bash-
ing (Bahns & Branscombe, 2011). Group-
level homophobic attitudes are typical of the
nature of the social climate of peer groups
during adolescence (Plummer, 2001) and may
be considered an indicator of the group norm
(Poteat, 2007). Moreover, group-level ho-
mophobic attitudes have been found to be
related to homophobic aggressions (Poteat,
2008). Given that exposure to homophobic
aggression may influence class homophobic
attitudes, and that class homophobic attitudes
may predict homophobic aggression, it is pos-
sible to hypothesize that the relationship be-
tween observation of homophobic behaviors
and the perpetration of homophobic bullying
is explained by an increase in class homopho-
bic attitudes. This hypothesis implies cross-
level indirect effects of student observations of
peer homophobic aggression on homophobic
aggression via class homophobic attitudes.
Conceptual Multilevel Mediation Model
and Hypotheses
The conceptual multilevel mediation
model employed in this study is presented in
Figure 1 (Panel A). The main hypothesis of
this study was that the relationship between
student observations of peer homophobic ag-
gression and self-reported perpetration of ho-
mophobic aggression would be mediated by
class homophobic attitudes. This mediation
model involves data that vary both within (stu-
dents) and between higher level units
(classes). All the mediation analyses were per-
formed for the use of homophobic language
and homophobic aggressions toward per-
ceived gay males and lesbians separately. The
rationale for this is based on the fact that
experiences of harassment and assault based
on sexual orientation (both perpetration and
victimization) are more likely among males
than females (e.g., Kosciw et al., 2010; Prati et
al., 2011). Moreover, there are clear differ-
ences in individual homophobic attitudes to-
ward gay males and lesbians (Herek, 2000,
2009; Kite & Whitley, 1996). Because the use
of homophobic remarks is by far the most
common (e.g., Kosciw et al., 2010) and most
investigated (e.g., Poteat, 2007, 2008; Poteat
& Espelage, 2005; Poteat & Rivers, 2010)
form of homophobic bullying, it was also de-
cided to distinguish between homophobic lan-
guage and other forms (in this article called
homophobic aggression). The distinction is
based on the fact that the use of homophobic
language, although related to aggressive be-
havior, may be used in other contexts to con-
vey other meanings without an antagonistic
intent (e.g., to emphasize one’s own hetero-
sexuality to impose gender-normative behav-
iors; Korobov, 2004; Phoenix et al., 2003;
Plummer, 2001; Poteat & Rivers, 2010).
Therefore, four mediational analyses were
conducted to examine the specificity of each
target (gay males and lesbians) and of each
form of homophobic bullying (homophobic
aggression and homophobic language).
Methods
Participants
Participants consisted of 863 students in
Grades 9–13 in from 49 classes in 10 Italian
public high schools. In Italy, high school stu-
dents typically spend the whole school day (or
most of it) with the same group of students.
The sample includes students from Lyceums,
a preparatory school for the university, (n ϭ
470, 54.5%) and from vocational institutes
(n ϭ 393, 45.5%). Of the participating stu-
dents, 39.3% (n ϭ 326) were males. Partici-
pants ranged in age from 15 through 22 years
(M ϭ 17.26, SD ϭ 1.59). A total of 23.5%
(n ϭ 203) of the participants were in Grade 9,
20.6% (n ϭ 178) in Grade 10, 22.5% (n ϭ
194) in Grade 11, 18.3% (n ϭ 158) in
Grade 12, and 15.1% (n ϭ 130) in Grade 13.
Participants are similar to the general popula-
tion of students in Italian high schools with
respect to demographic characteristics, al-
though males were slightly underrepresented.
Procedure
We selected a stratified random sample
of 20 Italian public high schools. The stratifi-
416

cation of the Italian school was based on two
variables: first-level Nomenclature of Territo-
rial Units for Statistics (NUTS) and types of
schools differentiated by subjects and activi-
ties. In Italy, there are five first-level NUTS
regions (North West, North East, Center,
South, And Islands), and two main types of
secondary schools: Lyceums (classic, scien-
Figure 1. Multilevel mediation model (1–2–1) of homophobic bullying (Panel
A) and related parameters tested (Panel B) following the MSEM procedure
(Preacher et al., 2010).
417

tific, linguistic, pedagogic), and vocational in-
stitute (technical and professional). The num-
ber of students per school was not considered
for stratification because the Italian school
system guarantees a rather homogeneous num-
ber of students per school and per class (av-
erage number of students per school is 500 and
per class 20).
A total of 10 (50%) school headmasters
gave their permission to conduct the study in
their schools, after being contacted by letter
and by telephone. The main reason given by
those who refused to participate was time con-
straint. The recruitment rate had no effect on
the distribution of schools by region or types
of secondary schools. Once permission was
obtained, five classes were randomly selected
in each school corresponding to Grades 9–13.
The survey was administered in January
2010, using a paper-and-pencil questionnaire.
Participants completed the survey in class.
They were informed that the objective of the
study survey was to learn more about their
perspectives on specific social issues and their
activities at school. Students were also in-
formed about the confidentiality of their re-
sponses and assured that all the reports from
the study would only be presented in aggre-
gate. Each student provided informed consent.
No student refused to participate in the study.
Survey proctors assisted participants by indi-
vidually answering any question raised while
avoiding influencing the answers in any way.
Furthermore, they ensured confidentiality of
responses. Proctors were eight adult male (age
range 23–34 years) research assistants and
members of the project staff who were trained
to administer the questionnaire. After the ad-
ministration, participants had the opportunity
to discuss the topic of homophobic bullying
with the proctors.
Measures
The questionnaire consisted of three
scales. Data from the present study were used
to calculate the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients.
Additional psychometric data are presented by
Prati (2012).
Homophobic language. The Ho-
mophobic Content Agent Target Scale (Poteat
& Espelage, 2005) was used to measure the
extent which students called other students
homophobic epithets (Agent subscale; 5
items) during the past 30 days. The Homopho-
bic Content Agent Target Scale was translated
with the help a bilingual student into Italian
for use in the study. Following this translation,
measures were back translated into English by
another bilingual student and compared with
the original versions. The Agent subscale was
employed twice, one for homophobic epithets
toward male students (homophobic language
toward males; ␣ ϭ .75, using data from the
present study) and the other one toward female
students (homophobic language toward fe-
males; ␣ ϭ .74, using data from the present
study).
Homophobic bullying. The Ho-
mophobic Bullying Scale (Prati, 2012) was
used to measure students’ bullying behaviors
motivated by homophobia. More specifically,
participants were asked to report whether they
observed and engaged in different homopho-
bic behaviors (written offenses, isolation/ex-
clusion, spreading rumors or lies, homophobic
teasing, property theft or damage, physical
assault, sexual harassment, electronic harass-
ment or cyberbullying) in their schools in the
past 30 days. Response options include Never
(1), 1 or 2 times (2), about once a week (3),
and more than once a week (4). Four subscales
were used: self-reported homophobic aggres-
sion toward supposed gay men (␣ ϭ .82, using
data from the present study), self-reported ho-
mophobic aggression toward supposed lesbi-
ans (␣ ϭ .87, using data from the present
study), student observations of peer aggres-
sion toward supposed gay men (␣ ϭ .82, using
data from the present study), and student ob-
servations of peer aggression toward lesbians
(␣ ϭ .82, using data from the present study).
Classroom homophobic attitudes.
Homophobic attitudes toward gay males and
lesbians were assessed using the Italian Scale
of Homophobia (Falanga, Parisi, & Di Chi-
acchio, 2006). In the validation study, an ex-
418

ploratory principal components analysis was
used to examine dimensionality of the scale.
Two dimensions were found, which differen-
tiated between negative attitudes toward gay
males (28 items) and toward lesbians (28
items). The following are examples of items
included in this scale: “Being gay (or lesbian)
is a mental illness” and “Gay males (or lesbi-
ans) should not be allowed to join the army.”
Response options on a 5-point Likert-type
scale range from 1 (strongly disagree)
through 5 (strongly agree), with higher scores
reflecting more negative attitudes. The coeffi-
cient alpha reliability estimates of the ho-
mophobic attitudes toward gay males and les-
bian for the current study were .94 and .93,
respectively. Following Poteat (2007, 2008),
to measure homophobic climate participants’
homophobic attitudes toward gay men and
lesbians scores were aggregated across class-
rooms (for each classroom, it was computed
average of individual scores for homophobic
attitudes).
Analyses
In the present study, four mediation
models were tested: the model predicting ho-
mophobic language toward males, self-re-
ported homophobic aggression toward per-
ceived lesbians, homophobic language toward
females, and self-reported homophobic ag-
gression toward perceived gay males.
The results of the tests of kurtosis (De-
Carlo, 1997) showed that the measures of self-
reported perceptions of aggressive behavior,
self-reported homophobic aggression were not
normally distributed. Inspection of the curve
revealed that these variables had a floor effect.
This floor effect was expected, because ho-
mophobic aggression is restricted to a minor-
ity of students (Kosciw et al., 2010). There-
fore, a censored-inflated model together with a
robust maximum likelihood estimator was
conducted in Mplus 6 (Mutheń & Mutheń,
1998–2010), which does not require the as-
sumption of normality, and yields robust esti-
mates of asymptotic covariances of parameter
estimates. Following Graham’s (2009) recom-
mendation, missing data estimation was em-
ployed using maximum likelihood imputation
procedure. To test the multilevel mediational
paths, procedures for implementing MSEM
for 1–2–1 designs were followed (Preacher,
Zyphur, & Zhang, 2010). The MSEM ap-
proach avoids problems of conflated individ-
ual-level and class-level effect, because vari-
ance is decomposed into two components. The
independent and the dependent variables are
assessed both at Level 1 and Level 2, but the
mediator is assessed at Level 2 only. The
MSEM parameters used to test the study hy-
potheses are depicted in Figure 1 (Panel B). In
a 1–2–1 design, the mediator variable varies
only between clusters—thus only the Between
indirect effect exists. In this type of design,
there are two c paths: between (cЈB) and
Within (cЈW), along with a Between a path
(aB), and a Between b path (bB). The Between
indirect effect is aBbB. Because of the sam-
pling distribution of the indirect effect in
MSEM, the Monte Carlo-based method was
employed (MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Wil-
liams, 2004), implemented in R by Selig and
Preacher (2008), to obtain the appropriate con-
fidence intervals. A mediation effect is indi-
cated when the indirect effect is significant.
The significance of the indirect effects at the
.05 level is supported if the confidence inter-
vals for the estimates exclude zero. Student
gender and age served as control variables in
Level 1 of each model.
Results
Aggregation Analyses and Gender and
Type of School Differences
For all variables, a significant between-
class variance was observed: self-reported per-
ceptions of aggressive behavior toward gay
males (ICC ϭ .12), self-reported perceptions
of aggressive behavior toward lesbians
(ICC ϭ .10), attitudes toward gay males
(ICC ϭ .22), attitudes toward lesbians (ICC ϭ
.16), self-reported aggressive behavior toward
gay males (ICC ϭ .10), self-reported aggres-
sive behavior toward lesbians (ICC ϭ .10),
homophobic language toward gay males
(ICC ϭ .06), and homophobic language to-
ward lesbians (ICC ϭ .05). This means that
419

class membership explains from 5% to 22% of
the variance in the variables (Hox, 2010).
Given the existence of between-school vari-
ance, the development of a multilevel model
was warranted.
Table 1 summarizes the means and stan-
dard deviations for gender and type of school
differences. Because the data were non-nor-
mally distributed, Mann–Whitney U test was
used. Significant gender differences were
found on all measures (with the exception of
self-reported homophobic aggression toward
perceived lesbians). Significant differences by
type of school were found for student obser-
vations of peer aggression toward perceived
gay males, and homophobic attitudes.
Self-Reported Homophobic Aggression
Toward Perceived Gay Males
As shown in Table 2, self-reported ho-
mophobic aggression toward perceived gay
males was predicted by student observations
of peer aggression toward perceived gay males
(at the individual level), gender (male), and
homophobic attitudes. The 1–1 indirect effect
was statistically significant and indicates that the
relationship between student observations of
peer aggression toward perceived gay males and
perceived gay males was mediated by class ho-
mophobic attitudes toward gay males. The pro-
portion of variance explained (analogous to the
multiple R2
) at the first level (see Hox, 2010)
was 0.41, which means that 41% of the variance
at the student level is explained by the model.
The proportion of variance explained at the sec-
ond level (see Hox, 2010) was 0.96. Although
this value may seem high, it should be noted
that the between-class variance was markedly
lower than the within-class variance. There-
fore, the model explained a high proportion of
the low between-class variation.
Self-Reported Homophobic Aggression
Toward Perceived Lesbians
Preliminary analysis showed that the re-
lationship between class homophobic attitudes
toward lesbians and student observations of
peer aggression toward perceived lesbians was
not significant (␶ ϭ 0.12, p Ͼ .05). Therefore,
the path leading from student observations of
peer aggression toward perceived lesbians to
attitudes toward lesbians was not estimated (as
well, mediation analysis was not performed).
As illustrated in Table 2, self-reported ho-
mophobic aggression toward perceived lesbi-
ans was predicted by student observations of
peer aggression toward perceived lesbians (in-
dividual level), class homophobic attitudes to-
ward lesbians, and younger age. The propor-
tion of variance explained at the first level
was 0.57, while the proportion of variance
explained at the second level was 0.86.
Homophobic Language Toward Males
As shown in Table 2, homophobic lan-
guage toward males was predicted by student
observations of peer aggression toward per-
ceived gay males (both class level and indi-
vidual level), gender (male), older age, and
homophobic attitudes. The 1–2–1 indirect ef-
fect was statistically significant and suggests
that the relationship between student observa-
tions of peer aggression toward perceived gay
males and homophobic language toward males
was mediated by class homophobic attitudes
toward gay males. The proportion of variance
explained at the first level was 0.28, while the
proportion of variance explained at the second
level was 0.64.
Homophobic Language Toward Females
The relationship between homophobic
language toward females and attitudes toward
lesbians was not significant (␶ ϭ .02, p Ͼ .05).
Therefore, attitudes toward lesbians were not
included in this model. As illustrated in Ta-
ble 2, homophobic language toward females
was predicted by student observations of peer
aggression toward perceived lesbians (individ-
ual level). The proportion of variance ex-
plained at the first level was 0.22, while the
proportion of variance explained at the second
level was 0.64.
Discussion
Several consequences of homophobic
aggression at school have been documented
420

Table1
DifferencesbyGenderandTypeofSchool(UMann–WhitneyTest)
Male
participants
Female
participantsLyceums
Vocational
institute
MSDMSDZprMSDMSDZpr
Studentobservationsofpeeraggression
towardgaymales1.560.541.450.43Ϫ2.28.02Ϫ.081.590.571.420.39Ϫ3.50Ͻ.001Ϫ.12
Studentobservationsofpeeraggression
towardlesbians1.220.391.180.30Ϫ2.59.01Ϫ.091.270.411.190.27Ϫ1.72.09Ϫ.06
Attitudestowardgaymales2.820.772.190.67Ϫ11.70Ͻ.001Ϫ.412.530.822.360.73Ϫ3.74Ͻ.001Ϫ.13
Attitudestowardlesbians2.480.682.250.70Ϫ5.21Ͻ.001Ϫ.182.390.702.300.69Ϫ2.87Ͻ.001Ϫ.10
Self-reportedaggressiontowardgay
males1.180.351.060.16Ϫ7.21Ͻ.001Ϫ.251.150.341.070.14Ϫ1.45.15Ϫ.05
Self-reportedaggressiontowardlesbians1.090.311.040.12Ϫ0.72.47Ϫ.031.090.291.040.12Ϫ0.19.85Ϫ.01
Homophobiclanguagetowardmales1.870.761.410.47Ϫ9.58Ͻ.001Ϫ.331.650.711.530.56Ϫ1.83.07Ϫ.06
Homophobiclanguagetowardfemales1.220.451.260.40Ϫ3.67Ͻ.001Ϫ.131.260.461.230.38Ϫ0.09.93.00
421

with respect to mental health and educational
attainment: depression, anxiety, school failure,
dropout, decreased levels of self-esteem, in-
creased health risk behaviors, such as sub-
stance abuse and attempted suicide (e.g.,
D’Augelli et al., 2002; Kosciw et al., 2010;
Poteat & Espelage, 2007). The aim of this
study was to examine the psychosocial dy-
namics that underlie homophobic bullying be-
haviors. More specifically, drawing on social
cognitive theory (Bandura, 1973, 1986), it was
predicted that student observations of peer ho-
mophobic aggression would be related to a
higher probability to report engagement in ho-
mophobic aggression and that this relationship
would be mediated by class-level homophobic
attitudes.
The results showed that student obser-
vations of peer aggression toward perceived
gay males exhibited by classmates was asso-
ciated with class homophobic attitudes that, in
turn, were related to self-reported homophobic
aggression toward perceived gay males or to
the use of homophobic language toward
males. Although self-reported homophobic
aggression toward perceived lesbians and the
use of homophobic language toward females
were predicted by the student observations of
peer aggression toward perceived lesbians ex-
hibited by classmates, these relationships were
not mediated by class homophobic attitudes.
Consistent with social cognitive theory,
behaviors appear to be learned within the
group. Students, who reported they observed
more episodes of homophobic bullying, were
more likely to engage in homophobic aggres-
sion. An explanation for this may lie in the
dominance and high status of a significant
portion of students who engage in homopho-
bic bullying. Empirical evidence showed that
those students tend to be perceived by peers as
popular and dominant (Phoenix et al., 2003;
Poteat & DiGiovanni, 2010). Therefore, ac-
cording to social cognitive theory (Bandura,
1973, 1986), homophobic bullies are more
likely to influence the behavior of peers, be-
cause they may be perceived as powerful fig-
Table 2
Parameter Estimates for All Models
Path Estimate (SE) 95% CI Path Estimate (SE) 95% CI
Self-reported homophobic aggression toward
perceived gay males Homophobic language toward males
aB 4.07 (0.25)*** 3.58, 4.55 aB
1.484 (0.697)* 0.12, 2.85
bB 0.48 (0.23)* 0.03, 0.92 bB
0.600 (0.048)*** 0.51, 0.69
c’B 1.00 (1.01) Ϫ1.99, 1.99 c’B
Ϫ0.161 (0.088) Ϫ0.35, 0.02
1-2-1 1.94 (0.89)* 0.16, 3.78 1-2-1 0.89 (0.49)* 0.14, 3.82
indirect effect indirect effect
c’W 0.62 (0.07)*** 0.48, 0.76 c’W 0.48 (0.032)*** 0.412, 0.54
d Ϫ0.16 (0.06)* Ϫ0.28, Ϫ0.03 d Ϫ0.20 (0.03)*** Ϫ0.26, Ϫ0.15
e Ϫ0.01 (0.01) Ϫ0.01, 0.023 e 0.02 (0.00)*** 0.02, 0.03
Self-reported homophobic aggression toward
perceived lesbians Homophobic language toward females
bB 0.99 (0.29)*** 0.43, 1.56 c’B
16.27 (9.09) Ϫ1.55, 34.08
c’B 1.78 (1.65) Ϫ1.45, 5.02 c’W
0.86 (0.24)*** 0.39, 1.34
c’W 0.67 (0.07)*** 0.54, 0.80 d 0.11 (0.07) Ϫ0.02, 0.24
d Ϫ0.07 (0.05) Ϫ0.16, 0.02 e Ϫ0.02 (0.02) Ϫ0.05, 0.01
e Ϫ0.01 (0.00)* 0.00, 0.02
Note: * ϭ p Ͻ.05; ** ϭ p Ͻ.01; *** ϭ p Ͻ.001. Significance tests of indirect effects were conducted using the Monte
Carlo-based method implemented in R by Selig and Preacher (2008).
422

ures who share similar characteristics with the
observer.
In line with this framework, another
possible (nonalternative) explanation is that
the consequences of the observed homophobic
aggression were reward rather than punish-
ment. Previous studies showed that student
aggression was reinforced actively or pas-
sively by peers through their attention, respect,
and friendliness (e.g., O’Connell, Pepler, &
Craig, 1999). In the case of homophobic ag-
gression at school, students tend to report that
school personnel did not frequently intervene
(punishment) when homophobic remarks were
made (Kosciw et al., 2010 Phoenix et al.,
2003), and that use of homophobic language
was rewarded (e.g., asserting her or his het-
erosexuality and gender-normative behavior,
maintaining dominance; Korobov, 2004; Pas-
coe, 2007; Plummer, 2001). Following the
agentic perspective of social cognitive theory,
students actively process information, infer
the causal structure of the social context, syn-
thesize that information into abstract form,
and control their behavior to enable them to
secure a desired outcome. Therefore, students
may learn homophobic aggressions to achieve
desired outcomes such as dominance, adher-
ence to the gender-normative behavior norms
prescribed by peers, acknowledgment of status
and power.
Besides the fact that the homophobic
bullies may be perceived as powerful or as
having rewards, the present study showed that
information derived from attending to ho-
mophobic aggression may be elaborated in a
way that increases their negative attitudes to-
ward perceived gay males or lesbians. Accord-
ing to Bandura (1986), individuals form their
attitudes on the information derived from so-
cial experiences. In line with a previous study,
student observations of peer homophobic ag-
gression were associated with homophobia
(Prati et al., 2011). Moreover, following social
cognitive theory, homophobic attitudes, de-
rived from observing homophobic bullying,
influence the behavior.
The novelty of this study lies in the
demonstration of the influence of class-level
homophobic attitudes, not individual ho-
mophobic attitudes. In this study, an increment
in class-level homophobic attitudes following
the student observations of peer homophobic
aggression was found to increase the probabil-
ity of engaging in similar behaviors. Follow-
ing the notion of reciprocal interplay of indi-
vidual and social influences (Bandura, Bar-
baranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996), the
capacity for observational learning enables
students to acquire (homophobic) attitudes
through their experiences and to pass on the
relevant ones to classmates by social model-
ing. It seems appropriate to speculate that the
episodes of homophobic aggression reported
by class members could influence moral stan-
dards or social norms about the acceptance of
homophobic aggression. Adopting the social
cognitive theory of moral disengagement
(Bandura, 1986; Bandura et al., 1996), class
members may infer that homophobic aggres-
sion they are exposed to is an appropriate
behavior. Therefore, class members may re-
vise their moral standards and disengage from
culturally sanctioned beliefs about the ho-
mophobic aggression toward perceived gays
or lesbians. Indeed, social norms about the
acceptance of homophobic aggression are the
product of the selective activation and disen-
gagement of moral self-regulation that justifies
negative or mean behavior and reduces social
and self-punishment. In the case of homopho-
bic aggression, a change in moral standards
and social norms may be best expressed by
higher homophobic attitudes at the class level
(homophobic class climate), given that they
express hostility toward homosexual people
(Herek, 2000, 2009).
A more homophobic class climate, in
turn, predicted the engagement in homophobic
aggression, in line with the idea that ideolog-
ical orientations of the group shape the form of
norms and moral standards that may legitimize
certain behaviors. Indeed, when the social cli-
mate seems to legitimate discrimination
against homosexuals, individuals are more
likely engage in homophobic aggression
(Bahns & Branscombe, 2011).
The explanations that have been consid-
ered so far do not entirely apply to self-re-
ported homophobic aggression toward per-
423

ceived lesbians, because class homophobic at-
titudes did not mediate the expected
relationships. The role of class homophobic
attitudes toward perceived lesbians was less
important, probably because attitudes toward
perceived gay males are consistently more
hostile than their attitudes toward lesbians
(Kite & Whitley, 1996). Gender-associated
norms are more rigidly defined for men than
for women, and socialization pressures men to
routinely validate their masculinity, which re-
sults in more negative attitudes toward gay
males than lesbians (Herek, 2000, 2009; Kite
& Whitley, 1996). Indeed, there is empirical
evidence that male and female students differ
in terms of negative attitudes and aggressive
behavior toward sexual minorities (Prati et al.,
2011). Moreover, in this study (as in other
studies, see Kosciw et al., 2010) the number of
homophobic aggressions toward perceived
lesbians observed by participants was small.
Thus, there have not been sufficient occasions
in which participants may learn homophobic
attitudes toward lesbians by observing ho-
mophobic aggression toward perceived
lesbians.
It should be noted that the percentage of
variance explained by the model was high for
perceived gay males and lesbians, but was
lower for the use of homophobic language.
These results highlight the fact that homopho-
bic epithets are not directed exclusively to-
ward perceived gay males and lesbians (Kim-
mel & Mahler, 2003; Plummer, 2001; Poteat
& Espelage, 2005). Indeed, the Homophobic
Content Agent Target scale (Poteat & Espel-
age, 2005) specifies neither the contexts and
circumstances nor the intent for the use of
these epithets. For example, among boys ho-
mophobic language is used to impose gender-
normative behaviors, to prove masculinity and
heterosexuality without an aggressive intent,
to reach or maintain dominance among peers,
or as a joking matter within peer groups
(Korobov, 2004; Pascoe, 2007; Phoenix et al.,
2003; Poteat & DiGiovanni, 2010). Therefore,
homophobic attitudes may be less relevant to
homophobic language, as students may not be
completely aware of how its use may distress
or offend others, especially sexual minorities
who frequently or often hear homophobic re-
marks at school (Poteat & DiGiovanni, 2010).
Limitations and Future Directions
Several limitations of the study need to
be considered. First, the generalizability of the
current findings is unknown given that half of
the school headmasters contacted gave their
permission to conduct the study in their
schools. However, the characteristics of par-
ticipating schools were similar to those of
schools who chose not to participate.
Further, because of to the cross-sec-
tional study design it is not possible to infer
causality in the relationships among variables.
Although the model tested here was theoreti-
cally driven, other, alternative models might
fit the data equally as well. For example,
whereas in this model attitude preceded be-
havior, from different perspectives, attitudes
may conceivably follow from behavior.
The model tested in this study did not
include directly the role played by school per-
sonnel. For example, on the one hand, there is
evidence showing that gay, lesbian, bisexual,
and transgender students report victimization
from school personnel (Chesir-Teran, 2003).
On the other hand, school personnel play an
important role improving the social climate in
their own schools (Espelage, Aragon, Birkett,
& Koenig, 2008; Kosciw et al., 2010).
Finally, the model tested did not account
for a large proportion of variance in the use of
homophobic epithets. Moreover, the dynamics
of homophobic aggression toward perceived
lesbians were not adequately understood by
the proposed mediational model. Future stud-
ies could examine different models to explain
the use of homophobic epithets and homopho-
bic aggression toward lesbians.
It should be noted that although social
cognitive theory is a useful framework espe-
cially in explaining peer relationships as they
relate to homophobia, it is limited. For a com-
plete understanding of the factors involved in
homophobic aggression, other sociological or
psychological perspectives should be adopted
(for a review, see Parrott, 2008). For example,
424

according to a social-ecological model of bul-
lying (Espelage & Swearer, 2004; Espelage &
Swearer, 2010), children and adolescents are
affected by a range of nested contextual sys-
tems of families, schools, peer groups, teach-
er–student relationships, parent–child rela-
tionships, parent–school relationships, neigh-
borhoods, and cultural expectations. The
social cognitive approach used in the present
study investigated the influence of a small part
of the systems included in this model. There-
fore, the inclusion of other theoretical ap-
proaches is needed to achieve a comprehen-
sive understanding of homophobic bullying
dynamics.
Implications for Prevention
Given the critical role played by ho-
mophobic class climate, education to promote
respect for sexual minorities could benefit
from a sexual prejudice reduction component.
Furthermore, homophobic attitudes may be
contrasted with practices and policies that
make coming out a safe option for all the staff
and students in schools. Indeed, the intergroup
contact hypothesis (Allport 1954; Pettigrew &
Tropp, 2006) suggests that knowing a gay or
lesbian person leads to less sexual prejudice
and improved attitudes. Recently, the research
literature provided further evidence showing
that intergroup contact and intergroup friend-
ship are related to sexual prejudice reduction
(Heinze & Horn, 2009; Hodson, Harry, &
Mitchell, 2009).
Based on the current findings and the
review of the literature, to reduce homophobic
aggression, attention is needed to both indi-
viduals and their social environment. Con-
cerning the latter, potential implications are
apparent for the importance of the adoption
and the implementation of comprehensive pro-
tective policies for sexual minorities that ex-
plicitly enumerate sexual orientation, gender
identity, and gender expression. Indeed,
school faculty and other school staff at schools
with antiharassment/bullying policies that in-
corporated gender identity/expression and/or
sexual orientation were more likely to inter-
vene when hearing homophobic language ex-
pressed among students (Kosciw et al., 2010).
In addition, students were more likely to re-
port episodes of homophobic behaviors to
school authorities when they occurred.
Systematic intervention by school per-
sonnel when homophobic aggression occurs
provides an alternative role model for students
(Bandura, 1986) and challenges the legitimacy
of discrimination against homosexuals (an ef-
fective strategy for reducing homophobic be-
havior, Bahns & Branscombe, 2011). There-
fore, schools should develop explicit ho-
mophobic bullying policies, and school
faculty and other school staff should imple-
ment them. To this end, school staff should be
trained to respond every time they witness
homophobic behaviors and to encourage stu-
dents to intervene on behalf of victims without
becoming bystanders to homophobic bullying.
These results highlight the need not only
for intervention when homophobic remarks
are used, but also to address homophobia as a
factor that, at the class level, influences this
behavior. However, given that at the class
level homophobic attitudes were not associ-
ated with the use of homophobic language,
educational programs and intergroup dia-
logues could increase the awareness of the
negative consequences of its use (Poteat &
DiGiovanni, 2010). One way to enable stu-
dents to understand and respect difference and
diversity is to integrate sexual orientation,
gender identity, and gender expression into the
curriculum; schools should consider ways in
which these issues can be discussed in school,
in a constructive way.
Other implications may be derived from
the literature on school-bullying interventions.
The effect of antibullying programs on stu-
dents, teachers, and school staff primarily re-
flected favorable changes in knowledge, atti-
tudes, and self-perceived competency in deal-
ing with bullying (Merrell, Gueldner, Ross, &
Isava, 2008). For example, the findings sug-
gest that different social contexts (e.g., classes,
peer groups) influence significantly bullying
behaviors. Thus, a successful strategy for ad-
dressing bullying should be directed toward
changing contexts, such as the positive peer
reporting intervention at school (Ruth, Miller,
425

& Friman, 1996). Furthermore, among school-
based antibullying programs, whole-school/
multidisciplinary interventions, including the
establishment of school-wide rules and conse-
quences for bullying, were reported to be the
most promising in reducing bullying and vic-
timization (Vreeman & Carroll, 2007). Fi-
nally, given the negligible effect sizes for de-
sired changes in student self-reports of both
victimization and perpetration of antibullying
programs (Smith, Schneider, Smith, & Ana-
niadou, 2004), several recommendations have
been proposed (Swearer et al., 2010). First,
antibullying programs should be grounded in a
guiding theoretical framework that would in-
form program development and evaluation.
The present study showed the usefulness of
social cognitive theory. Second, interventions
should be directed at the social ecology that
stimulates and tolerates aggressive behaviors,
such as group norms, as shown in the present
paper. Third, antibullying programs should in-
clude factors such as gender, race, disability,
and sexual orientation. The final aim of these
efforts is to make school a safe place for all the
students, regardless of their perceived
characteristics.
In conclusion, this is the first study that
adopted the social cognitive learning theory as
a theoretical basis for explaining homophobic
aggressive behavior at school. Results of this
study provided evidence indicating the social
context to be a significant factor accounting
for students’ of homophobic aggression
behavior.
References
Adams, H. E., Wright, L. W., & Lohr, B. A. (1996). Is
homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105, 440–445. doi:
10.1037/0021-843X.105.3.440
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cam-
bridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Askew, S., & Ross, C. (1988). Boys don’t cry: Boys and
sexism in education. Milton Keynes, UK: Open Uni-
versity Press.
Bahns, A. J., & Branscombe, N. R. (2011). Effects of
legitimizing discrimination against homosexuals on
gay bashing. European Journal of Social Psychology,
41, 388–396. doi:10.1002/ejsp.784
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning anal-
ysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and
action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pas-
torelli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of moral disengage-
ment in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 71, 364–374. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.364
Cook, C. R., Williams, K. R., Guerra, N., Kim, T. E., &
Sadek, S. (2010). Predictors of bullying and victimiza-
tion in childhood and adolescence: A meta analytic
investigation. School Psychology Quarterly, 25, 65–
83. doi:10.1037/a0020149
Craig, W., & Pepler, D. (1997). Observations of bullying
and victimization in the schoolyard. Canadian Journal
of School Psychology, 13, 41–60.
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 Quar-
terly, 17, 148–167. doi:10.1521/scpq.17.2.148.20854
DeCarlo, L. T. (1997). On the meaning and use of kurto-
sis. Psychological Methods, 2, 292–307. doi: 10.1037/
1082-989X. 2.3.292
Espelage, D. L., Aragon, S. R., Birkett, M., & Koenig,
B. W. (2008). Homophobic teasing, psychological out-
comes, and sexual orientation among high school stu-
dents: What influence do parents and schools have?
School Psychology Review, 37, 202–216.
Espelage, D. L., Holt, M. K., & Henkel, R. R. (2003).
Examination of peer-group contextual effects on ag-
gression during early adolescence. Child Develop-
ment, 74, 205–220. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00531
Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (Eds.). (2004). Bullying
in American schools: A social-ecological perspective
on prevention and intervention. Mahwah, NJ: Erl-
baum.
Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2008). Addressing
research gaps in the intersection between homophobia
and bullying. School Psychology Review, 37, 155–159.
Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2010). A social-
ecological model for bullying prevention and interven-
tion: Understanding the impact of adults in the social
ecology of youngsters. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M.
Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bully-
ing in schools: An international perspective (pp. 61–
72). New York, NY: Routledge.
Falanga S., Parisi A., & Di Chiacchio C. (2006). Omofo-
bia. Una ricerca empirica italiana [Homophobia. An
empirical research in Italy]. In D. Rizzo (Ed.), Omo-
sapiens (pp. 61–68). Rome, Italy: Carocci.
Franklin, K. (2000). Antigay behaviors among young
adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 339–
362. doi:10.1177/088626000015004001
Graham, J. W. (2009). Missing data analysis: Making it
work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychol-
ogy, 60, 549–576. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.
58.110405.085530
Heinze, J. E., & Horn, S. S. (2009). Intergroup contact and
beliefs about homosexuality in adolescence. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 38, 937–951. doi:10.1007/
s10964-009-9408-x
Herek, G. M. (1986). On heterosexual masculinity: Some
psychical consequences of the social construction of
gender and sexuality. American Behavioral Scien-
tists, 29, 563–577. doi:10.1177/000276486029005005
426

Herek, G. M. (2000). Sexual prejudice and gender: Do
heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men
differ? Journal of Social Issues, 56, 251–266. doi:
10.1111/0022-4537.00164
Herek, G. M. (2009). Sexual prejudice. In T. Nelson (Ed.),
Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimina-
tion (pp. 439–465). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Hox, J. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: techniques and
applications (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Kimmel, M. S., & Mahler, M. (2003). Adolescent mas-
culinity, homophobia, and violence. American Behav-
ioral Scientist, 46, 1439–1458. doi:10.1177/
0002764203046010010
Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. E. (1996). Sex differences in
attitudes toward homosexual persons, behaviors, and
civil rights: a meta-analysis. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 22, 336–353. doi:10.1177/
0146167296224002
Korobov, N. (2004). Inoculating against prejudice: A dis-
cursive approach to homophobia and sexism in ado-
lescent male talk. Psychology of Men and Masculin-
ity, 5, 178–189. doi:10.1037/1524–9220.5.2.178
Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Diaz, E. M., & Bartkiewicz,
M. J. (2010). The 2009 National School Climate Sur-
vey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York,
NY: GLSEN.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J.
(2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Dis-
tribution of the product and resampling methods. Mul-
tivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99–128. doi:
10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4
Merrell, K. W., Gueldner, B. A., Ross, S. W., & Isava,
D. M. (2008). How effective are school bullying inter-
vention programs? A meta-analysis of intervention re-
search. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 26–42.
Mutheń, L. K., & Mutheń, B. O. (1998–2010). Mplus
user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Mutheń &
Mutheń.
O’Connell, P., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (1999). Peer in-
volvement in bullying: insights and challenges for in-
tervention. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 437–452. doi:
10.1006/jado.1999.0238
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school. What we know and
what we can do. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
Parrott, D. J. (2008). A theoretical framework for antigay
aggression: Review of established and hypothesized
effects within the context of the general aggression
model. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 933–951. doi:
10.1016/j.cpr.2008.02.001
Pascoe, C. J. (2007). Dude, you’re a fag: Masculinity and
sexuality in high school. Los Angeles, CA: University
of California Press.
Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (1995). A peek behind the fence:
Naturalistic observations of aggressive children with
remote audiovisual recording. Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 31, 548–553. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.31.4.548
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic
test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.90.5.751
Phoenix, A., Frosh, S., & Pattman, R. (2003). Producing
contradictory masculine subject positions: Narratives
of threat, homophobia and bullying in 11–14 year old
boys. Journal of Social Issues, 59, 179–195. doi:
10.1111/1540-4560.t01-1-00011
Plummer, D. C. (2001). The quest for modern manhood:
Masculine stereotypes, peer culture and the social sig-
nificance of homophobia. Journal of Adolescence, 24,
15–23. doi:10.1006/jado.2000.0370
Poteat, V. P. (2007). Peer group socialization of ho-
mophobic attitudes and behavior during adolescence.
Child Development, 78, 1830–1842. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-8624.2007.01101.x
Poteat, V. P. (2008). Contextual and moderating effects of
the peer group climate on use of homophobic epithets.
Poteat, V. P., & DiGiovanni C. D. (2010). When biased
language use is associated with bullying and domi-
nance behavior: The moderating effect of prejudice.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 1123–1133.
doi:10.1007/s10964-010-9565-y
Poteat, V. P., & Espelage, D. L. (2005). Exploring the
relation between bullying and homophobic verbal con-
tent: The Homophobic Content Agent Target (HCAT)
Scale. Violence and Victims, 20, 513–528.
Poteat, V. P., & Espelage, D. L. (2007). Predicting psy-
chosocial consequences of homophobic victimization
in middle school students. Journal of Early Adoles-
cence, 27, 175–191. doi:10.1177/0272431606294839
Poteat, V. P., Espelage, D. L., & Green, H. D. (2007). The
socialization of dominance: Peer group contextual ef-
fects on homophobia and dominance attitudes. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 1040–1050.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1040
Poteat, V. P., Kimmel, M. S., & Wilchins, R. (2011). The
moderating effects of support for violence beliefs on
masculine norms, aggression, and homophobic behav-
ior during adolescence. Journal of Research on Ado-
lescence, 21, 434–447. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.
2010.00682.x
Poteat, V. P., & Rivers, I. (2010). The use of homophobic
language across bullying roles during adolescence.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31,
166–172. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2009.11.005
Prati, G. (2012). Development and psychometric proper-
ties of the Homophobic Bullying Scale. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 72, 649–664. doi:
10.1177/0013164412440169
Prati, G., Pietrantoni, L., & D’Augelli A. R. (2011).
Aspects of Homophobia in Italian high schools: Stu-
dents’ attitudes and perceptions of school climate.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 2600–2620.
doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00842.x
Preacher, K., Zyphur, M., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general
multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel
mediation. Psychological Methods, 15, 209–233. doi:
10.1037/a0020141
Rivers, I. (2011). Homophobic bullying. Research and
theoretical perspectives. New York, NY: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Rivers, I., & D’Augelli, A. R. (2001). The victimization of
lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths: Implications for
intervention. In A. R. D. Augelli & C. J. Patterson
(Eds.), Lesbian, gay, and youths: Psychological per-
spectives (pp. 199–223). New York, NY: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Ruth, E. A., Miller, P. M., & Friman, P. C. (1996). Feed
the hungry bee: Using positive peer reports to improve
the social interactions and acceptance of a socially
rejected girl in residential care. Journal of Applied
427

Behavior Analysis, 29, 251–253. doi:10.1901/
jaba.1996.29-251
Salmivalli, C., & Voeten, M. (2004). Connections be-
tween attitudes, group norms, and behaviour in bul-
lying situations. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 28, 246–258. doi:10.1080/0165025
0344000488
Selig, J. P., & Preacher, K. J. (2008). Monte Carlo method
for assessing mediation: An interactive tool for creat-
ing conﬁdence intervals for indirect effects [Computer
software]. Retrieved from http://quantpsy.org/
Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. New
York, NY: Harper & Row.
Smith, J. D., Schneider, B. H., Smith, P. K., & Ananiadou,
K. (2004). The effectiveness of whole school antibul-
lying programs: A synthesis of evaluation research.
Sutton, J., & Smith, P. K. (1999). Bullying as a group
process: An adaptation of the participant role approach.
Aggressive Behavior, 25, 97–111. doi:10.1002/(SICI)
1098-2337(1999)25:2Ͻ97::AID-AB3Ͼ3.0.CO;2-7
Swearer, S. M., Espelage, D. L., Vaillancourt, T., &
Hymel, S. (2010). What can be done about school
bullying? Linking research to educational practice. Ed-
ucational Researcher, 39, 38–47.
Swearer, S. M., Turner, R. K., Givens, J. E., & Pollack,
W. S. (2008). “You’re so gay!” Do different forms of
bullying matter for adolescent males? School Psychol-
ogy Review, 37, 160–173.
Vaillancourt, T., Hymel, S., & McDougall, P. (2003).
Bullying is power: Implications for school-based inter-
vention strategies. Journal of Applied School Psychol-
ogy, 19, 157–176. doi:10.1300/J008v19n02_10
Vreeman, R. C., & Carroll, A. E. (2007). A systematic
review of school-based interventions to prevent bully-
ing. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine,
161, 78–88.
Date Received: February 12, 2012
Date Accepted: August 28, 2012
Action Editor: Robert J. Volpe Ⅲ
Gabriele Prati is a fellow researcher at the University of Bologna (Italy). He received a
doctoral degree in social and organizational psychology from the University of Bologna.
He teaches social psychology and work psychology at the University of Bologna.
428

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.

Social cognitive theory journal article

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (18)

Destaque

Destaque (11)

Semelhante a Social cognitive theory journal article

Semelhante a Social cognitive theory journal article (20)

Mais de Jorge Barzanas

Mais de Jorge Barzanas (7)

Último

Último (20)

Social cognitive theory journal article