Heterosexist microaggressions, student academic experience and perception of campus climate: Findings from an Italian higher education context

specification required), and age. In terms of academic variables, we asked participants to indi- cate the specialized area of academic course (scientific vs. humanistic) and the academic class rank, to distinguish first-year students from all other students (freshman vs. other). Heterosexist microaggressions. To assess the frequency of heterosexist microaggressions on campus, we used four items based on the LGBQ Environmental Microaggression Scale devel- oped by Woodford et al. [6]: I heard someone say “that’s so gay” to describe something as nega- tive, stupid, or uncool; I heard the phrase “no homo”; I saw negative messages about LGBQ people on university environments or social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter); In my university it is OK to make jokes about LGBQ people. Respondents were asked to indicate the frequency of each incident on campus over the past year or since being a university student (if less than 1 year). Response options ranged from “never” (1) to “very frequently” (5). The analysis of the scale factor structure showed an adequate fit to the data, χ2 (2) = 6.79, p = .05, comparative fit index (CFI) = .99, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .07 90% confidence interval (C.I.) [.01, .11], standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .02. Cronbach’s alpha was .75. Social integration. Social integration was measured through items extracted from the Institutional Integration Scale developed by Pascarella and Terenzini [28]. Social integration was divided into three subscales: peer-group interactions (seven items, sample item: Since com-

ing to this university, I have developed close personal relationships with other students; Cron- bach’s alpha = .85) and interactions with faculty (five items, sample item: I am satisfied with the opportunities to meet and interact informally with faculty members; Cronbach’s alpha = .91), which measure the quality of peer-group interactions and of student interactions with faculty, respectively; faculty concern for student development and teaching (four items; sample item: Most of the faculty I have had contact with are interested in helping students growth in more than just academic area; Cronbach’s alpha = .80). The measures were translated from English into Italian by two native Italian speakers, experts in psychology and fluent in English. Two dif- ferent versions were obtained and compared, achieving a final agreement. Then, an American native English speaker translated the obtained version from Italian to English to confirm that translation was accurate. All items were rated on a scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5), with higher values indicative of greater positive perceptions of social integration. The confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the psychometric structure of the scale, χ2 (98) = 463.80, p < .001, CFI = .93, RMSEA = .08, SRMR = .05. Perceptions of campus climate. To assess campus climate, we used questions from Ran- kin’s Campus Climate Survey [18]. Using a scale from 1 to 5, participants were asked to rate the overall university climate on a series of five dimensions: hostile/friendly, excluding/includ-

ing, regressing/improving, not welcoming/welcoming, and disrespectful/respectful. The mean average score was used as a measure of the overall campus climate as perceived by students (Cronbach’s alpha = .78). Statistical analyses The study’s hypotheses were tested using structural equation modeling (SEM) in Mplus ver- sion 8 [35]. The percentage of missing values for each measure was low (it was either zero or less than 1%). Little’s Test [36] of missing data was not statistically significant, χ2(52) = 34.57, p = .97, suggesting the missingness on one variable was unrelated to the other measured or unmeasured variables. Accordingly, full information maximum-likelihood (FIML) was used to handle missing data [35]. Values of skewness and kurtosis for variables did not substantially deviate from a normal distribution, and thus analyses were performed by using the Maximum Likelihood (ML) estimator. One latent factor of heterosexist microaggressions was estimated PLOS ONE Heterosexist microaggressions and campus climate PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231580 April 16, 2020 7 / 16