3333987

Beyond Acceptance Running head: BEYOND ACCEPTANCE: SAFE ZONE

1

Beyond Acceptance: An Evaluation of the Safe Zone Project in a Clinical Psychology Doctoral Program Lauren J. Scher, Psy.D. Long Island University, C. W. Post Campus

UMI Number: 3333987 Copyright 2008 by Scher, Lauren J.

All rights reserved.

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

®

UMI
UMI Microform 3333987 Copyright 2008 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 E. Eisenhower Parkway PO Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

Beyond Acceptance Acknowledgements I would like to recognize my chairperson and program director, Robert Keisner, Ph.D.

2

("Bob"), for having the foresight and conviction to implement the Safe Zone Project. Thank you for entrusting this important endeavor to me and for your unwavering support throughout my graduate education. I am also deeply grateful to Melinda Finkel, Psy.D, without whom this project would not have been possible. Thank you for all the time, energy and creativity you volunteered to this project. Above all, thank you for your friendship. I must also express my immense appreciation to Dr. Jill Rathus, Ph.D., who went well beyond her call of duty to provide me with additional assistance in organizing my methods and results sections. Jill is not only a committee member, but she is also my advisor, mentor, and someone who has had a profound and tremendously positive influence on my development as a clinician. Mom and Dad, I am infinitely grateful for all of your guidance, love and support. You done good! To Tommy, my husband, friend and partner in life, I would like to express my deepest appreciation for your undying support, love, and encouragement throughout the recent challenges of my professional journey (and Sunshine, too!). I would also like to extend my appreciation to my family in Long Island. I am privileged to have two wonderful families, both of whom I cherish. You are my Safe Zone.

Beyond Acceptance Abstract The purpose of this study was to implement and evaluate the effectiveness of the Safe Zone Project at a doctoral program in clinical psychology. Adapted from Finkel, Storaasli, Bandele, and Schaefer (2003), the Safe Zone Project is a diversity-training program designed to increase the students' awareness of and competence in working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals and the issues that impact them. Thirty-seven of the participants who attended the program volunteered to complete self-report questionnaires. Results indicated increased knowledge, favorably impact on specific attitudes, and self-reported positive behavioral changes. Participants also provided feedback and suggestions for improving the program. Other issues addressed include contributions to previous research, limitations and threats to validity, implications for future research, and suggestions for improving the program.

3

Beyond Acceptance Beyond Acceptance: An Evaluation of the Safe Zone Project in a Clinical Psychology Doctoral Program Estimates of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals in the United

4

States have been shown to vary considerably between studies (see, e.g., Burdge, 2007; Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994; Mosher, Chandra, & Jones, 2005; Savin-Williams, 2006; Sell, Wells, & Wypij, 1995). For instance, as researchers differ in how they choose to define and assess homosexuality or same-sex attraction (i.e., by romantic attraction, sexual arousal, sexual behavior, or self-definition), the prevalence rates of lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals can range from 1% to 21% among young adults and adults within the United States (see, e.g., SavinWilliams, 2006; Sell, Wells, & Wypij, 1995). In a 2002 national study regarding sexual behavior and related health issues in the United States, 90% of the men 18 to 44 years old considered themselves to be "heterosexual," 2.3% "homosexual," 1.8% "bisexual," and 3.9% "something else" (Mosher, et al., 2005). Within the same study, 90%) of the women 18 to 44 years old considered themselves to be "heterosexual," 1.3% "homosexual," 2.8% "bisexual," and 3.8% "something else." Efforts to assess the prevalence of transgender individuals has proven to be more problematic, as the umbrella term "transgender," encompasses a wide-range of continuously evolving subgroups, including, but not limited to, pre-operative transsexuals, postoperative transsexuals, gender-variant persons, intersex individuals, cross-dressers, and transvestites (see, e.g. Burdge, 2007; Carroll, Gilroy, & Ryan, 2002). According the American Psychological Association's online resource guide, "Answers to Your Questions About Transgender Individuals and Gender Identity," 2% to 3% of biological males reportedly engage in cross-dressing, while the prevalence of transsexual individuals is currently estimated to be about 1 in 10,000 for biological males and 1 in 30,000 for biological females, and the number of

Beyond Acceptance individuals in other transgender categories is reportedly unknown

5

(http://www.apa.org/topics/Gender3.pdf, retrieved September 18,2007). Due to the considerably broad range of existent transgender individuals, the reported figures are considered to be underestimates (Burdge, 2007; Carroll, et al., 2002). Regardless of the difficulties associated with efforts to obtain meaningful estimates of LGBT individuals in the United States, and despite related changes in the political climate, LGBT individuals are still at an increased risk for various forms of victimization, harassment, discrimination, and violence (Hetrick & Martin, 1987; Savin-Williams, 1994; Hershberger & D'Augelli, 1995; Pilkington & D'Augelli, 1995; Herek, Gillis, Cogan, & Glunt, 1997; Haldeman, 2002; Dworkin & Yi, 2003). Moreover, there is increasing evidence to support the concern that LGBT individuals are a greater risk for developing mental illness, due to the potentially deleterious effects of victimization and stigmatization (Cochran, Sullivan, & Mays, 2003; D'Augelli & Grossman, 2001; Jones & Hill, 2002; Markowitz, 1998; Mays and Cochran, 2001; Savin-Williams, 1994). The internalization of society's negative views towards sexual minorities and gender-variant individuals predisposes LGBT individuals to increased rates of depression, suicidal ideation, shame, and self-hatred (Clements-Nolle, Marx, & Katz, 2006 Cochran, 2001; Cochran, Sullivan, & Mays, 2003; McDaniel, Jones, & Hill, 2002; Purcell & D'Augelli, 2001). An abundance of literature maintains that increased rates of particular mental health problems and the use of mental health professionals among LGBT individuals are directly related to their experiences with negotiating internalized homophobia, heterosexism (or genderism), minority stress and stigma management, along with generally decreased social support (see, e.g., D'Augelli, 1998; Cochran & Mays, 2002; Clements-Nolle, et al., 2006; Cochran, Sullivan, & Mays, 2003; DiPlacido, 1998; Herek, Gillis, & Cogan, 1999; Liddle, 1997;

Beyond Acceptance Luckstead, 2004; Mays & Cochran, 2001; Morgan 1992). Therefore, it is critical that LGBT individuals have access to affirmative and culturally informed mental health practitioners who can adequately help them to cope with their environmental struggles and internal conflicts. Some psychologists argue that mental health and social justice are inextricably linked (Dworkin & Yi, 2003; Glassgold, 2004). Dworkin and Yi maintain, "psychology and related mental health professions must use the tremendous amount of knowledge gained through

6

research to change the policy of oppression towards LGBT people that currently exists" (2003, p. 276). In her Division 44 Presidential address at the 2004 Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Judith Glassgold, Psy.D. recognized that psychologists actively maintain the oppression of LGBTQ (Q-questioning) individuals when they fail to recognize the "social context and injustice" that influence the LGBTQ community (Glassgold, 2004, p. 5). For psychotherapy to effectively address the negative effects of heterosexist oppression, Glassgold argues "psychology must abandon the practice of seeing mental health issues as individual problems and be willing to see these issues as the consequences of social injustice" (2004, p. 6). To ensure that psychotherapy does not become another potential form of oppression, therapists must learn to recognize and address their own heterosexist biases and misconceptions about LGBT individuals. Therefore, as argued by Dworkin and Yi (2003), "the education of mental health professionals must include the recent research and understanding about the lives of LGBT persons and how to do LGBT Affirmative therapy" (p. 277). Unfortunately, the field of Psychology is still working to excise itself from the stigmatizing practices and views that the mental health and medical communities have historically supported with respect to the treatment and understanding of sexual minorities and transgender individuals. Before the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality

Beyond Acceptance

7

from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1973, a wide range of homosexuality "treatments" were in existence. As reported by Haldeman (2002), aversive behavioral techniques included shock treatments and the administration of nausea-inducing drugs during the presentation of homoerotic stimuli, while less aversive treatments employed masturbatory reconditioning, visualization, and social skills training. Additionally, psychoanalytic theory historically supported the belief that homosexuals were psychosexually immature individuals who had not successfully achieved adequate identification with their samesex parent and therefore required reparative psychotherapy (Haldeman, 2002). Following the 1973 American Psychiatric Association's declassification of homosexuality as a mental illness, the American Psychological Association (APA) Council of Representatives adopted a formal resolution against the stigmatization of homosexuals soon thereafter (APA, 1975). In response to the growing need to guide clinicians caring for LGB individuals, the APA office of the Public Interest added a "Resolution on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation" to their list of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Concerns Policy Statements on August 14, 1997 and subsequently established 16 Guidelines for Psychotherapy with Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Clients (APA, 2000). In the 1997 resolution, the APA declared that the organization "supports the dissemination of accurate information about sexual orientation, and mental health, and appropriate interventions in order to counteract bias that is based in ignorance or unfounded beliefs" (APA, 1997, concluding para.). Nevertheless, there still exists a faction of psychologists who practice reparative (or conversion) therapies that promote heterosexist beliefs, and denigrate homosexuality as a mental illness (see, e.g., the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, http://www.narth.com/). Currently, there is much debate regarding the rights of clients who seek

Beyond Acceptance

8

out such services in an effort to reconcile their sexual orientation with their religious beliefs (see, e.g., Morrow, Beckstead, Hayes, & Haldeman, 2004). However, advocates for the mental health rights of sexual minorities warn other mental health professionals about the potential misuse and harm that can ensue from reparative therapies (see, e.g., Gonsiorek, 2004; Haldeman, 2002; Morrow, et al., 2004). Although the American Psychological Association has not explicitly banned conversion therapy outright, the organization currently condemns the use of such potentially harmful clinical practices, particularly in the absence of empirically supported research and absolutely if the clinician's motives for carrying out such procedures occur in a manner that violates the organization's Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (APA, 1992, as cited in APA, 1997). As similarly experienced by sexual minorities, transgender individuals are subject to the same oppressive heterosexist and gendered belief systems that discriminate against those who challenge traditional Western culture's gender norms and roles binary (i.e., male, female; man, woman; masculine, feminine). Consequently, transgender, or gender-variant, individuals have also historically been pathologized and misunderstood by mental health experts (see, e.g., Carroll & Gilroy, 2002; Carroll, Gilroy, & Ryan, 2002; Raj 2002). Amongst some of the more recent forms of misguided mental health practices employed in the last decade are the use of controversial and non-supported forms of behavior modification and reconditioning therapies (Zucker & Bradley, 1995, as cited in Carroll & Gilroy, 2002), the perpetuation of transphobic myths and stereotypes, and the unnecessary insistence on sexual reassignment surgery as the treatment of choice (Denny, 1992, as cited in Carroll & Gilroy, 2002). Fortunately, there is a growing trend within the mental health community that supports more client-centered, transpositive or transajfirmative, models of conducting psychotherapy with transgender

Beyond Acceptance individuals (see, e.g. Carroll & Gilroy, 2002; Carroll, Gilroy, & Ryan, 2002; Korell & Lorah, 2007; Raj, 2002). Such models generally view gender as something that is partly selfdetermined, through which traditional binary gender norms are challenged and where gender is conceptualized on separate continuums of masculinity and femininity, irrespective of biological sex.

9

Due to the arguably overdue acknowledgement that sexual minorities and gender-variant individuals have shared a common oppression within and outside of the field of Psychology, in 2005 the American Psychological Association Board for the Advancement of Psychology in the Public Interest established the Task Force on Gender Identity, Gender Variance, and Intersex Conditions for the purpose of developing recommendations to better understand and assist with the clinical needs of transgender individuals (APA, 2006, pp. 7-8). The task force was responsible for conducting a needs-assessment survey of APA members and students, reviewing the current research on gender identity and intersexuality, and consulting with various relevant boards, committees, professional and community-based organizations. From this comprehensive gathering of information and consultation, the task force is expected to present its findings in September, 2007, which will include recommendations for education, training, policy-making, and meeting the needs of trans-identified APA students and professionals. At present, the APA has posted an online internal resource guide entitled, "Answers to Your Questions about Transgender Individuals and Gender Identity" (http://www.apa.org/topics/Gender3.pdf, retrieved September 18 2007). This online brochure provides some general information about transgender individuals, including how a "transgender" identity is differentiated from the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for Gender Identity Disorder and reasons for which the diagnosis is still considered to be controversial. The resource also provides some

Beyond Acceptance preliminary guidance with respect to assisting transgender individuals along with referrals to more specialized organizations, such as the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association, Inc. and the Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) Transgender Network (TNET).

10

Despite the efforts of the APA to help protect LGBT individuals from potentially harmful clinical practices, while simultaneously promoting more affirmative policies, there continues to be a deficit of well-informed and affirmative LGBT professionals throughout the general mental health community. For example, in 1997, the federal Center for Mental Health Services (part of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, also known as SAMHSA, and the federal Department of Health and Human Services) funded a nationwide research project to review the needs and experiences of LGBT individuals with mental health problems so that recommendations could be offered. Having been affiliated with SAMHSA and this needsassessment project, Alicia Luckstead (2004) conducted a separate qualitative study based on the findings of this multi-year project. Among the several major recurring themes and issues that emerged, Luckstead found that there was "little to no recognition of LGBT issues in most public/community mental health settings," (2004, p. 29), and that many LGBT-affirmative clinicians and programs do not tend to service individuals with serious and persistent mental illness. Another emergent theme involved the reportedly high levels of LGBT-related misinformation, ignorance, and prejudice that many mental health professionals and community mental health systems supported. Such a reported lack of knowledge and widespread negativity among mental health professionals are most concerning, as these issues undoubtedly interfere with professionals' abilities to develop positive working alliances and implement appropriate therapeutic interventions, both of which are irrefutably related to successful treatment outcomes.

Beyond Acceptance

11

In accordance with the APA's Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (1992, Principle E, 2.01), adequate knowledge regarding diversity and the application of culturally appropriate practices not only exemplify cultural competence, but also concern ethical principles and professionalism. According to Hall (1997), those therapists who operate on ignorance are subject to making "erroneous assumptions" about their clients, which can lead to "misdiagnosis and mistreatment" (pp. 644, 645). In order to combat such "cultural malpractice" (p. 642), Hall asserts that graduate programs need to effectively implement appropriate educational and clinical training practices, as these methods are the fundamental means through which cultural competence is obtained. Therefore, it is understandably crucial that psychology graduate training programs suitably educate and prepare their students to work with individuals from diverse backgrounds, including those who are members of the LGBT community. As human sexuality and gendered belief systems are inescapably part of every individual's existence, competent therapists should therefore be comfortable with and possess adequate knowledge about the complex issues related to sexual orientation, gender identity, and the various developmental pathways of both constructs. Nevertheless, several studies indicate that graduate-level training programs have not been adequately preparing their students to work with members of the LGBT community (Allison, Crawford, Echemendia, Robinson, & Knepp, 1994; Fischer, 1998; Pilkington & Cantor, 1996; Sherry, Wilde, & Patton, 2005; Wiederman & Sansome, 1999). In an effort to assess the extent of sexuality and gender training offered to students in professional psychology settings, Wiederman and Sansome (1999) surveyed the training directors, students, and faculty from ninety-five different APA-accredited graduate programs in clinical and counseling psychology, and two hundred twenty-eight accredited predoctoral internship sites. Amongst the clinical and counseling programs, 40.7 to 63.0%

Beyond Acceptance

12

reported that their programs retained faculty with expertise conducting therapy with gay clients, and 18.5 to 29.6% reported having faculty with expertise in gender disorders. Of the accredited internships surveyed, 53.9% had faculty with expertise conducting therapy with gay clients, and 26.8% had faculty with expertise in gender disorders. Regarding the curricular offerings provided to students from the doctoral programs, 10.5% of the programs offered an entire course involving therapy with gay clients, while 50.5% reported that they covered the topic in the context of another course. About one percent of the programs provided an entire course concerning gender disorders, and 49.5% reported that they covered the topic with the context of another course. However, 18.9% of the programs reported that they did not provide any courses that discussed the topic of conducting therapy with gay clients and 42.1% reported that they did not offer any courses that addressed gender disorders. Among the internships surveyed, 2.2% provided an entire course involving therapy with gay clients, while 24.6% reported that they covered the topic in other contexts. With respect to gender disorders, none of the internship site reported that they provided a class about the topic, and only 8.8% reported that they addressed the topic in another context. Moreover, 28.5% of the internships reported that they did not provide any curricular offerings involving therapy with gay clients, and 71.5% reported that they did not provide any curricular offerings concerning gender disorders. Plans to improve the sexuality training among the surveyed programs did not seem likely, as only 17.9% of the doctoral programs and 11% of the internship programs reported that they intended to improve their training. More recently, Sherry, Wilde, and Patton (2005) attempted to survey training directors from two hundred-four APA-accredited clinical and counseling psychology doctoral programs, of which sixty-one clinical directors and forty-three counseling directors responded. The results

Beyond Acceptance of this study were more promising, as 71.4% of the directors reported that their programs covered LGB(T-not mentioned) issues in offered multicultural courses, 89.5% indicated that

13

students were exposed to LGB clientele during practicum, and 94.3% reported that LGB issues were addressed during practicum or supervision. However, only 25.7% reported that their programs retained a faculty member whose primary research involved LGB issues and 17.7% reported that LGB competencies were incorporated into their yearly or end of program evaluations. Furthermore, statistically significant differences were found between counseling and clinical programs in that the counseling programs were more likely to address LGB issues in a multicultural course, have students who were actively mentored in LGB research, and address LGB issues on their comprehensive examinations. In addition to the continued need for adequate LGBT education and training in psychology graduate programs, Pilkington and Cantor (1996) found that many LGB(T-not mentioned) psychology graduate students perceived heterosexual bias and sexual minority discrimination within their training programs. Pilkington and Cantor surveyed sixty-four, mostly lesbian, gay, and bisexually-identified student members from Division 44 of the American Psychological Association (named at that time: The Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian and Gay Issues). The students reported varying degrees of bias and discrimination with respect to the content of their course material, statements made by professors, discouragement from conducting research concerning sexual orientation issues, and other aspects related to their training. Meanwhile, the most commonly reported concern among the students regarded the inadequate coverage of sexual orientation issues during the course of their education. Students reported that sexual orientation issues were addressed in fewer than 25% of their course syllabi. Furthermore, the results of this study seemed to indicate that the most frequently addressed

Beyond Acceptance

14

sexual orientation issues involved those that focused on homosexuality as a disorder. While the results of this particular study may be somewhat biased and outdated, the participants' perceptions of their professional training programs are of particular importance, as these students constitute both members of the psychological community, as well as members of the LGBT community. Fortunately, there appears to be an increasing number of vocal psychologists who are advocating for the advancement of LGBT affirmative educational and psychotherapy practices (see, e.g., Biaggio, Orchard, Larson, Petrino, & Mihara, 2003; Carroll & Gilroy, 2002; Carroll, Gilroy, & Ryan, 2002; Croteau, Bieschke, Phillips, & Lark, 1998; Dworkin & Yi, 2003; Finkel, Storaasli, Bandele, & Schaefer, 2003; Godfrey, Haddock, Fischer, & Lund, 2006; Israel & Selvidge, 2003; Korell & Lorah, 2007; Pachankis, & Goldfried, 2004; Raj, 2002; Worthington, Savoy, & Vernaglia, unpublished manuscript). In a recent unpublished manuscript, entitled, "Beyond Tolerance: An Integrative Model of LGB-Affirmativeness," Worthington, Savoy, and Vernaglia propose a definition of affrrmativeness that transcends the "simple absence of negative attitudes towards LGB" (T-not mentioned) individuals (p. 2). Specifically, the authors assert that an affirmative stance towards LGB(T) individuals includes positive cognitive, affective, and behavioral components. While "tolerance" seemingly implies a lack of negativity, this position does not denote acceptance, let-alone affirmation (Biaggio, et al., 2003). Even "acceptance" implies that there exists something with which one is willing to "put up," or "tolerate." As emphasized by Dorothy Riddle (1985, as cited in Worthington, et al., unpublished manuscript), acceptance "still implies that one must accept the behavior or person, but not necessarily support or understand it." (p. 9). According to Riddle's model of attitudes towards homosexuality, she describes four negative levels of homophobic attitudes that include "Repulsion," "Pity,"

Beyond Acceptance

15

"Tolerance," and Acceptance," while the four affirmative levels of attitudes include "Support," "Admiration," "Appreciation," and "Nurturance" (as cited in Wall, 1995). Riddle's model of attitudes towards homosexuality has also been adapted to extend to attitudes towards transgender individuals (see, e.g., Finkel, Storaasli, Bandele, & Schaefer, 2003). To achieve a positive attitude towards LGB(T) individuals, Worthington, Savoy, and Vernaglia (unpublished manuscript) maintain that homonegativity and heterosexism must be challenged, as such social conventions directly oppose affirmation. Various psychologists have made specific recommendations with respect to how graduate programs should prepare their students to conduct more affirmative clinical practices with LGBT individuals (see, e.g. Biaggio, et al., 2003; Godfrey, et al., 2006; Israel & Selvidge, 2003; Wiederman & Sansome, 1999). The general consensus within the field maintains that training programs should provide opportunities for advancing students' LGBT-related knowledge, increasing their self-awareness about their own (unconscious) attitudes towards LGBTindividuals and related issues, and practicing the skills and awareness they have acquired under the appropriate supervision. Such recommendations are consistent with the educational guidelines established by the APA office of the Public Interest (Guidelines for Psychotherapy with Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Clients), of which Guideline 14 outlines the importance of integrating accurate information and training opportunities in clinical training settings (APA, 2000). Likewise, this guideline is also commensurate with the APA Committee on Accreditation's Cultural and Individual Differences and Diversity requirements listed in the "Guidelines and Principles for Accreditation of Programs in Professional Psychology (1996, domain III.D.).

Beyond Acceptance Biaggio et al. (2003) have proposed several recommendations for implementing affirmative LGB(T-not specifically mentioned) educational practices in graduate-level psychology programs. Such recommendations include the integration of LGB(T) information

16

into the program curriculum, ensuring that faculty and supervisors are informed about the unique needs of LGB(T) individuals, encouraging LGB(T) research, promoting contact with the LGB(T) community, recruiting faculty who have worked with and who have knowledge about LGB(T) individuals, and making student and faculty self-awareness about their own heterosexist (and gendered) beliefs a self-priority. With respect to the last suggestion, Biaggio et al. maintain that effective LGB(T) training specifically requires that students are made aware of their own heterosexist biases and that they learn how heterosexism impacts the LGB(T) community. However, Wiederman and Sansome (1999) recognize that many programs are already overwhelmed with the responsibility of covering the already dense, APA-prescribed course load. The challenge to provide adequate gender and sexuality training is particularly difficult for those programs that do not retain faculty with expertise in these areas. Therefore, Wiederman and Sansome (1999) suggest that these programs should consider recruiting outside professionals to conduct relevant workshops or find other ways to introduce the material in the context of currently available courses. According to the National Consortium of Directors of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Resources in Higher Education (NCLGBTRHE, an outgrowth of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force), a large number of college and universities have implemented "Safe Zone" of "Safe Space" programs in an effort to raise awareness of and increase positive attitudes towards LGBT individuals on their campuses (NCLGBTRHE, 2005). Traditionally, these Safe Zone programs are university-based diversity-training programs that are designed to foster the

Beyond Acceptance

17

development of heterosexual allies on campus and to increase positive attitudes and support for LGBT college students (Evans, 2002; Finkel, Storaasli, Bandele, & Schaefer, 2003; The Safe Zone Foundation, retrieved 6/4/2004). Regarding the specific content of Safe Zone programs, there are no universally established training protocols or resource manuals. However, many of the university-based programs overlap in content and utilize the internet to share the information utilized in their programs (NCLGBTRHE, 2005). It appears that virtually all of the universitysupported Safe Zone programs address heterosexism and homophobia, as well as issues pertaining to gendered belief systems (see, e.g., the "Safe on Campus" Resource Manual from Center for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Life at Duke University, retrieved 6/4/2004, or the University of Washington Safe Zone Manual 2003-2004, retrieved 6/4/2004). In 2003, Finkel et al. published a study about the implementation of the "Safe Zone Project" at the University of Denver Graduate School of Professional Psychology (GSPP). With the intention of increasing the graduate students' understanding of and sensitivity towards LGBT individuals and relevant issue they are likely to face, Finkel et al. adapted the university-based program to meet the training needs of the clinical students (Finkel et al., 2003). The results of the GSPP Safe Zone Project were quite favorable and support the use of Safe Zone programs to increase psychology graduate students' affirmative attitudes and behaviors towards LGBT individuals and relevant issues. Until the fall of 2004, doctoral students attending the Long Island University, C. W. Post Campus Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology had never been provided with any specific courses or workshops aimed at increasing their understanding of and sensitivity towards working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) individuals. In an effort to remedy this educational deficit, the director of the C. W. Post Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology

Beyond Acceptance retained Dr. Melinda Finkel to help introduce the Safe Zone Project to the doctoral students in the fall of 2004. For the first trial of the Safe Zone Project, Dr. Finkel trained and supervised third-year doctoral student, Lauren Scher (author), to co-lead the trainings and perform the

18

subsequent program evaluation. C. W. Post doctoral students in their first through third years of the program were provided with the opportunity to voluntarily attend the Safe Zone trainings with the additional option of participating in the program evaluation. The purpose of this program evaluation was to assess the students' reactions to and the effectiveness of the first trial of the Safe Zone Project at the Long Island University, C. W. Post Campus Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology. Several areas of inquiry were explored in this program evaluation. First, this study explored the Safe Zone Project's impact on the participants' various attitudes, knowledge, and perceived understanding regarding LGBT individuals and related issues, and it was hypothesized that the Safe Zone Project will have contributed significant and favorable changes in these areas. The second area of inquiry involved the Safe Zone Project's impact on the participants' general attitudes towards LGBT individuals, for which it was hypothesized that the Safe Zone Project will have contributed a significant and positive impact. The third area of inquiry explored whether or not the fall Safe Zone training session influenced positive behavioral changes between the fall and spring trainings, as evidenced by self-reported completion of LGBT-affirmative activities. The fourth area of inquiry explored the degree and direction to which the Safe Zone Project impacted the participants on an individual level and the program as a whole. The fifth area of inquiry explored the degree to which participants recommended the Safe Zone trainings to other students and the degree to which the program should be made mandatory for all incoming students. For the sixth area of inquiry, the participants' feedback regarding the various fall training components were explored, as the fall

Beyond Acceptance training session contains many different psychoeducational, didactic, and experiential components. With respect to the spring session, which is almost exclusively experiential and

19

process oriented, Finkel et al. (2003) indicated that the Denver students particularly appreciated the format. Therefore, the seventh area of inquiry explored the extent to which the spring session meaningfully contributed to the Safe Zone Project. Specifically, it was hypothesized that the spring training session will have significantly and favorably increased the participants' attitudes, knowledge, and understanding towards LGBT individuals and related issues both in conjunction with, and above and beyond, that which the fall training was expected to effect. Finally, for the eighth area of inquiry, the participants' feedback and comments regarding the Safe Zone Project were explored and described. The results of this evaluation were used to make recommendations for improving the overall quality of the trainings, as the Safe Zone Project has been integrated into the doctoral program curriculum.

Method

Participants and Recruitment All first through third-year clinical psychology doctoral students, who attended the Safe Zone trainings, were eligible to participate in the program evaluation research. Several weeks before each of Safe Zone training sessions, an announcement was sent out in the weekly online doctoral program newsletter, "Get a Grip," which explained the purpose and nature of Safe Zone Project and the program evaluation. Verbal announcements were also made in the students' classrooms, and flyers were placed throughout the department. Students were informed that if they attended the Safe Zone trainings, they would be read and presented with a letter of information about the research, after which they could decide if they wanted to participate in the

Beyond Acceptance data collection for the program evaluation. The announcements and letter of information explicitly informed students that attending the Safe Zone Project did not necessitate their participation in the research. During the academic year when this study first took place, there were a total of 48 matriculating first, second, and third year students who were eligible to attend the Safe Zone

20

Project trainings. Table 1 displays the demographic characteristics of the research participants, of which there were 21 third-year students (13 female, 9 male), 11 second-year students (9 female, 2 male), and 16 first-year students (13 female, 3 male), which yielded a total of 48 eligible participants. Thirty-eight (79.17%) participants attended the fall Safe Zone training sessions. Specifically, 14 third-year students (11 female, 3 male) attended the morning training session and 24 first and second-year students (20 female, 4 male) attended the afternoon session. Of the 38 students who attended the fall training session, 37 participants completed the program evaluation, of who 12 were first year students, 9 were second-year students, 15 were third-year students, and one was unidentified. To help protect the identities of these students, the questionnaires did not inquire about gender, age, or ethnicity. Of the 37 students who participated in the fall program evaluation, 33 (89.19%) participants identified as "heterosexual," 3 (8.11%) participants identified as "bisexual," 1 (2.70%) did not answer the question, and no participants identified as "gay," "lesbian," "unsure," or "other." With respect to previous LGBT training or coursework prior to attending the Safe Zone Project, 2 (5.41%) participants previously attended an "undergraduate academic course," 1 (2.70%) participant previously attended a "graduate academic course," 5 (13.51%) participants previously attended a "workshop", 2 (5.41%) participants previously attended a "training program", 1 (2.70%) participant previously attended some "other" type of training, and 29 (78.38%) participants did

Beyond Acceptance not indicate any previous training or coursework. Of those participants who reported previous training or academic coursework, three of those participants reported that they attended two different types of trainings or courses, which results in a total of 8 (21.62%) participants who reported any previous experience. With respect to the spring training session, 10 third year students (6 female, 4 male)

21

attended the morning spring training session, and one female second-year student and 13 thirdyear students (11 female, 2 male) attended the afternoon spring training session, which yielded an attrition rate of 36.84%. The larger-than-expected attrition rate in attending second-year students was in part due to an unexpected rescheduling of the afternoon training session, which conflicted with many of the second-years clinic responsibilities. Of the 24 students who attended the spring training, 22 students participated in the program evaluation, of who 20 (90.91%) participants identified as "heterosexual," 2 (9.09%) participants identified as "bisexual," and no participants identified as "gay," "lesbian," "unsure," or "other." It is of interest that one of the spring participants initially self-identified as "heterosexual" at the time of the fall training session, and subsequently self-identified as "bisexual" at the time of the spring training session. Trainings Dr. Melinda Finkel personally trained Lauren Scher to carry out the didactic, experiential, and process-oriented components of the Safe Zone Project trainings. Lauren Scher and Dr. Finkel co-lead both the fall and spring training sessions. For the spring training session, Lauren Scher and Dr. Finkel randomly assigned the participants to one of two smaller groups in which the role-play exercises and subsequent debriefing and final Safe Zone processing took place. Both trainings were approximately 2 hours and 15 minutes in duration. The fall training took place in October of 2004, which the spring training took place in April of 2005.

Beyond Acceptance A more detailed description of the fall and spring Safe Zone training sessions and materials that Dr. Finkel utilized at University of Denver for the 2000-2001 academic year can

22

be found in Finkel et al., (2003). Under Dr. Finkel's supervision, Lauren Scher expanded on the program curriculum that Dr. Finkel compiled for the University of Denver study (Finkel, et al., 2003). Additional materials were compiled from various online Safe Zone resources, including The Safe Zone Foundation (retrieved 6/4/2004), "Safe on Campus" Resource Manual from Center for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Life at Duke University (retrieved 6/4/2004), the University of Washington Safe Zone Manual 2003-2004 (retrieved 6/4/2004), and other local organizations, such as Long Island Gay and Lesbian Youth. (See Appendix A for a listing and descriptions of the Fall and Spring training components.) A 2005-2006 C. W. Post Safe Zone Project training manual and spring training packet may also be obtained from Lauren Scher. Updated training manuals and spring training materials may be obtained from the current C. W. Post Safe Zone Project coordinator. The fall training primarily consists of didactic components, but also has some experiential and process-oriented exercises, all of which are included in the training manual. Expanding on the original manual and materials that Dr. Finkel previously utilized, Lauren Scher added to the section regarding LGBT terms and definitions, including definitions such as "Affectional Orientation," "Internalized Homophobia," and the (Harry Benjamin) "Standards of Care." Lauren Scher also inserted another section entitled, "Deconstructing Gender, Sex and Sexuality," in which these concepts were delineated and deconstructed within a sociocultural context, then discussed as a group. A section on "LGBT Statistics," was also added, which included national statistics on LGBT victimization and discrimination, LGBT youth and schools, and other related social issues. Upon the recommendations outlined in Finkel, et al. (2003,

Beyond Acceptance p.560), Lauren Scher compiled three additional sections devoted to bisexuality, transgender

23

identity, and LGBT people of color. For the sections on bisexuality and transgender identity, the terms biphobia and transphobia were discussed and explored, various examples of each were provided, and common myths were identified and subsequently challenged. With respect to the section on LGBT people of color, examples were provided and the concepts of dual prejudice and dual discrimination were presented and discussed. For the spring training, which is primarily experiential and process-oriented, Lauren Scher added a section in which participants further explored the concept of heterosexual privilege and then broke up into pairs to take turns asking and answering questions that are more commonly presented to LGBT individuals. The list of questions, referred to as the "Heterosexual Questionnaire," included questions such as, "What do you think caused your heterosexuality," and "Is it possible that your heterosexuality is a phase you might grow out of?" Lauren Scher also expanded on the role-play section of the spring training to allow participants the choice to role-play as bisexual/biaffectionate or transgender identified individuals in addition to lesbian or gay-identified individuals, as was the original task outlined in Finkel et al. (2003). Procedure Three points of data collection were employed: pre-fall training, post-fall training, and post-spring training. At the beginning of the fall training session, the trainers provided all students present with a letter of information. To minimize the possibility of identifying participants by their personal information and feedback, consent forms were not used. The letter of information notified the students about the potential risks and benefits of participating in the research, as well as a description of how their data and personal information would be collected and safeguarded. After the trainers passed out and read aloud the letter of information, the

Beyond Acceptance trainers subsequently left the room while a designated Masters student from the Psychology Department remained present to hand out the research questionnaires. For the pre-fall training, each packet of questionnaires contained two pages attached at the back with an individual

24

identification number. The Masters student instructed those students who chose to participate in the research, to put their names on only one of the sheets that contained their unique identification number, which the designated Masters student then collected to compile a list t of participants and their respective identification numbers. The list was subsequently given to the program secretary who safeguarded the information in a locked filing cabinet. The students were told to hold onto the second sheet at the back of the questionnaire, as it contained their identification number, which they would need to fill out additional questionnaires at the end of the fall training (post-fall training data collection) and again after the spring training (post-spring training data collection). At the end of the spring training, the students were provided with the letter of information again and the trainers reminded them that participation in the research was voluntary. Those students who did not participate in the fall training session were still allowed to complete the questionnaires for the spring session. The trainers instructed those students who did not complete any fall questionnaires to write "Spring Only" on their spring questionnaires, should these individuals wish to participate in the spring data collection. Students who participated in the fall session will be told to use their previous identification numbers. Students who forgot or lost their fall identification numbers were able to retrieve them from the program secretary. The same data collection procedures outlined for the fall training were also implemented during the spring training. The questionnaires and measures utilized in this study are included in Appendix B.

Beyond Acceptance

25

In addition to the questionnaires, all students who attended the fall training session (both those who participated in the research and those who did not) were asked to write three LGBT activities they intended to complete between the fall and spring trainings (a.k.a. "I Intend" statements), as this was part of the Safe Zone training. The "I Intend" statements were written on pieces of paper that did not contain any identifying information and were sealed in individual envelopes on which the student's identification number was written. The envelopes were safeguarded in a sealed container in a locked file cabinet and were not opened until the spring training. Only those students who choose to participate in the spring research collection reported whether or not they accomplished any of their "I Intend" statements between the fall and spring trainings. Measures Attitudes, knowledge and understanding regarding LGBT individuals and issues. A modified version of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Knowledge and Attitudes Scale for Heterosexuals (LGB-KASH), served as the primary outcome measure in assessing whether the participants' knowledge of and attitudes towards LGBT individuals and LGBT-related issues increased after attending the Safe Zone program. Developed by Worthington, Dillon, and Becker-Schutte (2005), the LGB-KASH measures heterosexual knowledge and attitudes towards LGB individuals in a multidimensional fashion involving five factors: "Hate," "Knowledge of LGB History, Symbols and Community," LGB Civil Rights," "Religious Conflict," and "Internalized Affirmativeness." Factor 1 ("Hate") measures homophobic and hateful attitudes and behaviors towards LGB individuals. Factor 2 ("Knowledge") measures one's knowledge of LGB history symbols and community. Factor 3 (Civil Rights Attitudes") measures endorsement of LGB civil rights. Factor 4 ("Religious Conflict") assesses the extent to which one's religious

Beyond Acceptance views conflict with acceptance of LGB individuals. Finally, Factor 5 ("Internalized Affirmativeness") measures the extent to which one maintains internalized affirmativeness (as

26

opposed to internalized homophobia) with respect to one's own feelings, behaviors and attitudes. Each factor is comprised of a group of statements that individuals rate on a 6-point Likert Scale (1: "Very uncharacteristic of me," to 6: "Very characteristic of me"). Examples of statements for each of the five factors include: "LGB people deserve the hatred they receive" ("Hate"), "I could educate others about the history and symbolism behind the pink triangle" ("Knowledge"), "I think marriage should be legal for same-sex couples ("Civil Rights Attitudes"), "I keep my religious views to myself in order to accept LGB people ("Religious Conflict") and "I have close friends who are LGB" ("Internalized Affirmativeness"). To derive a single score for each factor, the scores for each item were added and then divided by number of items answered per factor. Unanswered items are excluded. Worthington, et al. (2005) found each of the five factors to have high internal consistency (alphas ranged from .73-.88) and high test-retest reliability (.76-.90). Worthington, et al. (2005) also established good construct and discriminant validity, as well as convergent validity as measured by correlations between subscales of the Attitudes towards Lesbians and Gay Men Scale and the Attitudes Regarding Bisexuality Scale. For the purpose of this program evaluation, this scale was modified by adding the word "transgender," or "T," to questions inquiring about attitudes, rights, and knowledge concerning lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals. While, Roger Worthington did caution against modifying this scale to accommodate transgender individuals (personal communication, August 10, 2004), the author argues that adding the "T" to the questions likely made the instrument more sensitive to more subtle gendered and heterosexist attitudes. This modified measure was used to assess the

Beyond Acceptance

27

participants' attitudes and knowledge about LGBT individuals and was administered three times: before and after the fall training, as well as after the spring training. In addition to the revised LGB-KASH, participants were also asked to rate on a 7-point Likert scale (1 :"Not at all," 4: "Moderately," 7: "Significantly"), how much their subjective understanding of LGBT individuals has improved as a function of attending the fall session, the spring session, and the entire Safe Zone Project as a whole. General attitude towards LGBT individuals. A modified version of the Riddle Homophobia Scale (Riddle Scale) will be used to assess whether the Safe Zone project will have positively impacted the participants' general attitudes towards LGBT individuals. The Riddle Scale (Wall, 1995, as cited in Finkel et al., 2003) measures individuals' general attitude towards LGB (T-added) individuals by asking them to rate their current level of homophobia on an 8point, ordinal scale. Each of the eight points represents one's current level of homophobia and ranges from a low, homophobic score of 1, to a high score of 8, which represents a high positive attitude towards LGB(T) individuals. While there does not appear to be any research studies regarding the reliability and validity of this scale, it is considered to have good face validity (as cited in Finkel, et al., 2003) and the scale is used as an integral part of the Safe Zone trainings (Finkel, personal communication, July 8, 2004). The wording of this scale was also modified to include transgender (T) individuals. This modified measure was also administered three times: before and after the fall training, and then after the spring training. To account for those individuals who did not follow the directions, which asked them to circle only one number (corresponding to the attitudinal valance towards LGBT individuals), the average of all the numbers circled were used.

Beyond Acceptance Self-reported behavioral change. After completing the fall training, participants were

28

asked to write down three LGBT-affirmative activities, actions, or gestures that they would try to complete between the fall and spring trainings. At the end of the spring training, the participants reported the number of "I Intend" statements they actually completed. Only those who consented to being part of the research study reported which actions they accomplished. This measure served as an estimate of self-reported behavioral change as a function of attending the Safe Zone Program. As there was no pre-test measure regarding the participants' pre-Safe Zone involvement in LGBT activities, an attempt to qualify this measure included a question regarding the degree to which participants believed that attending the Safe Zone Project influenced their completion of the " I Intend" statements. Specifically, those participants who completed one or more of their "I Intend" statements were asked to rate on a 7-point Likert scale (1 :"I would have done so regardless-no influence," 4: "Somewhat influenced my completion," 7: "Completely influenced my completion"), "to what extent did attending Safe Zone influence your completion of your 'I Intend' Statements?" Impact. To evaluate how the Safe Zone Project impacted the students and the program as a whole, those students who attend both trainings were asked to rate the degree and direction to which The Safe Zone impacted them personally, as well as the doctoral program. Using a 7-Point Likert scale (1 :"Very Negative," 4: "No impact," 7: "Very Positive"), participants were asked, "Do you think the Safe Zone Project has had a positive or negative impact on the Psy.D. program/department as a whole?" and "Has the Safe Zone Project positively or negatively impacted you, personally?" Recommendation of the Safe Zone trainings. Using 7-point Likert scales (1 :"Not at all," 4: "Maybe," 7: "Absolutely"), participants were asked to rate the degree to which they would

Beyond Acceptance recommend the fall training session, spring training session, and the overall program.

29

Participants were also asked to rate on a 7-point Likert scale (1 :"Absolutely not," 4: "Not sure," 7: "Absolutely"), whether the Safe Zone Project should become a mandatory requirement for all incoming first year students. Fall training evaluation. As the fall training session was comprised of various different psychoeducational, didactic, and experiential components, the participants were asked to list which activities they enjoyed the most, which activities they enjoyed the least, and which activity was the most beneficial. Spring training evaluation. To address the extent to which the spring session meaningfully contributed to the Safe Zone Project, comparisons were made between the LGBKASH and Riddle Scale scores from pre-test to post-spring training scores, as well as from postfall training to post-spring spring. Additionally, those participants who attended both training sessions were asked to evaluate on a 7-point Likert Scale (1 :"Not at all," 4: "Moderately," 7: "Significantly"), how much their level of understanding regarding LGBT individuals improved as a function of having attended the spring training, and as a function of having attended both training sessions. Participant feedback and comments. The participants were asked to report what they would have changed or added to the fall training, the spring training, and the Safe Zone Project as a whole. The students were also asked to provide general, qualitative feedback after each of the training sessions.

Beyond Acceptance Statistical Checks Assessment Validity As both Riddle Scale and the LGB-KASH were modified to assess the participants'

30

attitudes and beliefs regarding transgender individuals, five two-tailed Pearson correlations were conducted between the fall pre-test Riddle Scale scores and each of the five modified LGBKASH factors to test for convergent and divergent validity. These correlations indicated moderate to strong convergent and divergent validity for both modified measures. As expected the Riddle Scale scores were significantly and positively correlated with Factor 2 (Knowledge of LGBT History, Symbols and Community), r (36) = .58, p = .000, Factor 3 (LGBT Civil Rights), r (36) = .56, p = .000, and Factor 5 (Internalized Affirmativeness), r (36) = .12, p = .000. Conversely, Riddle scores were significantly and negatively correlated with Factor 1 (Hate), r (36) - -.34, p = .043, and Factor 4 (Religious Conflict) r (36) = -.65, p = .000. In sum, these correlations revealed for this sample that more affirmative attitudes towards LGBT individuals were significantly and positively associated with LGBT knowledge, endorsement of LGBT civil rights and internalized affirmation, and were significantly and negatively associated with hatred/homophobia towards LGBT individuals and conflict between participants' religious views and their levels of LGBT acceptance. Potential Confounds and Ceiling Effects As time spent within a professional psychology program might be a confound with respect to increasing students' attitudes and knowledge towards the LGBT population, five onetailed Pearson correlations were employed, involving the participants' year in the program (3 levels, 1st 2nd, or 3 rd year) and the pre-test scores from each of the 5 modified LGB-KASH factors. Those students who did not identify as heterosexual were excluded from this check, as

Beyond Acceptance Worthington, et al. (2005) found that heterosexual individuals respond differently to the LGBKASH than do LGB individuals. All of the correlations were found to be non-significant. Therefore, it does not appear that this sample of students' general knowledge and attitudes towards LGBT individuals systematically varied with the amount of time spent within the

31

graduate program. Nevertheless, considering the small sample size, subsequent analyses should be interpreted cautiously when evaluating the potential impact of the Safe Zone on the participants' knowledge and attitudes towards LGBT individuals, as other potential confounds should also be considered (i.e., previous training or exposure). As LGBT individuals are more likely to demonstrate higher rates of acceptance, knowledge, and understanding regarding LGBT individuals and related issues (see, e.g., Worthington et al., 2005), it was therefore reasonable to predict that non-heterosexual individuals would be less likely to evidence significant positive change on such constructs over time. Consequently, procedures were implemented to help control for anticipated ceiling effects. Specifically, the pre-test means and general distribution of scores for the LGB-KASH and Riddle Scale scores were compared between participants who identified as heterosexual, and those who were non-heterosexual. If the means and distribution of scores appreciably differed in the expected direction, then the subsequent data analyses only included data from those who identified as heterosexual. As Worthington, et al. (2005) reported significant differences between heterosexual and LGB individuals' responses to each of the five factors of the LGB-KASH, the means and distributions of heterosexual versus non-heterosexual participants' fall pre-test scores were compared for all five factors. Table 2 displays the means and standard deviations for heterosexual versus non-heterosexual pre-test scores on each of the five modified LGB-KASH

Beyond Acceptance

32

factors. Thirty-three heterosexual participants and three non-heterosexual participants completed the fall pre-test LGB-KASH questionnaire. For the Factor 1 ("Hate"), both heterosexual and nonheterosexual fall pre-test scores indicated moderately low to absence of LGBT hatred or homophobia. Heterosexual participant scores ranged from 1.00 to 2.67 with a modal score of 1.00 (M = 1.21, SD = 0.07), and the three non-heterosexual participants each scored a 1.00 (M = 1.00, SD = 0.00). The distribution of non-heterosexual scores for the first factor fell within the general distribution of scores and will therefore be included in subsequent analyses. With respect to Factor 2 ("Knowledge"), pre-test results revealed that heterosexual participants entered the study with generally moderately low knowledge of LGBT history symbols and community, while the three non-heterosexuals appeared to endorse moderate to high knowledge. Heterosexual participant scores ranged from 1.00 to 4.44 with a modal score of 1.20 (M = 2.02, SD = 0.94), and the three non-heterosexual participant scores ranged from 3.80 to 5.20 (M = 4.67, SD = 0.00). The distribution of non-heterosexual scores extends beyond the distribution of heterosexual participant scores. Therefore non-heterosexual participant scores for this factor will be excluded from subsequent analyses. For factor 3 ("Civil Rights Attitudes"), pre-test scores indicated that both heterosexual and non-heterosexual participants generally supported moderate to high endorsements of LGBT civil rights. Heterosexual participant scores ranged from 3.29 to 6.00 with a modal score of 6.0 (M = 5.25, SD = 0.84), and the three non-heterosexual participant scores ranged from 4.60 to 6.00 (M = 5.20, SD = 0.72). The three non-heterosexual participant scores fell within the general distribution of the heterosexual participant scores, and will therefore be included in subsequent analyses. With respect to Factor 4 ("Religious Conflict"), the results indicated generally low conflict between the participants' religious views and the ability to maintain accepting views towards LGBT individuals. Heterosexual participant scores ranged

Beyond Acceptance from 1.00 to 4.71 with a modal score of 1.0 (M = 2.00, SD = 1.01). Two of three nonheterosexual participants scored a 1.00, and the third scored a 2.00 (M = 1.33, SD = 0.58). The

33

non-heterosexual participant scores fell within the distribution of heterosexual participant scores and will therefore be included in subsequent analyses. Finally, for Factor 5 (Internalized Affirmativeness"), heterosexual and non-heterosexuals differed with respect to their levels of internalized affirmativeness at the onset of the study. Heterosexual participants reported levels of internalized affirmativeness varied considerably at the onset of the study. Their scores generally fell between moderately-low to moderately-high internalized affirmativeness. Specifically, heterosexual participant scores ranged from 1.20 to 5.40 with no distinct mode (M = 3.55, SD = 1.23). The three individuals who identified as non-heterosexual endorsed moderately-high to high levels of internalized affirmativeness at the onset of the study. Specifically, one person scored a 5.20 and the other two scored 6.00 (M = 5.73, SD = 0.46). The distribution of nonheterosexual scores extended beyond the distribution of heterosexual scores and will therefore be excluded from subsequent analyses for this factor. In anticipation that heterosexual and non-heterosexual individuals would also respond differently to the Riddle Scale, the fall Riddle pre-test scores of those who identified as heterosexual (n = 33) versus non-heterosexual (n = 3) were compared in order to address potential ceiling effects. Figure 1 displays the frequencies of the pre-test Riddle Scores for heterosexual versus non-heterosexual participants. For the 33 participants who identified as heterosexual at the time of the fall training, their pre-test Riddle scores ranged from four (Acceptance) to eight (Nurturance) with a mode score of seven (Appreciation) (M = 6.07, SD = 1.45). Seven (21.2%) of the heterosexual-identified participants endorsed Riddle scores that fell within the non-LGBT-affirmative range (scores of 1 through 4), while 26 participants (81.8%)

Beyond Acceptance endorsed scores within the affirmative range (scores of 5 through 8). With respect to the three participants who identified as non-heterosexual at the time of the fall training, two participants (66.7%) endorsed scores of seven (Appreciation) and one participant (33.3%) endorsed a score

34

of eight (Nurturance), all of which fell within the affirmative range (M = 7.33, SD = 0.58). While those who identified as non-heterosexual appeared to maintain more affirmative attitudes towards LGBT individuals than their heterosexual-identified peers, their data was still included in subsequent analyses involving the Riddle Scale due to the small sub-sample of nonheterosexual individuals and that their scores fell within the range of scores endorsed by the general population. However, as it was made known to the investigator that there was some underreporting of non-heterosexual orientations, the apparent difference in scores should still be considered when interpreting subsequent analyses. As there was an attrition rate of 36.84% between the fall and spring sessions, analyses were conducted to determine if there were any pre-training differences on the modified LGBKASH factors and Riddle Scale scores for those participants who completed both the fall and spring training sessions, versus those who only completed the fall training. To assess potential differences on the LGB-KASH pre-fall training factors, five two-tailed t-tests for independent samples were employed. Due to the results of the confound check, only those who endorsed heterosexual orientations were included in the analyses involving Factors 2 ("Knowledge") and 5 ("Internalized Affirmativeness"). As displayed on Table 3, the results of the t-tests reveal that there were no significant pre-training differences between those participants who completed the spring session and those who did not. To determine potential pre-training differences with respect to the Riddle Scale scores, a two-tailed Mann-Whitney U test for independent samples was conducted. As displayed on Table 4, the results of this analysis indicate that there were no

Beyond Acceptance

35

pre-training differences between those participants who completed the spring session and those who did not (U= 148.50,p = ns). Additional analyses were conducted to determine if there were any significant post-fall training differences between those participants who completed the spring training and those who did not, with respect to their LGBT-KASH and Riddle Scale scores. Five two-tailed t-tests for independent samples were used to assess potential group differences on the modified LGBKASH factors. Only those who endorsed heterosexual orientations were included in the analyses involving Factors 2 ("Knowledge") and 5 ("Internalized Affirmativeness"). As displayed on Table 5, the results of the t-tests reveal that there were no significant post-fall training differences between those participants who completed the spring session and those who did not. A two-tailed Mann-Whitney U test for independent samples was conducted to assess for significant post-fall training group differences with respect to the Riddle Scale scores. Also displayed on Table 4, the results of this analysis indicate that there were no pre-training differences between those participants who completed the spring session (n = 21) and those who did not (n = 15), (U= 141.00,/? = ns). Demand Characteristics To assess for potential demand characteristics, participants were asked to rate on a 7point Likert scale if they felt pressured to act, feel, or think a certain way during the training that resulted in them feeling uncomfortable (l-"Very Pressured," 4-"Somewhat Pressured," 7-"Not at all" pressured). Participants were asked to complete this rating after both the fall and spring trainings. Thirty-five out of 36 study participants answered this question after the fall training. In general, they reported very low perceived pressure with scores ranging from four to seven (M = 6.43, SD = 0.88). Twenty-two participants answered this question after the spring training.

Beyond Acceptance

36

Ratings were generally low to very low, ranging from a single score of three to a mode score of seven (M = 6.18, SD = 1.10). Figure 2 displays the frequencies of the fall and spring perceived levels of pressure. Results Attitudes, knowledge and understanding regarding LGBT individuals and issues. To address the first hypothesis, which predicted that the Safe Zone will have significantly and favorably increased the participants' attitudes, knowledge and understanding regarding LGBT individuals and related issues, two sets of one-tailed, paired t-tests were employed using the modified LGB-KASH. Due to the results of the potential confound check, only those who endorsed heterosexual orientations were included in the analyses involving Factors 2 ("Knowledge") and 5 ("Internalized Affirmativeness"). The first set of five paired t-tests compared the pre-test scores from each of the five modified LGB-KASH factors with those obtained after the fall training (as displayed on Table 6). The results of these t-tests revealed significant positive changes from before to after fall training on Factor 2 ("Knowledge"), £(32) = 6.91, p = .000, Factor 3 ("Civil Rights Attitudes"), £(34) = 1.98,/? = .03, and Factor 5 ("Internalized Affirmativeness"), £(32) = 1.99, p = .03. Specifically, participants reported greater levels of LGBT knowledge after the fall training (M = 3.17, SD = 1.17) when compared with pre-training scores (M = 2.05, SD = 0.95). Participants also endorsed more affirmative LGBT civil rights attitudes after the fall training (M = 5.41, SD = 0.69) than they did before the fall training (M = 5.25, SD = 0.83). Participants also reported a greater degree of internalized affirmativeness after the fall training (M = 3.93, SD =1.17) than they did before the fall training (M = 3.62, SD =1.17). A significant negative, but favorable, change was found with respect to Factor 4 ("Religious Conflict"), t (34) = -2.29, p = .01, which demonstrates that participants

Beyond Acceptance reported significantly less intrapersonal religious conflict (with respect LGBT affirmativeness)

37

after the fall training (M = 1.68, SD = 0.87) than they did before the fall training (M = 1.87, SD = 0.97 ). No significant change was found between pre-fall training scores (M = 1.19, SD = 0.37) and post-fall training scores (M = 1.10, SD = 0.25) with respect to Factor 1 ("Hate"), t (34) = 1.64, p - ns. Therefore, with the exception of the Factor 1 ("Hate"), which remained unchanged, the results indicate that the fall training significantly and favorably increased the participants' knowledge and attitudes towards LGBT individuals and LGBT-related issues. The second set of five paired t-tests compared the pre-test scores from each LGB-KASH factors with those obtained after the spring session (as displayed on Table 7). Only those participants who attended both trainings were included in these analyses and only those who endorsed heterosexual orientations were included in the analyses involving Factors 2 ("Knowledge") and 5 ("Internalized Affirmativeness"). From pre-fall training to post-spring training, significant positive and favorable differences were found with respect to Factor 2 ("Knowledge"), t (19) = 5.82,p = .000, and Factor 5 ("Internalized Affirmativeness"), t (19) = 2.62, p = .01. Participants reported significantly higher levels of LGBT knowledge and internalized affirmatives after the spring training (M = 3.14, SD = 0.95; M = 3.87, SD = 1.27, respectively) when compared to levels reported prior to the fall training (M = 1.98, SD = 1.02; M = 3.40, SD = 1.22, respectively). A significant negative (favorable) change was found with respect to Factor 4 ("Religious Conflict"), / (20) = -4.23, p = .000, which demonstrates that participants reported significantly less intrapersonal religious conflict related to their internalizes affirmativeness of LGBT individuals after attending both training sessions (M = 1.48, SD = 0.56), as compared to their level of conflict reported before the fall training (M = 1.87, SD = 0.97). From pre-fall training to post-spring training, no significant differences were found with

Beyond Acceptance

38

respect to Factor 1 ("Hate") t (20) = 0.68,/? - ns, and Factor 3 ("Civil Rights Attitudes"), t (20) = 1.69, p = .ns. Therefore, with the exception of the Factors 1 and 3 ("Hate" and "Civil Rights Attitudes," respectively), which remained unchanged, the results indicate that the participants' knowledge and attitudes towards LGBT individuals and related issues changed significantly and favorably after attending both training sessions. Participants were also asked to rate the degree to which they believed their understanding of LGBT individuals improved as a function of attending the fall session, the spring session, and the Safe Zone Project as a whole. Only those students who attended both the fall and spring trainings were asked to answer the questions pertaining to the spring training and the Safe Zone training as a whole. Figure 3 displays the frequencies of participants' perceived improvement in understanding after attending the fall session, spring session, and Safe Zone training as a whole. Table 8 lists the frequencies and percentages of Likert scale scores endorsed after attending the fall session, spring session, and Safe Zone training as a whole. Specifically, participants were asked to rate the degree to which their understanding improved on a 7-point Likert scale (1 :"Not at all," 4: "Moderately," 7: "Significantly") after each training session, and then with respect to the whole program. Thirty-five participants responded to this question after the fall training. Scores ranged from 1 to 7, with a mode score of 5 (M = 4.31, SD = 1.64), thereby indicating a that the participants collectively endorsed that the fall training session influenced a moderate increase in their level of understanding. Twenty-one participants answered the questions regarding the perceived impact of the spring training and the whole program on their levels of understanding. With respect to the spring training, participants generally reported moderate improvement, with scores ranging from 2 to 7 and a mode of 6 (M = 4.83, SD = 1.43). In considering the potential impact of the entire program on the their level of understanding,

Beyond Acceptance participants generally reported moderate to moderately-high improvement, with scores ranging

39

from 1 to 7 and a mode of 6 (M = 5.00, SD = 1.41). Altogether, the preceding results generally support the hypothesis that predicted the Safe Zone Project would have significantly and favorably influenced the participants' attitudes, knowledge and understanding regarding LGBT individuals and related issues. General attitude towards LGBT individuals. Using the Riddle Scale, two one-tailed, nonparametric Wilcoxon tests were employed to address the hypothesis that predicted the Safe Zone Project would have positively increased the participants' general attitudes towards LGBT individuals. The first Wilcoxon test compared the participants' fall pre-test Riddle Scale scores with those obtained after the fall training session, while the second Wilcoxon test compared the fall pre-test Riddle scores with those obtained after the spring training session. Data from only those participants who attended both trainings were used for the second Wilcoxon test. Regarding the first Wilcoxon test, 36 participants completed the fall pre-test Riddle scale (M = 6.17, SD = 1.44) and 35 participants completed the fall post-test Riddle scale (M = 6.61, SD = 1.39). The results of the first Wilcoxon test (based on negative ranks) revealed that there were significantly more participants who demonstrated positive increases in their attitudes towards LGBT individuals (z =-2.76, p = .003). Specifically, from fall pre-test to fall post-test, eleven participants (31.43%) demonstrated an increase in their individual Riddle Scale scores, two participants (5.71%) demonstrated a decline in their individual Riddle Scale scores, and twentytwo participants (62.86%) demonstrated no change in their individual Riddle scores. Figure 4 displays the distributions of both the fall pre-test and fall post-test Riddle Scale scores. With respect to the second Wilcoxon test, twenty-one participants completed both the fall pre-test Riddle Scale (M = 6.12, SD = 1.48) as well as the spring post-test Riddle Scale (M = 6.45, SD =

Beyond Acceptance

40

1.36). The second Wilcoxon test (based on negative ranks) indicated that there was no significant change in these participants' attitudes towards LGBT individuals from pre-test fall training to post-test spring training (z = -1.35,p = ns). Specifically, from fall pre-test to spring post-test, eight participants (38.10%) demonstrated an increase in their individual Riddle scores, three participants (14.29%) demonstrated a decrease in their individual Riddle scores, and ten participants (47.62%) demonstrated no change in their individual Riddle scores. Figure 5 shows the distributions of Riddle Scale scores for those participants who attended both the fall and spring training session also completed the fall pre-test, fall post-test, and spring post-test Riddle Scales. Therefore, these results supported the hypothesis that predicted the Safe Zone Project would have positively increased the participants' general attitudes towards LGBT individuals, but only with respect to having attended the fall session. Specifically, it appears that the fall training session positively influenced the participants' general attitudes towards LGBT individuals, while the spring training session did not appear to significantly change attitudes further. Self-reported behavioral change. To assess behavioral changes between the end of fall training and the onset of the spring training, the number of self-reported "I Intend" statements completed between the fall and spring training sessions were counted and categorized. Table 9 shows the frequency and percentage of "I Intend" Statements completed by category. Only those participants who attended both training sessions answered how many statements they completed (n = 21). Of these participants, 13 participants (61.90%) reported that they completed at least one (and up to three) "I Intend" statements, and eight participants (38.10%) reported that they did not complete any of their "I Intend" statements. Of the participants who reported that they completed at least one "I Intend" statement, five (23.81%) participants completed three statements, three

Beyond Acceptance (14.29%) participants completed two statements, and the remaining five (23.81%) participants completed one statement. The two most popular categories of "I Intend" statements that participants reportedly completed were to watch a movie or read a book that addressed LGBTrelated issues, and to reach out to/support an LGBT individual or friend, for which five participants (23.81%) reported completing "I Intend" statements for each of these categories.

41

Four other categories of "I Intend" statements were completed by two participants (9.52%) each, and include the following categories of statements: address LGBT-related issues in academics or the classroom, engage in introspection regarding heterosexist beliefs and assumptions, not to pathologize LGBT individuals, and not make assumptions/use neutral language in clinical work. The remaining seven categories of "I Intend" statements were completed by one participant (4.76%) each, and included to "live life openly as an LGBT person," to "attend an LGBT educational event," to "confront homophobia," to "think about how hard it is to be LGBT," to "learn more about theology and homosexuality," to "read the Safe Zone manual in more detail," and to "bring up topic in externship to learn more about working with LGBT individuals." One participant (4.76%) did not clarify the specific "I Intend" statement that was completed. For the participants who completed one or more "I Intend" statements, they were asked to rate, on a 7-point Likert scale (1 :"I would have done so regardless-no influence," 4: "Somewhat influenced my completion," 7: "Completely influenced my completion"), the degree to which the Safe Zone Program influenced their completion of the "I Intend" statements. All 13 participants who completed at least one "I Intend" statement responded to this question and generally endorsed a moderate to moderately-high degree of influence was reported (M = 4.77, SD = 1.83). Figure 6 displays the frequencies of the participants' ratings regarding the degree to which the participants attributed the completion of their "I Intend" statements to having attended the fall

Beyond Acceptance

42

Safe Zone training. Thus, as evidenced by self-report, the results indicate that the fall Safe Zone training encouraged positive behavioral changes with respect to participants' actions towards LGBT individuals and related issues. Impact. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the degree and direction to which Safe Zone Project impacted the participants on a personal level, as well as the general doctoral program. Using a 7-point Likert scale (1-"Very Negative," 4-"No Impact," 7-"Very Positive") only those participants who attended both training sessions were asked to rate the degree of impact and direction of the Safe Zone Project with respect to their personal lives and the Psy.D. program as a whole. With respect to the 20 participants who responded to the question concerning the Safe Zone Project's impact on their personal lives, ratings ranged from "No Impact"(4) to "Very Positive"(7) (M = 5.85, SD = 0.99). Figure 7 displays the frequencies of the participants' ratings regarding the Safe Zone's impact on their personal lives. Of the 21 participants who responded to the question concerning the Safe Zone Project's impact on the Psy.D. program as a whole, ratings ranged from "No Impact" (4) to "Very Positive" (7) (M = 6.19, SD = 1.17). Figure 8 displays the frequencies of the participants' ratings regarding the Safe Zone's impact on the Psy.D. program as a whole. Thus, the results indicate that the Safe Zone Project positively impacted the participants on a personal level and the doctoral program as a whole. Recommendation of the Safe Zone trainings. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the degree to which participants would likely recommend the Safe Zone trainings to other students and if attending the Safe Zone trainings should be made mandatory for all incoming students. After the fall training session, and again after the spring session, participants were asked to indicate on a 7-point Likert scale (l-"Not at all," 4-"Maybe," 7-"Absolutely") whether

Beyond Acceptance

43

they would recommend the respective training. Thirty-five participants rated the degree to which they would be inclined to recommend the fall training. Figure 9 displays the frequencies of the participants' ratings regarding the degree to which they would recommend the fall training. The results demonstrated that these participants generally endorsed a moderate to moderately high degree of recommendation with respect to the fall training (M = 5.63, SD = 1.33). Twenty-two participants rated the degree to which they would likely recommend the spring training. Figure 10 displays the frequencies of the participants' ratings regarding the degree to which they would recommend the spring training. These participants generally endorsed a moderately high degree of recommendation for the spring training (M = 6.23, SD = 0.92). Only those participants who attended both training sessions were asked to indicate on a 7-point Likert scale (l-"Not at all," 4"Maybe," 7-"Absolutely") whether they would recommend the Safe Zone Project as a whole. Twenty-one participants rated the likelihood of recommending the training as a whole. Figure 11 displays the frequencies of the participants' ratings regarding the degree to which they would recommend the Safe Zone trainings as a whole. The results indicate a moderately high likelihood that these participants would recommend the training as a whole (M = 6.10, SD = 1.00). In general, these results indicate that the participants endorse a moderately high likelihood that these participants would recommend attending the Safe Zone Project to other students. Only those participants who attended both training sessions were asked to indicate on a 7point Likert scale (1-"Absolutely Not," 4-"Not Sure," 7-"Absolutely") the degree to which they believed the Safe Zone Project should become a mandatory requirement for all incoming first year students. Figure 12 displays the frequencies of the degree to which participants endorsed that the Safe Zone Project should become a mandatory requirement. Of the 21 participants who responded to this question, 17 participants (80.95%) endorsed a score of five or higher (M =

Beyond Acceptance 5.90, SD = 1.30). These results indicate that the participants generally believed that the Safe Zone Project should become a mandatory requirement for all incoming first year students. Fall training evaluation. Participant feedback regarding the components of the fall training sessions were assessed by asking participants to identify which activities they enjoyed the most, which activities they enjoyed the least, and which activities they found to be most beneficial. Due to a slight differential in time constraints between the morning session and the afternoon session, feedback regarding the components of the fall training was evaluated

44

separately.1 Feedback regarding the morning session of the fall training is displayed on Table 10. For those who attended the morning session, fourteen participants completed this portion of the questionnaire, and twenty-one participants completed this section for the afternoon session. With respect to the morning session, participant feedback indicated that the most enjoyed activity (50.00%) was the "Small Group Discussion," in which the participants broke up into several smaller groups and processed the questions, "In what ways might we alienate LGBT clients?" and "What might alienate LGBT graduate students?" None of the morning session participants reported that they did not like the "Small Group Discussion," but only 7.14% percent of the morning participants reported that this was the most beneficial fall activity. The next most highly enjoyed activity for the morning session was the "Imagine" experiential exercise (42.82%) in which participants were guided through an imaginal world where homosexuality was privileged and heterosexuals were discriminated. For the morning session, the "Imagine" exercise was also the highest rated activity for being most beneficial (21.43%), but 14.29% of the participants reported that they did not enjoy this activity. The fall activities that were rated highest for not being enjoyed by the morning participants included the sections on "Deconstructing Gender, Sex, and Sexuality" and the BINGAY game (21.43%), followed by the sections on "Defining

Beyond Acceptance LGBT Terms" and the "Imagine Experiential Exercise" (14.29%). Interestingly, 35.71% of the morning participants also reported that they most enjoyed the section on "Deconstructing Gender, Sex, and Sexuality" with 7.14% of the participants rating this section as being most beneficial. With respect to "BINGAY," only 14.29% of the morning participants reported that they most enjoyed the game and none of the participants reported that it was most beneficial. Finally, 14.29 % of the morning participants reported that they most enjoyed the section on

45

"Defining LGBT Terms," in which participants were taught appropriate definitions of important LGBT terms. None of the morning participants reported this section to be most beneficial. For the morning fall training session, it generally seems that enjoyment was related to being perceived as beneficial, with the exception of the "Small Group Discussion," which received the highest rating for enjoyment with only 7.14% of the participants rating this section as being most beneficial. Mixed reviews were also noted for the section on "Deconstructing Gender, Sex, and Sexuality," for which 35.71% of the participants reported that they enjoyed this section, 21.43% reported that they did not enjoy it, and only 7.14% found this section to be most beneficial. Feedback regarding the afternoon session of the fall training is displayed on Table 11. For the afternoon session the "BINGAY" game received the highest ratings for both the most enjoyed (57.14%) and least enjoyed (9.52) fall activity, with 14.29% of the participants reporting that this activity was most beneficial. "Writing the "I Intend" statements" also received the highest not enjoyed rating (9.52%) for the afternoon session. The next most enjoyed fall activity rated by those who attended the afternoon session was the review and discussion about the "Riddle Scale" (52.38%), with 4.76% reporting that this activity was most beneficial. No afternoon participants reported that they did not enjoy the "Riddle Scale." Interestingly, "Deconstructing Gender, Sex, and Sexuality" received the highest rating for being most

Beyond Acceptance

46

beneficial (19.05%), but only 19.05% of the participant's rated that they enjoyed this component and 4.76% reported that they did not enjoy this component. Therefore, participant feedback for the afternoon fall training session did not seem to demonstrate any clear relationships between reported enjoyment of a component and that component being perceived as most beneficial. When examining both fall training sessions together, at least (33.33%) or more of the participants in each session rated the "Imagine" Experiential Exercise and the "Small Group Discussion" (about alienating LGBT clients and graduate students) as being a component that they enjoyed. Subsequently, at least 28.57% or more of the participants in each session rated the sections on "Brainstorming Common Terms Applied to GLBT Individuals" and "The Kinsey Scale" as being components that they enjoyed. However, if the actual number of participant endorsements were added together from both sessions (not taking into consideration the differences between the morning and afternoon sessions), then the "BINGAY" activity and "Riddle Scale" session each would have received relatively high ratings with a total number of 14 enjoyed endorsements each, with BINGAY receiving a 14.29% and 57.14% endorsement rate for the morning and afternoon sessions, respectively, and the "Riddle Scale" receiving a 21.43% and 52.38% rate for the morning and afternoon sessions, respectively. Between the morning and afternoon sessions, the "BINGAY" activity received the highest percentage of endorsements for being not enjoyed (21.43% and 9.52%, respectively), with a total number of five not enjoyed endorsements. When combining the morning and afternoon sessions, the section on "Deconstructing Gender, Sex and Sexuality" received a total number of four not enjoyed endorsements, with rates of 21.34% and 4.76% for the morning and afternoon sessions, respectively. The section on "Deconstructing Gender, Sex and Sexuality" also received a combined number of nine enjoyed endorsements and five most beneficial endorsements when the

Beyond Acceptance number of participant endorsements from both sessions was added together. Activities rated as

47

being most beneficial varied widely between the morning and afternoon groups. However, when the number of participant endorsements from both sessions was added together, then the "Imagine" experiential exercise and the section on "Deconstructing Gender, Sex and Sexuality" received the highest number of endorsements. Specifically, a combined total number of six participants rated the "Imagine" experiential exercise as being most beneficial (21.43% and 14.29% of the morning and afternoon sessions, respectively), and a total number of five participants rated the section on "Deconstructing Gender, Sex and Sexuality" as being most beneficial (7.14% and 19.05% of the morning and afternoon sessions, respectively). Spring training evaluation. Several measures and analyses were used to evaluate whether the spring training meaningfully and favorably contributed to the Safe Zone Project. Data from only those participants who attended both training sessions were used for the following analyses. Using the LGB-KASH, two sets of one-tailed, paired t-tests were employed. The results of these t-tests were previously described under the "Results" section subheading, "Attitudes, knowledge and understanding regarding LGBT individuals and issues " (see Table 7). As previously stated, the results indicate that the spring training, in conjunction with the fall training, appears to have contributed significantly and favorably with respect to the participants' levels of "Knowledge," "Religious Conflict," and "Internalized Affirmativeness," regarding LGBT individuals and LGBT-related issues, but otherwise did not significantly influence the participants' levels of "Hate" with respect to LGBT individuals and LGBT-related issues. As displayed on Table 7, the results did not reach, but appeared to approach significance with respect to positive changes in the participants' "Civil Rights Attitudes." With respect to those

Beyond Acceptance factors for which favorable significant changes were evidenced, it is difficult to assess how meaningful those changes were, as the influence of the fall training confounds these results.

48

To address the specific hypothesis that the spring training session will have significantly and favorably increased the participants' knowledge, attitudes and understanding above and beyond that which was effected by the fall training, the second set of five paired t-tests compared the post-fall training scores from each of the five LGB-KASH factors with those obtained after the spring training and are displayed on Table 12. The results of these paired t-tests indicated no significant change from post-fall training to post-spring training for Factor 2 ("Knowledge"), t(\9) = 0.1 \,p = ns, Factor 3 ("Civil Rights Attitudes"), t(20) = 1.06,/? = ns, and Factor 5 ("Internalized Affirmativeness"), t(\9) = 0.48,p = .ns. A significant negative (favorable) change was found on Factor 4 ("Religious Conflict"), t (20) = -1.88, p = .04, which indicates that participants reported significantly less intrapersonal religious conflict (with respect LGBT affirmativeness) after the spring training (M = 1.48, SD = 0.56) than they did after the fall training (M = 1.73, SD = 0.84). Unexpectedly, the results revealed a significant positive (unfavorable) change from post-fall to post-spring on Factor 1 ("Hate"), t (20) = 2.25, p = .02. Specifically, participants reported significantly greater degree of homophobic/hateful attitudes towards LGBT individuals after the spring training (M = 1.30, SD = 0.40) than they did after the fall training (M = 1.12, SD = 0.29). Therefore, it appears that the spring session only significantly and favorably contributed to gains made from the fall training session with respect to the participants' levels of "Religious Conflict," while unexpectedly effecting a significant, unfavorable, but questionably meaningful, change with respect to participants' levels of "Hate." How meaningful the seemingly significant increase in the participants' level of "Hate" is limited by the likelihood of a floor effect, coupled with a small sample size, relatively large attrition rate,

Beyond Acceptance

49

and possible selection bias. Similarly, it is difficult to assess how meaningful were the favorable changes in the participants' levels of "Religious Conflict." Using the Riddle Scale, two one-tailed, non-parametric Wilcoxon tests were also used to evaluate whether the spring training meaningfully and favorably contributed to the Safe Zone Project. Figure 5 shows the distribution of Riddle scores at all three points of assessment for those participants who completed both the fall and spring training sessions. To assess whether spring training session, in conjunction with the fall session, significantly increased the participants' level of affirmation towards LGBT individuals, the first Wilcoxon test compared the participants' fall pre-test Riddle scores with their post-spring session scores. The results of this Wilcoxon test were previously described under the "Results" section subheading, "General attitude towards LGBT individuals. " As previously stated, while 38.10% of the participants (who attended both training sessions) demonstrated an increase in their Riddle scores, the first Wilcoxon test (based on negative ranks) indicated that there was no significant change in the individual participants' attitudes towards LGBT individuals from pre-test fall training to post-test spring training (z--1.35,p = ns), as three participants (14.29%) demonstrated a decrease in their

individual Riddle Scale scores, and ten participants (47.62%) demonstrated no change in their individual Riddle Scale scores. Therefore, it appears that the spring session, in conjunction with the fall training session, did not significantly influence the participants' general attitudes towards LGBT individuals. However, while there was no significant change with respect to individual Riddle Scale scores, the distribution of scores displayed on Figure 5 depicts a positive trend when fall pre-test and spring post-test scores are visually compared. Analysis of the participants' Riddle Scale scores reveal that the participants as a whole collectively demonstrated the same percentages of affirmative versus non-affirmative scores for their fall pre-test and post test

Beyond Acceptance scores, and that there was an increase in the percentage of affirmative scores with a decrease in

50

the percentage of non-affirmative scores after the spring training. Specifically, 16 (76.2%) of the participants reported affirmative scores and 5 (23.8%) reported non-affirmative scores at both fall pre and post-test. For this same group of participants, their spring post-test scores revealed that 18 (85.7%) of the participants reported affirmative scores and 3 (14.3%) reported nonaffirmative scores. To assess if the spring training session significantly increased the level of affirmation in the participants' general attitudes towards LGBT individuals, above and beyond that which the fall training appeared to influence, the second Wilcoxon test compared the participants' fall posttest Riddle Scale scores with their post-spring session scores (n = 21). The results of this test indicate that there was no significant change in attitudes towards LGBT individuals from postfall training (M = 6.45, SD = 1.55) to post-spring training (M = 6.45, SD = 1.36), (z = -0.12, p = ns). Specifically, from fall post-test to spring post-test, five (23.8%) participants demonstrated a decrease in their individual Riddle scores, four (19.01%) reported an increase in their individual Riddle scores, and twelve (57.14%) demonstrated no change in their individual Riddle scores. Therefore, the results indicate that the spring training session did not significantly increase individual participants' general levels of affirmation towards LGBT individuals, either in conjunction with or above and beyond that which the fall training seemed to effect. A closer look at the group statistics also revealed that the percentage of the participants who endorsed either of the two highest levels of affirmation ("Appreciation" or "Nurturance") at post-fall declined by 14.4% at post-spring, which is consistent with the unexpected rise in reported levels of "Hate" on modified LGB-KASH. Nevertheless, and as previously mentioned, the participants as an entire group reported more affirmative Riddle Scale scores after the spring session than they did either

Beyond Acceptance

51

before or immediately after the fall session. Therefore, while individual changes were not found to be significant, the descriptive group statistics reveal arguably meaningful group changes in general attitudes towards LGBT people after the spring session. Participants were also asked to rate on a 7-point Likert scale (l-"Not at all," 4"Moderately," 7-"Significantly"), how much their understanding of LGBT individuals improved as a function of having attended the spring training, and also as a function of having attended both training sessions. The results of these descriptive statistics were previously explained under the "Results" section subheading, "Attitudes, knowledge and understanding regarding LGBT individuals and issues.'" The distribution of Likert scores are displayed on Figure 3, and frequencies and percentages of Likert scores are listed on Table 8. As previously described, participants generally reported a moderate improvement in understanding after the spring session (M = 4.83, SD = 1.43) and moderate to moderately-high improvement with respect to having attended both training sessions (M = 5.00, SD = 1.41). These descriptive statistics were also used to understand the impact of the spring session in conjunction with and above and beyond what the fall training effected. Specifically, these results indicate that participants' believed that the spring session positively contributed to their understanding of LGBT individuals and related issues in conjunction with the fall training session and also independently from the fall training session. Such results indicate that the participants found the spring session to be meaningful with respect to their subjective level of understanding towards LGBT individuals. Altogether, the results from the spring evaluation partially suggest that the spring training meaningfully and favorably contributed to the Safe Zone Project, both in conjunction with, and above and beyond, that which the fall training effected.

Beyond Acceptance Participant feedback and comments,. Finally, the students' general feedback and comments regarding the Safe Zone Project were explored. Specifically, the participants were

52

asked to report what they would have changed or added to the fall training, spring training, and the Safe Zone Project as a whole. Participants were also invited to provide additional comments after each training session. While those who attended the fall training session had the opportunity to provide feedback directly after the fall training, only those students who attended both trainings sessions were asked to provide feedback regarding the spring training session and the Safe Zone Project as a whole. With respect to the fall training session, 36 participants completed the fall training post-test questionnaires. Twenty-nine of these participants (80.56%) provided feedback about possible changes or additions to the fall training and seven participants (19.44%) did not provide any feedback. The specific suggestions regarding possible changes or additions were sorted into several categories and are listed on Table 13 by percentage of the total number of participants who completed the post-test questionnaires. Eight (22.22%) participants suggested that more time be allotted for the fall session. The second most popular categories of suggestions were each endorsed by four participants (11.11%) and include allotting a break, providing more information relevant to clinical application, and adding more information and discussion related to sociocultural issues including religion, ethnicity, and pop-culture. Three participants (8.33%) endorsed each of the third most popular categories, which include suggestions regarding more group participation, discussion, and sharing of personal experiences, adding more experiential components, and removing some material. With respect to the latter suggestion, all three participants suggested removing or spending less time on LGBT terminology and definitions. Two participants (5.56%) endorsed each of the fourth most popular suggestions, which included the addition of more historical information (i.e., "Gay Rights

Beyond Acceptance

53

Movement"), incorporating audiovisual media, discussing current social, political, or legal issues affecting LGBT individuals, and breaking into smaller groups to better facilitate discussion. Two participants (5.56%) also made specific programming suggestions, such as changing the order of the fall activities and using a pre-test questionnaire to tailor the fall session to the students' level of knowledge and training needs. Finally, one participant (2.78%) indicated the need for more information or discussion about the ways in which ".. .sexual orientation may impact issues of mental health." With respect to the spring training session, 21 participants completed the spring post-test questionnaires. Sixteen of these participants (76.19%) provided feedback about possible changes or additions to the spring training and five participants (23.81%) did not provide any feedback. Again, the participants' suggestions were sorted into several categories and are listed on Table 14 by percentage of the total number of participants who completed the spring post-test questionnaires. Specifically, eight participants (38.10%) suggested that there be more time allowed for group discussion and participation during the spring session. Four participants (19.05%o) specifically stated to change "nothing" about the spring session. Two participants (9.52%) both suggested that more time be allotted for the spring session. The remaining suggestions each received one endorsement (4.76%) and included adding more experiential activities, decreasing the experiential activities, addressing issues relevant to clinical application, providing clearer role play directions, and making the trainings more generalizable. With respect to the latter suggestion, the participant stated that the training was "too program focused," but did not indicate whether he or she was referring to the Safe Zone Project or the Psy.D. Program. Fourteen (66.67%) of the twenty-one spring post-test completers provided feedback about what they would have specifically changed or added to the Safe Zone Project as a whole,

Beyond Acceptance

54

and seven participants (33.33%) did not respond. Their suggestions were also sorted into several categories and are listed on Table 14 along with the spring session feedback. Specifically, three participants (14.29%) suggested that there be more time allowed for group discussion and participation in the Safe Zone Project as a whole. The second most popular suggestions received two participant endorsements each (9.52%) and included suggestions about balancing both didactic and educational activities with experiential activities throughout the trainings, providing more information and discussion about cultural issues and homonegativity (i.e., "debunking" LGBT stereotypes), and adding more experiential exercises. The remaining suggestions each received one participant endorsement (4.76%) and included less time spent on experiential exercises, providing "a better rationale for the training," ensuring better time management, adding audiovisual media, inviting a guest speaker, and having a training session specifically for the faculty. One participant (4.76%) stated to change "nothing" about the Safe Zone Project as a whole. Altogether, the participants' comments about both trainings and the Safe Zone Project as a whole indicate a need or desire for additional time in general for both trainings, and more time allowed for group discussion and increased student participation. Participant feedback also appeared to be mixed with respect to experiential and process-oriented activities versus more didactic oriented activities. Finally, with respect to the request for additional general comments and feedback, only four participants responded. Two of the participants stated that they liked the spring session better than the fall session, while one participant stated the he or she "did not find experiential role plays to be a learning process." The fourth participant suggested that the faculty should be trained, due to a reported "lack of comfort level discussing the topic."

Beyond Acceptance Discussion Findings Summarized The purpose of this program evaluation was to assess the students' reactions to and the

55

effectiveness of a trial of the Safe Zone Project at a university-based doctoral program in clinical psychology. Several areas of inquiry were explored in this program evaluation. The first area on inquiry explored the Safe Zone Project's impact on the participants' attitudes, knowledge and understanding regarding LGBT individuals and issues. Within this area of inquiry, it was hypothesized that the Safe Zone Project will have significantly and favorably impacted the participants' attitudes, knowledge, and perceived understanding regarding LGBT individuals and related issues. The findings of this program evaluation generally supported this hypothesis that the Safe Zone Project appeared to significantly and favorably contribute to particular areas of the participants' attitudes, knowledge, and perceived understanding towards LGBT individuals and related issues. Specifically, participants endorsed significant and favorable changes their levels of LGBT-related "Knowledge," "Civil Rights Attitudes," "Religious Conflict," and "Internalized Affirmativeness," after attending the fall training. Participants endorsed significant and favorable increases in their levels of LGBT-related "Knowledge," "Religious Conflict," and "Internalized Affirmativeness" after attending both training sessions. In assessing the collective influence of both training sessions, it is likely that the fall training was responsible for most of the significant and favorable impact with respect to the specific factors mentioned above. The possible reasons for which participants' "Civil Rights" attitudes did not significantly change after attending both training sessions might have been due to a small sample size, a possible ceiling effect, and substantial attrition from the fall to the spring. In addition to the reported favorable changes in knowledge and specific attitudes, participants also generally endorsed each of the training

Beyond Acceptance sessions, the Safe Zone Project as a whole, and reported a positive increase in their perceived levels of understanding regarding LGBT individuals. The second area of inquiry involved the Safe Zone Project's impact on the participants'

56

general attitude towards LGBT individuals. Within this area of inquiry, it was hypothesized that the Safe Zone Project will have significantly and positively increased the participants' general attitudes towards LGBT individuals. Findings suggest that the fall training session significantly and positively influenced the participants' general attitudes towards LGBT individuals, while the spring training session did not appear to significantly contribute to a change in attitudes. As previously mentioned, little research exists with respect to the reliability and validity of the Riddle Scale, and therefore instrumental insensitivity must be considered in conjunction with the possibility of a ceiling effect, small sample size, selection bias, and the potential implications of adding the "T" (transgender) component to the scale. The third area of inquiry explored whether or not the fall training session influenced positive, self-reported behavioral changes between the fall and spring trainings. The findings indicate that the fall Safe Zone training encouraged positive behavioral changes, as evidenced by participants' self-reported completion of LGBT-affirmative actions. The two most popular categories of completed "I Intend" statements included watching a movie/reading a book that addressed LGBT-related issues and reaching out/support an LGBT individual or friend. The fourth area of inquiry explored the degree and direction to which participants rated the Safe Zone Project's impact on an individual level and the program as a whole. Participant ratings indicated that the Safe Zone Project generally and favorably impacted the participants on a personal level and the doctoral program as a whole.

Beyond Acceptance The fifth area of inquiry explored the degree to which participants endorsed their

57

recommendation of the Safe Zone trainings and the degree to which the program should be made mandatory for all incoming students. Participants generally endorsed a moderate to moderately high degree of recommendation for the fall training session, while they generally endorsed a moderately high recommendation for the spring training session. With respect to the Safe Zone Project as a whole, participants generally endorsed a moderately high degree of recommendation. The participants also generally endorsed that the Safe Zone Project should become a mandatory requirement for all incoming first year students. The sixth area of inquiry involved a fall training evaluation for which the participants' provided feedback regarding the various fall training components. When the morning and afternoon sessions were evaluated separately (due to a difference in time constraints and programming between the two sessions), the participants indicated that they most enjoyed the "Imagine" Experiential Exercise and the "Small Group Discussion" (about alienating LGBT clients and graduate students), followed by the sections on "Brainstorming Common Terms Applied to GLBT Individuals" and "The Kinsey Scale." However, when the sessions were evaluated together, the "BINGAY" activity and "Riddle Scale" section also received a relatively high number of endorsements for activities that participants reportedly enjoyed. With respect to activities that participants reportedly did not enjoy, the "BINGAY" activity also received the highest number of endorsements when the morning and afternoon sessions were evaluated both separately and together. When the morning and afternoon sessions were evaluated together, the section on "Deconstructing Gender, Sex and Sexuality" received the next highest number of endorsements for an activity that participants reportedly did not enjoy. Interestingly, when the morning and afternoon sessions were evaluated together, the section on "Deconstructing Gender,

Beyond Acceptance Sex and Sexuality" received more endorsements for being enjoyed than not, and also received

58

the second highest number of endorsements for activities reported to be most beneficial. Overall, activities rated as being most beneficial varied widely between the morning and afternoon groups. However, if the actual number of participant endorsements were added for both sessions together, then the "Imagine" experiential exercise received the greatest number of most beneficial endorsements. The seventh area of inquiry explored the extent to which the spring session meaningfully and favorably contributed to the Safe Zone Project. Specifically, it was hypothesized that the spring training session will have significantly and favorably increased the participants' attitudes, knowledge, and understanding towards LGBT individuals and related issues, both in conjunction with, and above and beyond, that which the fall training effected. While the participants' endorsed that their subjective understanding of LGBT individuals changed favorably as a result of attending the spring session and the Safe Zone project as a whole, mixed results were achieved with respect to the participants' knowledge and attitudes. Specifically, it appears that the spring training, in conjunction with the fall training, contributed significantly and favorably to the participants' levels of "Knowledge," "Religious Conflict," and "Internalized Affirmativeness." However, one cannot exclude the potentially confounding effects the fall training likely contributed to these results. Above and beyond that which the fall training appeared to influence, it seems that the spring session only significantly and favorably contributed to the participants' levels of LGBT-related "Religious Conflict." Unexpectedly, the spring training seemed to contribute a significant unfavorable change to the participants' levels of "Hate" regarding LGBT individuals and related issues. However, this unexpected result is not necessarily meaningful when the presence of a floor effect, small sample size and attrition rate

Beyond Acceptance are taken into account. While it also appears that the spring session did not significantly contribute to individual participants' general attitudes (or levels of affirmation) towards LGBT individuals, both in conjunction with and above and beyond that which the fall training contributed, it seems that the participants as a group demonstrated more affirmative attitudes

59

after the spring session that they did before and after the fall session. Again, however, due to the small sample size and lack of statistical evidence, one also cannot exclude the possibility of chance. It can also not be determined if the spring training was directly responsible for these favorable group changes, as there were no pre-test measures given just prior to the spring session and historical, maturational, and other phenomenological factors that might have occurred between the fall and spring sessions cannot be discounted. Interestingly, one might argue that completion of the "I Intend" statements might have been one of these potentially influential factors. Overall, it appears that the spring training partially contributed to the Safe Zone Project in a meaningful and favorable manner, both in conjunction with, and above and beyond, what the fall training appeared to contribute. While the group of participants, who attended both training sessions, generally endorsed more affirmative scores post-spring compared to their pre and postfall scores, a closer look at the group statistics paradoxically revealed that some of participants who endorsed the two highest levels of affirmation ("Appreciation" or "Nurturance") at post-fall showed declined levels of affirmation from post-fall to post-spring, which was consistent with the unexpected rise in reported levels of "Hate" on modified LGB-KASH. These specific unfavorable changes might have reflected a combination of a possible floor effect for reported levels of "Hate" and a possible ceiling effect regarding general attitude towards LGBT individuals, as measured by the modified LGB-KASH and modified Riddle Scale, respectively.

Beyond Acceptance Again, instrumental insensitivity must also be considered with respect to the Riddle Scale in

60

general. Another possible explanation for these unexpected changes might reflect an insufficient amount of time that was allotted for the group processing and debriefing portions of the spring session, as the participants indicated in their feedback and comments. It is also a possibility that these unexpected changes might have also reflected the co-leaders' abilities with respect to leading process-oriented groups, especially considering that the author was a 3 rd year clinical student with limited experience in leading such groups at the time of the study. With respect to general feedback and comments about the fall and spring training sessions, the most popular participant suggestions concerned the reported desire or need for more time to be allotted to both training sessions. Specifically, participants suggested that additional time should be used for more group discussion, student participation, and additional relevant information (i.e., clinical application, discussing ethnic or cultural factors, incorporating audiovisual media, and covering current social, political, or legal issues). The participants' also provided mixed feedback regarding their preferences for or opinions about experiential and process-oriented activities versus more didactic oriented activities. Contributions to Previous Research The present study addressed some of the limitations and caveats discussed in Finkel et al.'s original study (2003), particularly with respect to potential threats against internal and construct validity. In an attempt to address a possible maturation threat to internal validity, such as how time spent in a professional psychology program might influence changes in attitudes towards LGBT individuals, pre-test analyses were performed to assess for pre-intervention differences between first, second, and third year students' attitudes and knowledge regarding LGBT individuals and related issues. Finkel et al. also did not address the issue of causality with

Beyond Acceptance respect to the relationship between attending the Safe Zone Project and the participants' completion of their subsequent self-reported LGBT-affirmative behaviors. The present study attempted to address the issue of causality by asking the participants to rate the extent to which they believed the Safe Zone Project influenced their completion of their self-reported LGBTaffirmative behaviors. Finkel et al. (2003) also used only one measure to assess changes in the participants' attitudes towards LGBT individuals. To address the issue of instrumental

61

insensitivity, the present study employed the use of an additional outcome measure (the modified version of the LGB-KASH). Finally, as the participants in the study by Finkel et al. were asked to retrospectively rate attitudes towards LGBT individuals before and after the training, the present study employed both pre-test and post-test measures to address the threat of bias in retrospective reporting. By and large, the findings of this study were consistent with those obtained by Finkel et al. (2003), particularly with respect to reported favorable changes in levels of affirmation, minimally reported perceived levels of pressure, mostly positive feedback about both trainings and the Safe Zone Project as a whole, and a majority consensus that the Safe Zone should become a mandatory requirement within the doctoral program. Analogous to Finkel et al., participants generally recommended both the fall and spring trainings, and also recommended the spring training more so than the fall training. Also consistent with Finkel et al., the participants in this study provided particularly favorable feedback regarding the "I Imagine" experiential exercise. Conversely, participants in this study provided mixed reviews and considerably less favorable feedback regarding the BINGAY icebreaker as compared to the participants in Finkel et al.'s study (2003). While both studies appear to support positive, selfreported behavioral changes as a result of attending the Safe Zone Project, the participants in

Beyond Acceptance

62

Finkel et al.'s study reported a greater percentage of completed "I Intend" statements (over 90%) compared to the participants in present study (61.90%). Attrition rate between the present study's fall and spring trainings, along with differences in proposed "I Intend" statements between the two studies, might have partially accounted for this discrepancy. However, it is also likely that several other factors contributed to a less successful completion of "I Intend" statements for the present study. For instance, in contrast to the University of Denver GSPP Safe Zone Project, attendance of the Safe Zone trainings was not a mandatory requirement for the students who volunteered to be in the present study. Furthermore, there was more faculty involvement at the time of Finkel et al.'s study and the Safe Zone Project also appeared to have a more visible presence at the University of Denver GSPP, as evidenced by the "abundance" of Safe Zone placards that reportedly appeared ".. .on the walls and doors of faculty and staff, as well as throughout the department and clinical training areas at the GSPP..." (p. 559). Increased faculty involvement and visible reminders of the Safe Zone Project might have encouraged or reminded the University of Denver GSPP students to complete their proposed "I Intend" statements. During the time when the present study was completed at the Clinical Psychology Doctoral Program of Long Island University, C. W. Post Campus, there was limited faculty awareness of and involvement with the Safe Zone Project. Dr. Finkel had also observed that the C. W. Post coleaders, as well as the Clinical Psychology Doctoral Program as a whole, placed considerably less emphasis on the placards when compared to the University of Denver GSPP (personal communication, April 2005). Therefore, one could argue that the reason for which the University of Denver GSPP graduate students completed considerably more "I Intend" statements was due to a confluence of factors that increased general awareness, student and faculty involvement, and perceived departmental support, all of which were likely to encourage greater student

Beyond Acceptance

63

participation. However, it should be noted that Lauren Scher did erect a small Safe Zone bulletin board in an effort to raise awareness and promote possible LGBT-affirmative "I Intend" activities. Aside from Finkel, et al's study (2003), at this time it does not appear that there are any other published empirical studies devoted to assessing the effectiveness of any programs, courses, or workshops designed to increase graduate-level clinical psychology students' LGBT knowledge or levels of affirmation. However, there are a very limited number of studies that have examined the outcomes of various interventions within samples of undergraduate students, graduate-level counseling psychology students, social work students, and various mental health professionals (see, e.g., studies reviewed by Tucker & Potocky-Tripodi, 2006 and Dongvillo & Ligon, 2001; Guth, Lopez, Rojas, Clements, & Tyler, 2004; Israel & Hackett, 2004; Pearson, 2003; Rudolph, 1989). Meanwhile, it appears that these studies did not specifically include any interventions, assessments, or discourse related to transgender issues. While there appears to be some general consensus about the content that should be covered in LGB(T) training courses and workshops (see, e.g., see Godfrey, Haddock, & Lund, 2006; Phillips, 2000; Israel & Selvidge, 2003), specific recommendations for particular methods of relaying and processing such information often vary. At present, there are no standardized protocols, manualized approaches, or validated packages of interventions designed for increasing knowledge and positive attitudes regarding LGBT individuals and related issues. Recently, Tucker and Potocky-Tripodi (2006) reviewed seventeen different published empirical studies that subjected college and university students to varying forms of interventions (i.e., workshops, panels, courses) aimed at improving heterosexual students' attitudes towards LGB(T- excluded) individuals. According to Tucker and Potocky-Tripodi (2006), there was not enough empirical evidence to validate any of the

Beyond Acceptance

64

interventions, as no two particular interventions, or packages of interventions, were repeated and re-evaluated. Furthermore, not only did each study assess different forms of interventions, they also employed different student populations (i.e., undergraduate economic students or master's level social worker students), types of assessments, outcome measures, and methodologies. These important theoretical and empirical differences, along with the scarcity of published studies in this area, create ambiguity with respect to arriving at any clear conclusions about which methods of intervention are likely to be most effective for increasing LGB(T)-related knowledge, let alone increasing more LGB(T)-affirmative attitudes. While the existing literature is scarce and discrete conclusions remain obscure, two studies stand out among the others with respect to providing more elucidating information that relate to the findings of the present study (Guth, Lopez, Rojas, Clements, & Tyler, 2004; Israel & Hackett, 2004). Both of these studies are well designed and were not among the seventeen studies that Tucker and Potocky-Tripodi (2006) reviewed. In one such study, Israel and Hackett (2004) compared the effects of information-based and attitude-based interventions on 161 graduate-level counseling psychology and social work students' knowledge and attitudes regarding LGB(T excluded) clients. The participants were randomly assigned to four conditions: an attitude-exploration-only condition, an information-only condition, a combined condition, and a placebo control group that included information and attitude exploration about working with female clients. While each condition involved both didactic and interactive interventions, the content varied, as this was the primary area of investigation. As expected, results revealed that providing LGB-relevant information and facts produced higher levels of knowledge than not providing such information. Meanwhile, participants who received either the combined or attitude-exploration conditions evidenced more negative attitudes towards LGB individuals

Beyond Acceptance (albeit with small effect size), when compared to those participants from the information-only

65

and control groups. These results are also consistent with the present study in that the Safe Zone participants' levels of knowledge significantly increased after attending the primarily didactic and information-based fall training, but otherwise did not appear to increase after attending the mostly experiential-oriented spring training. The results obtained from Israel and Hackett (2004) also seem to coincide with the results obtained from the present study, in which the Safe Zone participants did not appear to evidence any further increase in levels of affirmation from post-fall to post-spring and demonstrated an unexpected rise in levels of hate after the spring training. Israel and Hackett (2004) posited that it is not likely that the exploration of attitudes actually produced more negative attitudes per se, but that the exploration in and of itself challenged students to confront and reassess their actual feelings and (unconscious) biases in a manner that the students in the information-only condition did not have the opportunity to do. Moreover, the present author argues that while the process of exploring one's biases and feelings might actually create a greater awareness of one's (previously unconscious) negative attitudes towards LGBT individuals, such a process is inherently important to effectively work with LGB(T) clients or know when to make an appropriate referral, as such unconscious biases and attitudes might otherwise unintentionally reveal themselves during treatment. If a potential goal of exploring one's attitudes towards LGBT individuals is to ultimately increase level of affirmation, then Israel and Hackett (2004) submit that more extensive and long-term training and self-exploration are necessary for producing such effects. This proposition is commensurate with the present author's suggestion for increasing the length of time and number of sessions devoted to the spring training of Safe Zone Project.

Beyond Acceptance In another well-designed study involving the use of pre-test, immediate post-test, and follow-up measures, Guth, et al. (2004) assessed the efficacy of two different theoretically informed interventions designed to teach undergraduate psychology students about LGB(T excluded) issues. According to Guth, et al.'s (2004) review of the existing literature on interventions designed to increase students' knowledge, skills, and attitudes towards LGB(T

66

excluded) individuals and related issues, there appear to be two general training approaches. The first approach involves the dissemination of knowledge and more didactic-oriented training, while the second approach involves more experiential exercises and interventions, where information is more likely to be processed on an affective level. Based on this cognitiveexperiential conceptualization of information processing (Epstein, 1994, as cited in Guth, et al., 2004) the authors randomly assigned the students to a placebo-control group or to one of two different 2-hour experimental workshops, one of which presented information in a rational or didactic manner, while the other presented the information in a way that required the students to process the information in a more experiential or personalized manner. Students in the control group attending a 2-hour workshop about finding psychology-related information on the Internet. The authors maintained that the content did not vary between experimental groups, as the methods conveying and processing information were the primary areas of interest. Compared to students assigned to the control group or rational-oriented workshop, the students assigned to experiential-oriented workshop endorsed significantly more accepting attitudes (less sexual prejudice) towards homosexuality after attending the workshop. Students assigned to experiential-oriented workshop also evidenced significantly higher levels of both positive and negative affect compared to the other groups. While the experiential group evidenced a stronger positive change attitudes towards homosexuality than the rational group, the results of this study

Beyond Acceptance reinforce the position that interventions designed to engender more personal processing and exploration of feelings are more likely to influence affective levels, both positive and negative, which is arguably consistent with Israel and Hackett (2004) and the findings obtained from the present study. Limitations and Threats to Validity

67

While the present study attempted to meaningfully contribute to the scarcity of literature in this area while addressing some of limitations demonstrated by Finkel, et al. (2003), there are still several limitations and potential threats to validity that must be acknowledged. With respect to potential threats to internal validity, a control condition was not employed in this study. Therefore one cannot rule out maturation and historical factors that might have occurred between fall and spring data collection, such as classroom discussions and clinical experiences. The issue of selection bias was also a potential threat to internal validity. Since the participants in this study were self-selected, it is arguable that these individuals might have systematically differed from those who did not participate with respect to potentially confounding factors such as openness to experience, receptivity to new information or ways of thinking, or even expectations about how effective or worthwhile the Safe Zone trainings would be. Therefore, one can only speculate as to how those students who did not volunteer would have responded to the trainings and questionnaires (if attendance and research participation had been made mandatory). Attrition between the fall and spring trainings was another threat to internal validity. While most of the participants who did not attend the spring training were second-year students who were unable to rearrange their clinic schedules, there were several third-year and first-year students who did not attend. While the late notice of change in the date and time of the spring training created some scheduling conflicts and more than likely contributed to the majority of the

Beyond Acceptance attrition, one might also argue that unconscious (or conscious) resistance might have prevented

68

some of the students from making stronger efforts to rearrange their schedules so that they could have attended the spring training. Nonetheless, it is impossible to know how the nonparticipating students would have influenced the outcome data, which creates further uncertainty with respect to evaluating the spring training session and interpreting the data collected after the spring session. Another threat to internal validity was the potential for demand characteristics in this study, which might have influenced the participants' response patterns. In an attempt to minimize the potential for demand characteristics, the co-leaders asked participants to complete their questionnaires honestly, verbalized interest in both positive and negative feedback, left the room while the participants completed their questionnaires, and instructed participants to hand the completed questionnaires to a student from the Master's program. Those who were unable to complete the questionnaires immediately after the trainings were asked to anonymously return the data to Lauren Scher's departmental mailbox. Various demographic characteristics were also eliminated from the questionnaires (i.e., gender, age, and ethnicity). Despite these efforts, there were still other potential sources for demand. For example, the participants' awareness of the purpose of the Safe Zone Project might have unconsciously motivated them to answer the questionnaire in a favorable manner. Such a possibility is further confounded by the fact that one of the Safe Zone co-leaders was not only the primary investigator for this study, but also a fellow student who some of the other students might have wanted to please. Furthermore, the potential interaction between selection bias and demand characteristics also raises the question as to whether or not this group of self-selected participants was more likely to expect or desire an outcome that would support the Safe Zone Project.

Beyond Acceptance As previously mentioned, the multiple roles that Lauren Scher filled, with respect to carrying out the Safe Zone Project and conducting the present study, must also be considered

69

when reviewing potential threats to internal validity. Not only was Lauren Scher a fellow student with an interest in increasing awareness and affirmative attitudes towards LGBT individuals and related issues, she was also one of the Safe Zone co-leaders and she independently collected, analyzed, and interpreted the data for the present study. While Lauren Scher made a conscientious effort to interpret the data objectively and impartially, one has to account for possible unconscious bias, as was previously suggested by Finkel et al. (2003, p. 559). In agreement with Finkel et al. (2003), it would have been preferable if the co-leaders and investigator remained independent from data collection and analysis. Arguably, one of the most prominent threats to external validity relates to sample characteristics. Specifically, not only did students volunteer to attend the Safe Zone trainings, but the research participants were also voluntary. Therefore, it is difficult to determine how the trainings might have generalized to those students who did not participate in the trainings or research. Regarding sample characteristics, generalizability is also expected to differ from year to year, as each incoming class will likely differ with respect to sociopolitical and religious affiliations, incoming levels of affirmation or heterosexism, and previous exposure to LGBT individuals and related knowledge. Furthermore, generalizability to different graduate-level clinical psychology programs is also complicated by sample and setting characteristics. The potential for reactivity to experimental arrangements and reactivity to assessment are two other threats to external validity that must also be considered. The participants' awareness of being part of a study might have influenced some of the their response patterns. The potential interaction between sample characteristics and reactivity to experimental arrangement and

Beyond Acceptance

70

assessment further obscures the results. Specifically, one must consider the possibility that there might have been some participants with motivation to increase LGBT-affirmative training in the program. Those participants would have arguably been even more reactive to assessment. Pre-test and post-test sensitization might have also influenced the participants' response patterns, as prior assessment might have sensitized participants to the trainings, and subsequent assessment might have encouraged participants to reflect on the trainings in a manner that they might not have done so otherwise. The results obtained from the fall training session were most susceptible to test sensitization, due to assessments administered immediately before and after the fall training. One wonders how the Safe Zone trainings might have influenced participants in the absence of assessment, as assessment is arguably a form of self-evaluation. The author attempted to reduce the potential for test sensitization by eliminating another point of data collection just prior to the spring training. However, elimination of that data point also brought about other caveats, such as not being able to assess if the gains obtained from the fall training were sustained through the subsequent six months. Concerning the issue of construct validity, the decision to measure attitudes regarding LGBT individuals collectively must also be addressed. While there are specific measures for separately assessing attitudes towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender individuals, the literature suggests that there is considerable convergence between such measures (see, e.g., Hill & Willoughby, 2005; Mohr & Rochlen, 1999; Worthington, Dillon, & Becker-Schutte, 2005). For example Worthington et al. (2005) found that the Attitudes towards Lesbians and Attitudes Towards Gay Men Scales (Herek, 1984, as cited in Worthington et al.), as well as the Attitudes Towards Bisexuality Scale (Mohr & Rochlen, 1999, as cited in Worthington et al.) were moderately to highly correlated with most of the LGB-KASH subscales (except Knowledge),

Beyond Acceptance

71

with considerable convergence regarding the Civil Rights and Religious Conflict subscales. With respect to attitudes towards transgender individuals, Hill and Willoughby (2005) found moderate to high significant correlations between the subscales of the Genderism and Transphobia Scale and the Homophobia Scale (Wright, Adams, & Bernat, 1999, as cited in Hill and Willoughby). Hill and Willoughby reasoned that homophobia and heterosexism were theoretically related to transphobia and genderism. Nevertheless, while there appears to be considerable overlap between attitudes towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals, it is reasonable to hypothesize that the pattern of results for the present study might have differed had separate measures been utilized for each population. Regarding the issue of generalizability outside of the trainings, improved awareness and increased levels of affirmation do not necessarily translate to affirmative clinical and behavioral practices. However, one might argue that favorable changes in affirmation and awareness are necessary requirements for effecting behavioral change. The moderate completion of the "I Intend" statements also alludes to generalizability outside of the training condition. Implications for Future Research Despite the limitations of the present study, the findings of this program evaluation generally indicate that the Safe Zone Project favorably impacted the participants' attitudes, knowledge, perceived understanding, levels of affirmation, and self-reported behaviors with respect to LGBT individuals and related issues. Participant feedback and comments also suggest that the Safe Zone Project was generally well received and should be a mandatory component of doctoral program's curriculum. Taking into account both the findings and limitations of this study, if the Safe Zone Project is to be adopted by the C. W. Post Clinical Psychology Doctoral Program, then it is strongly suggested that there be an increase in faculty support and

Beyond Acceptance involvement, ongoing student feedback and program evaluations, and that the Safe Zone materials and curriculum are updated annually. Given the limitations of the present study and lack of empirical evidence to support its use as a primary means of increasing LGBT affirmativeness in graduate-level psychology students, ongoing empirical investigation is also suggested.

72

In response to some of the participant feedback and also from ongoing intradepartmental discussions that followed the first trial of Safe Zone Project, multiple changes have already been made to the Safe Zone training materials and the project as a whole. For instance, an additional fall training session was included to allow for more participation, discussion, and time to process the material. With respect to the training materials and training process, new modifications and additions were also implemented, such as the inclusion of multimedia to enhance the training material. Additions and updates to the training materials include, but are not limited to, the inclusion of the Harry Benjamin International Association's Standards of Care for Gender Identity Disorders, updated models of the coming out process, and more attention to the impact of sociocultural factors on LGBT individuals' experiences with dual discrimination. The Safe Zone Project coordinator and student trainers have also been working closely with the program's Multicultural Doctoral Student Association to bring in outside speakers, sponsor departmental movie viewings and discussions, and foster a greater awareness of and support for LGBT-related concerns and events within the department. In response to student feedback, the program director has also played a more active role in supervising the Safe Zone Project coordinator and trainers. He has made a greater effort to promote the project's awareness amongst the faculty. Moreover, due to the tremendous amount of time, effort, and organization involved with coordinating the Safe Zone Project, Dr. Keisner helped to establish a departmental Safe Zone Project fellowship

Beyond Acceptance that provides financial compensation for the student who elects to serve as the program

73

coordinator and primary trainer. In collaboration with Dr. Finkel and the subsequent Safe Zone coordinators, the author has also created a general protocol and timeline for the training of future coordinators and Safe Zone student trainers, for which the relevant materials are kept in a binder maintained by the present Safe Zone coordinator(s). In addition to these important newlyestablished changes, it is strongly recommended that the Safe Zone Project also implement an additional spring session to allow for more thorough and meaningful intrapersonal and group processing, annual revisions and updates of program materials to keep up with current research and the training needs of entering students, more opportunities to complete "I Intend" statements within and outside of the department, and pre and post-training self and Safe Zone evaluations. However, as highlighted by Finkel, et al. (2003), and supported by various established researchers and practitioners in the field (see, e.g., Biaggio, et al., 2003; Carroll & Gilroy, 2002; Croteau, et al., 1998; Dworkin & Yi, 2003; Godfrey et al., 2006; Israel & Selvidge, 2003; Raj, 2002) LGBT clinical competency will not be achieved by the establishment of Safe Zone Project alone. Specifically, while the Safe Zone Project was designed to increase the doctoral students' knowledge, self-awareness, and affirmative attitudes towards LGBT individuals and related issues, a more comprehensive departmental approach must be employed to foster actual competency. Consistent with the development of general multicultural competence, the consensus within the field contends that educational information, clinical experiences, and opportunities for self-examination of personal biases must be interwoven throughout training programs in order to foster clinical competency in working with LGBT individuals (Biaggio, et al., 2003; Carroll & Gilroy, 2002; Croteau, et al., 1998; 2003; Godfrey et al, 2006; Israel & Selvidge, 2003). In accordance with the multicultural competence literature, specific

Beyond Acceptance

74

recommendations for the C. W. Post Clinical Psychology Doctoral Program include, but are not limited to, multicultural and LGBT training for all faculty members and clinical supervisors, integration of LGBT related issues into classroom assignments and discussions, increased faculty support of the Safe Zone Project, the invitation of guest lecturers who are qualified to speak about Queer Theory and mental health issues related to internalized homophobia and heterosexual bias in clinical work, and the provision of well-qualified supervisors for those students seeing clients in the program's clinic who present with mental health problems related to issues of sexuality, gender identity, internalized homophobia or internalized heterosexism. In conclusion, the implementation of the Safe Zone Project is a positive step in the Long Island University C. W. Post Clinical Psychology Doctoral Program's effort to train LGBTinformed and affirmative clinicians. As long as there continues to be discrimination and ignorance both within and outside of the field of Psychology, there will be the need for adequately trained and sensitive clinicians to respond to the unique mental health considerations that many LGBT individuals will endure.

Beyond Acceptance References Allison, K. W., Crawford, I., Echemendia, R., Robinson, L., & Knepp, D. (1994). Human diversity and professional competence: Training in clinical and counseling psychology revisited. American Psychologist, 49, 792-796. American Psychological Association. (1975, January 24-26). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual concerns policy statement: Discrimination Against Homosexuals. Retrieved June 4 2004, from http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/statements.html American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 47, 1597-1611. American Psychological Association. (1996) Guidelines and principles for accreditation of programs in professional psychology. Retrieved July 17 2007 from http://www.apa.org/ed/gp2000.html American Psychological Association. (1997, August 14). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual concerns

75

policy statements: Resolution on appropriate therapeutic responses to sexual orientation. Retrieved July 10 2007, from http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/appropriate.html American Psychological Association (2000). Guidelines for psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients: Education. Retrieved July 10 2007, from http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/guidelines.html American Psychological Association. (2006). Board for the advancement of psychology in the public interest 2006 annual report. Retrieved June 5 2007 from http://www.apa.Org/pi/B APPI_ar_2006%20(2).pdf American Psychological Association, (n.d.) Answers to your questions about transgender individuals and gender identity. http://www.apa.org/topics/Gender3.pdf. Retrieved

Beyond Acceptance September 18 2007, from http://www.apa.org/topics/topicsbehavior.html. Biaggio, M. Orchard, S. Larson, J. Petrino, K. & Mihara, R. (2003). Guidelines for

76

gay/lesbian/bisexual-affirmative educational practices in graduate psychology programs. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 548-554. Burdge, B. J. (2007). Bending gender, ending Gender: Theoretical foundations for social work practice with the transgender community. Social Work, 52, 243-250. Carroll, L. & Gilroy, P. (2002). Transgender issues in counselor preparations. Counselor Education and Supervision, 41, 233-242.12 Carroll, L. & Gilroy, P., Ryan, J. (2002). Counseling transgender, transsexual, and gendervariant clients. Journal of Counseling and Development, 80, 131-139. Center for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Life at Duke University, (n.d.) Resource Manual. Retrieved June 4 2004 from http://lgbt.studentaffairs.duke.edu/programs/safe/manual.html Clements-Nolle, K., Marx, R. & Katz, M. (2006). Attempted suicide among transgender persons: The influence of gender-based discrimination and victimization. Journal of Homosexuality. 57,53-69. Cochran, S. D. (2001). Emerging issues in research on lesbians' and gay men's mental health: Does sexual orientation really matter? American Psychologist, 56, 931-947. Cochran, S. D., & Mays, V. M. (2001). Relation between psychiatric syndromes and behaviorally defined sexual orientation in a sample of the U. S. population. American Journal of Public Epidemiology, 151, 516-523. Cochran, S. D., Sullivan, J. G., & Mays, V. M. (2003). Prevalence of mental disorders, psychological distress, and mental health services use among lesbian, gay, and

Beyond Acceptance bisexual adults in the United States. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. Croteau, J., Bieschke, K., Phillips, J., & Lark, J. (1998). Moving beyond pioneering: Empirical and theoretical perspectives on lesbian, gay, and bisexual affirmative training. The Counseling Psychologist, 26, 707-711.

77

D'Augelli, A. R. (1998). Developmental implications of victimization lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths. In G. M. Herek (Ed.). Psychological perspectives on lesbian and gay issues: Volume 4. Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. (pp. 187-210).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. D'Augelli, A. R., & Grossman, A. H. (2001). Disclosure of sexual orientation, victimization, and mental health among lesbian, gay, and bisexual older adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16„ 1008-1027. DiPlacido, J. (1998). Minority stress among lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals: Consequences of heterosexism, homophobia, and stigmatization. In G. M. Herek (Ed./ Psychological perspectives on lesbian and gay issues: Volume 4. Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. (pp. 13 8-159). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Dongvillo, J., & Ligon, J. (2001). Exploring the effectiveness of teaching techniques with lesbian and gay content in the social work curriculum. The Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 6, 116-124. Dworkin, S., & Yi, H. (2003). LGBT identity, violence, and social justice: The psychological is political. International Journal for the Advancement of Counseling, 24, 269-279. Evans, N. (2002). The impact of an LGBT Safe Zone project on campus climate. Journal of College Student Development, 43, 522-539.

Beyond Acceptance Fischer, A. R. (1998). Graduate students' training experiences with lesbian, gay, and bisexual issues. The Counseling Psychologist, 26, 712-723.

78

Finkel, M. J., Storaasli, R D., Bandele, A., & Schaefer, V. (2003). Diversity training in graduate school: An exploratory evaluation of the Safe Zone Project. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 555-561. Glassgold, J. M. (2004, Fall). In dreams begin responsibilities: Psychology, agency, and activism. Division 44 Newsletter, 20, 5-8. Guth, L. J., Lopez, D. F., Rojas, M., Clements, K. D., & Tyler, J. M. (2004). Experiential versus rational training: A comparison of student attitudes toward homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality, 48, 83-102. Godfrey, K., Haddock, S., Fisher, A., & Lund, L. (2006). Essential components of curricula for preparing therapists to work effectively with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients: A Delphi study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 32, 491-504. Gonsiorek, J. C. (2004). Reflections from the conversion therapy battlefield. Counseling Psychologist, 32, 750-759 Haldeman, D. C. (2002). Gay rights, patient rights: The implications of sexual orientation conversion therapy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 260-264. Hall, C. (1997). Cultural malpractice: The growing obsolescence of psychology with the changing U.S. population. American Psychologist, 52, 642-651. Herek, G. M., Gillis, J. R., & Cogan, J.C. (1999). Psychological sequelae of hate-crime victimization among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 945-951.

Beyond Acceptance

79

Herek, G. M., Gillis, J. R., Cogan, J. C , & Glunt, E. K. (1997). Hate crime victimization among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults: Prevalence, psychological correlates, and methodological issues. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 195-215. Hershberger, S. L., & D'Augelli, A. R. (1995). The impact of victimization on the mental health and suicidality of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths. Developmental Psychology, 31, 65-74. Hetrick, E. S., & Martin, A. D. (1987). Developmental issues and their resolution for gay and lesbian adolescents. Journal of Homosexuality, 14, 25-43. Hill, D. B., & Willoughby, B. L. B. (2005). The development and validation of the genderism and transphobia scale. Sex Roles, 53, 531-544. Israel, T., & Hackett, G. (2004). Counselor education on lesbian, gay, and bisexual issues: Comparing information and attitude exploration. Counselor Education and Supervision, 43, 179-191. Israel, T., & Selvidge, M. (2003). Contributions to multicultural counseling to counselor competence with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 31, 84-98. Jones, B. & Hill, M. (2002). Mental health issues in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities. Review of Psychology, 21, 15-31. Kazdin, A. E. (2003). Research design in clinical psychology (4l ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Korell, S. C. & Lorah, P. (2007). An overview of affirmative psychotherapy and counseling with transgender clients. In K. J. Bieschke, R. M. Perez, & K. A. DeBord (Eds.). Handbook of counseling and psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender clients (2nd ed.) (pp. 271-288). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Beyond Acceptance

80

Laumann, E., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Liddle, B. J. (1996). Therapist sexual orientation, gender, and counseling practices as they relate to ratings of helpfulness by gay and lesbian clients. Journal of Counseling Psychology,43, 394-401. Liddle, B. J. (1997). Gay and lesbian clients' selection of therapists and utilization of therapy. Psychotherapy, 34, 11-18. Luckstead, A. (2004). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people receiving services in the public mental health system: raising issues. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy, 8, 25-42. Mallon, G. P. (2001). Sticks and stones can break your bones: Verbal harassment and physical violence in the lives of gay and lesbian youths in child welfare settings. In M. E. Swigonski, R. S. Mama, & K. Ward (Eds.). From hate crimes to human rights: A tribute to Matthew Shepard. (pp. 63-82). New York, NY: Haworth Press, Inc. Markowitz, F. E. (1998). The effects of stigma on the psychological well-being and life satisfaction of persons with mental illness. Journal of health and Social behavior, 39, 335-347. Mays, V. M., & Cochran, S. D. (2001). Mental health correlates of perceived discrimination among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 1869-1876. McDaniel, J. S. Purcell, D. & D'Augelli, A. R. (2001). The relationship between sexual orientation and risk for suicide: research findings and future directions for research and

Beyond Acceptance prevention. Suicide and Life, 31, 84-105. Mohr, J. J., & Rochlen, A. B. (1999). Measuring attitudes towards bisexuality in lesbian, gay male, and heterosexual populations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 353-369. Morrow, S. L.; Beckstead, A. L.; Hayes, J. A., Haldeman, D. C. (2004). Impossible dreams, impossible choices, and thoughts about depolarizing the debate. Counseling Psychologist, 32, 778-785.

81

Mosher, W. D., Chandra, A., & Jones, J. (2005). Sexual behavior and selected health measures: Men and women 1-44 years of age, United States, 2002. Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 362, 1-56. National Consortium of Directors of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Resources in Higher Education (2005). Retrieved January 20, 2005, http://www.lgbtcampus.org/faq/safe_zone.html Pachankis, J. E., & Goldfried, M. R. (2004). Clinical issues in working with lesbian, gay and bisexual clients. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 41, 227-246. Pearson, Q. M. (2003). Breaking the silence in the counselor education classroom: A training seminar on counseling minority clients. Journal of Counseling and Development, 81, 292-300. Phillips, J. C. (2000). Training issues and considerations. In R. M. Perez, K. A. Debord, & K. J. Bieschke (Eds.), Handbook of counseling and psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients (pp. 337-358). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Pilkington, N. W., & Cantor, J. M. (1996). Perceptions of heterosexual bias in professional psychology programs: A survey of graduate students. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 27, 604-612.

Beyond Acceptance Pilkington, N. W., & D'Augelli, A. R. (1995). Victimization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths in community settings. Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 33-56. Riddle, D. (1985). Opening doors to understanding and acceptance: A facilitator's guide for presenting workshops on lesbian and gay issues. Organized by Kathy Obear and Amy Reynolds, Boston. Rudolph, J. (1989). Effects of a workshop on mental health practitioners' attitudes towards homosexuality and counseling effectiveness. Journal of Counseling and Development, 68, 81-85. Raj, R. (2002). Towards a transpositive therapeutic model: Developing clinical sensitivity and cultural competence in the effective support of transsexual and transgender clients. International Journal of Transgenderism, 6, [np], retrieved March 25 2007 from http://www.symposion.com/ijt/ijtvo06no02_04.htm

82

Savin-Williams, R. C. (1994). Verbal and physical abuse as stressors in the lives of lesbian, gay male, and bisexual youths: Associations with school problems, running away, substance, abuse, prostitution, and suicide. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 6, 261-269. Savin-Williams, R. C. (2006). Who's gay? Does it matter? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15,40-44. The Safe Zone Foundation, (n.d.). Retrieved June 4 2004, from http://safezonefoundation.tripod.com Sell, R. L., Wells, J. A., and Wypij, D. (1995). The prevalence of homosexual behavior and attraction in the United States, the United Kingdom and France: Results of national population-based samples. Archives of Sexual Behavior 24, 235-248.

Beyond Acceptance Tucker, E. W., & Potocky-Tripodi, M. (2006). Changing heterosexuals' attitudes toward homosexuals: A systematic review of the empirical literature. Research on Social Work Practice, 16, 176-190. University of Washington Safe Zone Manual, (n.d.). Retrieved June 4 2004, from depts.washington.edu/asuwgblc/SZM_online_0304.pdf Wall, V. (1995). Beyond tolerance: Gays lesbians, and bisexuals on campus. A handbook of structured experiences and exercises for training and development. Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association.

83

Wiederman, M. W., & Sansone, R. A. (1999). Sexuality training for professional psychologists: A national survey of training directors of doctoral programs and predoctoral internships. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 30, 312-317. Worthington, R. L., Dillon, F. R., & Becker-Schutte, A. M. (2005). Development, reliability and validity of the LGB Knowledge and Attitudes Scale for Heterosexuals (LGB-KASH). Journal of CounselingPsychology, 52, 104-118. Worthington, R. L., Savoy, H. B., Vernaglia, E. R. (unpublished manuscript) Beyond Tolerance: An Integrative Model of LGB-Affirmativeness.

Beyond Acceptance Footnotes
1

84

The Heterosexual Questionnaire was an experiential component that was added to Finkel et

al.'s original Safe Zone training (2003), although it is often found in other university training materials (need to get references). However, due to time constraints, this exercise was cut short for the morning session (third year students), leaving only 5 minutes to complete the activity. After the morning training session, three of the third year students approached the trainers to say that they really enjoyed the exercise and wish more time had been allotted for the exercise. Once again, during the afternoon fall training session (first and second year students), the trainers realized that they were running short on time, and so they made an executive decision to postpone the Heterosexual Questionnaire until the spring training, at which time both groups (first, second and third year students) would be allotted additional time to more fully experience the exercise. Therefore, participant feedback with respect to the fall training activities was assessed separately for those who attended the morning session (third year students) and those who attended the afternoon session (first and second year students). As participants in the morning session were afforded the opportunity to experience some of the Heterosexual Questionnaire, they were therefore afforded the opportunity to provide feedback on the fall training questionnaire that participants in the afternoon session would not have otherwise been able to provide.

Beyond Acceptance Table 1 Participant Demographics Fall Training Session3
Sexual Orientation Heterosexual Gay Bisexual Lesbian Unsure Other Left Blank Total n (%) 33 (89.19) 0 (0.00) 3 (8.11) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (2.70) 37 (100) Year in Program First Second Third Left Blank n (%) 12 (32.43) 9 (24.32) 15 (40.54) 1 (2.70) 37 (100) Sexual Orientation Heterosexual Gay Bisexual Lesbian Unsure Other Left Blank Total n (%) 20 (90.91) 0 (0.00) 2 (9.09) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 22 (100) -

85

Spring Training Session"5
Year in Program First Second Third Left Blank n (%) 11 (50.00) 1 (4.55) 10 (45.45) 0 (0.00)

22 (100)

a. 38 students attended the fall training and 37 students participated in the program evaluation b. 24 students attended the spring training and 22 students participated in the program evaluation f Many of the second-years students were unable to attend the spring training due to an unexpected rescheduling of the afternoon training session, which conflicted with their clinic responsibilities.

Beyond Acceptance Table 2 Heterosexual Versus Non-heterosexual LGB-KASH Pre-test Means and Standard Deviations Heterosexual (n =33) LGB-KASH Factor Factor 1 (Hate) Factor 2 (Knowledge) Factor 3 (Civil Rights) Factor 4 (Religion) Factor 5 (Affirmativeness) Non-heterosexual (n =3)

86

M
1.21 2.02 5.25 2.00 3.55

SD 0.38 0.94 0.84 1.08 1.23

M
1.00 4.67 5.20 1.33 5.73

SD 0.00 0.76 0.72 0.58 0.46

Beyond Acceptance Table 3 Pre-fall Training LGB-KASH Scores for Spring Attenders vs. Non-attenders Present at Spring LGB-KASH Factor Factor 1 (Hate) Factor 2 (Knowledge) Factor 3 (Civil Rights) Factor 4 (Religion) Factor 5 (Affirmativeness) Not present at Spring

87

M
1.24 1.99 5.22 2.00 3.40

SD 0.44 1.02 0.89 0.92 1.22

M
1.13 2.09 5.27 1.87 3.77

SD 0.25 0.85 0.76 1.26 1.26

df 34 31 34 34 31

t -0.83 0.33 0.19 -0.36 0.84

Note. All p-values were non-significant (>.05)

Beyond Acceptance Table 4 Mann-Whitney U Rank-Sum Test for Differences in Pre-fall and Post-fall Training Riddle Scale Scores for Spring Attenders vs. Non-attenders Spring Pre-fall Yes No Post-fall Yes No
21

88

Mean Rank 18.07 19.10 17.71 19.60

Sum of Ranks 379.50 286.50
372.00

U 148.50

Z-Score
-0.30

15
21

141.00

-0.55

15

294.00

Note. All ^-values were non-significant (>.05)

Beyond Acceptance Table 5 Post-fall Training LGB-KASH Scores for Spring Attenders vs. Non-attenders Present at Spring LGB-KASH Factor Factor 1 (Hate) Factor 2 (Knowledge) Factor 3 (Civil Rights) Factor 4 (Religion) Factor 5 (Affirmativeness) Not present at Spring

89

M
1.12 3.12 5.32 1.73 3.81

SD 0.29 1.12 0.81 0.84 1.24

M
1.07 3.23 5.57 1.60 4.13

SD 0.18 1.29 0.46 0.91 1.06

df 34 30 34 34 30

t -0.61 0.35 1.04 -1.88 0.75

Note. All p-values were non-significant (>.05)

Beyond Acceptance Table 6 Differences in Fall Pre-test d Post-test LGB-KASH Scores Pre-test LGB-KASH Factor Factor 1 (Hate) Factor 2 (Knowledge) Factor 3 (Civil Rights) Factor 4 (Religion) Factor 5 (Affirmativeness) M 1.19 2.05 5.25 1.87 3.62 SD 0.37 0.95 0.83 0.97 1.17 Post-test M 1.10 3.17 5.41 1.68 3.93 SD 0.25 1.17 0.69 0.87 1.17 df 34 32 34 34 32 t -1.64

90

6.97*** 1.98* -2.29* 1.99*

* £ < . 0 5 . ***£<.001

Beyond Acceptance Table 7 Differences in Fall Pre-test and Spring Post-test LGB-KASH Scores Pre-test LGB-KASH Factor Factor 1 (Hate) Factor 2 (Knowledge) Factor 3 (Civil Rights) Factor 4 (Religion) Factor 5 (Affirmativeness) Post-test SD 0.44 1.02 0.89 0.92 1.22

91

M
1.24 1.98 5.22 2.00 3.40

M
1.30 3.14 5.49 1.48 3.87

SD 0.40 0.95 0.77 0.56 1.27

df 20 19 20 20 19

t 0.68 5.82*** 1.69t -4.23*** 2.62*

Note. Only those participants who attended both the fall and spring trainings were included in these analyses. * £ < . 0 5 ***£<.001 ^ = . 0 5

Beyond Acceptance Table 8 Perceived Improvement in LGBT Understanding by Frequency and Percentage Fall Session Likert Score 1 ni 1 Spring Session n 1 1 2 4 5 6 2 1 22 Both Sessions n 1 1 5 5 7 2 1 0 21

%

%

%

2.8 11.1 19.4

4.5 4.5 9.1 18.2 22.7 27.3 9.1 4.5 100

4.8 4.8 23.8 23.8 33.3 9.5 4.8 0.0 100

6 10 2 5 Missing Total M, SD 1 36

16.7 27.8 5.6 13.9 2.8 100

M = 4.31, SD= 1.64

M = 4.83, SD = 1.43

M = 5.00, SD = 1.41

Note. Participants were asked to rate on a 7-point Likert scale how much their subjective understanding of LGBT individuals has improved as a function of attending the fall session, the spring session, and the Safe Zone Project as a whole (1 - "Not at all," 4 - "Moderately," 7 - "Significantly").

Beyond Acceptance Table 9 Frequency and Percentage of "I Intend" Statements Completed by Category

93

"I Intend" Statement Category Watch a movie or read a book that addressed LGBT-related issues Reach out to/support an LGBT individual or friend Address LGBT-related issues in academics or the classroom Engage in introspection regarding heterosexist beliefs and assumptions Not to pathologize LGBT individuals Not make assumptions/use neutral language in clinical work Live life openly as an LGBT person Attend an LGBT educational event Think about how hard it is to be LGBT Confront homophobia Learn more about theology and homosexuality Read the Safe Zone manual in more detail Bring up topic in externship to learn more about working with LGBT individuals Did not indicate which "I Intend" statement was completed

n (%) 5 (23.81) 5 (23.81) 2 (9.52) 2 (9.52) 2 (9.52) 2 (9.52) 1 (4.76) 1 (4.76) 1 (4.76) 1 (4.76) 1 (4.76) 1 (4.76) 1 (4.76) 1 (4.76)

Note. Percentage based on dividing the number in each category by the total number of participants who complete the spring post-training questionnaire (n = 21), multiplied by 100. Percentages do not add up to 100%, as several participants completed more than one "I Intend' statement and eights participants (38.10%) did not complete any of their "I Intend" statements.

Beyond Acceptance Table 10 Morning Session Fall Training Components Participant Feedback* Enioved n(%) Activity Small Group Discussion "Imagine" Experiential Exercise Heterosexual Questionnaire** Deconstructing Gender, Sex, Sexuality Kinsey Scale "Because" Brainstorming Common Terms Applied to GLBT Individuals How Homophobia Hurts Us All Writing the "I Intend" Statements Coming Out Process Riddle Scale Bisexuality Section Cass Model Having a Place to Discuss LGBT Issues Qualities of an Ally 2(14.29) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 3(21.43) 3(21.43) 3(21.43) 3(21.43) 2 (14.29) 2 (14.29) 2 (14.29) 1 (7.14) 1 (7.14) 1 (7.14) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (7.14) 1 (7.14) 1 (7.14) 1 (7.14) 1 (7.14) 4 (28.57) 4 (28.57) 4 (28.57) 1 (7.14) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 2 (14.29) 1 (7.14) 0 (0.00) 7 (50.00) 6 (42.82) 5(35.71) 5 (35.71) 0 (0.00) 2 (14.29) 0 (0.00) 3(21.43) 1 (7.14) 3(21.43) 2 (14.29) 1 (7.14) Did Not Eniov n(%) Most Beneficial n(%)

94

Beyond Acceptance Presenters' Qualities Defining LGBT Terms BINGAY Homophobia Section Guidelines for Therapists and Educators Heterosexual Privilege and Heterosexism Ground Rules and Safe Zone Introduction Transgender Section LGBT People of Color Other LGBT Statistics 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (7.14) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1(7.14) 1(7.14) 0(0.00) 1(7.14) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 2 (14.29) 2 (14.29) 2 (14.29) 1 (7.14) 1 (7.14) 0 (0.00) 2 (14.29) 3(21.43) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

95

* While the directions on the questionnaire asked that participants designate only one activity as being "most beneficial," some participants designated more than one activity, which were included into data. ** Due to unforeseen time constraints, only five minutes were allotted for the heterosexual questionnaire. See footnote 1. Note. Percent based on dividing the number of responders for each component by the total number of participants present during that session (n = 14).

Beyond Acceptance Table 11 Afternoon Session Fall Training Components Participant Feedback * Enioved n(%) Activity BINGAY Riddle Scale Brainstorming Common Terms Applied to GLBT Individuals Cass Model Small Group Discussion "Imagine" Experiential Exercise Kinsey Scale Having a Place to Discuss LGBT Issues Bisexuality Section Defining LGBT Terms "Because" Deconstructing Gender, Sex, Sexuality
Writing the "I Intend" Statements

96

Did Not Eniov n(%)

Most Beneficial n(%)

12(57.14) 11(52.38) 8(38.10)

2 (9.52) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

3 (14.29) 1 (4.76) 1 (4.76)

8(38.10) 8(38.10) 7 (33.33) 7 (33.33) 5 (23.81)

0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

1 (4.76) 1 (4.76) 3 (14.29) 1 (4.76) 2 (9.52)

5(23.81) 4(19.05) 4(19.05) 4(19.05)

0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (4.76)

0 (0.00) 1 (4.76) 1 (4.76) 4(19.05)

4 (19.05) 3 (14.29)

2 (9.52) 0 (0.00)

1 (4.76) 2 (9.52)

Guidelines for Therapists and Educators Heterosexual Privilege and

3 (14.29)

0 (0.00)

2 (9.52)

Beyond Acceptance

97

Heterosexism Presenters' Qualities Transgender Section Coming Out Process Ground Rules and Safe Zone Introduction LGBT Statistics Homophobia Section How Homophobia Hurts Us All LGBT People of Color Heterosexual Questionnaire** Qualities of an Ally Other 1 (4.76) 1 (4.76) 1 (4.76) 1 (4.76) 1 (4.76) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (4.76) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 3 (14.29) 2 (9.52) 2 (9.52) 1 (4.76) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 2 (9.52) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (4.76)

* While the directions on the questionnaire asked that participants designate only one activity as being "most beneficial," some participants designated more than one activity, which were included into data. ** Due to time constraints, the heterosexual questionnaire was not presented in the afternoon fall training session. See footnote 1. Note. Percent based on dividing the number of responders for each component by the total number of participants present during that session (n = 21).

Beyond Acceptance Table 12 Differences in Fall Post-test and Spring Post-test LGB-KASH Scores Pre-test LGB-KASH Factor Factor 1 (Hate) Factor 2 (Knowledge) Factor 3 (Civil Rights) Factor 4 (Religion) Factor 5 (Affirmativeness) Post-test SD 0.29 1.12 0.81 0.84 1.24

98

M
1.12 3.16 5.32 1.73 3.81

M
1.30 3.14 5.49 1.48 3.87

SD 0.40 0.95 0.77 0.56 1.27

df
20 19 20 20 19

t 2.25* 0.11 1.06 -1.88* 0.48

Note. Only those participants who attended both the fall and spring trainings were included in these analyses. *£<.05

Beyond Acceptance Table 13 Participant Suggestions about Changes or Additions to the Fall Session by Percentage

99

Suggestion More time allotted for fall training Adding a break Addressing more issues relevant to clinical application More information and discussion related sociocultural issues (religion, ethnicity, pop-culture) More group participation, discussion, and sharing of personal experiences More experiential activities Removal of material (definitions, in particular) Adding more historical information Adding audiovisual media Current issues affecting LGBT individuals (social, political, legal) Breaking into smaller groups Other programming suggestions Sexual orientation and mental health

n (%) 8 (22.22) 4(11.11) 4(11.11) 4(11.11)

3 (8.33) 3 (8.33) 3 (8.33) 2 (5.56) 2 (5.56) 2 (5.56) 2 (5.56) 2 (5.56) 1 (2.78)

Note. Percentage based on dividing the number of responses for each type of suggestion by the total number of participants (n=36), multiplied by 100. Percentages do not add up to 100%, as several participants provided multiple suggestions. There were 7 non-responders, 19.44%.

Beyond Acceptance Table 14

100

Participant Suggestions about Changes or Additions to the Spring Session and Safe Zone Project as a Whole, by Percentage Spring Session3 Suggestion More Group Discussion/Processing Change Nothing n(%) 8 (38.10) 4 (19.05) Suggestion More Group Discussion/Processing Include Didactic/Educational & Experiential in both sessions More Time in General 2 (9.52) More Information about Cultural Issues and Homonegativity More Experiential Activities Less Experiential Activities Address Issues Relevant to Clinical Application Clearer Role Play Directions Make More Generalizable Outside 1 (4.76) 1 (4.76) Better Time Management Add audiovisual media Invite a Guest Speaker Training Session for Faculty Change Nothing 1 (4.76) 1 (4.76) 1 (4.76) 1 (4.76) 1 (4.76) 1 (4.76) 1 (4.76) 1 (4.76) More Experiential Activities Less Experiential Activities Better rationale for the training 2 (9.52) 1 (4.76) 1 (4.76) 2 (9.52) Safe Zone as a Whole n (%) 3 (14.29) 2 (9.52)

Note. Percentage based on dividing the number of responses for each type of suggestion by the
total number of participants (n = 21), multiplied by 100. Percentages do not add up to 100%, as

several participants provided multiple suggestions. a. Five non-responders, 23.81%. b. Seven non-responders, 33.33%

Beyond Acceptance Figure 1 Heterosexual versus non-heterosexual pre-test Riddle Homophobia Scale scores.

101

2

3

4

5

6

Heterosexual Riddle Scores (n = 33)

12

10

o c
° 3
ft 6

o

2

3

4

5

6

7

Non-heterosexual Riddle Scores (n = 3)

Note. Scores of 1 through 4 represent non-affirmative attitudes and scores of 5 through 8 represent affirmative attitudes.

Beyond Acceptance Figure 2 Fall training versus spring training perceived level of pressure.

102

5

6

Fall Training Perceived Level of Pressure (n =35)

25

20

>, 15 o c
C D 3

oLL 10

Spring Training Perceived Level of Pressure (n = 22)

Note. l-"Very Pressured," 4-"Somewhat Pressured," 7-"Not at all" Pressured.

Beyond Acceptance Figure 3 Perceived improvement in understanding LGBT individuals after attending the fall session, spring session, and the Safe Zone program as a whole. *

103

1

2

3

4

Change in Understanding after Fall Session (n = 35)

Note. 1 - "Not at all," 4 - "Moderately," 7 - "Significantly" * Only those participants who completed both the fall and spring training sessions were asked to report perceived improvement in understanding after attending the spring session and the Safe Zone Project as a whole.

a
5 6 7 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Change in Understanding after Spring Session (n = 21)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Change in Understanding after Both Sessions (n = 21)

Beyond Acceptance Figure 4 Distribution of Fall Pre-test and Fall Post-test Riddle Scale scores

104

Fall Riddle Pre-test Scores

3

4

5

6

Riddle Scores

Fall Riddle Post-test Scores

Riddle Scores

Beyond Acceptance Figure 5 Distribution of Fall Pre-test and Spring Post-test Riddle Scale scores*

105

Fall Riddle Pre-test Scores

Fall Riddle Post-test Scores

LL

4

2

3

4

5

6

Riddle Scores

Riddle Scores

Spring Riddle Post-test Scores

2

3

4

5

6

Riddle Scores

*Note Only those participants who attended both training sessions and completed the fall pretest, fall post-test and spring post-test Riddle Scale (n = 21).

Beyond Acceptance Figure 6 Degree to which attending the Safe Zone training influenced completion of "I Intend" statements*

106

o c

aa)

Degree of Influence

*Note. 1 - "I would have done so regardless-no influence," 4 - "Somewhat influenced my completion," 7 - "Completely influenced my completion"

Beyond Acceptance Figure 7 Reported degree to which Safe Zone impacted participants' personal lives*

107

10

8H

>, o c
cr (D Ul
0 13

6-

4-

2\

01
•" 1 r

1

2

Degree of Impact *Note Only those who attended both training sessions were asked to rate the degree to which Safe Zone impacted their personal lives. l-"Very Negative," 4-"No Impact," 7-"Very Positive"

Beyond Acceptance Figure 8 Reported degree to which Safe Zone impacted the Psy.D. Program*

108

14T

12-

10-

>. o
CD

8-

I •42-

0 | 1 2

|

3

4

5

6

7

Degree of Impact

*Note Only those who attended both training sessions were asked to rate the degree to which Safe Zone impacted the Psy.D. program. l-"Very Negative," 4-"No Impact," 7-"Very Positive"

Beyond Figure 9 Degree to which participants would recommend fall training

Recommendation of Fall Training

Degree of Recommendation

Note l-"Not at all," 4-"Maybe," 7-"Absolutely"

Beyond Acceptance Figure 10 Degree to which participants would recommend spring training

110

Recommendation of Spring Training

o c
CD CD

Degree of Recommendation

Note l-"Not at all," 4-"Maybe," 7-"Absolutely"

Beyond Acceptance Figure 11 Degree to which participants would recommend Safe Zone trainings as a whole*

111

Recommendation of Safe Zone as Whole
14
12

10H

o c

CD O" CD

6H

Degree of Recommendation *Note Only those who attended both training sessions were asked to rate the degree to which they would recommend the Safe Zone as a whole. l-"Not at all," 4-"Maybe," 7-"Absolutely"

Beyond Acceptance Figure 12 Endorsement for Safe Zone Project as a mandatory requirement*

112

Safe Zone as a Mandatory Requirement

o c
CD O"

Degree of Endorsement

*Note Only those who attended both training sessions were asked to rate the degree to they believed the Safe Zone should become a mandatory requirement for all incoming students. 1-"Absolutely Not," 4-"Not Sure," 7-"Absolutely"

Beyond Acceptance Appendix A Brief Descriptions of Fall and Spring Trainings Fall Training Session Welcome and Introductions - Safe Zone co-leaders introduced themselves, thanked

113

participants for their involvement in the trainings, and then asked participants to go around and introduce themselves and their reasons for attending the Safe Zone Project. Purpose of Safe Zone Project - Co-leaders provided the rationale for and brief history about Safe Zone. The co-leaders then described the "Safe Zone Member Responsibilities," such as giving oneself permission to ask seemingly "stupid" questions and to "be honest" with their feelings and beliefs. Ground Rules - Co-leaders delineated general guidelines for participants to help make the trainings a safe place for differing opinions to be expressed and heard, such as using active listening skills, validating others experiences, and using statements like, "in my personal experience," for expressing opposing points of view. BINGAY-A spin-off of BINGO, used as an icebreaker to encourage participants to

actively engage with each other to find answers to LGBT trivia and learn how their level of LGBT knowledge might or might not differ from their peers. To encourage interaction, participants were not allowed to provide their own answers and a prize was given to the first person who achieved "BINGAY." Brainstorming Common Terms Applied to GLBTIndividuals - Participants were asked to come up with slang terms for "gay," "lesbian," bisexual," and "transgender" individuals, as well as "heterosexual" individuals. The terms were deconstructed and used to illustrate erroneous

Beyond Acceptance stereotypes about LGBT individuals, demonstrate the common emphasis on sexuality versus affectional bonds, and to introduce the concept of "heterosexual privilege." Defining LGBT Terms - A didactic section in which important definitions and terminology defined (i.e., "affectional orientation," "closeted" vs. "coming out," "gender identity" vs. sexual orientation," "heterosexism," "homophobia," "transgender," "queer,"

114

"questioning," etc.) Participants were encouraged to raise relevant issues and ask questions for clarification. Deconstructing Gender, Sex, and Sexuality - Co-leaders delineated and deconstructed the constructs of biological sex, sexuality, and gender. Examples were provided to illustrate diversity and fluidity within each construct. Participants were encouraged to ask questions and provide commentary. Bisexuality Section - Co-leaders provided a rationale for having a separate section devoted to bisexuality and the phenomenon of "biphobia" was introduced. Myths about bisexuality were addressed and participants were encouraged to both challenge such myths and be in touch with some of their own biphobic beliefs and attitudes. Transgender Section - Co-leaders provided a rationale for having a separate section devoted to transgender individuals and the phenomenon of "transphobia" was introduced. Coleaders defined "transgender" as an umbrella term and explained some of the differences between and misconceptions about "transsexuals (non-operative, pre-operative and postoperative)," "transvestites," "cross-dressers," "drag queens," and "gender-benders." Participants were encouraged to ask questions and provide commentary. Myths about transgender individuals were addressed and participants were encouraged to both challenge such myths and in touch with some of their own transphobic beliefs and attitudes. Privileges that non-transgender individuals

Beyond Acceptance take for granted were introduced and participants were asked to share how they might either invalidate or otherwise supportively interact with a transgender individual.

115

Kinsey Scale - The co-leaders introduced the Kinsey scale and encouraged participants to think about the many ways in which sexuality can be experienced or self-defined (i.e., past behavior, fantasies, emotional feelings, etc.), and how that definition can be fluid and changeable over time. Co-leaders encouraged participants to think about how they define their own sexual orientation and how that might differ from others' criteria. Experiential "Imagine " Exercise - An experiential exercise in which participants were guided through an imaginary world where homosexual behavior was considered to be the norm. The exercise was used to help heterosexual participants understand what it is like to experience the "flip-side" of heterosexual privilege and to recognize what they might otherwise take for granted. Cass Model - Co-leaders presented the Cass Model of homosexual identity development and briefly compared to competing models. This section was used to illustrate the different psychological tasks and challenges that LGBT individuals often face in developing a coherent sense of self in an often homophobic and gendered world. Concepts such as "self-acceptance," "self-affirmation," and "internalized homophobia" were also addressed. Participants were encouraged to think about how their own development might have been different if they had to reconcile with internalized homophobia or transphobia. Participants who knew others who experienced such challenges, or who experienced such challenges themselves, were encouraged to share their stories.

Beyond Acceptance Coming Out Process - The pros and cons of coming out versus not coming out were

116

explored as a group and suggestions for being supportive of someone (thinking about) coming out were also discussed. Homophobia Section - The definition of homophobia was more explicitly defined and participants were asked to read over a list of questions to assess their own potentially unrealized homophobic attitudes (i.e., "Do you stop yourself from doing or saying certain things because someone might think you're gay or lesbian? If yes, what things?"). Participants were encouraged to share and discuss their personal findings. Riddle Scale - The eight different levels of the Riddle Scale were discussed. Participants were asked to discuss and explore why "Tolerance" and "Acceptance" are not considered affirmative or positive levels of attitudes and to think about and address their own affirmative and non-affirmative attitudes How Homophobia Hurts Us All - Co-leaders encouraged participants to think about and discuss how homophobia (and transphobia) can restrict the range of socially permissible behavior, dress, and roles for all individuals. Qualities of an Ally - Co-leaders explained the concept of an ally and addressed importance of non-LGBT identified allies in the community and as therapists. Small Group Discussion - Participants were divided into several smaller groups in which they shared ideas about ways in which they might alienate LGBT clients and what might alienate LGBT graduate students. The small groups then subsequently shared their ideas within then larger group forum. Participants were then asked to come up with some suggestions for making the department, classroom, and their own therapeutic practices more LGBT-affirmative.

Beyond Acceptance

117

Guidelines for Therapists and Educators - Some additional guidelines and suggestions for working with LGBT individuals were also presented and briefly discussed. LGBT Statistics - Some statistics regarding rates of LGBT victimization, suicide, harassment of LGBT youth in school, and rates of substance abuse were presented and explored. Factors of "internalized homophobia," limited social support, and the stress of concealing one's LGBT identity were explained as being potential mediating and moderating variables in with respect to some of the statistics. This information was used to help participants understand the present need for LGBT clubs, services, and institutions such as the Harvey Milk School in New York City. LGBT People of Color- Co-leaders presented the concepts of "dual discrimination" and "dual prejudice," which LGBT people of color are likely to face as members of two minority groups. Co-leaders encouraged group discussion, questions, and for participants to share any relevant examples. Heterosexual Privilege/Heterosexism - Due to time constraints, this section was only briefly presented during the fall training, and only for those who attended the morning session. This section was subsequently conducted during the spring training session, where a complete description can be found. Heterosexual Questionnaire -Same as above "Because" ~ For purposes of inspiration and reflection, one of the co-leaders read a poetic statement entitled, "Because," which supports the LGBT liberation movement and describes some of the discrimination that LGBT individuals often face. Writing the "IIntend" Statements - Participants were asked to think about and write down three possible LGBT-affirmative actions that they would promise to complete before the

Beyond Acceptance spring training session (e.g., seeing a pro-LGBT movie, researching more information, confronting an anti-gay slur in the moment, bringing up a relevant topic in class, etc.).

118

Participants placed their written statements in individual envelopes that were sealed and given to the co-leaders to hold until the spring training. Debriefing / Processing - Through a process-oriented format, the co-leaders helped participants to address any unresolved questions or interpersonal disagreements that emerged during the training. The co-leaders subsequently encouraged participants to process what came up for them as a result of having attended the training. Spring Training Session Welcome and Introductions - Safe Zone co-leaders reintroduced themselves, thanked participants for their involvement in the trainings, and then asked participants to go around and introduce themselves again. Purpose of Safe Zone Project - Co-leaders restated the rationale for the Safe Zone Project and explained that the spring session was predominantly designed to encourage participants to process the information they learned in the fall session on a more personal level. The co-leaders also reiterated the "Safe Zone Member Responsibilities," (e.g., such as giving oneself permission to ask seemingly "stupid" questions and to "be honest" with their feelings and beliefs). Ground Rules - Co-leaders reviewed the general guidelines necessary for enabling the trainings to be a safe place where differing opinions could be expressed and heard (e.g., using active listening skills, validating others experiences, and using statements like, "in my personal experience," to express opposing points of view). Reviewing "IIntend" Statements - participants opened their envelopes containing their written "I Intend" statements and reviewed which ones they completed and which ones they did

Beyond Acceptance not. Participants were encouraged to share their reasons for and experiences with completing their "I Intend' statements. Participants were also encouraged to explore and share possible

119

reasons for not completing them. Co-leaders pointed out were internal or external homophobia (or transphobia) or heterosexism (or genderism) might have prevented completion. Heterosexual Privilege/Heterosexism - The concept of heterosexual privilege and heterosexism were reintroduced and defined. Co-leaders provided some examples, but also encouraged participants to bring up examples of their own. Heterosexual Questionnaire - This exercise was designed to help non-LGBT individuals experience "heterosexual privilege" on a more personal level and to help them better understand how some of the questions asked of LGBT individuals are invalidating and sometimes nonsensical. Participants were asked to split-up into pairs for this activity, in which they took turns asking each other and responding to heterosexually-oriented questions that are often asked of LGBT individuals (e.g., "Is it possible your heterosexuality is just a phase you may grow out of?" or " If you've never slept with a person of the same-sex, how do you know that you wouldn't prefer that?" or "Why do heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex?"). Then their paired participants came together as a whole to share and discuss what came up for them. LGBT Role Play: Putting Oneself in the Role of "Other" Experiential Exercise - The participants were divided into two smaller groups and were asked to adopt a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender identity for the purpose of a role-play exercise. Participants were asked to play their roles as closest to their true selves and feelings as possible (i.e., if someone was married in real life, then they were "married" as an LGBT individual in the role-play). Assigned to each group was a co-leader who guided the participants through a series of questions, such as asking them whether or not they were "out," if they were out to some individuals and not others

Beyond Acceptance and why, and if they wanted to be married or have children. The co-leaders instructed the

120

participants to pay particular attention to the psychological and emotional phenomena that they experienced when asking the questions and to process those feelings within the group. Participants were also given the option to "pass" on any of the questions. The exercise was subsequently processed in this small group forum and any necessary debriefing was provided at that time. Debriefing /Processing - Participants came together again as a large group and the coleaders helped them to address any unresolved questions or interpersonal disagreements that emerged during the training. The co-leaders subsequently encouraged participants to process what came up for them as a result of having attended the spring training and the Safe Zone Project as a whole.

Beyond Acceptance Appendix B Questionnaires and Measures Pre-fall training ID Number

121

Demographic Information
1. Year in school: 1-first year 2-second year 3-third year 4-fourth year 5- fifth year 2. Sexual Orientation: 1 -Bisexual 2-Gay 3-Heterosexual 4-Lesbian 5-Unsure 6-Other (please specify)

3. Before Safe Zone, did you ever attend a formal LGB(T) training program, workshop, academic course, etc? If so, please circle below what you have attended before: (If you answered this question during the fall training, please put and "X" here answer the bottom. a. academic course (undergrad) b. academic course (grad) c. workshop (describe): d. training program (describe): e. other (describe): and don't

Beyond Acceptance Pre-fall training cont. ID Number

122

Attitudes toward Sexual Minorities Scale (LGB-KASH)
Instructions: Please use the scale below to respond to the following items. Circle the number that indicates the extent to which each statement is characteristic or uncharacteristic of you or your views. Please try to respond to every item. NOTE: LGBT = Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender.
2 1 Very uncharacteristic of me or my views 3 4 5 6 Very characteristic of me or my views

Please consider the ENTIRE statement when making your rating, as some statements contain two parts.
1.1 feel qualified to educate others about how to be affirmative regarding LGBT issues. 1 2 3 4 5 6

2.1 have conflicting attitudes or beliefs about LGBT people. 1 2 3 4 5 6

3.1 can accept LGBT people even though I condemn their behavior. 1 2 3 4 5 6

4. It is important to me to avoid LGBT individuals. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Beyond Acceptance Pre-fall training cont. REMINDER: Use the following scale in your responses. 2 1 Very uncharacteristic of me or my views 3 4 5 6 Very characteristic i of me or my views ID Number

123

5.1 could educate others about the history and symbolism behind the "pink triangle." 1 2 3 4 5 6

6. 13.1 have close friends who are LGBT. 1 2 3 4 5 6

7.1 have difficulty reconciling my religious views with my interest in being accepting of LGBT people. 1 2 3 4 5 6

8.1 would be unsure what to do or say if I met someone who is openly lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. 1 2 3 4 5 6

9. Hearing about a hate crime against a LGBT person would not bother me. 1 2 3 4 5 6

10.1 am knowledgeable about the significance of the Stonewall Riot to the Gay Liberation Movement. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Beyond Acceptance Pre-fall training cont. REMINDER: Use the following scale in your responses. 1 2 Very uncharacteristic of me or my views 3 4 5 6 Very characteristic i of me or my views ID Number

124

11.1 think marriage should be legal for same sex couples. 1 2 3 4 5 6

12.1 keep my religious views to myself in order to accept LGBT people.
1 2 3 4 5 6

13.1 conceal my negative views toward LGBT people when I am with someone who doesn't share my views. 1 2 3 4 5 6

14. Please circle the number five on the scale below. 1 2 3 4 5 6

15.1 sometimes think about being violent toward LGBT people. 1 2 3 4 5 6

16. Feeling attracted to another person of the same sex would not make me uncomfortable. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Beyond Acceptance Pre-fall training cont. REMINDER: Use the following scale in your responses. 1 2 Very uncharacteristic of me or my views 3 4 5 6 Very characteristic of me or my views ID Number

125

17.1 am familiar with the work of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. 1 2 3 4 5 6

18.1 would display a symbol of gay pride (pink triangle, rainbow, etc.) to show my support of the LBG community. 1 2 3 4 5 6

19.1 would feel self-conscious greeting a known LGBT person in a public place. 1 2 3 4 5 6

20.1 have had sexual fantasies about members of my same sex. 1 2 3 4 5 6

21.1 am knowledgeable about the history and mission of the PFLAG organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6

22.1 would attend a demonstration to promote LGBT civil rights. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Beyond Acceptance Pre-fall training cont. REMINDER: Use the following scale in your responses. 2 1 Very uncharacteristic of me or my views 3 4 5 6 Very characteristic of me or my views ID Number

126

23.1 try not to let my negative beliefs about LGBT people harm my relationships with the lesbian, gay, and/or bisexual individuals I know. 1 2 3 4 5 6

24. It is wrong for courts to make child custody decisions based on a parent's sexual orientation. 1 2 3 4 5 6

25. Hospitals should acknowledge same sex partners equally to any other next of kin. 1 2 3 4 5 6

26. LGBT people deserve the hatred they receive. 1 2 3 4 5 6

27. It is important to teach children positive attitudes toward LGBT people. 1 2 3 4 5 6

28.1 conceal my positive attitudes toward LGBT people when I am with someone who is homophobic. 1 2 3 4 5 6

29. Health benefits should be available equally to same sex partners as to any other couple. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Beyond Acceptance Pre-fall training cont. Riddle Scale Please circle the number of the statement that best describes your current attitudes towards LGBT individuals. 1. Repulsion ID Number

127

Homosexuality is seen as a crime against nature. LGBT people are sick, crazy, immoral, sinful, wicked, etc. Anything is justified to change them: prison, hospitalization, negative behavior therapy, violence, etc. 2. Pity Heterosexual chauvinism. Heterosexuality is more mature and certainly to be preferred. Any possibility of becoming "straight" should be reinforced, and those who seem to be born LGBT should be pitied. 3. Tolerance Homosexuality is just a phase of adolescent development that many people go through and most people grow out of. Thus, LGBT people are less mature than heterosexuals and should be treated with the protectiveness and indulgence once uses with a child. LGBT people should not be given positions of authority because they are still working through their adolescent behavior. 4. Acceptance Still implies there is something to accept. Characterized by such statements as "you're not a lesbian, you're a person" or "what you do is your own business" or" it's fine with me, just don't flaunt it." 5. Support Work to safeguard the rights of LGBT individuals. People at this level may be uncomfortable themselves, but they are aware of the homophobic climate and irrational unfairness. 6. Admiration Acknowledges the being LGBT in our society takes strength. People at this level are willing to truly examine their homophobic attitudes, values, and behaviors. 7. Appreciation Value the diversity of people and see LGBT people as a valid part of that diversity. These people are willing to combat homophobia in themselves and others. 8. Nurturance Assumes that LGBT people are indispensable in our society. They view LGBT people with genuine affection and delight, and are willing to be allies and advocates.

Beyond Acceptance Post-fall training ID Number

128

"I Intend Statements"

Fall Session: Please write down 3 LGBT-related activities, actions, or gestures that you intend to do between the fall training and the spring training. These can be anything from posting something on the Safe Zone bulletin board, reaching out to an LGBT classmate, friend, or coworker, reading an LGBT book, seeing a movie, attending a workshop, etc. Between now and the spring, I intend to: 1.

2.

3.

Spring Session: Please circle the number of the statements above that you accomplished since the fall training***.

***Please note that only those students who signed consent forms should hand these in with their other questionnaires at the end of the training. All other students should take these papers with them.

Beyond Acceptance Post-fall training cont. ID Number

129

Fall Training Evaluation Form

Please write neatly!!
1. What activitie(s) did you enjoy the most? Please circle and place an asterisk nest to the one you found to be most beneficial: a. Ground Rules/ Safe Zone Intro b. Brainstorming Common Terms Applied to GLBT Individuals c. Defining LGBT Terms d. BINGAY e. Deconstructing Gender, Sex, Sexuality f. Bisexuality Section g. Transgender Section h. Kinsey Scale i. "Imagine" Experiential Exercise j . Cass Model k. Coming Out Process 1. Homophobia Section m. Riddle Scale n. Qualities of an Ally o. Small Group Discussion p. Guidelines for Therapists and Educators q. How Homophobia Hurts Us All r. LGBT Statistics s. LGBT People of Color t. Heterosexual Privilege/Heterosexism u. Heterosexual Questionnaire v. "Because" w. Writing the "I Intend" Statements x. Presenters' qualities y. Having a place to discuss LGBT issues z. Other

2. What activities did you not enjoy? Please list corresponding letters from above:

Beyond Acceptance Post-fall training cont. ID Number

130

3. How much has your understanding of LGBT individuals improved at the end of this training? Circle: 1 2 3 4 Moderately 5 6 7 Significantly

Not at all

4. Would you recommend this training to another individual? Circle: 1 2 3 4 Maybe 5 6 7 Absolutely

Not at all

5. Did you feel pressured to act, feel, or think a certain way during the training that made you uncomfortable? Circle: 1 Very Pressured 2 3 4 Somewhat Pressured, but saw it as necessary 5 6 7 Not at all

6. Please describe what you liked about the trainers and what you disliked: Likes (list below): Dislikes (list below):

7. What would you have changed or added?

8. Please feel to add any other comments or suggestions here:

Beyond Acceptance Post-fall training cont. ID Number

131

Attitudes toward Sexual Minorities Scale (LGB-KASH)
Instructions: Please use the scale below to respond to the following items. Circle the number that indicates the extent to which each statement is characteristic or uncharacteristic of you or your views. Please try to respond to every item. NOTE: LGBT = Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender.
2 1 Very uncharacteristic of me or my views 3 4 5 6 Very characteristic of me or my views

Please consider the ENTIRE statement when making your rating, as some statements contain two parts.
1.1 feel qualified to educate others about how to be affirmative regarding LGBT issues. 1 2 3 4 5 6

2.1 have conflicting attitudes or beliefs about LGBT people. 1 2 3 4 5 6

3.1 can accept LGBT people even though I condemn their behavior. 1 2 3 4 5 6

4. It is important to me to avoid LGBT individuals. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Beyond Acceptance Post-fall training cont. REMINDER: Use the following scale in your responses. 1 2 Very uncharacteristic of me or my views 3 4 5 6 Very characteristic of me or my views ID Number

132

5.1 could educate others about the history and symbolism behind the "pink triangle." 1 2 3 4 5 6

6. 13.1 have close friends who are LGBT. 1 2 3 4 5 6

7.1 have difficulty reconciling my religious views with my interest in being accepting of LGBT people. 1 2 3 4 5 6

8.1 would be unsure what to do or say if I met someone who is openly lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. 1 2 3 4 5 6

9. Hearing about a hate crime against a LGBT person would not bother me. 1 2 3 4 5 6

10.1 am knowledgeable about the significance of the Stonewall Riot to the Gay Liberation Movement. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Beyond Acceptance Post-fall training cont. REMINDER: Use the following scale in your responses. 2 1 Very uncharacteristic of me or my views 3 4 5 6 Very characteristic of me or my views ID Number

133

11.1 think marriage should be legal for same sex couples. 1 2 3 4 5 6

12.1 keep my religious views to myself in order to accept LGBT people. 1 2 3 4 5 6

13.1 conceal my negative views toward LGBT people when I am with someone who doesn't share my views. 1 2 3 4 5 6

14. Please circle the number five on the scale below. 1 2 3 4 5 6

15.1 sometimes think about being violent toward LGBT people. 1 2 3 4 5 6

16. Feeling attracted to another person of the same sex would not make me uncomfortable. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Beyond Acceptance Post-fall training cont. REMINDER: Use the following scale in your responses. 1 2 Very uncharacteristic of me or my views 3 4 5 6 Very characteristic of me or my views ID Number

134

17.1 am familiar with the work of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. 1 2 3 4 5 6

18.1 would display a symbol of gay pride (pink triangle, rainbow, etc.) to show my support of the LBG community. 1 2 3 4 5 6

19.1 would feel self-conscious greeting a known LGBT person in a public place. 1 2 3 4 5 6

20.1 have had sexual fantasies about members of my same sex. 1 2 3 4 5 6

21.1 am knowledgeable about the history and mission of the PFLAG organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6

22.1 would attend a demonstration to promote LGBT civil rights. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Beyond Acceptance Post-fall training cont. REMINDER: Use the following scale in your responses. 2 1 Very uncharacteristic of me or my views 3 4 5 6 Very characteristic of me or my views ID Number

135

23.1 try not to let my negative beliefs about LGBT people harm my relationships with the lesbian, gay, and/or bisexual individuals I know. 1 2 3 4 5 6

24. It is wrong for courts to make child custody decisions based on a parent's sexual orientation. 1 2 3 4 5 6

25. Hospitals should acknowledge same sex partners equally to any other next of kin. 1 2 3 4 5 6

26. LGBT people deserve the hatred they receive. 1 2 3 4 5 6

27. It is important to teach children positive attitudes toward LGBT people. 1 2 3 4 5 6

28.1 conceal my positive attitudes toward LGBT people when I am with someone who is homophobic. 1 2 3 4 5 6

29. Health benefits should be available equally to same sex partners as to any other couple. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Beyond Acceptance Post-fall training cont. Riddle Scale Please circle the number of the statement that best describes your current attitudes towards LGBT individuals. 1. Repulsion ID Number

136

Homosexuality is seen as a crime against nature. LGBT people are sick, crazy, immoral, sinful, wicked, etc. Anything is justified to change them: prison, hospitalization, negative behavior therapy, violence, etc. 2. Pity Heterosexual chauvinism. Heterosexuality is more mature and certainly to be preferred. Any possibility of becoming "straight" should be reinforced, and those who seem to be born LGBT should be pitied. 3. Tolerance Homosexuality is just a phase of adolescent development that many people go through and most people grow out of. Thus, LGBT people are less mature than heterosexuals and should be treated with the protectiveness and indulgence once uses with a child. LGBT people should not be given positions of authority because they are still working through their adolescent behavior. 4. Acceptance Still implies there is something to accept. Characterized by such statements as "you're not a lesbian, you're a person" or "what you do is your own business" or" it's fine with me, just don't flaunt it." 5. Support Work to safeguard the rights of LGBT individuals. People at this level may be uncomfortable themselves, but they are aware of the homophobic climate and irrational unfairness. 6. Admiration Acknowledges the being LGBT in our society takes strength. People at this level are willing to truly examine their homophobic attitudes, values, and behaviors. 7. Appreciation Value the diversity of people and see LGBT people as a valid part of that diversity. These people are willing to combat homophobia in themselves and others. 8. Nurturance Assumes that LGBT people are indispensable in our society. They view LGBT people with genuine affection and delight, and are willing to be allies and advocates.

Beyond Acceptance

137

Spring Evaluation
ID Number Demographic Information I Intend Statement Count Spring Training Evaluation LGB-KASH (revised) Riddle Scale

Demographic Information
(If you answered questions 1 and 2 of this sheet during the fall training, please put and "X' here and don't them again, unless something has changed.)

1. Year in school: 1 -first year 2-second year 3-third year 4-fourth year 5- fifth year

2. Sexual Orientation: 1 -Bisexual 2-Gay 3-Heterosexual 4-Lesbian 5-Unsure 6-Other (please specify)

3. Before Safe Zone, did you ever attended a formal LGB(T) training program, workshop, academic course, etc? If so, please circle below what you have attended before:

(If you answered this question during the fall training, please put and "X" here answer the bottom. a. academic course (undergrad) b. academic course (grad) c. workshop (describe):
d. training program (describe):

and don't

e. other (describe):

Beyond Acceptance Spring Program Eval. Cont. ID Number

138

Your answers should reflect your opinions about the spring training only! Please write neatly!!

1. Would you recommend this spring training to another individual? Circle: 1 2 3 4 Maybe 5 6 7 Absolutely

Not at all

2. Did you feel pressured to act, feel, or think a certain way during the training that made you uncomfortable? Circle: 1 Very Pressured 2 3 4 Somewhat Pressured, but saw it as necessary 5 6 7 Not at all

Beyond Acceptance Spring Program Eval. Cont. ID Number

13 9

ONLY FOR THOSE WHO ATTENDED BOTH SESSIONS-PLEASE ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS BELOW:
1. How much has your understanding of LGBT individuals improved at the end of this spring training? Circle: 1 Not at all 2 3 4 5 6 7 Significantly

Moderately

2. What would you have changed or added to this spring session?

3. What would you have changed or added to the Safe Zone as a whole?

4. On the whole, would you recommend attending the Safe Zone Project to another? Circle: 1 Not at all 2 3 4 Maybe 5 6 7 Absolutely

5. Do you think the Safe Zone Project has had a positive or negative impact on the Psy. D. program/department as a whole? Circle: 1 2 3 4 No impact 5 6 7 Very Positive

Very Negative

Beyond Acceptance Spring Program Eval. Cont. ID Number

140

6. Has the Safe Zone Project positively or negatively impacted you, personally? Circle: 1 Very Negative 2 3 4 No impact 5 6 7 Very Positive

7. Should the Safe Zone project become a mandatory requirement for all incoming first year students? Circle: 1 Absolutely Not 2 3 4 Not Sure 5 6 7 Absolutely

8. How much has your understanding of LGBT individuals improved after having attended both training sessions? Circle: 1 Not at all 2 3 4 Moderately 5 6 7 Significantly

9. How valuable do you think it was to make time for the "Heterosexual Questionnaire" during the spring training session? Circle: 1 Not at all valuable 2 3 4 Somewhat valuable 5 6 7 Extremely valuable

10. Please feel free to provide any other comments or feedback here:

Beyond Acceptance Spring Program Eval. Cont. ID Number

141

O N L Y F O R T H O S E W H O A T T E N D E D B O T H SESSIONS-PLEASE ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS BELOW:

I Intend Statement Count: ONLY for those who attended the fall training, please answer: How many of your "I Intend Statements" did you complete? Please circle the appropriate number: 0 1 2 3 (Did you do more? If so, write the # here )

Briefly list/describe exactly what I intend statements you did: 1 2 3 4 5 6

If you completed one or more of your "I intend" statements, to what extent did attending Safe Zone influence your completion of your "I intend" statement(s)? If you didn't complete any, just write "NONE" here:

Circle: 1

2

3

4

5

6

7 Completely influenced my completion

I would have done so regardless (no influence)

Somewhat influenced my completion

Beyond Acceptance Spring Program Eval. Cont. ID Number

142

Attitudes toward Sexual Minorities Scale (LGB-KASH)
Instructions: Please use the scale below to respond to the following items. Circle the number that indicates the extent to which each statement is characteristic or uncharacteristic of you or your views. Please try to respond to every item. NOTE: LGBT = Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender.
1 2 Very uncharacteristic of me or my views 3 4 5 6 very characteristic \ of me or my views

Please consider the ENTIRE statement when making your rating, as some statements contain two parts.
1.1 feel qualified to educate others about how to be affirmative regarding LGBT issues. 1 2 3 4 5 6

2.1 have conflicting attitudes or beliefs about LGBT people. 1 2 3 4 5 6

3.1 can accept LGBT people even though I condemn their behavior. 1 2 3 4 5 6

4. It is important to me to avoid LGBT individuals. 1 2 3 4 5 6

5.1 could educate others about the history and symbolism behind the "pink triangle." 1 2 3 4 5 6

6. I have close friends who are LGBT. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Beyond Acceptance Spring Program EvaL Cont. ID Number

143

REMINDER: Use the following scale in your responses.

1 Very uncharacteristic of me or my views

2

3

4

5

6 Very characteristic of me or my views

7.1 have difficulty reconciling my religious views with my interest in being accepting of LGBT people. 1 2 3 4 5 6

8.1 would be unsure what to do or say if I met someone who is openly lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. 1 2 3 4 5 6

9. Hearing about a hate crime against a LGBT person would not bother me. 1 2 3 4 5 6

10.1 am knowledgeable about the significance of the Stonewall Riot to the Gay Liberation Movement. 1 2 3 4 5 6

11.1 think marriage should be legal for same sex couples. 1 2 3 4 5 6

12.1 keep my religious views to myself in order to accept LGBT people. 1 2 3 4 5 6

13.1 conceal my negative views toward LGBT people when I am with someone who doesn't share my views. 1 2 3 4 5 6

14. Please circle the number five on the scale below. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Beyond Acceptance Spring Program Eval. Cont. REMINDER: Use the following scale in your responses. ID Number

144

1 Very uncharacteristic of me or my views

2

3

4

5

6 Very characteristic of me or my views

15.1 sometimes think about being violent toward LGBT people. 1 2 3 4 5 6

16. Feeling attracted to another person of the same sex would not make me uncomfortable. 1 2 3 4 5 6

17.1 am familiar with the work of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. 1 2 3 4 5 6

18.1 would display a symbol of gay pride (pink triangle, rainbow, etc.) to show my support of the LBG community. 1 2 3 4 5 6

19.1 would feel self-conscious greeting a known LGBT person in a public place. 1 2 3 4 5 6

20.1 have had sexual fantasies about members of my same sex. 1 2 3 4 5 6

21.1 am knowledgeable about the history and mission of the PFLAG organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6

22. I would attend a demonstration to promote L G B T civil rights.

1

2

3

4

5

6

23.1 try not to let my negative beliefs about LGBT people harm my relationships with the lesbian, gay, and/or bisexual individuals I know. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Beyond Acceptance Spring Program Eval. Cont. ID Number

145

REMINDER: Use the following scale in your responses.

1 Very uncharacteristic of me or my views

2

3

4

5

6 very characteristic of me or my views

24. It is wrong for courts to make child custody decisions based on a parent's sexual orientation. 1 2 3 4 5 6

25. Hospitals should acknowledge same sex partners equally to any other next of kin. 1 2 3 4 5 6

26. LGBT people deserve the hatred they receive. 1 2 3 4 5 6

27. It is important to teach children positive attitudes toward LGBT people. 1 2 3 4 5 6

28.1 conceal my positive attitudes toward LGBT people when I am with someone who is homophobic. 1 2 3 4 5 6

29. Health benefits should be available equally to same sex partners as to any other couple. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Beyond Acceptance Spring Program Eval. Cont. Riddle Scale Please circle the number of the statement that best describes your current attitudes towards LGBT individuals. 1. Repulsion ID Number

146

Homosexuality is seen as a crime against nature. LGBT people are sick, crazy, immoral, sinful, wicked, etc. Anything is justified to change them: prison, hospitalization, negative behavior therapy, violence, etc. 2. Pity Heterosexual chauvinism. Heterosexuality is more mature and certainly to be preferred. Any possibility of becoming "straight" should be reinforced, and those who seem to be born LGBT should be pitied. 3. Tolerance Homosexuality is just a phase of adolescent development that many people go through and most people grow out of. Thus, LGBT people are less mature than heterosexuals and should be treated with the protectiveness and indulgence once uses with a child. LGBT people should not be given positions of authority because they are still working through their adolescent behavior. 4. Acceptance Still implies there is something to accept. Characterized by such statements as "you're not a lesbian, you're a person" or "what you do is your own business" or" it's fine with me, just don't flaunt it." 5. Support Work to safeguard the rights of LGBT individuals. People at this level may be uncomfortable themselves, but they are aware of the homophobic climate and irrational unfairness. 6. Admiration Acknowledges the being LGBT in our society takes strength. People at this level are willing to truly examine their homophobic attitudes, values, and behaviors. 7. Appreciation Value the diversity of people and see LGBT people as a valid part of that diversity. These people are willing to combat homophobia in themselves and others. 8. Nurturance Assumes that LGBT people are indispensable in our society. They view LGBT people with genuine affection and delight, and are willing to be allies and advocates.