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

as part of the main structural equation model. Several confounding variables were considered in the study: actual perceived gender (man vs. woman), age, specialized area of academic course (scientific vs. humanistic), and the academic class rank (freshman year vs. other). Mul- tiple fit indices were used to evaluate model fit: chi-square likelihood ratio statistic, CFI, RMSEA with associated 90% C.I., and SRMR. Guided by suggestions provided in Hu and Ben- tler [37], an acceptable model fit was defined by the following criteria: CFI (� .95). RMSEA (� .06, 90% C.I. � .06), and SRMR (� .08). To address our first hypothesis, we initially tested the main effects of heterosexist microag- gressions on dimensions of social integration and overall perception of campus climate (Hypothesis 1). In this first step, sexual orientation was considered to be a predictor of aca- demic and social integration and perceptions of university climate, along with heterosexist microaggressions. Then, we examined whether each dimension of social integration mediated the relationship between heterosexist microaggressions and campus climate (Hypothesis 2). The mediation effects were tested using bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals based on 5000 resamples. Confidence intervals that do not contain zero indicate a significant indirect effect via the specific mediator. Next, we tested the moderating effect of sexual orientation in the relationships between heterosexist microaggressions and campus climate (i.e., conditional

direct effect) and between heterosexist microaggressions and dimensions of social integration (conditional indirect effect; Hypothesis 3). Significant conditional effects were probed using the pick-a-point approach [38]. Results Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations Means, standard deviations, and Pearson bivariate correlations between all variables are shown in Table 2. The results highlighted a negative correlation between heterosexist microag- gressions and faculty concern for student development and teaching in both heterosexual and non-heterosexual students. Perception of campus climate was negatively associated with het- erosexist microaggressions and positively associated with social integration. Among the con- trol variables, age was significantly and negatively associated with campus climate in non- heterosexual students. Heterosexual women, compared to men, scored lower on heterosexist microaggression. Also, heterosexual freshman students rated their interactions with faculty and faculty concern for student development and teaching more satisfying compared to stu- dents in other years. Specialized academic program had no significant associations with any variable in the study, thus we decided to remove it from further analyses. Frequency of heterosexist microaggressions on campus Most participants (66.6%) reported “occasionally to very frequently” being witness to hetero- sexist microaggressions on campus. Percentages were similar in heterosexual (66.7%) and non-heterosexual students (65.8%; χ2 (2) = .01, p = .52). The most common microaggression

reported by participants was hearing someone say “that’s so gay” (58.2%). Structural equation modeling Results of the SEM are presented in Table 3 and displayed in Fig 2. The hypothesized model showed an adequate fit to the data (χ2 (27) = 26.69, p = .48, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00 with 90% C.I. [.00, .03], SRMR = .03). Heterosexist microaggressions were significantly and negatively associated with peer-group interactions and faculty concern. High quality peer-group interac- tions and faculty concern were associated with a positive student perception of campus PLOS ONE Heterosexist microaggressions and campus climate PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231580 April 16, 2020 8 / 16