The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 36, No. 2 - 35

Homonegativity and Residence Hall Climate Perceptions

residence hall climate to be negative towards them, they are unable to feel like they are part of the community. In addition, as LGBT students feel separate and left out of the residence hall community, and when this alienation is coupled with negative self-perceptions, their perceived levels of safety and conflict are affected. LGBT students’ personal safety perceptions are especially impacted by homonegative attitudes when hate crimes and gay bashings continue to populate the news and heterosexism continues to remind LGBT students of the low social status imposed upon them. In considering social support, when LGBT students feel as if they do not belong to the residence group within which they live, they will not feel socially supported. This is especially apparent when they are confronted with higher levels of homonegativity, which repeatedly reminds LGBT students of their lower social status both in the residence hall and in the world at large. Finding a significant relationship between homonegativity and the noise subscale of the RHCS is particularly interesting. LGBT students find their residence hall noisier in the presence of homonegativity. This may be due to the nature of the noise present, in the form of homonegative epithets or threats levied at all students, which may be particularly disturbing and noteworthy for LGBT students. The weaker of the LGBT student correlations between the LGBTRHCI and the RHCS— personalization and cleanliness—may be due to additional factors influencing perceptions about residence hall climate, such as facilities, programming, and resident advisor visibility. The weakness of the score on the personalization subscale is understandable based upon an individual’s desire to personalize residence

hall space being limited not only by social perceptions (whether or not the personalization is potentially offensive to someone else in the hall) but also by administrative policies. That is, students may not be able to redecorate their rooms, display certain images or symbols, or hang various items on a door or wall depending on policies that govern things such as painting or use of adhesives, nails, or screws. However, the relationship with perceptions of homonegativity may be weaker because personalization remains an area more under the individual’s—rather than the community’s —control. Essentially, for LGBT students, the relationship is weaker with regard to personalization of residence hall space because they feel restricted by the possible social threat that may arise if something is deemed “too gay.” In addition, if LGBT students are not “out” to many of their hall mates, they may feel unable to display artifacts about their lives (photos, posters, etc.), which also affects their perceptions about personalization. With regards to cleanliness, it is understandable that a psychosocial construct like homonegativity would have little effect upon this perception given that one’s perception of cleanliness is dependent upon one’s perception of hygienic conditions and building maintenance rather than upon a psychosocial construct. The hypothesis predicted that only LGBT students would show a negative relationship between homonegative attitudes and their residence hall climate. Non-LGBT students were not expected to perceive a relationship between homonegativity and climate, and therefore their scores on the LGBTRHCI were expected to be unrelated to their perceptions about the residence hall climate. However, the

V o l u m e 3 6 , No. 2 • 2 0 1 0

35
The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 36, No. 2

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 36, No. 2
