Middle School Music Ensemble Participation,Homophobic Name-Calling,and Mental Health

Abstract

Homophobic name-calling is commonplace in middle schools and is emerging as an antecedent to more serious, deleterious concerns, including depressive or anxious symptoms among youth. While music education researchers suggest that youth enrolled in music ensembles are targets for homophobic epitaphs, little is known about how experiencing homophobic teasing during early adolescence relates to their self-reported mental health. Using data from a large-scale investigation of middle school youth, we examined the prevalence of homophobic name-calling and its relationship on indicators of mental health, including depression and anxiety. Results indicate that being a target of homophobic victimization has significant mental health consequences for youth in the current sample, although differentially for youth participating in a music ensemble and those who do not. Music ensembles are complex social environments, and our results raise questions about how prevalent or localized homophobic epitaphs are for youth enrolled in music ensembles when compared with those who are not.

Keywords

homophobic name-calling aggression mental health middle school adolescence

Broadly conceived, antisocial-aggressive behaviors during adolescence include name-calling, fighting, and social exclusion (Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Hymel & Swearer, 2015), and researchers have determined that homophobic attitudes and behaviors coexist within these forms of aggression and victimization (Espelage & Swearer, 2008; Poteat, 2017). Homophobic name-calling is a common form of peer victimization witnessed within schools, and researchers have demonstrated that students report hearing words such as “gay,” “queer,” “faggot,” and “dyke” almost daily (Kosciw & Diaz, 2006). According to data from National School Climate Survey (NSCS) conducted during 2013, 64.5% of participants reported hearing homophobic remarks frequently or often while in school (Kosciw, Greytak, Palmer, & Boesen, 2016). Moreover, the 2015 NSCS data revealed that homophobic remarks decreased compared with all prior years (60%; Kosciw, Greytak, Giga, Villenas, & Danischewski, 2016). These studies and meta-analyses classify homophobic name-calling as a type of peer victimization, and despite decreasing prevalence, researchers recommend immediate attention for further study (Espelage, Basile, De La Rue, & Hamburger, 2015; Miller et al., 2013; Poteat, 2017).

Homophobic attitudes encompass a range of negative feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ). Research shows that homophobic name-calling, as well as LGBTQ victimization, is associated with increased depression (Swearer, Turner, Givens, & Pollack, 2008), suicidal ideation and attempts (Cochran & Mays, 2000), feeling unsafe at school (Swearer et al., 2008), and long-term mental health concerns into adulthood (Cochran & Mays, 2000; D’Augelli & Hershberger, 1993; Hershberger & D’Augelli, 1995; Rivers, 2000, 2004). Swearer and her colleagues (2008) reported that 26% of boys (9th-11th grades) enrolled at a male, single-sex high school were victims of homophobic name-calling. Their primary findings also suggest that boys who are bullied by being called “gay” experience symptoms related to anxiety and depression. Overall, results from these studies attest that homophobic attitudes, as displayed through name-calling or teasing, contribute to deleterious effects on adolescent perceptions of self-reported mental health. While the consequences of homophobic name-calling during adolescence can have deleterious long-term effects for some youth, there is no evidence in the research to document the prevalence and relationship between homophobic name-calling and mental health among music students. Espelage and Swearer (2008) encouraged future researchers to examine the concept of homophobia as it relates to indicators of mental health. This recommendation and theory serves as a foundational theory for the current study.

Peer Victimization in Music Education

Peer victimization is a concern for youth enrolled in music classrooms. In one study, Rawlings (2016) explored middle school band students’ perceptions of bullying behavior. Participants (N = 291) reported experiencing peer victimization more frequently outside of the band classroom than inside the band classroom, with male youth reporting higher frequencies of physical victimization than females. He suggests that band students’ experiences with bullying behaviors differ depending on the biological sex and self-reported race. In another study, Elpus and Carter (2016) examined data from the 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2013 datasets of the School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) to determine the prevalence of reported school victimization through physical, verbal, and relational aggression among U.S. performing arts students. Elpus and Carter found that the risk for male music and theater students experiencing face-to-face victimization was 69% greater than the risk for non-arts students, and male music and theater students were confronted with a 63% greater risk of being cyberbullied than non-arts participants. Therefore, if middle school music ensemble students may be more likely to be targets of victimization, homophobic in nature or otherwise, and feeling unsafe at school, then research is needed to determine the prevalence of these behaviors. Furthermore, the aforementioned studies and Rawlings (2017) suggest an ecological approach to examining data is a necessary analytic protocol.

Homophobic Name-Calling in Music Ensemble Membership

Researchers in music education have reported that student music ensemble membership may present a space for homophobic name-calling victimization (Bergonzi, 2013, 2015; Elpus & Carter, 2016; Fitzpatrick & Hansen, 2010; Hubbs, 2010). Specifically, research identifies that students who participate in a school-based music ensemble are labeled by partnering the name of the ensemble with a homophobic epitaph (e.g., “band fag,” “choir fag,” “orchestra fag”). Hubbs (2010) spoke about homophobic name-calling in music education during her keynote and stated, “there’s no realm of American school life more universally associated with ‘fag’ taunting than school music” (p. 9). She identified that this term is particularly relevant and, in fact, attached to student music ensemble membership. Her keynote speech suggested a rationale for inquires to examine the homophobic name-calling experiences of youth enrolled with school-based music ensemble classes. Fitzpatrick and Hansen (2010) examined the voices of lesbian and gay undergraduate music majors recalling their previous experiences within the secondary music classroom. Their findings indicated that some youth in school-based music ensembles may experience instances of harassment outside of the music classroom and identified the secondary music classroom as a “safe place in school” (p. 8). Bergonzi (2013) compared the instructional climate in secondary school music classrooms and music camp settings. He reported that music student participants (N = 150) reported feeling bothered and distressed as a result of hearing “gay” used in a derogatory way in schools. Four out of five participants were bothered to some extent, and 40% were bothered more than a little. Elpus and Carter (2016) also found that performing arts students were more likely than non-arts students to report victimization by sexual-orientation-related hate speech and gender-related hate speech. With the prevalence of homophobic name-calling as publicized within research studies in music education and a growing wealth of empirical research in general education demonstrating that homophobic teasing is emerging as a significant public health concern (Espelage et al., 2015; Espelage, Low, Polanin, & Brown, 2012, 2013, 2015; Miller et al., 2013), empirical inquiries about homophobic name-calling with music student populations are needed to understand this relationship.

Mental Health and Music Education: Safe Spaces

It seems that issues related to mental health are rarely investigated within arts and music classrooms. One possible reason may be that these spaces are perceived as safe spaces (Lamb, 2010), specifically, the teacher and youth co-create a psychological sense of community or connectedness (Goodenow, 1993). Moreover, connectedness is an underemphasized parameter in adolescent mental health (Shochet, Dadds, Ham, & Montague, 2006). For instance, stronger feelings of connectedness dampen mental health symptoms (general functioning, depression, and anxiety) for adolescents (Shochet et al., 2006). Thus, safe spaces may be associated with strong perceptions of connectedness and “basic show of support for students” (Rom, 1998). The National Association for Music Education (NAfME; 2012) corroborates this perception and issued a formal statement relating to safety, suggesting that music classrooms are a “safe haven” for musicians. For the current study, we define our use of the term mental health as symptoms of anxiety and depression relating to overall psychological functioning.

As feeling unsafe at school may lead to serious long-term mental health concerns into adulthood, Palkki and Caldwell (2017) investigated the secondary choral classroom to determine whether it was a safe space for LGBTQ singers. Participants (N = 1,123) reported stronger feelings of safety in high school than in middle school with only a small majority of high school teachers voicing support for LGBTQ students. In other words, music participation provides a space for adolescents that is perceived as safe. In addition, these participants reported that peers who fall outside of the gender binary (e.g., transgender, gender nonconforming, gender-queer) felt less safe than did their LGB peers—a finding that is consistent with previous investigations (Greytak, Kosciw, & Diaz, 2009).

Although research investigating mental health of adolescents participating in music is rare, a few studies demonstrate that music participation may benefit youths’ mental health (McFerran, 2010; McFerran, Garrido, & Saarikallio, 2016; Saarikallio & Erkkilä, 2007). In one study, Saarikallio and Erkkilä (2007) explored the role of music in adolescents’ mood regulation. Using grounded theory as the analytic method, the researchers reported that music participation during adolescence was an effective means of regulating or thwarting aggressive behavior with their population of eight Finnish adolescents. McFerran et al. (2016) conducted a systematic review of 33 studies published between 2000 and 2012 investigating the relationship between youths’ musical preferences/behaviors and their mental health. From the studies that examined group music-making behaviors, youth reported an “enhanced quality of life in some form, from social connectedness to personal well-being” (p. 526). McFerran et al. concluded that youth who actively engage in music-making may experience more protective dimensions than peers who only passively engage with listening to music. Therefore, mental health appears to be an important variable for consideration when examining homophobic name-calling in school-based music ensembles. Based on previous empirical research from multiple academic disciplines, a positive, direct relationship exists between homophobic name-calling and mental health, whereas increases in homophobic name-calling are associated with increases in mental health concerns. We are suggesting that music ensemble participation affects the relationship between homophobic name-calling and mental health. To date, there has been no published research examining the effects of music ensemble participation on the relationship between homophobic name-calling and mental health of middle school students.

The Current Study

This study was conducted to compare the prevalence of homophobic name-calling and self-reported perceptions of mental health between youth enrolled in middle school music ensembles and those who are not. Specifically, our research questions included the following:

Research Question 1: What are the prevalence rates of homophobic name-calling, and is there a difference between youth in middle school ensembles and those who are not?

Research Question 2: What are the self-reported perceptions of mental health, and is there a difference between students who participate in middle school ensembles and those who do not?

Research Question 3: Do our variables (Homophobic Content Agent Target–Perpetration [HCAT-p] and Homophobic Content Agent Target–Victimization [HCAT-v]) predict a significant amount of variance in perceptions of mental health?

Based on previous studies investigating homophobic name-calling (Birkett & Espelage, 2015; Birkett, Espelage, & Koenig, 2009; Collier, Bos, & Sandfort, 2013; Poteat, 2017; Poteat & Espelage, 2005), biological sex, racial, and grade-level differences on homophobic name-calling were expected. While researchers indicate a strong association between an adolescent’s sexual identity and prevalence of homophonic name-calling victimization (e.g., Poteat, 2017), evidence from music education research does not exist nor support these associations among music students.

Method

Data Source

Data secured for this investigation are part of a large-scale, 2-year randomized trial funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (No. CE3240), and this intervention study evaluated the effectiveness of certain features of bullying and gender-based harassment prevention programs. A total of 28 schools were recruited for the larger randomized control trial (RCT); however, only two schools fit the following study criteria: The music curriculum and course offerings at these schools were (a) representative of national course offerings in music (ensembles and classroom music) and (b) regularly scheduled (instrumental music ensemble classes hold a consistent place in the school weekly calendar with credit earned for participation. Choruses in these schools meet after school rather that during the school day with credit earned for participation). Sixth- and seventh-grade youth were the target population of study, and the data for the present study were collected prior to commencement of the main study’s intervention.

Participants

Data were collected from sixth- and seventh-grade students living in and around Central Illinois. The total population available for sampling was 843 students enrolled in sixth and seventh grades (Illinois State Board of Education [ISBE], 2014). Participants (N = 463) volunteered to complete the questionnaire for an overall response rate of 54.9%. As these were existing data, we calculated a post hoc algorithm of achieved power using G*Power 3.1 software (Faul, Erdfelder, Lan, & Buchner, 2007). Given the achieved effect size (ƒ² = .05), α = .05, and total sample size of 463, the power for the current study is 99%. Students enrolled in a school-based music ensemble (band, orchestra, choir; n = 176) and not enrolled in a school-based ensemble (n = 287) comprise the total sample for this study. The sample of student participants was 50.8% male (n = 235) and 49.2% female (n = 228). In addition, the sample was 39.7% Black, 37.6% White, 10.6% Asian, 4.3% Hispanic, 2.6% American Indian, 0.4% Pacific Islander, and 4.8% no response. Grade-level distribution was balanced among the early middle school grades at 51.6% (n = 239) in sixth grade and 48.4% (n = 224) in seventh grade. Additional demographic data of participating middle schools appear in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographic Data of Participating Middle Schools.

Item	School A	School B
Total school population (N)^a	610	659
Sixth grade (%)	204 (33.4)	220 (33.4)
Male	114 (55.9)	107 (48.6)
Female	90 (44.1)	113 (51.4)
Seventh grade (%)	198 (32.5)	221 (33.5)
Male	106 (53.5)	120 (54.3)
Female	92 (46.5)	101 (45.7)
Eighth grade (%)	208 (33.1)	218 (33.1)
Male	103 (49.5)	97 (44.5)
Female	105 (51.5)	121 (55.5)
% low income^b	89.9	63.8
% homeless	4.0	2.0
Racial composition
% White	46.2	30.5
% Black	42.6	46.2
% Hispanic	6.6	6.9
% Asian	0	12.3
% American Indian	0.8	0.2
% Multiracial/Ethnicity	3.6	3.6
% Pacific Islander	0.2	0.3
% English learners^c	1.8	1.6
% chronically truant^d	21.7	11.3

Indicates total number of students enrolled during the fall semester of 2014.

Indicates percentage of students who fulfill one or more of the following conditions: from a family that receives public aid (e.g., Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Targeted Assistance for Needy Families); living in institutions for neglected or delinquent children; being supported in foster homes with public funds; or eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunches (according to U.S. Department of Agriculture’s guidelines).

According to Illinois’s current regulations, this indicates percentage of English learners (ELs) whose English proficiency is not yet sufficient to provide students with the ability to successfully participate and achieve in classroom settings where the language of instruction is English.

Illinois law defines “chronically truant” as a student who misses 5% of school days within an academic year without a valid excuse, for example, 9 days of an average 180-day school year.

Procedures

An active consent protocol was approved by the university institutional review board and school district administration as part of the data collection procedures. Questionnaires were electronically administered, and multiple safeguards were implemented to protect students from being negatively affected by the content of the questionnaires. Students were assured that their answers would always remain anonymous. Those students who elected not to participate or whose parents did not want them to participate had consent forms sent back and went to another supervised classroom.

Measures

Demographic variables

Self-reports of sex, grade level, race, and music class enrollment were elicited to determine demographic characteristics.

Homophobic name-calling

The HCAT (Poteat & Espelage, 2005) scale contains two subscales that assess the extent to which individuals called other students homophobic epithets (Perpetration; five items) and were called homophobic epithets by other students (Victimization; five items) during the last 30 days. Response options include Never, 1 or 2 times, 3 or 4 times, 5 or 6 times, or 7 or more times. Poteat and Espelage (2005) recommend that participant responses be summed to create aggregate subscale scores. Possible participant aggregate subscale scores on the “Agent Scale” and “Target Scale” range from 5 to 25.

Homophobic name-calling perpetration

The Perpetration scale measures how many times in the past 30 days an adolescent has called peers homophobic epithets. An example of an item is, How many times in the last 30 days did you say words like homo or gay to a friend? Higher scores indicate higher homophobic perpetration. Poteat and Espelage (2005) found that the Perpetration scale was moderately correlated with the Illinois Bully Scale (Espelage & Holt, 2001; males, r = .61; females, r = .58) and negatively correlated with the measures of Empathic Concern (males, r = −.42; females, r = −.23) and Perspective-taking (males, r = −.28; females, r = −.31) (Interpersonal Reactivity Index [IRI]; Davis, 1983). In the current study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is .85.

Homophobic name-calling victimization

The Victimization scale measures how many times in the past 30 days an adolescent was a target of a homophobic epithet perpetrated by other peers. An example of an item is, How many times in the last 30 days did a friend say words like homo or gay to you? Higher scores indicate higher homophobic victimization. Poteat and Espelage (2005) found that the Victimization scale was strongly correlated (males, r = .62; females, r = .68) with the University of Illinois Victimization Scale (Espelage & Holt, 2001). In the current study, data analysis displayed an α = .88.

Feelings of depression and anxiety

Self-reported feelings of depression were assessed using three questions from the Modified Depression Scale (Dahlberg, Toal, Swahn, & Behrens, 2005). Student participants were asked how often in the past 30 days, (a) Were you very sad? (b) Did you feel hopeless about the future? (c) Were you grouchy or irritable or in a bad mood? (d) Did you worry a lot? and (e) Did you feel nervous or afraid that things won’t work out the way you would like them to? Response choices included Never, Sometimes, Often, and Always. Possible participant scale scores on “Mental Health Scale” range from 1 to 5. Higher scores indicate more depressive symptoms. Orpinas (1993) reported a good internal consistency rating (α = .74). In the current study, data analysis displayed an α = .84.

Data Analysis

The second author created a data file in SPSS 24.0 for Mac, and these data were screened utilizing techniques associated with data cleaning protocols (Pallant, 2013). Moreover, we explored patterns of missing data and found that missingness per HCAT item ranged from 0 to 5%. Luengo, Garcia, and Herrera (2010) suggest that missing data between 1% and 5% are manageable. Missingness per item for the Modified Depression Scale ranged from 8% to 16% and using Little’s MCAR (missing completely at random) test, we determined that the data are, indeed, missing at random (i.e., no identifiable pattern exists to the missing data). To correct this issue, we followed Harrell’s (2001) recommendation for multiple imputation to account for the missing data.

Following the preparation of the data file, the first author computed additional variables including subscale scores for each factor by summing across the five items for HCAT-p and HCAT-v (Poteat & Espelage, 2005), and because internal consistency for the Modified Depression Scale was acceptable, a mean score was calculated for each participant. The first author calculated the primary analysis, and descriptive statistics were computed to explore the data file for univariate and multivariate normality, linearity, and multicollinearity. Differences across the variables were examined by school building and music ensemble/no ensemble grouping. Notwithstanding, we investigated the individual correlates including biological sex, race, and current grade level associated with homophobic name-calling to corroborate past research.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics of HCAT and Mental Health scales appear in Table 2. To compute differences in mean scores on the included measures for biological sex, grade level, and building attendance, independent t tests were computed on the continuous variables of interest. Although no statistically significant differences exist between sex and grade level with this sample, there was a small statistically significant difference in the Agent Scale between School A and School B, meaning on average, participants reported perpetrating homophobic epitaphs slightly more often in School B (M = 6.92, SD = 3.99) than School A (M = 5.83, SD = 2.48). Moreover, there was a small statistically significant difference in the Target Scale between School A and School B. On average, participants reported experiencing homophobic epitaphs slightly more often in School B (M = 7.15, SD = 4.45) than School A (M = 5.90, SD = 2.74). Overall, these results indicate youth in the current sample were agents or targets of homophobic epitaphs 1 to 2 times in the 30 days prior to data collection. Table 3 displays results from the difference tests between schools.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics of HCAT and Mental Health Scales for All Participants (N = 463).

Scale	Music ensemble participants (n = 176)		Non-ensemble participants (n = 287)		t	df	α
Scale	M	SD	M	SD	t	df	α
HCAT Agent scale^a (five items)	6.15	2.93	6.24	2.96	0.74	461	.85
HCAT Target scale^a (five items)	6.46	3.76	6.33	3.13	0.68	461	.88
Mental Health^b (five items)	1.91	0.60	1.90	0.73	0.85	461	.84

Note. HCAT = Homophobic Content Agent Target scale.

Scale: 1 = Never, 2 = 1 to 2 times, 3 = 3 to 4 times, 4 = 5 to 6 times, and 5 = 7 or more times.

Scale: 1 = Never, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often, and 4 = Always.

Represents significance detected at the p < .05 level.

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics of HCAT and Mental Health Scales Between Schools for All Participants (N = 463).

Scale	School A (n = 348)		School B (n = 115)		t	df	η
Scale	M	SD	M	SD	t	df	η
HCAT Agent scale^a (five items)	5.83	2.48	6.92	3.99	2.714*	145.01	.02
HCAT Target scale^a (five items)	5.9	2.74	7.15	4.45	2.785*	144.37	.02
Mental Health^b (five items)	1.88	0.67	1.98	0.68	1.418	400	n/a

Note. HCAT = Homophobic Content Agent Target scale.

Scale: 1 = Never, 2 = 1 to 2 times, 3 = 3 to 4 times, 4 = 5 to 6 times, and 5 = 7 or more times.

Scale: 1 = Never, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often, and 4 = Always.

Represents significance detected at the p < .05 level.

Represents significance detected at the p < .01 level.

Difference testing between race/ethnicity groupings were conducted. A one-way between-groups analysis of variance revealed that these groups were statistically different on reported homophobic name-calling Agent subscale, F(5, 422) = 3.725, p < .01. Post hoc Scheffé tests revealed a moderately small significant difference (η² = .04) between Native American (M = 9.64, SD = 7.8), and African American (M = 6.33, SD = 3.08), Asian (M = 5.9, SD = 3.23), and White (M = 6.77, SD = 2.27) youth. No significant differences between race and the Target Scale were detected.

There was a moderately small statistically significant difference in the Mental Health scale between males and females, meaning, on average, females reported slightly more depressive and anxious symptoms (M = 1.99, SD = .61) than males (M = 1.82, SD = .61); t (459.89) = 3.02, p < .01. The magnitude of the differences in the means (M difference = .17, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [.06, .28]) was moderately small (η² = .03). These results demonstrate that a participant’s biological sex may be an important factor to consider when analyzing the data further. When examining music ensemble and non-music ensemble groups by school, no statistically significant difference was detected.

Chronic prevalence of self-reported homophobic name-calling perpetration and victimization

To answer our first research question, we calculated chronic prevalence. Adolescents who scored one standard deviation above the mean on the Agent scale were categorized as “chronic agents,” and those scoring one standard deviation below the mean on the Agent scale were categorized as “non-agents.” Based on this categorization, 34 (10.7%) participants in the overall sample were classified as chronic agents of homophobic name-calling, with 20 of these participants enrolled in School A and 14 enrolled in School B. A chi-square test for independence (with Yates Continuity Correction) indicated a small significant association between chronic agent status and school building, χ²(1, N = 352) = 5.672, p = .017, φ = .14. A chi-square test for independence indicated no significant association found between chronic target status and school building. These results demonstrate that a participant’s school building and race are important factors to consider when analyzing the data further.

We examined chronic agents and targets by music ensemble participation (those youth enrolled in music ensembles and those who are not). Based on the categorization above, 23 chronic agents of homophobic name-calling do not participate in a music ensemble, and 11 chronic agents participate in a music ensemble. A chi-square test for independence indicated a moderate significant association between chronic agent status and ensemble participation, χ²(3, N = 339) = 11.03, p = .012, V = .18. A chi-square test for independence indicated no significant association found between chronic target status and non-ensemble participation.

Homophobic Name-Calling and School-Based Music Ensemble Membership

A one-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of school-based music ensemble membership on the prevalence of victimization relating to homophobic name-calling. Because a significant difference in HCAT subscale scores was detected between schools, we grouped participants by school building attendance and music ensemble/non-music ensemble groupings (e.g., School A music ensemble; School B non-music ensemble). The Welch Analysis of Variance test displayed a statistically significant difference in Agent scores for the school music ensemble/no ensemble groups: F(3, 450) = 2.7, p < .05. Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey’s HSD (honestly significant difference) test indicated that the mean score for School A no music or music ensemble (M = 5.79, SD = 2.41) was significantly lower from School B no music or music ensemble (M = 7.43, SD = 4.57), and School A music ensemble (M = 5.91, SD = 2.62) was significantly lower from School B no music or music ensemble. The mean scores for the remaining group did not differ significantly.

A Welch Analysis of Variance test displayed a statistically significant difference in Target scores for the school music ensemble/no ensemble groups: F(3, 449) = 3.1, p < .05. Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for School A no music or music ensemble (M = 5.81, SD = 2.55) was significantly lower from School B no music or music ensemble (M = 7.45, SD = 4.53). The mean scores for the remaining groups did not differ significantly.

Homophobic Name-Calling Predicting Mental Health Outcomes

Hierarchical regression analyses were computed to test for the significance of Agent and Target scores in predicting mental health after controlling for school building attendance. Mental health was input as the dependent variable in the regression models, with building attendance entered on Step 1. On Step 2, Agent and Target scores were entered as the independent variable. Regression equations were computed separately for music ensemble and non-ensemble youth (see Table 4).

Table 4.

Hierarchical Regression Analyses Results for HCAT Target Scores Predicting Mental Health—Music Ensemble/No Music Ensemble.

	R ²	ΔR²	β
Dependent variable = MDS
Step 1: School	.002/.007		.046/.085
Step 2: Target scale	.05/.055	.048/.048	.22/.28**

Note. HCAT = Homophobic Content Agent Target scale; MDS = Modified Depression Scale.

p < .05. ***p < .001.

As hypothesized, ensemble membership differences emerged in the predictive significance of Target scores for mental health. After controlling for school building attendance, Target scores significantly predicted current levels of mental health for youth in middle school ensembles (β = .22, ƒ² = .05) and those who are not (β = .28, ƒ² = .06). According to Cohen’s (1988) guidelines, effect sizes are interpreted as moderately small.

Discussion, Implications, and Recommendations for Future Research

Homophobic name-calling perpetration is routine within middle schools (Espelage et al., 2015), and results from the current study indicate a relatively low number of chronic agents for this behavior (10.7%). Moreover, results from this study add information to the corpus of knowledge about adolescent development by comparing youth who participate in school-based music ensemble and those who do not. Specifically, we also found that being a target of homophobic victimization has significant mental health consequences for youth in the current sample, although differentially for youth enrolled in a music ensemble and those who do not. These findings are important because (a) although self-reported perceptions of mental health may not necessarily differ between youth participating in music ensembles from those who do not, homophobic victimization predicts mental health consequences, and this prediction is different between the two groups, and (b) clustered, school-level analysis matters when analyzing adolescent self-reports of behavior.

Several future directions for research should be highlighted based on both the limitations and findings of this investigation. Results from the current sample demonstrate the clustered nature of our data, and our population does not resemble a national representation of youth enrolled in American music ensembles (Elpus & Abril, 2011). These results indicate that music ensemble classrooms vary in their prevalence of homophobic name-calling and, therefore, may vary in their level of psychological safety. Additional research should replicate across diverse populations and geographic regions as factors associated with racial identity (among other intersecting identities) could be significant in considering reactions to being the target of homophobic content. As such, we recommend that indicators of school climate from the student level, classroom level, school level, and community level be included in future research with studies investigating musical behavior, social behavior, and well-being. These factors may include measuring youths’ perceptions of resilience and as Astor, De Pedro, Gilreath, Esqueda, and Benbenishty (2013) demonstrated, some school environments could foster resilience among youth especially when repeated insults, homophobic or otherwise, may damage indicators of mental health (Astor, Benbenishty, Pitner, & Meyer, 2004). Furthermore, McFerran and her colleagues (2016) identify that group music-making activities are associated with feelings of enhanced quality of life including youth’s social connectedness and personal well-being (p. 526). Perhaps youths selecting to participate in a music ensemble, as an example of their resilience and agency (Brown & Kulig, 1996), may be a factor that buffers the effects of homophobic victimization and mental health. The current study did not include a measure for resilience and despite this potential limitation, future researchers should include resilience and other protective factors within investigations of homophobic name-calling and mental health. Studying additional schools that are nationally representative of curricular school music with similar music course offerings and youths’ perceptions of resilience would allow for more robust, clustered analyses and greater generalizability relevant to teachers and administrators, including policies and school programming.

Our results provide additional evidence to corroborate past qualitative findings in music education stating that adolescents participating in school-based music ensembles are targets of homophobic epitaphs during middle school. Within the results of previous music education research, music participants have tended to explicate the seriousness of homophobic content, and findings from the current investigation indicate that being the target of such language may have serious effects on mental health. For non-ensemble participants, our results indicate that being a target of homophobic content is a stronger predictor of negative mental health consequences when compared with music ensemble participants. This finding has implications for school-wide programming where we suggest that it may be plausible that enrollment in a music ensemble course during middle school is protective against homophobic epitaphs and decreases mental health symptomatology. Laurence (2008) suggested that music ensemble participation offers the potential to “enable, catalyze, and strengthen empathic response, ability, and relationship, and it is this potential capacity which lies at the core of music’s function within peacebuilding” (p. 14). Perhaps there are moderating variables (e.g., peer group characteristics, popularity, prosocial behaviors, resilience, sexual orientation) that may buffer the effects of homophobic victimization, and these moderating variables should be included in future research investigating homophobic name-calling and mental health. In addition, we recommend examining who are agents/targets of homophobic epitaphs and why are these aggressive exchanges occurring within and/or outside music classrooms? Answering these questions may further explain this relationship and connect past research related to safe space in music education.

Research in music education suggests that music participation may benefit youths’ mental health (McFerran et al., 2016); however, it remains unclear if this investigation corroborates past research from music education. Results from the current study only represent the sites we studied, and results could be due to factors that are difficult to quantify, such as measuring adolescent mental health with self-reports, or using scales different from those in previous studies. Mental health is an important consideration within studies examining antisocial-aggressive behaviors, such as homophobic teasing, and this new information explicates a need for and deployment of rigorous analyses in measuring latent variables within music education research. Moreover, our finding that homophobic name-calling has mental health consequences has important implications for the preparation of school personnel. School personnel need to be trained in recognizing and understanding homophobic victimization and indicators of mental health, which warrant additional and targeted supports for preventing victimization in schools.

Behaviors on this questionnaire were self-reported by adolescents. Early adolescent participants may have reason to report socially acceptable answers to adults despite investigators promising participant anonymity. Decades of research demonstrate the reliability and validity of adolescent self-reports of social anxiety concerns (Silverman & Ollendick, 2005) and music participation (Elpus, 2017). Despite this potential limitation, these data provide insights into the perceptions of mental health and prevalence of homophobic name-calling.

Taken together, our analysis of data from a large-scale investigation of middle school youth indicated that experiencing homophobic name-calling significantly predicts an increase in hazardous symptoms representing overall mental health for all youth; however, this prediction is more concerning for non-ensemble youth than for music ensemble youth. This finding provides pivotal information for researchers to consider when designing future investigations with school-based populations. As past research suggests, adolescents enrolled in school-based music ensembles are targets for homophobic epitaphs, and particularly for males, there is more pressure to adhere to a socially constructed range of gender expression. The current sample did not produce a biological sex effect for homophobic teasing and while compelling contradictory evidence exists in music education, more research is needed to investigate this disparate finding. As most of the research in music education addresses youths’ victimization experiences, this study addresses and extends previous research to involve agents of homophobic name-calling and a relationship needed in the growing body of research focused on describing the music ensemble experience among middle school youth.

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: Research was supported by Centers for Disease Control Injury and Prevention grant (CDC 1RO1CE002340) to Espelage, Dorothy (Principal Investigator [PI]).

ORCID iD

Jared R. Rawlings

Author Biographies

Jared R. Rawlings, PhD, serves as assistant professor of music education at the University of Utah. His research interests include issues related to bullying in schools and intersections of social justice and preservice music teacher education.

Dorothy L. Espelage, PhD, is professor of psychology at the University of Florida. She has authored more than 175 contributions on bullying, homophobic teasing, sexual harassment, dating violence, and gang violence. Her research focuses on translating empirical findings into prevention and intervention programming.

References

Astor

R. A.

Benbenishty

Pitner

R. O.

Meyer

H. A.

(2004). Bullying and peer victimization in schools. In Allen-Meares

Fraser

M. W.

(Eds.), Intervention with children and adolescents: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 417-448). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Astor

R. A.

De Pedro

K. T.

Gilreath

T. D.

Esqueda

M. C.

Benbenishty

(2013). The promotional roles of school and community contexts for military students. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 16, 233-244. doi:10.1007/s10567-013-0139-x

Bergonzi

L. S.

(2013, April). Instructional climate in secondary school music classrooms reported by engaged music students: A comparison of school and music camp settings. Paper presented at The 8th International Conference for Research in Music Education, Exeter, UK.

Bergonzi

L. S.

(2015). Gender and sexual diversity challenges (for socially just) music education. In Benedict

Schmidt

Spruce

Woodford

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of social justice in music education (pp. 221-237). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Birkett

M. A.

Espelage

D. L.

(2015). Homophobic name-calling, peer-groups, and masculinity: The socialization of homophobic behavior in adolescents. Social Development, 24, 184-205.

Birkett

M. A.

Espelage

D. L.

Koenig

B. W.

(2009). Homophobic bullying and school climate as moderators of negative outcomes in LGBT youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 989-1000. doi:10.1007/s10964-008-9389-1

Brown

D. D.

Kulig

J. C.

(1996). The concepts of resiliency: Theoretical lessons from community research. Health and Canadian Society, 4, 29-50.

Cochran

S. D.

Mays

V. M.

(2000). Lifetime prevalence of suicide symptoms and affective disorders among men reporting same-sex sexual partners: Results from NHANES III. American Journal of Public Health, 90, 573-578. doi:10.2105/AJPH.90.4.573

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

10.

Collier

K. L.

Bos

H. M. W.

Sandfort

T. G. M.

(2013). Homophobic name-calling among secondary school students and its implications for mental health. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 363-375. doi:10.1007/s10964-012-9823-2

11.

Dahlberg

L. L.

Toal

S. B.

Swahn

Behrens

C. B.

(2005). Measuring violence-related attitudes, behaviors, and influences among youths: A compendium of assessment tools (2nd ed.). Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

12.

D’Augelli

A. R.

Hershberger

S. L.

(1993). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth in community settings: Personal challenges and mental health problems. American Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 421-448. doi:10.1007/BF00942151

13.

Davis

M. H.

(1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113-126.

14.

Elpus

(2017). Just ask me: Convergent validity of self-reported measures of music participation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 65, 129-138. doi:10/1177/0022429417713721

15.

Elpus

Abril

C. R.

(2011). High school music ensemble students in the United States: A demographic profile. Journal of Research in Music Education, 59, 128-145. doi:10.1177/0022429411405207

16.

Elpus

Carter

B. A.

(2016). Bullying victimization among music ensemble and theater students in the United States. Journal of Research in Music Education, 64, 322-343. doi:10.1177/0022429416658642

17.

Espelage

D. L.

Basile

K. C.

De La Rue

Hamburger

(2015). Longitudinal associations among bullying, homophobic teasing, and sexual violence perpetration among middle school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 2541-2561. doi:10.1177.0886260514553113

18.

Espelage

D. L.

Holt

M. K.

(2001). Bullying and victimization during early adolescence: Peer influences and psychosocial correlates. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2, 123-142. doi: 10.1037/e314862004-001

19.

Espelage

D. L.

Low

Polanin

J. R.

Brown

E. C.

(2012). Bullying experiences and co-occurring sexual violence perpetration among middle school students: Shared and unique risk factors. Journal of Adolescent Health, 50, 60-65. doi:10/1016/j.jadohealth.2011.07.015

20.

Espelage

D. L.

Low

Polanin

J. R.

Brown

E. C.

(2013). The impact of a middle school program to reduce aggression, victimization, and sexual violence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53, 180-186.

21.

Espelage

D. L.

Low

Polanin

J. R.

Brown

E. C.

(2015). Clinical trial of Second Step© middle-school program: Impact on aggression & victimization. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 37, 52-63. doi:10/1016/j.appdev.2014.11.007

22.

Espelage

D. L.

Swearer

S. M.

(2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32, 365-383.

23.

Espelage

D. L.

Swearer

S. M.

(2008). Current perspectives on linking school bullying research to effective prevention strategies. In Miller

T. W.

(Ed.), School violence and primary prevention (pp. 335-354). New York, NY: Springer.

24.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lan

A.-G.

Buchner

(2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 179-191. doi:10.3758/bf03193146

25.

Fitzpatrick

K. R.

Hansen

(2010, May). Off the radar: Reflections of lesbian and gay undergraduates on their experiences within high school music programs. Paper presented at the Establishing Identity: LGBT Studies & Music Education, Urbana, IL.

26.

Goodenow

(1993). The psychological sense of school membership among adolescents: Scale development and educational correlates. Psychology in the Schools, 30, 79-90.

27.

Greytak

E. A.

Kosciw

J. G.

Diaz

E. M.

(2009). Harsh realities: The experiences of transgender youth in our nation’s schools. Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED505687

28.

Harrell

F. E.

Jr. (2001). Regression modeling strategies with applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis. New York, NY: Springer.

29.

Hershberger

D’Augelli

A. R.

(1995). The impact of victimization on the mental health and suicidality of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Developmental Psychology, 31, 65-74. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.31.1.65

30.

Hubbs

(2010, May). Visibility and ambivalence: Thoughts on queer institutionalization. Paper presented at the Establishing Identity: LGBT Studies and Music Education conference, Urbana, IL. Retrieved from http://bcrme.press.illinois.edu/proceedings/Establishing_Identity/16_Hubbs.pdf

31.

Hymel

Swearer

S. M.

(2015). Four decades of research on school bullying: An introduction. American Psychologist, 70, 293-299. doi:10.1037/a0038928

32.

Illinois State Board of Education. (2014). Illinois School Report Card. Retrieved from http://webprod.isbe.net/ereportcard/publicsite/getsearchcriteria.aspx

33.

Kosciw

J. G.

Diaz

E. M.

(2006). 2005 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer youth in our nation’s schools. New York, NY: Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.

34.

Kosciw

J. G.

Greytak

E. A.

Giga

N. M.

Villenas

Danischewski

D. J.

(2016). The 2015 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer youth in our nation’s schools. New York, NY: Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.

35.

Kosciw

J. G.

Greytak

E. A.

Palmer

N. A.

Boesen

M. J.

36.

Lamb

(2010). Music as sociocultural phenomenon: Interactions with music education. In Abeles

H. F.

Custodero

L. A.

(Eds.), Critical issues in music education: Contemporary theory and practice (pp. 23-38). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

37.

Laurence

(2008). Music and empathy. In Urbain

(Ed.), Music and conflict transformation: Harmonies and dissonances in geopolitics (pp. 13-25). New York, NY: I.B. Tauris.

38.

Luengo

Garcia

Herrera

(2010). A study on the use of imputation methods for experimentation with Radial Basis Function Network classifiers handling missing attribute values: The good synergy between RBFNs and event covering method. Neural Networks, 23, 406-418. doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2009.11.014

39.

McFerran

K. S.

(2010). Adolescents, music and music therapy: Methods and techniques for clinicians, educators and students. London, England: Jessica Kingsley.

40.

McFerran

K. S.

Garrido

Saarikallio

(2016). A critical interpretive synthesis of the literature linking music and adolescent mental health. Youth & Society, 48, 521-538. doi:10.1177/0044118X13501343

41.

Miller

Williams

Cutbush

Gibbs

Clinton-Sherrod

Jones

(2013). Dating violence, bullying, and sexual harassment: Longitudinal profiles and transitions over time. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 607-618. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-9914-8

42.

National Association for Music Education. (2012). NAfME statement on bullying/hazing. Retrieved from http://www.nafme.org/nafme-statement-on-bullyinghazing/

43.

Orpinas

(1993). Modified Depression Scale. Houston: University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston.

44.

Palkki

Caldwell

(2017). “We are often invisible”: A survey on safe space for LGBTQ students in secondary school choral programs. Research Studies in Music Education, 40, 28-49. doi:10.1177/1321103X17734973

45.

Pallant

(2013). SPSS survival manual: A step-by-step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS. Birmingham, UK: Open University Press.

46.

Poteat

V. P.

(2017). Understanding and reducing homophobic harassment and victimization in schools. In Russell

S. T.

Horn

S. S.

(Eds.), Sexual orientation, gender identity, and schooling (pp. 15-38). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

47.

Poteat

V. P.

Espelage

D. L.

(2005). Exploring the relation between bullying and homophobic verbal content: The Homophobic Content Agent Target (HCAT) scale. Violence and Victims, 20, 513-528.

48.

Rawlings

J. R.

(2016). Middle school students’ perceptions of bullying. Bulletin for the Council of Research in Music Education, 209, 7-26. doi:10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.209.0007

49.

Rawlings

J. R.

(2017). The effect of middle school music ensemble participation on the relationship between perceived school connectedness, self-reported bullying behaviors, and peer victimization. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 213, 53-72. doi:10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.213.0053

50.

Rivers

(2000). Social exclusion, absenteeism and sexual minority youth. Support for Learning, 15, 13-18. doi:10.1111/1467-9604.00136

51.

Rivers

(2004). Recollections of homophobia at school and their long-term implications for lesbians, gay men and bisexuals. Crisis: Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention, 25, 169-175. doi:10.1027/0227-5910.25.4.169

52.

Rom

R. B.

(1998). “Safe spaces”: Reflections on an educational metaphor. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 30, 397-408. doi:10.1080/002202798183549

53.

Saarikallio

Erkkilä

(2007). The role of music in adolescents’ mood regulation. Psychology of Music, 35, 88-109. doi:10.1177/0305735607068889

54.

Shochet

I. M.

Dadds

M. R.

Ham

Montague

(2006). School connectedness is an underemphasized parameter in adolescent mental health: Results of a community prediction study. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 35, 170-179. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp3502_1

55.

Silverman

W. K.

Ollendick

T. H.

(2005). Evidence-based assessment of anxiety and its disorders in children and adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 34, 380-411. doi:10.1207/s15374424iccp4303_2

56.

Swearer

S. M.

Turner

R. K.

Givens

J. E.

Pollack

W. S.

(2008). “You’re so gay!”: Do different forms of bullying matter for adolescent males? School Psychology Review, 37, 160-173.