Abstract
This study focuses on the school motivation of LGB (lesbian, gay, and bisexual) students in Flanders, the northern part of Belgium, a fairly LGB-friendly country. The authors hypothesize that LGB students in Flemish secondary schools are less motivated for school than heterosexual students because they experience less sense of school belonging and more discrimination. In addition, the authors investigate minority-specific factors that could influence the school motivation of LGB students. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses are performed on data from 1,745 secondary school students. The impact of minority stressors on the school motivation of LGB students is examined with hierarchical multiple regression analyses on data from 162 LGB students. Both analyses show that lesbian girls are less motivated to perform in school, but sense of belonging, perceived discrimination, and minority stressors do not explain this finding. Alternative explanations for these results and implications for further research are discussed.
Introduction
Research has shown repeatedly that LGB (lesbian, gay, and bisexual) adolescents experience more difficulties in school than heterosexual adolescents (Busseri, Willoughby, Chalmers, & Bogaert, 2006; Pearson, Muller, & Wilkinson, 2007; Rostosky, Owens, Zimmerman, & Riggle, 2003; Russell, Seif, & Truong, 2001). These studies found differences in school belonging, school performance, truancy, and likelihood of pursuing postsecondary education, but as far as we know, no study has yet investigated differences in performance motivation or mastery motivation between LGB and heterosexual students. A lack of school motivation, however, is often at the root of many educational difficulties (Anderman, 2003; Dotterer, McHale, & Crouter, 2009; Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Jenkins, 1997). The aims of this study are to find out whether LGB students are more or less motivated to learn and perform in school than heterosexual students, and to explain possible differences in school motivation.
LGB students may be less motivated to learn and perform in school because of the lesser sense of school belonging they experience (Aerts, Van Houtte, Dewaele, Cox, & Vincke, 2012; Galliher, Rostosky, & Hughes, 2004; Pearson et al., 2007; Rostosky et al., 2003) and the larger amount of discrimination they perceive at school (Kosciw, Greytak, Diaz, & Bartkiewicz, 2009; Mishna, Newman, Daley, & Solomon, 2008). Another, more LGB-specific factor that could be related to the school motivation of LGB students is the fact that they are part of a stigmatized social group. Living in a heteronormative or homonegative environment can lead to the internalization of homonegative attitudes (DiPlacido, 1998). Another minority-specific stressor is stigma consciousness or the degree to which LGBs expect to be stereotyped by others because of their sexual orientation (Pinel, 1999). As far as we know, neither internalized homonegativity nor stigma consciousness have ever been linked to school motivation.
This study is unique in using data collected from heterosexual as well as LGB students, making it possible to compare both groups. Moreover, the data at hand are collected in Flanders, the Dutch speaking part of Belgium. Belgium is known as a fairly LGB-friendly country, a perception that is reflected in the legal equalities of LGBs. Belgium has an antidiscrimination law with specific reference to LGBs, and same-sex couples have the possibility to marry and adopt children (Borghs & Eeckhout, 2009). Research also shows quite positive attitudes among the Flemish population toward LGBs and LGB rights, especially compared with most other European countries (European Commission, 2006; European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2009). If LGB students tend to be less motivated for school in as seemingly an advantageous context as the Flemish one, greater problems can be predicted in more adverse settings.
Literature Review
School Motivation
People’s motivation influences how they choose to invest their time, how much energy they dedicate to a given task, how they think and feel about it, and how long they persist at it (Urdan & Schoenfelder, 2006). When applied to the educational context, we can describe school motivation as the degree to which students initiate learning activities and maintain both an involvement and a commitment to the process of learning (Ames, 1999). Investigating motivation in educational research is important because it contributes to academic achievement. As active participation is necessary for learning to occur, disengagement may lead to decreased academic performance and school success (Anderman, 2003; Dotterer et al., 2009; Pearson et al., 2007). Educational commitment has a strong inverse effect on school crime, school nonattendance and school misconduct (Jenkins, 1997), and increased involvement and participation in school fosters the development of an assertive, outgoing, and confident orientation in social life (Kulka, Kahle, & Klingel, 1982).
The school motivation of a student can be influenced by different processes, depending on the specific goal he or she wants to reach. We focus on a goal that is of specific relevance to the school environment, academic achievement. When investigating achievement goals, educational researchers often distinguish mastery goals, also called task goals or learning goals, from performance goals, which are also called ability goals or ego goals (Ames, 1992).
When oriented toward mastery goals, students’ purpose is to develop their competence (Ames, 1992; Ames & Archer, 1988; Midgley et al., 2000). They seek to extend their mastery and understanding, and learning is perceived as inherently interesting, as an end in itself. The attention of students who attach importance to mastery goals is focused on the task. They want to develop new skills and learn things for the pleasure and satisfaction that is derived from their performance. A mastery goal orientation has been associated with adaptive patterns of learning. Performance goals, however, are aspired to by people who are concerned with being judged able, being successful, or outperforming others (Ames, 1992; Ames & Archer, 1988; Midgley et al., 2000). When oriented toward performance-approach goals, students’ purpose is to demonstrate their competence. The attention is not focused on the task, but on the self. A performance-approach orientation has been associated with both adaptive and maladaptive patterns of learning. Mastery and performance goals are seen as two different aspects of school motivation. Whether students adopt mastery or performance goals is, in part, dependent on their classroom experiences, essentially their perceptions of how the teacher structures the classroom (Ames, 1999).
School Experiences of LGB Students
As far as we know, no previous research has ever specifically investigated the mastery and performance motivation of LGB students. However, we do know that LGB adolescents experience various difficulties in school. Compared with heterosexual students, they often get lower grades (Busseri et al., 2006; Pearson et al., 2007; Russell et al., 2001), are more likely to fail a course (Pearson et al., 2007), are less likely to complete advanced courses necessary for higher education (Busseri et al., 2006; Pearson et al., 2007), are less likely to pursue any type of postsecondary education (Busseri et al., 2006; Kosciw et al., 2009; Pearson et al., 2007), and are more likely to have missed classes or full days of school (Kosciw et al., 2009). These findings are often explained by differences in relationships with family, teachers, other adults, and peers (Murdock & Bolch, 2005; Pearson et al., 2007; Seelman, Walls, Hazel, & Wisneski, 2011), but also by the perceived level of homonegativity in a school and the amount of victimization experienced by LGB students (Birkett, Espelage, & Koenig, 2009; Kosciw et al., 2009; Murdock & Bolch, 2005; Seelman et al., 2011).
We know from previous research that LGB students generally display lower levels of sense of school belonging than heterosexual students (Aerts et al., 2012; Galliher et al., 2004; Pearson et al., 2007; Rostosky et al., 2003). Sense of belonging refers to the extent to which students feel personally accepted, respected, included, and supported by others in the school social environment. Different studies have shown a reciprocal link between the sense of school belonging and the school motivation of students (Finn, 1989; Goodenow, 1992; Nelson & DeBacker, 2008). These researchers have found that students who feel embedded in their schools are more likely to try hard, and those who participate in school and classroom activities are more likely to develop positive feelings about their schools.
LGB students not only perceive a lower sense of school belonging, but are often confronted with verbal or physical homonegative bullying at school as well (Kosciw et al., 2009; Mishna et al., 2008). These experiences can have an impact on their sense of isolation (Flowers & Buston, 2001) and their self-esteem (Thurlow, 2001), but also on their school career by leading to poor academic performance and even dropping out (Mishna et al., 2008). An interesting finding from homonegative bullying research is that not only students who identify as LGB are victimized, but also students who are perceived as being homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual (Espelage & Swearer, 2008; Thurlow, 2001; Warwick, Chase, Aggleton, & Sanders, 2004). Previous research on school bullying showed that students who are bullied at school are less motivated to perform well (Graham, Bellmore, & Mize, 2006; Iyer, Kochenderfer-Ladd, Eisenberg, & Thompson, 2010; Skues, Cunningham, & Pokharel, 2005). As such we could assume that experiencing a low sense of school belonging and being confronted with bullying in school can have an impact on the school motivation of LGB students.
Minority Stress Among LGB Students
Discrimination and sense of school belonging are related to school motivation for all students, but LGB students also experience specific minority-related stressors that may influence their school motivation. This stigma-related distress is often called minority stress (DiPlacido, 1998; Meyer, 2003). Minority stress refers to the stressful social environment that is created by the stigma, prejudice, and discrimination that are experienced by people who belong to stigmatized minority groups.
One of these minority stressors is the internalized homonegativity that some LGBs experience (DiPlacido, 1998). Internalized homonegativity develops when negative societal attitudes about homosexuality are internalized by LGB individuals. It may negatively impact an individual’s coping resources and strategies, and may limit an LGB person’s access to community and social support systems, which in turn leads to poorer well-being and mental health (Cox, Vanden Berghe, Dewaele, & Vincke, 2008; DiPlacido, 1998; Meyer, 2003; Van Den Berghe, Dewaele, Cox, & Vincke, 2010). Internalized homonegativity has been linked frequently to the well-being of LGBs, but as far as we know, it has never been associated with the school motivation of LGB students.
Another minority-specific stressor that could be associated with the school motivation of LGB students is the degree of stigma consciousness they experience. Stigma consciousness refers to the degree to which stigmatized groups expect to be stereotyped by others (Pinel, 1999). Experiencing stigma can have a negative impact on the psychological and social functioning of stigmatized individuals (Frable, Wortman, & Joseph, 1997; Lewis, Derlega, Griffin, & Krowinski, 2003; Van Den Berghe et al., 2010).
Dealing with these minority stressors could lead to high levels of accumulated stress, and previous research has shown that higher levels of emotional distress have a negative influence on the academic motivation of students (Roeser, Eccles, & Sameroff, 2000), and are negative predictors of school interest (Wentzel, 1998). Previous research already showed that high degrees of stigma consciousness are related to lower school or task performance (Brown & Pinel, 2003; Pinel, Warner, & Chua, 2005), and this factor might therefore also be related to school motivation.
Purpose of the Study
With this study we aim to fill one of the gaps in the literature on the school careers and experiences of LGB students, that is the impact of their sexual orientation on their school motivation. We focus on two types of school motivation: mastery and performance motivation. Sense of school belonging and the discrimination that is experienced by LGB secondary school students are included in the analyses to investigate whether these factors cause differences in school motivation between LGB and heterosexual students. In addition, we want to investigate whether sexual minority stressors such as internalized homonegativity and stigma consciousness have an impact on the school motivation of LGB students. The following hypotheses resulted from the literature review:
Hypothesis 1: LGB students are less motivated for school than heterosexual students.
Hypothesis 2: Sense of school belonging partly explains the impact of sexual orientation on school motivation.
Hypothesis 3: Perceived discrimination partly explains the impact of sexual orientation on school motivation.
Hypothesis 4: Internalized homonegativity and stigma consciousness partly explain the lower school motivation of LGB students.
Method
Sample
We used data from the Zzzip@Youth research project for this study (Dewaele, Vincke, Van Houtte, & Cox, 2008). The main aim of this project is to investigate differences and similarities between the school careers of LGB and heterosexual youth in Flanders. This present study focuses on one aspect of the school career, that is the school motivation of secondary school students.
Data from the Zzzip@Youth research project were collected with an online survey. The data-gathering took place from October to December 2007. The respondents were recruited through different organizations and institutions, such as secondary schools, youth services, and specific organizations and websites for LGB youth. We focused on the individual experiences of the respondents and did not collect data of schools or other organizations.
We only included data from secondary school students in the analyses (N = 1,745), omitting those respondents enrolled in higher education or who were in the labor market. Of the respondents in our sample 90.4% (N = 1,517) identified as heterosexual, 5.2% (N = 74) as gay or lesbian, and 4.4% (N = 88) as bisexual. The mean age of the respondents was almost 16 (15,97, range 12-25), and 39% (N = 680) of the respondents were boys. For an overview of the demographic statistics of the sample, see Table 1.
Descriptive Statistics: Frequencies (% and N) or Means and Standard Deviations (SD).
Research Design
To test whether LGB students have lower school motivation than heterosexual students we performed hierarchical multiple regression analyses with mastery and performance motivation as the dependent variables. We performed the analyses separately for the boys and girls in the sample, because gender has an important impact on school motivation (Dotterer et al., 2009; Goodenow, 1992; Kindermann, 2007), and because we were interested in gender differences among LGB students.
The first regression model included only sexual orientation and mastery or performance motivation. We used dummy variables to integrate sexual orientation, and chose heterosexual as the reference category. In the second model we added the control variables, age and educational track. We included age because younger students are usually more engaged in school than older students (Dotterer et al., 2009; Eccles, Midgley, & Adler, 1984; Gottfried, Fleming, & Gottfried, 2001). The educational track variable consisted of four categories: academic, technical, arts, and vocational, which correspond to the four educational streams in the Flemish secondary education system. We added educational track as a control variable because many studies have found that students from the technical and vocational track are less motivated for school than students from the academic track (Braddock & Dawkins, 1993; Trautwein & Lüdtke, 2009; Van Houtte & Stevens, 2010). We added the tracks as dummies and used the academic track as the reference category. In the third model we added sense of belonging because different studies show a link between secondary school students’ sense of belonging and their motivation (Finn, 1989; Goodenow, 1992; Nelson & DeBacker, 2008), and because LGBs often experience a lower sense of belonging in school than heterosexual students (Aerts et al., 2012; Galliher et al., 2004; Pearson et al., 2007; Rostosky et al., 2003). To test the hypothesis that perceived discrimination has an impact on the relationship between sexual orientation and school motivation, we included two measures of perceived discrimination in the fourth and fifth model: perceived discrimination by teachers and experiences of bullying. We included these discrimination variables because research on bullying and discrimination suggests that students who are discriminated against or bullied by peers or teachers are less motivated for school (Graham et al., 2006; Iyer et al., 2010; Skues et al., 2005), and LGBs are shown to experience more discrimination and bullying in school than heterosexual students (Kosciw et al., 2009; Mishna et al., 2008).
To investigate whether the minority stress experienced by LGB students has an impact on their school motivation, we performed separate analyses for the LGB students in the sample. In these analyses we included two measures of minority stress, that is, stigma consciousness and internalized homonegativity. The first regression model included only mastery or performance motivation and sexual orientation. We used dummy variables to integrate sexual orientation, with homosexual as the reference category. The second model included the control variables, age and educational track. The measure for stigma consciousness was included in the third model, and in the fourth a measure for internalized homonegativity was added. We included these measures of minority stress because higher levels of emotional distress can have a negative influence on students’ academic motivation and school interest (Roeser et al., 2000; Wentzel, 1998).
Measures
There are different ways to measure sexual orientation. Some researchers include all individuals who feel same-sex attractions, regardless of how they see or identify themselves (Bos, Sandfort, de Bruyn, & Hakvoort, 2008). Others use a combination of same-sex attractions and same-sex relationships (Russell & Joyner, 2001; Ueno, 2005). Still others choose to use predefined categories and ask the respondents to indicate which label suits them best (Garofalo, Wolf, Kessel, Palfrey, & DuRant, 1998), or use a combination of self-identification and sexual relationships (Fergusson, Horwood, & Beautrais, 1999). For this study we chose to use the Kinsey scale (Bell & Weinberg, 1979; Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948), because we were interested in the school motivation of self-identified LGB students. The respondents were asked to indicate how they see or identify themselves on a 7-point scale that ranges from exclusively heterosexual (1) to exclusively homosexual (7). Because the aim of this study is to compare heterosexuals with lesbians, gay boys, and bisexuals, we recoded the answers on the scale to create three distinct categories: heterosexual, bisexual, and lesbian/gay. The heterosexual category consists of the first two categories of the Kinsey scale (exclusively heterosexual and much more heterosexual than homosexual). The bisexual category comprises the three middle categories of the Kinsey scale (somewhat more heterosexual than homosexual; equally heterosexual and homosexual; somewhat more homosexual than heterosexual). The last category refers to respondents who see themselves as much more homosexual than heterosexual or exclusively homosexual. This recoding has been used in other studies that have worked with the Kinsey scale (Busseri et al., 2006; Dewaele et al., 2008; Vincke, Dewaele, Van den Berghe, & Cox, 2006), and research that used both the three dimensional and the seven dimensional measure of sexual orientation has proved that these measures correspond very well (Storms, 1980). In the total sample, 90.4% (N = 1,517) of the respondents identified themselves as heterosexual, 5.2% (N = 74) as gay or lesbian, and 4.4% (N = 88) as bisexual (see Table 1). When we speak of LGB students in this study, we mean students who indicated the third, fourth, fifth, sixth or seventh category on the Kinsey scale. We did not include students who question their sexual identity or who are (still) closeted. This means that the figures we present in this article are not necessarily an accurate estimation of the proportion of LGBs in Flemish secondary schools.
We used the scales of Maehr and Midgley (1996) to measure the mastery and performance motivation of the respondents. Each scale consists of six items, and each item is measured on a 5-point scale, ranging from strongly disagree (0) to strongly agree (4). The total score on the scale is computed using the mean method. A low score on the scale corresponds with a low mastery or performance motivation, a high score with a high mastery or performance motivation. The reliability of the mastery motivation scale in the total sample (N = 1,698) is 0.87 (Cronbach’s α) and the mean score is 1.92 (Standard Deviation (SD) = 0.8, range = 0-4; see Table 1). The reliability of the performance motivation scale in the total sample (N = 1,694) is 0.88 (Cronbach’s α) and the mean scored is 1.62 (SD = 0.81, range = 0-4; see Table 1). So in general, respondents scored in the low to middle range regarding mastery and performance motivation.
Age was measured by asking the respondents to indicate their year of birth. We then recoded this variable to get the age of the respondents in 2007, the year when the data was gathered (N = 1,745; mean = 15.97; SD = 1.57; range = 12-25; see Table 1). Educational track of the respondents was measured by asking them to indicate their current educational track or level. They could choose between primary school, academic secondary education, arts secondary education, technical secondary education, vocational secondary education, higher education at a university college or higher education at a university. We only included respondents enrolled in secondary education (N = 1,745; academic = 50%; technical = 31.3%; arts = 2.7%; vocational = 16%; see Table 1).
Sense of belonging was measured with the Psychological Sense of School Membership (PSSM) scale of Goodenow (1993). This scale consists of 18 items and the respondents had to rate each item on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from strongly disagree (0) to strongly agree (4). The total score on the scale was computed using the mean method. A low score on the scale corresponds with a low sense of belonging, a high score with a high sense of belonging. The reliability of the scale in the total sample (N = 1,667) is 0.88 (Chronbach’s α) and the mean score is 2.49 (SD = 0.55, range = 0-4; see Table 1). So in general, respondents scored in the middle range regarding their sense of belonging. Perceived discrimination was measured with two scales. The scale that we used to measure experiences of bullying is based on scales of Utsey (1998) and Krieger, Smith, Naishadham, Hartman, & Barbeau (2005) and focuses on visible, direct ways of bullying. This scale consists of three items: How many times in the last six months were you insulted or ridiculed, . . . were you spat on or hit, . . . were you threatened. The second scale measures perceived discrimination by teachers and is based on a sub-scale of Al-Methen & Wilkinson (1998). This scale consists of six items, including: Teachers do not help me when I need help and Teachers give me lower marks on tests or exams than I deserve. The mean score on the scale measuring experiences of bullying is 0.6 (N = 1,556; SD = 0.58; range = 0-4; Cronbach’s α = 0.65; see Table 1), and that of the scale measuring perceived discrimination by teachers is 1.19 (N = 1,662; SD = 0.71; range = 0-4; Cronbach’s α = 0.84; see Table 1). In general, respondents scored in the lower range regarding perceived discrimination.
To measure stigma consciousness, we used Pinel’s Stigma Consciousness Scale (1999). This scale consists of 10 items including: Stereotypes about LGBs have not affected me personally and most heterosexuals have a problem viewing LGBs as equals. The response scale ranges from strongly disagree (0) to strongly agree (4). The total score on the scale was computed using the mean method. A low score on the scale corresponds with low stigma consciousness, a high score with high stigma consciousness. The mean score on the scale is 1,86 (SD = 0,49; Cronbach’s α = 0.64; see Table 1), so the LGBs in the sample score in the lower range regarding stigma consciousness. We measured internalized homonegativity using Mayfield’s Internalized Homonegativity Inventory (IHNI) for gay men (2001). We adapted the scale to relieve the contents of its male perspective and selected nine items after an exploratory pretest that indicated the most relevant ones. The response scale ranges from strongly disagree (0) to strongly agree (4) and includes items such as: Sometimes I feel ashamed of my sexual orientation and I see my sexual orientation as a gift. The total score on the scale was computed using the mean method. A low score on the scale corresponds with low internalized homonegativity, a high score with high internalized homonegativity. The reliability of the scale is 0.80 (Cronbach’s α), and the mean score is 1,30 (SD = 0,65; see Table 1). So in general, the LGBs in the sample scored in the lower range regarding internalized homonegativity.
Results
The first hypothesis stated that LGB students are less motivated for school than heterosexual students. To test this hypothesis, we performed four hierarchical multiple regression analyses that focused on the performance and the mastery motivation of girls and boys. It appeared that lesbian girls are slightly less motivated to perform (performance motivation) than heterosexual girls (standardized coefficient (β): −0.073; probability-value (p) < 0.05). The association between the sexual orientation of girls and their motivation to learn (mastery motivation) was not significant (see Table 2). The boys’ sexual orientation had no significant impact on their mastery or performance motivation (see Table 3). Thus the first hypothesis was only confirmed for the performance motivation of lesbian girls.
Multivariate Models for Girls: Standardized Coefficients and Explained Variance.
Note: *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001
Multivariate Models for Boys: Standardized Coefficients and Explained Variance.
Note: *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
To test the second hypothesis, that sense of school belonging partly explains the impact of sexual orientation on school motivation, we included a measure for sense of belonging in our analyses. These analyses did not show a significant impact of sense of belonging on the performance motivation of girls, but they did show a significant association with their mastery motivation (β: 0.214; p < 0.001; see Table 2). For the boys in the sample sense of school belonging was significantly related to both their performance (β: 0.152; p < 0.01) and mastery (β: 0.309; p < 0.001) motivation (see Table 3). Girls and boys with a strong sense of belonging appear to be more motivated to learn than boys and girls who experienced less of a sense of belonging, and boys with a greater sense of belonging also appear to be more motivated to perform. However, sense of belonging did not explain the lower performance motivation of lesbian girls, so the second hypothesis was rejected.
The third hypothesis was that perceived discrimination partly explains the impact of sexual orientation on school motivation. To test this hypothesis, we included measures for perceived discrimination in the multiple regression models. The results showed that perceived discrimination by teachers is a significant predictor of the performance (β: 0.088; p < 0.05) and mastery (β: −0.089; p < 0.05) motivation of girls. Girls who perceive more discrimination by teachers are slightly more motivated to perform in school, but slightly less motivated to learn (see Table 2). Experiences of bullying were not significantly related to the performance motivation of girls, but they were associated with the mastery motivation of girls (β: 0.089; p < 0.01). Girls who experienced more bullying in the past six months are slightly more motivated to learn (see Table 2). The models for the boys showed no significant effects of perceived discrimination by teachers, but those who experienced more bullying in the past six months appear to be slightly more motivated to perform than boys who experienced less bullying (β: 0.099; p < 0.05; see Table 3). Perceived discrimination did not explain the lower performance motivation of lesbian girls, so the third hypothesis was rejected.
The final models for the girls explained only 2.7% of the variance in performance motivation, and 7.5% of the variance in mastery motivation (see Table 2). The final models for the boys explained only 1.7% of the variance in performance motivation and 10.3% of the variance in mastery motivation (see Table 3).
The fourth hypothesis stated that minority stressors partly explain the lower school motivation of LGB students. To test this hypothesis we performed multiple regression analyses on a subsample that included only the LGBs in our study. The models that tested the association between these stressors and mastery motivation were not significant, but we did find an effect of sexual orientation on performance motivation. Lesbian girls appear to be less motivated to perform than homosexual boys (β: −0.318; p < 0.01). Internalized homonegativity was not significantly related to the school motivation of LGB students, but stigma consciousness was. LGBs who experience more stigma consciousness are more motivated to perform in school (β: 0.257; p < 0.01). Introducing these minority stressors, however, did not change the effect of sexual orientation, and the models were not significant, so the fourth hypothesis was rejected. The final performance model for LGBs explains 13.6% of the variance in performance motivation (see Table 4).
Multivariate Models for Lesbians, Gays, and Bisexuals (LGBs): Standardized Coefficients and Explained Variance.
Note: *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
To sum up, we found that lesbian girls are less motivated to perform in school, and this result is not explained by sense of belonging, perceived discrimination, internalized homonegativity, or stigma consciousness.
Discussion
As LGB adolescents often experience more educational difficulties than heterosexual students (Busseri et al., 2006; Pearson et al., 2007; Rostosky et al., 2003; Russell et al., 2001), we wanted to investigate whether they are also less motivated to perform and learn in school. We expected that LGB students would be less motivated because they often experience a lower sense of belonging in school (Aerts et al., 2012; Galliher et al., 2004; Pearson et al., 2007; Rostosky et al., 2003), and face more discrimination and bullying (Kosciw et al., 2009; Mishna et al., 2008) than heterosexual students. In addition, we investigated minority-specific factors that could influence the school motivation of LGB students. Because same-sex attracted students are part of a stigmatized group in society, they often have to deal with stigma-related stressors such as internalized homonegativity (DiPlacido, 1998) and stigma consciousness (Pinel, 1999). We expected that these could negatively influence the school motivation of LGB students.
The results show that sexual orientation is only associated with the performance motivation of lesbian girls. Lesbian girls seem to be slightly less motivated to perform than heterosexual girls, and this finding was not explained by their sense of belonging or perceived discrimination, nor by minority-specific stressors.
Another finding of our study was that experiences of bullying were not significantly related to the performance motivation of girls, but perceived discrimination by teachers was. However, contrary to what was expected (Graham et al., 2006; Iyer et al., 2010; Skues et al., 2005), girls who perceived more discrimination by teachers were slightly more motivated to perform in school. Perhaps girls who experience discrimination by teachers want to prove they deserve more respect by showing they are better than other students. Alternatively, it is possible that girls who display more performance goals perceive more discrimination from teachers because performance motivation is typically seen as a masculine characteristic (Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Pajares & Valiante, 2001), and teachers generally react negatively to nongender-conforming behavior in class (Levy, 1972; Robinson, 1992). Both explanations are fairly speculative and could not be tested with our data, so further research on this subject is advised.
An analysis of the subsample of LGBs showed that lesbian girls were not only less motivated to perform than heterosexual girls, but they were also less motivated to perform than homosexual boys. Introducing stigma consciousness to the analyses did not explain the effect of being lesbian, but the results showed that LGBs who experienced low stigma consciousness were less motivated to perform. A tentative explanation for the positive relationship between stigma consciousness and performance motivation could be that LGBs who expect to be stereotyped because of their sexual orientation want to prove themselves and show that they can perform as well as heterosexual students. We can link this assumption to research on the school achievement of ethnic minorities which showed that minority students with a high awareness of racial discrimination or racial barriers often respond in ways that are conducive rather than detrimental to academic success (Bowman & Howard, 1985; O’Connor, 1999; Sanders, 1997). As far as we know, however, this effect is not investigated among sexual minorities, so further research in this field is recommended.
We examined the relationships between sense of school belonging, perceived discrimination by teachers, perceived bullying, stigma consciousness, and internalized homonegativity on the one hand, and the school motivation of LGB students on the other hand. However, these factors did not explain why lesbian girls were less motivated to perform in school. In future research some aspects of psychological well-being could be taken into account. Previous research showed that lesbian girls often have a lower general well-being (Galliher et al., 2004; Van Den Berghe et al., 2010), and higher levels of emotional distress shape the ability to engage in school (Pearson et al., 2007) and are a negative predictor of school interest (Wentzel, 1998). Our measures also show some limitations that could influence the results. One is the fact that we only measured direct and visible forms of bullying and discrimination. Previous research has shown that the discrimination experienced by sexual minority girls is less verbal, physical, and direct than that of homosexual boys (Hequembourg & Brallier, 2009; Kosciw et al., 2009; Poteat & Espelage, 2007; Rivers, 2001; Whitesell & Harter, 1996). Further research should also take into account less obvious forms of discrimination, such as exclusion, marginalization, or being ignored.
Another important limitation of this study is that we did not use a random sample of respondents, which makes our results unrepresentative for the broader population. However, to reach enough LGBs to make a valid comparison, one has to work with other—less representative—sampling strategies. The advantages of online surveys are that they make it possible to reach a big pool of potential respondents in quite a small time, and that they are more anonymous. This anonymity increases the chance that LGBs participate in the study and that respondents are willing to give information on sensitive subjects such as (homo)sexuality. Most adolescents are also acquainted with the internet and use it often, so that this can be a useful medium to recruit youth. Online surveys, however, also have disadvantages. The most important disadvantage is that they generate an unknown selection effect, because the respondents choose whether to participate or not. This increases the odds of a certain type of respondents participating (e.g., people who often use the internet, motivated respondents, etc.).
Another limitation of the study is that we measured sexual orientation with a recategorization of the Kinsey scale. This scale places individuals on a 7-point scale ranging from exclusively heterosexual to exclusively homosexual, with different gradations in between. By recategorizing the respondents into three strict, undifferentiated categories, we nullified the attempt to step away from rigid categorizations of sexual orientation. This is an important limitation of this study, but it was necessary to be able to compare LGBs with heterosexuals. Another limitation of using fixed categorizations such as the Kinsey scale is that it gives the impression of a fixed, static sexual orientation, when in fact people’s placement on the scale can vary at different times in their lives. It is possible that some of the heterosexual-identified respondents will come out at a later age, but the cross-sectionality of our study did not allow us to take into account this changing aspect of sexual orientation. Further longitudinal research could give interesting insights on the influence of sexual identity fluidity on people’s lives. By using the Kinsey scale we also restricted our respondents to adolescents who identified as LGB. Research that also includes youth who are questioning their sexual orientation or who feel attracted to the same sex without identifying as LGB, could give other results.
This study demonstrates that sexual orientation has few and small effects on the school motivation of students in Flanders. A possible explanation for these positive results may be the specific Flemish context. As stated in the introduction of this article, Belgium is known as a fairly LGB-friendly country. Results of comparable studies in other, less LGB-friendly, countries could be less positive. To create a better understanding of these contextual influences, international comparative research is needed. A focus on the specific experiences of lesbian girls is also advised, because for this subgroup we do find an effect of sexual orientation on performance motivation. This might be investigated in more detail by using qualitative research methods, because these methods are more appropriate to study the specific experiences of small subgroups. Another aspect that was not investigated in this study but that could be interesting in explaining school motivation among LGB students is the intersections with other social differences like race, social class, and religion. Further research is needed to investigate the impact of these factors.
In general, the results of this study are quite positive. Except for the lower performance motivation of lesbian girls, LGB students are not less motivated for school than their heterosexual peers. But while highlighting these optimistic results of our research, we do not want to overshadow the continuing difficulties for LGB students in Flemish secondary schools. Other studies point to enduring discrimination against LGBs in school (Dewaele et al., 2008; Pelleriaux, 2003), and we should keep in mind that this study has only focused on school motivation, not on general life satisfaction. Other studies on the situation of LGBs in Flanders give evidence of significantly more mental health problems and less general well-being than among heterosexuals (Schoonacker, Dumon, & Louckx, 2009; Versmissen, Dewaele, Meier, & Van Houtte, 2011).
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study forms part of a project funded by the Research Foundation Flanders—FWO project G.0062.09N.