Social Norms In Public Schools
Pluralistic ignorance is of greatest influence when the motivation of an individual’s behavior is fear of social disapproval (Berkowitz, 2003). This is most especially true for males who face acceptance by peers through a masculine image. Often times this type of acceptance comes at the cost of one suppressing behavior that may be viewed as incongruent to the masculine image despite the fact that the individual does not genuinely agree with the norm. Ultimately, this becomes false consensus or unintentional encouragement to those males who exemplify the masculine image and may result in a perpetuation of belief that the inappropriate behaviors are seemingly congruent with expected social norms.
Research indicates the leadership practices within a school potentially have a …show more content…
greater impact than policies or procedures in the scope of teacher intervention in incidents of gendered harassment or homophobia (Alemán, 2009; Lugg, 2003; Meyer, 2010; Murray, 2011; Roffman, 2000; Rottmann, 2006). Stated more simply, leaders set the tone through expectations of anticipated behavioral norms. Staff and students alike, through normative conformity, are expected to abide by such norms, regardless if they are unjust. The above references present important information considering the previous suggestions that school officials may have been unresponsive to acts of anti-gay bias and harassment (Elze, 2003; Griffin & Ouellett, 2003; Horn et al., 2008; Macgillivray, 2000; Szalacha, 2003).
Students unwillingly conform to expected behavior as defined by existing social norms, including those students who consider themselves uninvolved bystanders. Social norm researcher H. Wesley Perkins uses the term “carriers of the misperception” to identify those bystanders who may not actively perpetuate the misperceived norm, yet allow the problem behavior to continue (Perkins, 1997). There exists literature on such bystanders that detail three reasons individuals do not react despite their desire to do so: first, social influence through which individuals may see others doing nothing and assume there is no problem; second, audience inhibition through which individuals may fear that doing something may cause embarrassment; and third, diffusion of responsibility through which individuals assume others will do something if they do not. A confounding factor is that bystanders often think that others are unbothered by what is occurring and, thus, allow anti-gay behavior to perpetuate. Another body of literature on bullying defines bystanders as those who stand around and watch fights without helping the victim (Hong & Espelage, 2012). Hong and Espelage (2012) state that “they [bystanders] enjoy watching fights, often encouraging the bully” (p. 312). It is alleged that bystanders also play a key role as a ‘look out’ alerting those bullying that an adult may be approaching. This information puts bystanders in a negative light. Conversely, gender and age serve as moderating factors in bystander behavior as younger children and females seemingly support victims or try to stop acts of bullying more often. Hong and Espelage (2012) indicate that research on bystander behavior is limited based on a recent meta-analysis on bullying programs that disclosed findings that only three of sixteen identified programs targeted or evaluated behavior by bystanders (p. 313). Certainly this serves as justification for further understanding of the role of bystanders in the form of school leaders or students alike during acts of bullying and anti-gay harassment.
It is unknown whether certain individuals or groups of individuals are responsible for the majority of anti-gay behavior. Poteat (2007) contends that even a small number of individuals or peer groups who are homophobic could still negatively impact the educational experience of LGBT students (p. 1839). This is especially true if the behavior of the offenders is perceived as being condoned. Furthermore, peers of LGBT students are in prominent roles influencing social norms that include homophobic attitudes, as well as anti-gay bullying and harassment. Each of these ideas warrants further exploration to determine the extent to which students are conforming to expected (normed) behavior unwillingly.
When a behavior does not match the expected norm, people then view it as undesirable.
Social norm theory provides a basis for a behavioral standard within a group such that any deviation from these norms is viewed as socially undesirable (Schultz, Nolan, Cialdini, Goldstein, & Griskevicius, 2007). To align with social group norms exhibiting homophobia, peers could influence bystanders to increase or decrease their anti-gay attitudes and behavior, or, alternately, provide implied validation of attitudes and behavior over time (Poteat, 2007). Since the current social norm in public schools aligns with heterosexual behavior, LGBT students may feel pressured to conform so as to gain peer approval (Schwartz, 1994). Such pressure to conform to social norms contributes to LGBT students feeling banished from traditional school life, thereby imposing forced isolation or a sense of invisibility. Furthermore, when expected social norm behavior is unclear or ambiguous, the likelihood of individuals aligning with negative or prejudicial acts increases (Zitek & Hebl, 2006). Thus, organizations must seek ways to begin to ‘teach’ social norms that embrace all students—essentially ‘re-norming’ public
schools.
Researchers attribute social influence as being an effective component in both reducing and perpetuating prejudicial viewpoints of denigrated groups (Zitek & Hebl, 2006). Berkowitz (2003) is one such researcher who lauds the effectiveness of social norm interventions and presents an intervention framework consisting of five stages: (a) individuals notice the event, (b) individuals interpret the event as problematic, (c) individuals feel some sense of responsibility to find a solution, (d) individuals possess skills to act, and (e) individuals intervene to change course (Berkowitz, 2003). Such a social norm intervention framework is designed to alter the negative function of social norms and demonstrates that if students are presented different information and ‘taught’ how to appropriately react to non-heterosexual norm behaviors, seemingly inappropriate social norms would be replaced with improved norms.
One way to counter existing social norms may be through the introduction of new norms. A heuristic model based on previous models is presented by Troiden (1989) as a means to effectively recalibrate expected social norms. Although not initially intended for use in public school settings, the premises of the model seemingly apply Troiden’s intent to reflect upon existing social norms and to consider what is needed for LGBT acclimation. Unique to this model is its reference to historical and socio-cultural variations in LGBT identity development as well as its inference to deny lock-step linearity (Talburt, 2004). Troiden’s model begins with acknowledgment of experiences of gender difference and stigma, moves for a need or desire for more knowledge and contact with others, and essentially resolves through commitment to an identity and role (Troiden, 1989). The model offers a shift in positive role development for LGBT individuals; however, if used as a model to open up experiences and conversations within public school settings, it could afford a reasonable means through which to change the trajectory of existing social norms. The key to changing the trajectory is to "create an environment in which conventional peer, family, community, and cultural norms can be examined critically," such that students would have access to new information, be challenged by the surrounding staff members, receive emotional support, and most importantly, peer debate (Lipkin, 1999).
Social norm theory may be an effective intervention in addressing anti-gay bias and bullying behavior. Two programs were formed to reduce prejudicial acts on groups, such as LGBT students, and employed the use of the intervention framework in an effort to change the negative course of social norms and proved to be successful. One program is the Ally Building Workshop at Western Washington University (Berkowitz, 2003). The Ally Building Workshop conducted a social norm marketing campaign with efforts to end oppression of student groups (Berkowitz, 2003). This was accomplished by first gathering information through focus groups and surveys, and later by conducting workshops and exposing students to social media that embraces all students. In another application of the social norms approach, Smolinsky (2002) developed a small group norms intervention to foster heterosexual ally behaviors towards LGBT individuals. The Gay Alliance of the Genesee Valley employed the intervention framework in an effort to empower students into acting as LGBT allies through attempts to correct misperceptions (Smolinsky, 2002). The results of each of these programs aligned with findings by Zitek and Hebl (2006) in which once subjects were first introduced different norms, they were more likely to oppose prejudicial acts after hearing others do so first (p. 7). Such an approach aligns with recommendations by other researchers declaring that for social norms to change, training is a key component of any effort that will be sustainable over time (Bowen & Bourgeois, 2001; Mayo, 2004; Poteat, 2007; Zitek & Hebl, 2006).
Social norm theory has been successfully applied in several areas— college drinking, eating disorders, bystander behavior, as well as prejudicial and generally problem behavior towards others (Berkowitz, 2003). However, the empirical research applying social norm theory for LGBT individuals is limited. This paucity presents both an opportunity for seminal research in public school settings and a need for caution considering the potential political volatility of the subject. Such high numbers of LGBT youth ravaged by homelessness, assault, and suicide give researchers pause to wonder if society views this sexual minority group through a normative lens expecting such dramatic struggles. When considering the establishment of new norms to provide protections for all students, including those who identify as LGBT, research suggest proceeding with caution (Talburt, 2004). There is fear that schools and governing bodies might be merely trading one negative heterosexual system of stereotypes for a homosexual system of stereotypes.
Research indicates the leadership practices within a school potentially have a …show more content…
greater impact than policies or procedures in the scope of teacher intervention in incidents of gendered harassment or homophobia (Alemán, 2009; Lugg, 2003; Meyer, 2010; Murray, 2011; Roffman, 2000; Rottmann, 2006). Stated more simply, leaders set the tone through expectations of anticipated behavioral norms. Staff and students alike, through normative conformity, are expected to abide by such norms, regardless if they are unjust. The above references present important information considering the previous suggestions that school officials may have been unresponsive to acts of anti-gay bias and harassment (Elze, 2003; Griffin & Ouellett, 2003; Horn et al., 2008; Macgillivray, 2000; Szalacha, 2003).
Students unwillingly conform to expected behavior as defined by existing social norms, including those students who consider themselves uninvolved bystanders. Social norm researcher H. Wesley Perkins uses the term “carriers of the misperception” to identify those bystanders who may not actively perpetuate the misperceived norm, yet allow the problem behavior to continue (Perkins, 1997). There exists literature on such bystanders that detail three reasons individuals do not react despite their desire to do so: first, social influence through which individuals may see others doing nothing and assume there is no problem; second, audience inhibition through which individuals may fear that doing something may cause embarrassment; and third, diffusion of responsibility through which individuals assume others will do something if they do not. A confounding factor is that bystanders often think that others are unbothered by what is occurring and, thus, allow anti-gay behavior to perpetuate. Another body of literature on bullying defines bystanders as those who stand around and watch fights without helping the victim (Hong & Espelage, 2012). Hong and Espelage (2012) state that “they [bystanders] enjoy watching fights, often encouraging the bully” (p. 312). It is alleged that bystanders also play a key role as a ‘look out’ alerting those bullying that an adult may be approaching. This information puts bystanders in a negative light. Conversely, gender and age serve as moderating factors in bystander behavior as younger children and females seemingly support victims or try to stop acts of bullying more often. Hong and Espelage (2012) indicate that research on bystander behavior is limited based on a recent meta-analysis on bullying programs that disclosed findings that only three of sixteen identified programs targeted or evaluated behavior by bystanders (p. 313). Certainly this serves as justification for further understanding of the role of bystanders in the form of school leaders or students alike during acts of bullying and anti-gay harassment.
It is unknown whether certain individuals or groups of individuals are responsible for the majority of anti-gay behavior. Poteat (2007) contends that even a small number of individuals or peer groups who are homophobic could still negatively impact the educational experience of LGBT students (p. 1839). This is especially true if the behavior of the offenders is perceived as being condoned. Furthermore, peers of LGBT students are in prominent roles influencing social norms that include homophobic attitudes, as well as anti-gay bullying and harassment. Each of these ideas warrants further exploration to determine the extent to which students are conforming to expected (normed) behavior unwillingly.
When a behavior does not match the expected norm, people then view it as undesirable.
Social norm theory provides a basis for a behavioral standard within a group such that any deviation from these norms is viewed as socially undesirable (Schultz, Nolan, Cialdini, Goldstein, & Griskevicius, 2007). To align with social group norms exhibiting homophobia, peers could influence bystanders to increase or decrease their anti-gay attitudes and behavior, or, alternately, provide implied validation of attitudes and behavior over time (Poteat, 2007). Since the current social norm in public schools aligns with heterosexual behavior, LGBT students may feel pressured to conform so as to gain peer approval (Schwartz, 1994). Such pressure to conform to social norms contributes to LGBT students feeling banished from traditional school life, thereby imposing forced isolation or a sense of invisibility. Furthermore, when expected social norm behavior is unclear or ambiguous, the likelihood of individuals aligning with negative or prejudicial acts increases (Zitek & Hebl, 2006). Thus, organizations must seek ways to begin to ‘teach’ social norms that embrace all students—essentially ‘re-norming’ public
schools.
Researchers attribute social influence as being an effective component in both reducing and perpetuating prejudicial viewpoints of denigrated groups (Zitek & Hebl, 2006). Berkowitz (2003) is one such researcher who lauds the effectiveness of social norm interventions and presents an intervention framework consisting of five stages: (a) individuals notice the event, (b) individuals interpret the event as problematic, (c) individuals feel some sense of responsibility to find a solution, (d) individuals possess skills to act, and (e) individuals intervene to change course (Berkowitz, 2003). Such a social norm intervention framework is designed to alter the negative function of social norms and demonstrates that if students are presented different information and ‘taught’ how to appropriately react to non-heterosexual norm behaviors, seemingly inappropriate social norms would be replaced with improved norms.
One way to counter existing social norms may be through the introduction of new norms. A heuristic model based on previous models is presented by Troiden (1989) as a means to effectively recalibrate expected social norms. Although not initially intended for use in public school settings, the premises of the model seemingly apply Troiden’s intent to reflect upon existing social norms and to consider what is needed for LGBT acclimation. Unique to this model is its reference to historical and socio-cultural variations in LGBT identity development as well as its inference to deny lock-step linearity (Talburt, 2004). Troiden’s model begins with acknowledgment of experiences of gender difference and stigma, moves for a need or desire for more knowledge and contact with others, and essentially resolves through commitment to an identity and role (Troiden, 1989). The model offers a shift in positive role development for LGBT individuals; however, if used as a model to open up experiences and conversations within public school settings, it could afford a reasonable means through which to change the trajectory of existing social norms. The key to changing the trajectory is to "create an environment in which conventional peer, family, community, and cultural norms can be examined critically," such that students would have access to new information, be challenged by the surrounding staff members, receive emotional support, and most importantly, peer debate (Lipkin, 1999).
Social norm theory may be an effective intervention in addressing anti-gay bias and bullying behavior. Two programs were formed to reduce prejudicial acts on groups, such as LGBT students, and employed the use of the intervention framework in an effort to change the negative course of social norms and proved to be successful. One program is the Ally Building Workshop at Western Washington University (Berkowitz, 2003). The Ally Building Workshop conducted a social norm marketing campaign with efforts to end oppression of student groups (Berkowitz, 2003). This was accomplished by first gathering information through focus groups and surveys, and later by conducting workshops and exposing students to social media that embraces all students. In another application of the social norms approach, Smolinsky (2002) developed a small group norms intervention to foster heterosexual ally behaviors towards LGBT individuals. The Gay Alliance of the Genesee Valley employed the intervention framework in an effort to empower students into acting as LGBT allies through attempts to correct misperceptions (Smolinsky, 2002). The results of each of these programs aligned with findings by Zitek and Hebl (2006) in which once subjects were first introduced different norms, they were more likely to oppose prejudicial acts after hearing others do so first (p. 7). Such an approach aligns with recommendations by other researchers declaring that for social norms to change, training is a key component of any effort that will be sustainable over time (Bowen & Bourgeois, 2001; Mayo, 2004; Poteat, 2007; Zitek & Hebl, 2006).
Social norm theory has been successfully applied in several areas— college drinking, eating disorders, bystander behavior, as well as prejudicial and generally problem behavior towards others (Berkowitz, 2003). However, the empirical research applying social norm theory for LGBT individuals is limited. This paucity presents both an opportunity for seminal research in public school settings and a need for caution considering the potential political volatility of the subject. Such high numbers of LGBT youth ravaged by homelessness, assault, and suicide give researchers pause to wonder if society views this sexual minority group through a normative lens expecting such dramatic struggles. When considering the establishment of new norms to provide protections for all students, including those who identify as LGBT, research suggest proceeding with caution (Talburt, 2004). There is fear that schools and governing bodies might be merely trading one negative heterosexual system of stereotypes for a homosexual system of stereotypes.