Understanding the factors associated with bystander responses to LGBTQ+ discrimination in higher education.

LGBTQ+ individuals on college campuses often face discriminatory behaviors, from subtle microaggressions to overt acts of violence (Dessel et al., 2017). Bystander intervention, where individuals witness a harmful situation and take action to intervene or help, is a crucial strategy for creating safer and more inclusive campus environments. This preliminary study explores the factors associated with heterosexual and cisgender college students’ intentions to intervene when witnessing LGBTQ+ discrimination on campus. Data from 236 heterosexual and cisgender college students in Italy (Mage = 21.61; SD = 1.61; 76% women) were collected via an online survey. The survey assessed participants’ intentions to intervene in four specific types of LGBTQ+ discrimination: discriminatory jokes, online harassment, unfair treatment, and verbal harassment (Dessel et al., 2017). Additionally, it measured the perceived inclusivity of the campus environment (Szymanski & Bissonette, 2020), the frequency and quality of LGBTQ+ representation in the classroom, and the number of LGBTQ+ friends. Multiple regression analyses showed that having LGBTQ+ friends outside the university was positively associated with intervention in cases of discriminatory jokes, β = 0.28, p = 0.039, unfair treatment, β = 0.35, p = 0.001, and verbal harassment, β = 0.35, p = 0.003. Cisgender men were less likely to intervene in situations of discriminatory jokes, β = -0.27, p = 0.04,1 and online harassment, β = -0.34, p = 0.001, than cisgender women. A non-inclusive LGBTQ+ campus climate was negatively associated with intervention during instances of unfair treatment, β = -0.43, p < 0.001, and verbal harassment, β = -0.37, p = 0.001. Significant interactions were also found between the frequency and quality of LGBTQ+ representation in class. For both unfair treatments, β = 0.32, p = 0.004, and verbal harassment, β = 0.26, p = 0.001, the quality of representation played a moderating role. Specifically, when LGBTQ+ representation was negative, more frequent exposure to LGBTQ+ topics was negatively associated with intervention, both for unfair treatment, β = -0.42, p = 0.003, and verbal harassment, β = -.39, p < 0.001. Similarly, when representation was neutral, a negative association with intervention was observed (β = -0.23, p = 0.004 for unfair treatment; β = -0.27, p < 0.001 for verbal harassment). No significant association was found for positive representations of LGBTQ+ issues (β = 0.06, p = 0.698 for unfair treatment; β = -0.01, p = 0.939 for verbal harassment). The explained variance in the models varied from 8% for discriminatory jokes to 10% for online harassment, 28% for unfair treatment and 34% for verbal harassment. These results suggest that social connections with LGBTQ+ individuals and the campus climate play a key role in shaping bystander intervention. Having LGBTQ+ friends increases intervention likelihood, while a non-inclusive campus discourages it, emphasizing the need for greater inclusivity. Additionally, LGBTQ+ representation in class must be positive and supportive, as negative or neutral portrayals can reduce intervention, highlighting the importance of thoughtful, inclusive discussions about LGBTQ+ issues in educational settings.