The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 36, No. 2 - 37

Homonegativity and Residence Hall Climate Perceptions

it is surprising that the relationship was not stronger among LGBT individuals. Given this negative relationship between perceived levels of homonegativity and residence hall climate, administrators of residence life programs may find that additional diversity training, educational programming, and interventions targeted at reducing homonegativity (e.g., Safe Zone) in residence halls would be beneficial for all students.

IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
The findings of this study suggest several avenues for future research. Additional large-scale studies exploring the relationship between homonegativity and residence hall climate should be pursued to verify the results. Second, additional longitudinal studies in which researchers study the long-term effects of diversity programs like Safe Zone and LGBT educational trainings would offer a clearer understanding of how student affairs professionals can better combat the effects of homonegativity in residence halls. Third, research expanded to include multiple campuses would allow researchers to better understand the unique needs of LGBT students as a whole. Fourth, more extensive studies would also allow researchers to

LIMITATIONS
The sample was limited to a single university, yielding findings that may not be representative of a broader population. Response rates were rather low with the registrar sample (245 responses out of 2,000 or 12.25%). Given the nature of the sampling methods used to obtain the LGBT sample, individuals who are members of the various LGBT groups and members of the listserv are arguably more willing and more comfortable responding to surveys such as this one and are more likely to participate in them given their self-identification. It is also possible that LGBT students who are members of campus LGBT groups may be more sensitized to issues of homonegativity and therefore more likely to score higher on measures related to homonegativity. Grouping LGBT students into a single group for analysis represents another limitation of the study. Analyses by groups within the LGBT sample were not possible because of the small size (n = 1) of the transgender group. It is possible, however, that the concerns and perceptions about climate and homonegativity may differ among lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender students.

It appears that a climate of homonegativity in the residence hall environment is both stigmatizing and problematic for all students, not just for LGBT students . When homonegativity is added into the community development equation, it appears that—for all students— the more homonegative the environment, the poorer the overall community development will seem .

V o l u m e 3 6 , No. 2 • 2 0 1 0

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