Outlining Individual and Contextual Factors Related to LGBTQ+ Bullying: A Systematic Review of Two Decades of Research

Depósito de investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla https://idus.us.es/ This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Sage in Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380231165724 The final publication of this manuscript has been published and is available in Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 2024, Vol. 25(2) 898-917. https://doi.org/10.1177/152483802311657 To cite this article: Espino, E., Jiménez-Díaz, O., Del Rey, R., & Elipe, P. (2024). Outlining Individual and Contextual Factors Related to LGBTQ+ Bullying: A Systematic Review of Two Decades of Research. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 25(2), 898-917. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380231165724 Outlining individual and contextual factors related to LGBTQ+ bullying: A systematic review of two decades of research Esperanza Espinoa, Olga Jiménez-Díazb, Rosario Del Reyc, and Paz Eliped a,b,cDepartment of Developmental and Educational Psychology, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Universidad de Sevilla, Pirotecnia Street, 41013, Seville, Spain dDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities and Educational Sciences, Universidad de Jaén, Campus Las Lagunillas, 23071, Jaén, Spain a[email protected]; bojimen[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] *Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Paz Elipe, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities and Educational Sciences, Universidad de Jáen, Campus Las Lagunillas s/n, 23071, Spain, +34-953211800, e-mail: [email protected] Acknowledgements This work was supported by Andalusian Plan for Research, Development and Innovation (PAIDI, 2020). ERDF Andalusia European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) Operational AUTHOR'S ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1 Program 2014-2020 [P18-RT-2178]; and by the Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities of the Government of Spain [FPU18/02935; FPU21/05405]. Funding The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work has been funded by Andalusian Plan for Research, Development and Innovation (PAIDI, 2020). ERDF Andalusia European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) Operational Program 2014-2020 [P18-RT-2178], that well as by the grants FPU18/02935 and FPU21/05405 in the framework of the University Teacher Training Scholarship by the Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities of the Government of Spain. It was conducted by the Research Group IASED (SEJ-580). Conflict of interest Declaration of interest: none. AUTHOR'S ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 2 Outlining individual and contextual factors related to LGBTQ+ bullying: A systematic review of two decades of research Scientific interest in LGBTQ+ bullying in educational settings has grown exponentially in recent years. However, the varied ways of measuring its occurrence and associated factors have made it difficult to achieve a holistic understanding of this problem. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to provide an updated overview of individual and contextual factors related to LGBTQ+ bullying over the past two decades, based on the measurement approach to this phenomenon. Studies published from 2000 to 2020 were analyzed following the PRISMA strategy. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied in a staggered process, and 111 articles met all the criteria. Studies focusing on LGBTQ+ bullying victimization or aggression were eligible for inclusion. Our analysis revealed LGBTQ+ bullying is usually examined by measures of general aggressions (47.8%) from the victims’ perspective (87.3%). The best-represented factors across studies were individual characteristics (63.1%; n = 70), especially participants’ sexual orientation and gender identity and expression (68.5%). Boys/males, from a binary gender perspective, and sexual and gender minority youth in general, were more at risk of being targeted for LGBTQ+ bullying. Although contextual factors were far less well-represented, the results revealed that gay-straight alliances, antihomophobia policies and social support act as protective factors. This review highlights the need to analyze LGBTQ+ bullying considering the full spectrum of sexual and gender diversity, to examine in more detail its contextual risk/protective factors, and to design public policies and psychoeducational programs in order to address the low effectiveness of generic interventions. Implications for future research and practice are discussed. Keywords: bullying, LGBTQ+, victimization, aggression, risk factors, protective factors, systematic review AUTHOR'S ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 3 Introduction Scientific interest in “LGBTQ+ bullying1” in educational settings, also known as “homophobic bullying”, has increased exponentially over the past two decades (Espelage et al., 2008; Garaigordobil & Larrain, 2020). Since the first studies were published in the 1990s, a great deal of progress has been made in elucidating how LGBTQ+ bullying differs from general bullying or other types of bullying, e.g., ethno-cultural (D’Augelli, 1998; Rivers, 1995; Rodríguez & Hurtado, 2019). Specifically, LGBTQ+ bullying, or repeated and intentional aggression against sexual and gender minority youth, is based on LGBTQ+ stereotypes and prejudice (Earnshaw et al., 2018; Poteat & DiGiovanni, 2010). LGBTQ+ bullying occurs in all schools worldwide (Apostolidou, 2019; UNESCO, 2017). According to numerous studies, the main targets are lesbian, gay male, or bisexual youth, and youth perceived as such, as well as those unsure about their sexual orientation, i.e., questioning (Birkett et al., 2009; Elipe et al., 2018). However, recent research has identified other target groups, such as transgender and gender-nonconforming people – TGNC from now on (Marx et al., 2019; Russell et al., 2014). Moreover, some authors revealed that any young person, regardless of personal characteristics, could be a target of this type of aggression, mainly in the form of homophobic name-calling (Tucker et al., 2016). The occurrence of LGBTQ+ bullying has been assessed in various ways. Some studies use measures of sexual orientation and involvement in general bullying (e.g., the Youth Risk Behavior Survey [YRBS]; Pearlman & Dunn, 2016) assuming that general aggressions directed toward sexual minority youth are LGBTQ+ bullying. Other studies use validated instruments that include specific aggression characterized for being homophobic, such as Poteat and Espelage’s Homophobic Content Agent Target (HCAT) Scale (2005). 1 Although the term “homophobic bullying” is more frequently used in the scientific literature, we use LGBTQ+ bullying to be more inclusive and make gender minorities, such as transgender and gender non-conforming youth, more visible as well. However, when we refer to specific studies, we will use the original term used by the authors. AUTHOR'S ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 4 Other include direct items to assess this type of bullying, also considering the perceived motivation of the aggression (e.g., “Did you experience hostility or insensitivity as a result of your gender identity or expression from other students, your teachers or school administrators?”; Goldblum et al., 2012). The use of a wide variety of measures to analyze the occurrence of LGBTQ+ bullying has made it difficult to achieve a holistic understanding of this phenomenon. There is a significant disparity in the reported prevalence (range: 10–81%). This disparity could be explained given that there are differences according to the target group (e.g., lesbian, gay male, bisexual, or also TGNC; Elipe et al., 2018; Marx et al., 2019), the nature of the aggressions (e.g., general or specific; Camodeca et al., 2018; Espelage et al., 2017), as well as the context of the sample (e.g., LGBTQ+ association or general community samples; Albaladejo et al., 2019; Kosciw et al., 2020; Parent et al., 2020). However, most evidence points to higher prevalence of this type of bullying in LGBTQ+ youth compared to cisgender heterosexual ones, and more severe and persistent consequences of this type of bullying compared to general one (Elipe et al., 2021; Rivers, 2004; Toomey & Russell, 2016). The high prevalence of LGBTQ+ bullying and the low effectiveness of generic interventions (Monro et al., 2016) point to the need of pay more attention to risk and protective factors specific to this type of bullying in order to design more effective psychoeducational programs. According to socio-ecological theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), variables related to personality, family, school, and the social context could mediate or moderate the likelihood of involvement in LGBTQ+ bullying (Earnshaw et al., 2019). There is ample evidence that, when deficient or absent, some variables become risk factors, such as socio-familial or institutional support (Hatchel et al., 2018; Lessard et al., 2020). However, not all risk and protective factors have been analyzed in such depth. Several studies have focused on homophobia, or a set of negative beliefs and attitudes toward lesbian and gay AUTHOR'S ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 5 male youth as the basis for this type of stigma-based bullying (Carrera et al., 2013; Earnshaw et al., 2018). Thus, it is essential to identify and categorize factors that have been shown to be important in explaining LGBTQ+ bullying. Research Question The growing concern about LGBTQ+ bullying in educational settings led to increasing research worldwide. However, the scientific community has used a wide variety of measures to determine its origin and prevalence, being difficult to draw conclusions. Hence, it is necessary to systematize the available evidence to better understand this complex phenomenon and design more effective prevention and intervention strategies. This review aimed to provide a holistic and updated understanding of this type of school bullying over the last 20 years. Specifically, this review aimed to address three research questions: 1) How has been assessed the involvement in LGBTQ+ bullying in quantitative scientific studies? 2) What are the most analyzed individual factors that act as risk or protection of being involved in this type of bullying, either as a victim or as an aggressor? 3) And what are the most analyzed contextual factors that contribute to this type of bullying in victims and aggressors? Methods/Design Eligibility Criteria This systematic review included scientific articles published between 2000 and 2020 that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. First, when considering the titles and abstracts of published articles, we selected those that (a) focused on LGBTQ+ bullying or peer victimization or aggression in educational settings among sexual and gender minority youth; and (b) included a definition, conceptualization, or measurement of LGBTQ+ bullying (or at least victimization or aggression among sexual and gender minority youth). Second, when considering the full texts of articles, we excluded studies if (a) their focus was on another type of violence rather than bullying (e.g., sexual harassment); (b) the context was not AUTHOR'S ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 6 educational (e.g., Facebook); (c) they were not scientific; (d) they were not original; (e) they were not published in English; (f) the full text was not available; (g) they were duplicates; (h) they used the same sample and instruments (these were considered duplicates and only the most recent article was included); (i) they did not use a quantitative measure; or (j) they only analyzed the role of bystanders. Electronic Search To conduct this systematic review (July–October 2020) the search strategy was based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA; Urrútia & Bonfill, 2010). Five electronic psychology and education databases were searched: APA PsycArticles, APA PsycInfo, Psychology Database and ERIC (via ProQuest) and Scopus. The keywords were bullying AND lgb*, homophob*, sexual minority, gender-based2. The use of the keywords lgb* and homophob* made it possible to locate references that also included words derived from these (e.g., “LGBT” or “homophobic”, respectively). Data Collection Coding was carried out in several phases (Figure 1). The search yielded a total of 991 references. First, we reviewed the titles to eliminate duplicates, which reduced the number of articles to 483. Then, we checked their compliance with the inclusion criteria according to the titles and abstracts, of which 217 studies remained. Subsequently, we checked for compliance with the exclusion criteria by scanning the full text and completed a content analysis form. This content analysis form comprised three main sections: a) paper data, e.g., year of publication, sample characteristics (i.e., origin, size and age range), type of study design, data 2 In ProQuest: ti(BULLYING) AND ti(LGB*) OR ti(BULLYING) AND ti(HOMOPH*) OR ti(BULLYING) AND ti(SEXUAL) AND ti(MINORITY) OR ti(BULLYING) AND ti(GENDER-BASED); if(bullying) AND if(homoph*) OR if(bullying) AND if(lgb*) OR if(bullying) AND if(sexual minority) OR if(bullying) AND if(gender-based). In Scopus: ( KEY ( bullying ) AND KEY ( lgb* ) OR KEY ( homophob* ) OR KEY ( sexual AND minority ) OR KEY ( gender-based ) ) AND DOCTYPE ( ar OR re ) AND PUBYEAR > 1999; ( TITLE ( bullying ) AND TITLE ( lgb* ) OR TITLE ( homophob* ) OR TITLE ( sexual AND minority ) OR TITLE ( gender-based ) ) AND DOCTYPE ( ar OR re ) AND PUBYEAR > 1999. AUTHOR'S ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 7 analysis, and LGBTQ+ terms used (i.e., sexual and gender minorities); b) measure of LGBTQ+ bullying, e.g., nature of aggressions and roles of involvement analyzed; and c) factors associated with LGBTQ+ bullying, e.g., presence or absence and name of factor. The use of this predesigned instrument was agreed upon by the research group. Two team members analyzed several articles separately to verify the suitability of the content analysis form. Finally, we pooled the information to identify categories lacking consensus, and repeated this process until a consensus was reached. We then used the content analysis form tool to code the information extracted from the 217 texts, and 111 studies met all of the criteria (Figure 1). To verify the reliability of the data extracted, we selected and analyzed 20% of it (n = 22). An external collaborator unrelated to the research project was asked to read this subsample of articles and systematize the data. The inter-judge agreement was over 85%. [Figure 1] To determine how LGBTQ+ bullying is measured, we used the second section of the content analysis form to collect information on the types of instruments used, definition of the phenomenon, roles of involvement (i.e., victim or aggressor), types of response (e.g., dichotomous), period in which aggressions were measured (e.g., in the last two months), and nature of the aggressions (i.e., general or specific). To identify factors associated with LGBTQ+ bullying, we used the third section of the content analysis form in which we first considered their presence (i.e., yes or no) and type (i.e., individual or contextual). We then created the following 12-category system based on all collected factors during the reading process: 1) Demographics: participant characteristics (e.g., age, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status); 2) SOGIE: sexual orientation, gender identity and expression; 3) Emotional competence: presence or absence of skills to identify, express, manage or regulate one’s own or others’ emotions; 4) Health and well-being: low self- AUTHOR'S ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 14 Against this background, it is necessary to highlight the great change that we have experienced in our understanding of the concept of diversity in general, and more specifically in our understanding of sexual and gender diversity, in both the research and social context. It is important to be aware of the constant changes in the terms used to refer to sexual and gender minorities in recent decades. This review demonstrates that over half of the previous studies on LGBTQ+ bullying focused on sexual minorities only (e.g., McNamee et al., 2008; Poteat & Espelage, 2005). Our synthesis also provides evidence that, over time, other dimensions such as gender identity and gender expression, or TGNC, have begun to be analyzed, albeit only in one third of studies (e.g., Aragon et al., 2014; Hatchel & Marx, 2018). Similarly, non-binary approaches to gender have been taken in a few relatively recent studies (Day et al., 2019; Goldblum et al., 2012; Marx et al., 2019). Specifically, we noticed that “transgender” youth were first discussed in the study of LGBTQ+ bullying of Rivers & Cowie (2006), while “queer” youth were mentioned in Russell et al. (2014). Hence, this review suggests that LGBTQ+ bullying research is still an emerging and constantly evolving topic, similar to social awareness of sexual and gender diversity. Individual and Contextual Factors associated with LGBTQ+ Bullying over the Past 20 Years The results of this review reflect the efforts of the scientific community to understand LGBTQ+ bullying by exploring primarily individual, but also contextual, factors (Earnshaw et al., 2019). Our second research question concerned the individual factors associated with LGBTQ+ bullying victimization or aggression. According to the results of this review, the most widely examined individual-level factor was SOGIE. We note a remarkable consensus across studies with respect to the greater involvement of boys/males – from a binary gender perspective – and sexual and gender minority youth in LGBTQ+ bullying, with the latter AUTHOR'S ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 15 especially being involved as victims (Kurki et al., 2019; McNamee et al., 2008). In general, studies assess SOGIE in a very narrow way. However, SOGIE is a broad term that encompasses a diverse range of sexual orientations and gender identities and expressions. This review demonstrates that sexual orientation is the most frequently measured dimension across studies, most of which included only lesbian, gay male, and bisexual youths (Ash & Lo, 2018). Additionally, studies that measured gender often did so from a binary perspective, such that only boy/male or girl/female categories were included (Poteat, Scheer et al., 2013). Although TGNC youth, and those perceived by their peers to be, but not self-identifying as, sexual and gender minorities are also at great risk of being victimized (D’Urso & Pace, 2019), they are not equally represented in LGBTQ+ bullying research. Therefore, our understanding of the risk of involvement in LGBTQ+ bullying within minority groups is poor. For instance, Day et al. (2019) revealed that bisexual youths had lower odds of experiencing this type of bullying compared to lesbian and gay male youths. Demographic characteristics have been widely analyzed as factors associated with LGBTQ+ bullying, particularly ethnicity and age. However, the results are largely inconsistent. This review suggests the need for caution when interpreting results regarding the potential role of demographics as a risk or protective factor for involvement in LGBTQ+ bullying, as a victim or aggressor. Discrepancies across studies in this respect suggest a critical influence of cultural differences among countries, similar to the case of general bullying (Xu et al., 2020). For example, there are differences in the age at which adolescents are considered to be entering adulthood, which could influence classifications of “younger” and “older” across studies. There are also differences in the distribution of academic years and educational stages, respect and tolerance for ethnocultural diversity, and even the normalization of violence (Gaffney et al., 2019). Considering that most previous studies were conducted in the US, we should avoid generalizing the results of this review. AUTHOR'S ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 16 Another individual-level variable frequently included in studies on LGBTQ+ bullying is Violence and risk behaviors. Most studies focused on violent behavior, and there is a widespread consensus among researchers that being involved in other types of peer violence, or witnessing it, increases the risk of involvement in LGBTQ+ bullying (Prati, 2012; Marx et al., 2019). According to the theory of normative social behavior, adolescents and young people behave toward their peers according to perceived relationship norms (Rimal & Lapinski, 2015). Hence, witnessing these violent behaviors, as well as feeling validated or supported for doing so, could lead to violence being understood as a normative behavior within the context in which one is familiar, thereby increasing the likelihood of engaging in such behavior. The articles included in this review also examined LGBTQ+ stigma, mainly in terms of prejudice toward sexual and gender minority youths. Although these stereotypes and prejudices are mainly homophobic in nature, their connection with sexism and gender stereotypes is clear (Carrera et al., 2013; Espelage et al., 2017). However, to date, few studies have analyzed LGBTQ+ prejudices and beliefs about diversity from a broad perspective. These results are in line with those related to SOGIE, where previous research placed greater emphasis on sexual orientation than on other dimensions, such as gender identities and expressions. Moreover, more attention has been paid to some sexual orientations (e.g., lesbian and gay orientation) than others (e.g., bisexual or questioning). Finally, variables related to Emotional competence, Health and well-being, and Social competence were found to be the least well-explored by previous studies, in terms of the origin of LGBTQ+ bullying; this is consistent with the traditional approach of incorporating these factors into studies of the consequences of this type of bullying (Elipe et al., 2021; Jomar et al., 2020; Poteat & Espelage, 2007). AUTHOR'S ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 17 Our third research question concerned the contextual factors associated with involvement in LGBTQ+ bullying, as a victim or aggressor. Among contextual-level factors, the most deeply examined was found to be LGBTQ+ policies. According to the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (Monro et al., 2016), and based on previous scientific evidence, factors such as the existence of GSAs and inclusive sex education can decrease the prevalence of LGBTQ+ bullying (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2019). However, generic anti-bullying policies, which do not take into account the specific characteristics of this type of bullying, are less effective (Kull & Greytak, 2016). Social support is another contextual variable traditionally analyzed in relation to bullying involvement. There is sufficient evidence that strong family and peer support, as well as the presence of other adult attachment figures such as teachers, are important sources of protection against LGBTQ+ bullying (Rivers & Cowie, 2006). Among these three types of support, peer support appears to be the most crucial for protection against involvement in LGBTQ+ bullying, as either a victim or aggressor. This type of support also mitigates the negative consequences of bullying involvement (Jomar et al., 2020). These findings indicate that adolescents spend more time with their peers and give more importance to their opinions, such that this group is more influential (Batool & Lewis, 2022). Although School connectedness has been scarcely explored in association with LGBTQ+ bullying, a few studies found that a good school climate and sense of belonging buffer the negative consequences of LGBTQ+ bullying, i.e., decrease the severity of its impact (Duong & Bradshaw, 2014). These findings are in line with research on general bullying, wherein school connectedness is considered a protective factor against peer violence (Doumas & Midgett, 2019). It should be noted that there is extensive literature on individual-level risk factors and, to a lesser extent, contextual variables, as protective against LGBTQ+ bullying involvement. AUTHOR'S ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 18 The most widely analyzed of these factors are SOGIE and demographics, such as ethnicity and age, which are essentially non-modifiable. Hence, although research on individual variables allows us to better understand this type of violence, it does not provide clear indications regarding how to prevent it and intervene effectively. Therefore, based on the results of this review, we suggest that there is a need to further investigate the role of contextual variables in this type of bullying, especially considering the social basis of stigmabased bullying (which includes LGBTQ+ bullying). Implications for Research and Practice The main implications of this systematic review of research and practice are shown in Table 3. This review emphasizes the importance of agreement among the scientific community in terms of how to measure LGBTQ+ bullying (especially possible targets thereof and the nature of the aggression), as well as the use of standardized and validated tools designed specifically for this type of bullying. This would increase the comparability and generalizability of future findings. Moreover, additional studies are needed to expand our knowledge of the role of context in this type of violence. In other words, SOGIE should no longer be the sole focus of studies regarding the risk of involvement in LGBTQ+ bullying. In fact, we already know that context plays an essential role in the origin and maintenance of social stigma toward sexual and gender minority youth, which is a critical issue with respect to the occurrence of this problem (Earnshaw et al., 2018). Longitudinal studies with several waves of data collection would be helpful to elucidate the most important individual and contextual risk and protective factors over time. The study of LGBTQ+ bullying aims to correct a frequent bias in this field of research, namely the assumption that bullying is equally distributed among students. On the contrary, as demonstrated by studies on LGBTQ+ bullying and the present review, sexual and gender minority youth are more likely to be AUTHOR'S ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 19 victims of this type of bullying, which must be considered in order to fully understand this phenomenon and its underlying factors. This review provides key insights at the psychoeducational, social, and political levels. Specifically, our findings could increase awareness of this problem among policymakers, the entire educational community (i.e., school administrators, teachers, students, and families), and other important agents operating in the educational environment (e.g., social workers), as well as improve understanding of the keys to detecting and preventing LGBTQ+ bullying, and the urgency of the need for comprehensive measures to address it. Shining a light on structural violence perpetrated in the context of sexual and gender diversity is important in terms of justice; however, above all, it is essential to design effective prevention and intervention measures that reach all young people, as opposed to only some of them. The design and implementation of comprehensive, targeted public policies and psychoeducational programs to reduce or eradicate LGBTQ+ bullying is of great importance to address the low effectiveness of generic interventions (Monro et al., 2016). [Table 3] Limitations The results of this review should be considered in light of some limitations. First, we did not have access to the full text of all of the scientific articles initially selected. Therefore, some papers related to the topic could not be considered for inclusion. Also, although we searched several databases, we did not review all of them. Finally, the vast majority of the studies were conducted in the US, so we must be cautious when generalizing the results. Conclusions Despite some limitations, this review provides important insight into the origin of LGBTQ+ bullying, based on the available evidence of this type of bullying accrued over the past two decades. This review delineates the factors most commonly analyzed in relation to this type AUTHOR'S ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 20 of bullying, and indicates whether they are risk or protective factors for involvement. There is a large body of research on individual-level factors associated with LGBTQ+ bullying victimization or aggression, such as SOGIE and demographics (e.g., ethnic minority or age group). Although there is a less-established scientific tradition of investigating the contextual factors associated with LGBTQ+ bullying, we note the importance ascribed to LGBTQ+ policies in the literature. This review suggests that there is a need to explore other contextual factors in more depth, such as those linked to the family, school, peer group or institutions. Hence, future research should address the impact of other individual and contextual factors, including in terms of various LGBTQ+ bullying roles about which less is currently known, such as the aggressor, victim and bystander roles. It would also be interesting to extend the analysis to other types of violence, such as LGBTQ+ cyberbullying. Another contribution of this review is that it highlights the need to extend the concept of gender beyond the binary perspective. The traditional binary approach biases both analyses and the interpretation of results. The use of a non-binary gender perspective would promote inclusivity and reduce bias. To this end, current LGBTQ+ bullying measurement approaches and response options should be reviewed. There remains an urgent need to design specific prevention and intervention measures that can effectively reduce, or even eradicate, this social and structural problem. References *Aerts, S., Dewaele, A., Cox, N., & Van Houtte, M. (2014). Homonegativity in the technical and vocational track: A survey of secondary school students in Flanders. Journal of LGBT Youth, 11(4), 364–387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2014.910485 *Albaladejo, N., Ferrer, R., Ruiz, N., Sánchez, M., Fernández, M., Delvecchio, E., & Arango, J. (2019). Health-related quality of life and mental health of adolescents involved in school bullying and homophobic verbal content bullying. International Journal of AUTHOR'S ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 21 Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(14), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16142622 *Apostolidou, Z. (2019). Homophobic and transphobic bullying within the school community in Cyprus: A thematic analysis of school professionals’, parents’ and children’s experiences. Sex Education, 20(1), 46–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2019.1612347 *Aragon, S., Poteat, V., Espelage, D., & Koenig, B. (2014). The influence of peer victimization on educational outcomes for LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ high school students. Journal of LGBT Youth, 11(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2014.840761 *Ash, W., & Lo, C. (2018). Intersections of gender and sexual minority status: Co-occurring bullying victimization among adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 262– 270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.023 Batool, S., & Lewis, C. (2022). Does positive parenting predict pro-social behavior and friendship quality among adolescents? Emotional intelligence as a mediator. Current Psychology, 41(4), 1997–2011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00719-y *Berlan, E. D., Corliss, H. L., Field, A. E., Goodman, E., & Bryn Austin, S. (2015). Sexual orientation and bullying among adolescents in the growing up today study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 46(4), 366–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.10.015 *Birkett, M., Espelage, D., & 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(7), 989–1000. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-008-9389-1 Bronfenbrenner, V. (1979). The ecology of human development. Harvard University Press. AUTHOR'S ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 22 *Burk, J., Park, M., & Saewyc, E. (2018). A media-based school intervention to reduce sexual orientation prejudice and its relationship to discrimination, bullying, and the mental health of lesbian, gay, and bisexual adolescents in western Canada: A population-based evaluation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(11), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15112447 *Camodeca, M., Baiocco, R., & Posa, O. (2018). Homophobic bullying and victimization among adolescents: The role of prejudice, moral disengagement, and sexual orientation. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 16(5), 503–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2018.1466699 *Carrera, M., Lameiras, M., Rodríguez, Y., & Vallejo, P. (2013). Bullying among Spanish secondary education students: The role of gender traits, sexism, and homophobia. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(14), 2915–2940. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260513488695 *Cooper, R., & Blumenfeld, W. (2012). Responses to cyberbullying: A descriptive analysis of the frequency of and impact on LGBT and allied youth. Journal of LGBT Youth, 9(2), 153–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2011.649616 *D’Augelli, A., Hershberger, S., & Pilkington, N. (1998). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and their families: Disclosure of sexual orientation and its consequences. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68, 361–371. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0080345 *Day, J., Snapp, S., & Russell, S. (2016). Supportive, not punitive, practices reduce homophobic bullying and improve school connectedness. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity 3(4), 416–425. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000195 *Day, J., Fish, J., Grossman, A., & Russell, S. (2019). Gay-straight alliances, inclusive policy, and school climate: LGBTQ youths’ experiences of social support and AUTHOR'S ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 23 bullying. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 30(2), 418–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12487 Doumas, & Midgett, A. (2019). The Effects of Students’ Perceptions of Teachers’ Antibullying Behavior on Bullying Victimization: Is Sense of School Belonging a Mediator? Journal of Applied School Psychology, 35(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2018.1479911 *Duong, J., & Bradshaw, C. (2014). Associations between bullying and engaging in aggressive and suicidal behaviors among sexual minority youth: The moderating role of connectedness. Journal of School Health, 84(10), 636–645. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12196 *D’Urso, G., & Pace, U. (2019). Homophobic bullying among adolescents: The role of insecure-dismissing attachment and peer support. Journal of LGBT Youth, 16(2), 173– 191. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2018.1552225 *Earnshaw, V., Menino, D., Sava, L., Perrotti, J., Barnes, T., Humphrey, D., & Reisner, S. (2019). LGBTQ bullying: A qualitative investigation of student and school health professional perspectives. Journal of LGBT Youth, 17(3), 280–297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2019.1653808 Earnshaw, V., Reisner, S., Menino, D., Poteat, P., Bogart, L., Barnes, T., & Schuster, M. (2018). Stigma-based bullying interventions: A systematic review. Developmental Review, 18, 178–200. https://doi.org/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(5), 672–686. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2017.1333809 AUTHOR'S ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 30 *Russell, S., Toomey, R., Ryan, C., & Diaz, R. (2014). Being out at school: The implications for school victimization and young adult adjustment. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 84(6), 635–643. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ort0000037 *Seelman, K. L., & Walker, M. B. (2018). Do anti-bullying laws reduce in-school victimization, fear-based absenteeism, and suicidality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and questioning youth? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(11), 2301–2319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0904-8 *Sterzing, P., Hong, J., Gartner, R., & Auslander, W. (2016). Child maltreatment and bullying victimization among a community-based sample of sexual minority youth: The meditating role of psychological distress. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 9(4), 283–293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40653-016-0101-4 Toomey, R., & Russell, S. (2016). The role of sexual orientation in school-based victimization: a meta-analysis. Youth and Society 48, 176–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X13483778 *Tucker, J., Ewing, B., Espelage, D., Green, H., de la Haye, K., & Pollard, M. (2016). Longitudinal associations of homophobic name-calling victimization with psychological distress and alcohol use during adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 59(1), 110–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.03.018 UNESCO (2017). Out in the open: education sector responses to violence based on sexual orientation or gender identity/expression: summary report. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000244652 Urrútia, G., & Bonfill, X. (2010). PRISMA declaration: A proposal to improve the publication of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Medicina Clinica, 135(11), 507–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medcli.2010.01.015 AUTHOR'S ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 31 Xu, M., Macrynikola, N., Waseem, M., & Miranda, R. (2020). Racial and ethnic differences in bullying: Review and implications for intervention. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 50, 101340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2019.101340 (*) Articles also included in this systematic review. AUTHOR'S ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Figure 1. Selection process of scientific articles included in the systematic review. Abstracts screened: (n = 483) Records identified through database searching: (N = 991) Duplicates (n = 508) Articles excluded: (a) not focused on homophobic bullying (n = 167) (c) not a scientific article (n = 81) (d) not an original study (n = 16) (e) not in English (n = 2) Full text articles considered for eligibility (n = 217) Articles excluded: (a) not focused on homophobic bullying (n = 29) (b) not school context (n = 3) (e) not in English (n = 9) (f) full text not available (n = 2) (h) same sample and measures (n = 16) (i) non-quantitative, non-specific measure of homophobic bullying (n = 37) (j) bystander role (n = 9) Articles included in the synthesis: (n = 111) AUTHOR'S ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 1. Critical findings on individual and contextual risk/protective factors of being a victim or an aggressor of LGBTQ+ bullying. Victim Aggressor Individual-level factors SOGIE LGBTQ+ (-) Male/boy (-) Male/boy (-) Demographics Inconsistent results about ethnicity and age Inconsistent results about ethnicity and age Violence and risk behaviors Involved in general bullying/cyberbullying (-) Victim of LGBTQ+ bullying (-) Having experienced another type of violence (-) Involved in general bullying/cyberbullying (-) Victim of LGBTQ+ bullying (-) Having experienced another type of violence (-) LGBTQ+ stigma - Prejudice towards LGBTQ+ people (-) Homophobic language or attitudes (-) Emotional competence Empathy (x) Low empathy (-) Perspective-taking (-) Social competence - Dominance behavior (-) Health and well-being - Insecure dismissing attachment (-) Psychological distress (-) Contextual-level factors LGBTQ+ policies Gay-straight alliances (GSAs), anti-homophobia school policies and LGBTQ-inclusive sex education (+) Generic anti-bullying policies (x) LGBT-supportive practices Peer support Peer support (+) Low peer support (-) Teacher support Teacher support (+) Teacher support (+) Family support Family support (+) - School connectedness Connectedness to an adult in the school (+) School belonging (+) Educational attainment (+) - Note. In each column: (-) = Risk factor, (+) = Protective factor, (x) = No effect. AUTHOR'S ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 2. Individual and contextual risk/protective factors related to LGBTQ+ bullying, according to the measurement approach used. Author(s) Country Role Design Factors Results General aggression Aerts et al. (2014) Belgium A C 1. Demographics 2. SOGIE 6. LGBTQ+ stigma LGB youth (-) Lower educational tracks (x) Homonegativity (x) Aragon et al. (2014) US V C 2. SOGIE LGBTQ youth (-) Ash & Lo (2018) US V C 1. Demographics 2. SOGIE Overweight/obesity (-) Younger age (-) Minority race/ethnicity (+) LGB youth (-) Austin et al. (2017) US V L 2. SOGIE LGB youth (-) Ballard et al. (2017) US V C 1.Demographics 2. SOGIE LGBQ youth, mainly rural LGBQ (-) Berlan et al. (2015) US V, A C 2. SOGIE Victim: Sexual minorities compared to heterosexual youth (-) Aggressor: Gay male youth less likely bully others compared to heterosexual one (-) Carrera et al. (2013) Spain A C 2. SOGIE 6. LGBTQ+ stigma Being boy (-) Benevolent sexism (+) Positive attitudes towards gay men (+) Neutral attitudes toward bullying (-) Crothers et al. (2017) US V C 1. Demographics 2. SOGIE LGBT youth (-) Higher grades (- / +) Duong & Bradshaw (2014) US V C 11. School connectedness Connectedness to an adult (+) Elipe et al. (2018) Spain V C 2. SOGIE LGBQ youth (-) Garaigordobil & Larrain (2020) Spain V, A C 2. SOGIE Victim: Non-heterosexual youth (-) Aggressor: Non-heterosexual youth (x) Goodenow et al. (2016) US V C 1. Demographics 2. SOGIE Older age (+) LGB youth (-) Hatchel & Marx (2018) US V C 1. Demographics 2. SOGIE Low SES (-) Youth of Color Status (-) Transgender youth (-) Hatzenbuehler et al. (2015) US V C 1. Demographics 2. SOGIE Hate crime in the neighborhood (-) LGBT youth (-) Violent and property crimes (x) AUTHOR'S ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1 7.Violence and risk behaviors Huang et al. (2018) China V C 2. SOGIE LGB youth (-) Jackman et al. (2020) US V C 1. Demographics 2. SOGIE Ethnic minority (-) LGBQ youth (-) Johnson et al. (2011) US V C 2. SOGIE 8.Family support LGBQ youth (-) Caregiver support (x) Konishi & Saewyc (2014) Canada V C 2. SOGIE LGB youth (-) Kurki et al. (2019) Finland V, A C 2. SOGIE Sexual minority youth (-) Llorent et al. (2016) Spain V, A C 1.Demographics 2. SOGIE Victim: LGBTQ youth, mainly ethnic-cultural group (-) Small location (+) Intermediate grade (-) Aggressor: LGBTQ youth, mainly ethnic-cultural group, and boys (-) Small location (+) Lower and upper grades (+) Marx et al. (2019) US V C 2. SOGIE 7. Violence and risk behaviors TGNC youth, mainly male at birth (-) Bia-based peer victimization (-) McNamee et al. (2008) Ireland V C 2. SOGIE LGB youth, mainly males (-) Mennicke et al. (2020) US V C 2. SOGIE LGBQ youth (-) Mittleman (2018) US V C 1. Demographics 2. SOGIE Pre-adolescence, mid-adolescence (-) LGB youth (-) Moran et al. (2018) US V-A C 2. SOGIE Transgender youth (-) Mueller et al. (2015) US V C 1. Demographics 2. SOGIE White, Hispanic bisexual females (-) Black community (x) LGB youth (-) Myers et al. (2017) US, Brazil, UK, Portugal, Canada V C 2. SOGIE Non-monosexual youth, i.e., bisexual, pansexual, or queer (-) Transgender youth (-) O’Malley Olsen et al. (2014) US V C 2. SOGIE Being male (-) LGB youth (-) Phillips II et al. (2017) US V C 2. SOGIE 7. Violence and risk behaviors Bisexual youth (-) Same-sex sexual intercourse (-) AUTHOR'S ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 2 Poteat & DiGiovanni (2010) US A C 1. Demographics 2. SOGIE 5.Social competence 6. LGBTQ+ stigma Racial minorities (-) Upper secondary school (-) Being boy (-) Dominance behavior (-) Biased language (-) Poteat & Rivers (2010) US A C 1. Demographics 2. SOGIE 6. LGBTQ+ stigma Ethnicity (x) Upper high school (-) Being boy (-) Use of homophobic epithets (-) Poteat et al. (2012) US V, A L 1. Demographics 7. Violence and risk behaviors Victim: Older age (- /+) Previous bullying (-) Ethnicity (x) Aggressor: Older age (- / +) Previous bullying (-) Ethnicity (x) Poteat, Scherer et al. (2013) US V L 1. Demographics 2. SOGIE 7. Violence and risk behaviors Older age, specifically in males (-) Being male (-) Previous homophobic victimization (-) Proulx et al. (2019) US V C 2. SOGIE 12. LGBTQ+ policies LG youth (-) LGBTQ-inclusive sex education (+) Rivers & Cowie (2006) UK V C 2. SOGIE 6. LGBTQ+ stigma 8. Family support 9. Peer support 10.Teacher support GBT youth, mainly men (-) Exposure to peer group vs. individuals (-) Friends, family, or teachers’ support (+) Openness about sexual orientation (-) Rodrigues et al. (2016) Portugal V C 1. Demographics 2. SOGIE Early ages (for boys not for girls) (-) Being a boy (to perpetrate bullying) (-) Seelman & Walker (2018) US V C 2. SOGIE 12. LGBTQ+ policies Anti-bullying laws (+), specially for boys (+) but not for girls (x) Sterzing et al. (2016) US V C 4. Health and well-being 7. Violence and risk behaviors Higher levels of emotional, physical, and sexual abuse (-) Psychological distress (-) Webb et al. (2020) US V C 1. Demographics 2. SOGIE White community (-) Black community (+) LGBQ youth (-) Williams et al. (2003) Canada V C 2. SOGIE LGBQ youth (-) Ybarra et al. (2015) US V C 2. SOGIE 9. Peer support LGBT youth (-) Social support (+) Zou & Andersen (2015) US V C 2. SOGIE Mostly heterosexual or LGB youth (compared to heterosexual ones) (-) AUTHOR'S ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 3 Homophobic motivation, General aggression Baruch-Dominguez et al. (2016) Mexico V C 1. Demographics 2. SOGIE Age (x) Geographical origin (x) GB youth, mainly men (-) Birkett et al. (2009) US V C 2.SOGIE LGBQ youth (-) Sexual questioning (-) Bouris et al. (2016) US V C 2. SOGIE LGBQ youth (-) Burk et al. (2018) UK V C 6. LGBTQ+ stigma 12. LGBTQ+ policies Specific interventions (+) GSA/anti-homophobia school policies (x) Cooper & Blumenfeld (2012) US V C 1. Demographics 2. SOGIE Ethnicity (+) LGBT youth (-) Coulter et al. (2017) US V C 2. SOGIE LGBT youth (-) Day et al. (2016) US V, A C 10.Teacher support Teachers’ supportive practices (+) Day et al. (2019) US V C 1. Demographics 2. SOGIE 12.LGBTQ+ policies Black and multiracial community (+) Being male (-) Bisexual youth (+) Transgender youth (-) GSAs and LGBTQ policies (+) Goldblum et al. (2012) US V C 1. Demographics 2. SOGIE SES (x) Age of gender identity’s awareness (x) Age in which individuals began transitioning (x) Early ages (-) Multiracial community (-) Being trans man (-) Transgender youth (-) Gower et al. (2017) US V, A C 2. SOGIE 12. LGBTQ+ policies Victim: LGBQ youth (-) LGBT-supportive practices (+) Aggressor: LGBQ youth (-) LGBT-supportive practices (+) Greytak et al. (2013) US V C 10. Teacher support 12. LGBTQ+ policies Supportive educators (+) GSAs and LGBT-inclusive curricula (+) Hatzenbuehler et al. (2019) US V C 6. LGBTQ+ stigma 12.LGBTQ+ policies SOGIE social awareness event (+) GSAs (+) Henrickson (2006) New Zealand V C 1. Demographics 2. SOGIE 11. School connectedness Older ages (+) Being male (-) Lower educational attainment (-) AUTHOR'S ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 4 Jomar et al. (2020) Brazil V C 1. Demographics 2. SOGIE 4. Health and well-being 8. Family support 9. Peer support 12. LGBTQ+ policies Ethnicity (x) SES (x) Pre-adolescence (-) Being male (-) Loneliness (-) Sleeping difficulties (-) Family / peer support (+) School’s anti-bullying policies (x) Jones & Clarke (2008) UK V C 2. SOGIE LB youth, mainly females (-) Kosciw et al. (2009) US V C 1. Demographics 2. SOGIE Ethnic minority (+) African American/Black youth (+) Rural communities (-) Urban areas (+) School district characteristics (-) Older ages (+) Higher ratio in the school (+) Being female (+) Sexual orientation (-) Transgender youth (-) Kosciw et al. (2013) US V C 10. Teacher support 11. School connectedness 12. LGBTQ+ policies Supportive educators (+) Inclusive curriculum (+) Specific support networks, such as GSAs (+) Comprehensive policy (x) Kull & Greytak (2016) US V C 12. LGBTQ+ policies SOGIE policies (+) Anti-bullying policies (x) Nappa et al. (2019) Italy V, A C 2. SOGIE 4.Health and wellbeing 7. Violence and risk behaviors Victim: Being boy (-) LGB youth (-) Aggressor: Being boy (-) Being a nonhomophobic bully (-) Being a victim of homophobic bullying with high psychopathy and narcissism (-) Machiavellianism (-) Peter et al. (2015) Canada V C 2. SOGIE 7. Violence and risk behaviors LGBQ or being perceived as LGBQ (-) Non-physical abuse (-) Pollitt et al. (2018) US V C 1. Demographics 2. SOGIE Minority race/ethnicity (-) LGBQ youth (-) Poteat et al. (2011) US V C 2. SOGIE LGBTQ youth (-) Prati (2012) Italy V, A C 2. SOGIE 6. LGBTQ+ stigma 7. Violence and risk behavior Victim: Being male (-) LG youth (-) Being victim of homophobic verbal offenses (-) Aggressor: Being male (-) Homophobic aggression (-) Homophobic verbal offenses (-) AUTHOR'S ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 5 Price-Feeney et al. (2018) US V C 1. Demographics 2. SOGIE Ethnicity (-) Religion (-) LGBQ+ youth (-) Transgender (-) Rodríguez & Hurtado (2019) Spain V C 1. Demographics 2. SOGIE 3. Emotional competence 4. Health and well-being 5. Social competence 7. Violence and risk behaviors Age (x) LGB youth (-) Bullying involvement (-) Self-depreciation (-) Affective empathy (- / x) Cognitive empathy (x) Self-esteem (x) Self-confidence (x) Social skills (x) Rose et al. (2018) US V C 2. SOGIE Sex (x) Sexual minority youth (-) Russell et al. (2014) US V C 1. Demographics 2. SOGIE 6. LGBTQ+ stigma Higher SES (+) Being female (+) Queer youth (-) Being out at school and hiding one’s sexual orientation (-) Homophobic motivation, Specific aggression Albaladejo et al. (2019) Spain V, A, V-A C 2. SOGIE Being boy (-) António & Moleiro (2015) Portugal V C 2. SOGIE Being male (-) LGB youth (-) Blais et al. (2014) Canada V C 1. Demographics 2. SOGIE Older ages (+) Gender identity (x) Burton et al. (2013) US V L 2. SOGIE Sexual minority youth (-) Collier et al. (2012) Netherlands V C 2. SOGIE Being male (-) Homosexual youth (-) Gender non-conformity (-) Espelage et al. (2017) US A L 6. LGBTQ+ stigma 7.Violence and risk behaviors Bullying (-) Sexual harassment (-) Dismissiveness of sexual harassment (-) Traditional masculinity (x) Hatchel et al. (2020) US V L 1. Demographics 2. SOGIE Older ages (+) Early middle high school (-) Being male (-) LGBQ youth (-) Merrin et al. (2018) US A L 3. Emotional competence 5. Social competence 6. LGBTQ+ stigma 7. Violence and risk behaviors Impulsivity (-) Popularity (x) Friends’ influence on the use of homophobic language or bullying perpetration (x) Friends’ influence on homophobic teasing behaviors (-) Dominance (x) Traditional masculinity, femininity (x) Positive attitudes of bullying (x) AUTHOR'S ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT