Introduction

Late childhood and adolescence are critical developmental periods for self-awareness and self-construal in consolidating relational competence and beliefs about oneself. Identity development assumes a different significance for sexual and gender minority youths (SGMY), which often engage in pathways to build and explore their personality divergent from their peers (Cass, 1984; Coleman, 1982; Glover et al., 2009; Kuper et al., 2018; Scroggs & Vennum, 2021). Due to their sexual orientation or gender identity, some youths are vulnerable to prejudice and discrimination (Friedman et al., 2011; Toomey et al., 2012). The growing relevance of inequalities experienced by youth minorities in their everyday educational life, often connected with bullying and cyberbullying phenomena, is evidenced by an increasing amount of data over the past twenty years (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2019; ILGA-Europe, 2021; Kosciw et al., 2018; Lamontagne et al., 2018). Evidence shows that SGMY have higher chances of experiencing traumatic events, such as bullying or harassment, than heterosexual youth (Kosciw et al., 2020; Poteat & DiGiovanni, 2010). According to recent research conducted by Kann and colleagues (2016), 34% of SGMY were likely to experience bullying compared to 19% of heterosexual youth in the USA.

Considering the biases in the definition of a social phenomenon, homophobia can be described as a social system of normative regulations which function in daily lives as in institutions by “regulatory practices (…) that produce and constrain gender intelligibility” (Chambers, 2007; p. 666), allowing the manifestation of specific forms of gender and forbidding others (Fraïssé & Barrientos, 2016). Consequentially, homophobia in schools becomes a specific form of bullying as it expresses the construct of dominant groups and institutions that strengthen attitudes towards the abnormality of homosexuality in a delicate phase of individual development (Rivers, 2004).

The socio-cultural frame is critical in making SGMY more exposed to bullying and cyberbullying. In this perspective, heterosexual male students are often involved in homophobic bullying by engaging in a cultural development of the identity based on the stigmatization of feminine personality traits as defined by sexual behavior stereotypes (Hoskin, 2020; Ray & Parkhill, 2021; Theodore & Basow, 2000). Moreover, it has been shown that teachers’ willingness to intervene in bullying episodes is lower when they involve homophobic behaviors (Anagnostopoulos et al., 2009; Collier et al., 2015; McCabe et al., 2013; Zotti et al., 2019). An international survey coordinated by the European Region of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA-Europe) in 2015 reported that 50% of participants had personally experienced humiliating comments towards SGMY people; in Lithuania, 85% of the respondents to the survey declared to have witnessed homophobic and/or transphobic bullying at school (ILGA-Europe, 2015). Regarding the school environment, research indicates that schools worldwide are not consistently perceived as safe spaces for SGMY. According to the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network, 35% of students feel unsafe due to their gender identity, 44.6% due to their gender expression, and 59.5% due to their sexual orientation (Kosciw et al., 2018). Similarly, in Italy, SGMY students experienced a higher level of discrimination (24%) compared to heterosexual peers (14.2%; ISTAT, 2012). The UNESCO report “Out In The Open” (2016), drawing from data in 94 countries, disclosed that children and youth facing homophobic and/or transphobic bullying at school are at higher risk of mental health-related challenges, encompassing anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, self-harm, and suicidal tendencies. Discriminatory bullying negatively affects the self-esteem and identity formation of SGMY (Blais et al., 2014; Heck et al., 2014), impacting mental health (Guz et al., 2021; Marshal et al., 2011; Russell & Fish, 2016) and academic performance (Poteat et al., 2014). Notably, this phenomenon influences the identity development of both victims and perpetrators, increasing their propensity to exhibit dark triad traits like psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellism (Baughman et al., 2012; D’Urso et al., 2020; Nappa et al., 2020).

Despite a wealth of data on bullying and homo-transphobia, a significant gap remains in understanding its online evolution (Gámez-Guadix & Incera, 2021; Wright & Wachs, 2021). Bullying and harassment have evolved alongside emerging technologies. In a survey among Spanish students, 68% reported witnessing at least one episode of cyberbullying involving LGBTQ + youths (individuals identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning; GLAAD, 2018) over the past years, with 72.5% of victims experiencing cyberbullying from fellow students at their own school (COGAM, 2015). The incidence of homophobic cyberbullying is increasing, particularly due to SGMY’s internet use as a coping strategy, seeking a distinct online environment to escape offline discrimination and bullying (Hiebert & Kortes-Miller, 2021; Hillier et al., 2012; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2016), while the shift from physical interactions to virtual relationships exposes individuals to greater vulnerability to cyberviolence; scientific studies emphasize that those identifying as non-hetero-normative face an elevated risk of becoming targets of such violence (Elipe et al., 2018; Gámez-Guadix & Incera, 2021).

Overall, these data highlight the specificity of this phenomenon: although homophobia in the school context is embedded in “typical” bullying paths, it adds specific issues—concerning heteronormative identity development—that impact children’s identity and socio-emotional development.

While bullying in schools was becoming a source of public concern and inquiry in the late twentieth century, several prevention programs appeared in the scientific literature. Notably, anti-bullying initiatives have shown effectiveness in reducing aggression by 20–23% and victimization by 17–20% (Ttofi & Farrington, 2011). While numerous globally validated bullying intervention programs have been reported in recent studies (Gaffney, Ttofi, et al., 2019), some interventions exhibit smaller-than-expected effect sizes (Ferguson & Sanchez, 2007; Merrell et al., 2008); nonetheless, they still demonstrate a tangible impact on reducing bullying (Nocentini et al., 2019). When designing programs against bullying perpetration and homophobic bullying, it is crucial to consider these phenomena developmentally, recognizing them as critical during late childhood and adolescence (Arseneault et al., 2006; Gunn & Goldstein, 2017; Haltigan & Vaillancourt, 2014; Pepler et al., 2006). This developmental aspect is particularly important because both forms of bullying require evolving skills, including relational skills that shape the perception of homophobic bullying as a relational dysfunction rather than an isolated interaction (Menin et al., 2021).

Recent educational psychology studies highlight the necessity of implementing socio-emotional learning (SEL) programs in schools for preventing bullying (Nickerson et al., 2019). Contrary to viewing SEL as a limited practice for specific ages, emerging research emphasizes its role as a crucial component in school interventions against violence (Gaffney et al., 2019; Polanin et al., 2022; Ttofi & Farrington, 2011; Vreeman & Carroll, 2007; Zych et al., 2019). By nurturing social interaction skills, SEL aims to decrease students’ exposure to bullying, facilitating friendship formation and peer support, thus mitigating the adverse effects of bullying longitudinally (Smith & Low, 2013).

Schoeps et al. (2018) highlighted emotional education’s effectiveness in reducing online victimization and perpetration among secondary students, while worse social and emotional competencies are attributed to bullying and cyberbullying perpetrators and bully-victims in comparison to uninvolved peers (Zych et al., 2018).

Recent studies confirm that enhanced socio-emotional skills correlate with improved well-being and academic performance (Jones & Doolittle, 2017; Mella et al., 2021; OECD, 2015; Zhai et al., 2012) and reduced bullying propensity, particularly for low socioeconomic status children (Durlak et al., 2011).

Thus, a SEL-based intervention could offer opportunities for all students to develop and apply their relational and emotional competencies during social interactions within a natural context, resulting in a positive spillover effect even in the online environment (Hinduja & Patchin, 2017), and it becomes crucial for educational institutions to provide support for the co-construction of learning spaces that affirm identities for all students, thereby safeguarding minority youth and marginalized pupils (Jennings & Frank, 2015; Jones et al., 2013; Yoder, 2014).

Despite recognizing the significance of SEL-based school interventions in preventing bullying (Slee & Skrzypiec, 2016; Ttofi & Farrington, 2012), limited attention has been given to addressing specific features of homophobic bullying for targeted interventions; thus, our study contributes by utilizing the SEL framework to assess interventions against homophobia, revealing components that could empower students in demonstrating empathy, sound decision-making, alignment with personal values, and accountability (Durlak et al., 2011).

Consequently, the analysis will evaluate each program’s structure, assessing its use of active learning to cultivate SEL skills and support students’ skill reinforcement, guided by an adapted Big Five personality taxonomy applied to SEL (John & Srivastava, 1999; Walton et al., 2021), endorsed by the OECD for its capacity to define socio-emotional competencies and enhance conceptual clarity (OECD, 2015; Schoon, 2021).

Method

A systematic review of published peer-reviewed articles addressing prevention programs to contrast homophobic bullying is proposed in this study. The literature search was completed in January 2023 and performed on NCBI PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and PsycINFO databases according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist and diagram (PRISMA, Rethlefsen & Page, 2021), as shown in Fig. 1. The following research strings were used: “bully*” AND/OR “cyberbully*” AND “homophob*” OR “LGBT*” AND “adolescen*” AND/OR “educational status”, OR “schooling” “education” OR “schooled” OR “schools”, yielding a total of 408 records.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist

Full size image

Two reviewers independently retrieved the articles and considered their quality, while a third discussant was involved in solving disagreements regarding the inclusion or exclusion of questionable articles. Only full peer-reviewed original articles and book chapters in the English language were included. Studies must have been conducted in a school/school-related context involving children of every grade and had to test or present an intervention program to contrast/assess homophobic bullying. After removing duplicates, we excluded every article which did not meet the categorical inclusion criteria. A significant number of articles were excluded because they were not explicitly related to the educational/school context.

As a result, 24 articles were selected as relevant and included in the review. Table 1 provides an overview of retrieved information regarding sample size, type of the program, and outcomes. Among the reviewed articles, 13 were designed specifically for students, 8 were designed for professionals, and 3 were referred to a comprehensive level. In the “Results” section, these three different targets of the interventions will be examined. Moreover, in line with the purpose of this systematic review, we have also analyzed the presence of socio-emotional learning components in each selected program. We coded these latter using the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) taxonomy (CASEL, 2013, 2015; Walton et al., 2021). Indeed, each dimension (e.g., activity, educational resource, curricula development) of the program was coded by using the CASEL Big Five Model:

  1. 1.

    Self-awareness (achievement orientation, responsibility, self-control, persistence)

  2. 2.

    Self-management (stress resistance, optimism, emotional control)

  3. 3.

    Relationship skills (empathy, trust, cooperation)

  4. 4.

    Social awareness (curiosity, tolerance, creativity)

  5. 5.

    Responsible decision-making (sociability, assertiveness, energy)

Table 1 Overview of retrieved studies’ information according to the classification proposed
Full size table

A summary of this classification is provided in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Frequencies of SEL components in homophobic bullying prevention programs across different approaches

Full size image

SEL refers to the development of social and emotional competencies that enable individuals to understand and manage their emotions, establish positive relationships, make responsible decisions, and exhibit empathy and respect for others. These skills are crucial in addressing homophobic behavior, as they promote inclusive attitudes, empathy, and social awareness.

In the selected programs, the inclusion of SEL components aims to create a positive and supportive school climate where students develop the necessary skills to challenge and prevent homophobic behavior. For example, programs that focus on self-awareness help students recognize their own biases and attitudes, promoting a deeper understanding of diversity and fostering acceptance of differences. Self-management skills, such as stress resistance and emotional control, enable students to regulate their emotions and respond constructively to challenging situations related to homophobia.

Relationship skills are essential in building empathy, trust, and cooperation among students, creating an inclusive environment where homophobic behavior is less likely to occur. By promoting social awareness, programs encourage curiosity, tolerance, and creativity, helping students understand and appreciate diverse identities and perspectives, including those related to sexual orientation and gender identity.

Furthermore, responsible decision-making skills empower students to consider ethical standards, safety concerns, and the consequences of their actions regarding homophobia. They learn to approach others with respect, voice their feelings, and actively contribute to the collective well-being of the school community.

It is important to note that the selected programs may not explicitly use the term “SEL” but incorporate SEL principles and practices within their interventions. The programs leverage the development of SEL competencies to address homophobia by nurturing inclusive attitudes, promoting empathy, and empowering students to make responsible choices. The SEL framework provides a theoretical basis for understanding how the selected programs can influence students’ attitudes, emotions, and behaviors in relation to homophobia.

Results

The “Results” section provides a comprehensive overview of the findings obtained from the systematic review of intervention programs aimed at addressing homophobic bullying. This section is structured to present the targets of the intervention programs, the presence of SEL components in the selected programs, and an analysis of the outcomes.

The curriculum-oriented programs primarily aimed to promote inclusivity and accepting attitudes towards difference through the development and implementation of inclusive curricula. These programs focused on fostering students’ inclusive-interacting capabilities, referring to their ability to interact with and accommodate people who have a diverse range of characteristics, backgrounds, and needs. Based on the analysis of the selected programs, it was found that the curriculum-oriented programs included various socio-emotional components from the CASEL Big Five Model. The most commonly included components were self-awareness, self-management, relationship skills, and social awareness. Overall, the curriculum programs demonstrated a comprehensive approach by addressing a range of socio-emotional competencies to promote inclusivity, acceptance, and understanding among students. While all five components of the CASEL Big Five Model were not explicitly mentioned in the reviewed programs, there was an emphasis on fostering students’ self-awareness, relationship skills, social awareness, and responsible decision-making through the development and implementation of inclusive curricula.

Types of Intervention Programs Targeting Homophobic Bullying

Inclusion-Focused Curricula to Address Homophobic Bullying

Thirteen of the selected interventions (54.2%) were designed to reduce homophobic behavior or SGMY violence by implementing or creating original inclusive curricula in school programs in order to promote inclusivity and accepting attitudes towards difference (Carlile, 2020; Day et al., 2019; Taylor et al., 2016). The primary aim of these curriculum-oriented programs was to explicitly highlight connections to SGMY culture, sexual diversity themes, and diverse experiences (Barragán-Medero & Pérez-Jorge, 2020; Ioverno et al., 2021), working primarily on fostering students’ inclusive-interacting capabilities, referring to the ability of a system or an individual to interact with and accommodate people who have a diverse range of characteristics, backgrounds, and needs. Proulx and colleagues (2019) reported how their “LGBT Inclusive Curricula” increased the interaction between heterosexual and non-heterosexual students, decreasing by 10%, the chances of SGMY experiencing bullying. Moreover, other programs pointed out how the personal story as a narrative method (Hinyard & Kreuter, 2007) was a convincing approach to changing attitudes towards sexual diversity among adolescents (Eick et al., 2016; Hunt et al., 2016). As our analysis shows, professionals seemed to favor designing educational interventions targeted to all students, which suggests a preference for universal programs as the most prevalent choice to address homophobic bullying. The preference for universal programs may stem from their potential to create a more inclusive and accepting school environment, where all students benefit from learning about and respecting sexual diversity themes, promoting empathy, and fostering positive relationships among peers.

In addition to personal stories, the reviewed programs employed various methods to address homophobic behavior and promote inclusive attitudes. These methods aimed to engage students, educators, and the broader school community in activities that fostered understanding, empathy, and dialog. Some of the methods used in the programs include the following:

  1. 1.

    Inclusive curricula: several programs focused on developing inclusive curricula that highlight connections to SGMY culture, sexual diversity themes, and experiences of difference. These curricula aimed to promote inclusivity and accepting attitudes towards diversity. They incorporated diverse perspectives, experiences, and narratives into educational materials, fostering students’ understanding and appreciation of differences.

  2. 2.

    Dialogic tools: the program “Hombat” aimed to increase awareness about homophobic bullying through the creation and dissemination of counternarratives. These counternarratives served as dialogic tools to address prejudice and challenge homophobic attitudes. By engaging students in critical discussions and reflective activities, the program aimed to change attitudes and promote empathy.

  3. 3.

    Workshops and performance-based interventions: some programs utilized workshops and performance-based interventions to engage students in exploring issues of sexual diversity and homophobia. For example, the “Rainbow Youth” program involved students in workshops that used dialog and personal narratives to enhance their understanding and response to diversity. Similarly, the “Theatre Connect” program encouraged students to share and communicate their identities through performances and dramatization, providing alternative channels for self-expression and promoting empathy.

  4. 4.

    Awareness campaigns and mentoring services: certain programs implemented awareness campaigns involving families, children, and schools to raise awareness about affective-sexual diversity, intended as a range of emotional and affectional attractions that individuals may experience, including romantic and sexual orientations. These campaigns aimed to promote understanding, acceptance, and appreciation of diversity. Additionally, mentoring services were provided for LGTBI individuals and their families, offering support and guidance in navigating challenges related to homophobia.

  5. 5.

    Film-based interventions: the program “Out In Schools” engaged students through film-based interventions that addressed issues of sexual orientation and homophobia. By watching and discussing films, students had the opportunity to reflect on and challenge stereotypes and biases, promoting greater acceptance and understanding.

These are just a few examples of the methods employed in the reviewed programs. Each program adopted a unique combination of strategies tailored to its specific goals and target audiences. The use of personal stories as a narrative method, in conjunction with other approaches, aimed to create meaningful relationships, evoke empathy, and challenge stereotypes, thereby contributing to attitude change and the prevention of homophobic behavior.

Thirteen of the selected interventions (54.2%) were designed to reduce homophobic behavior or SGMY violence by implementing or creating original inclusive curricula in school programs in order to promote inclusivity and accepting attitudes towards difference (Carlile, 2020; Day et al., 2019; Taylor et al., 2016). The focus of these curriculum-oriented programs was to highlight personal links to SGMY culture, sexual diversity themes, and experiences of difference (Barragán-Medero & Pérez-Jorge, 2020; Ioverno et al., 2021), working primarily on fostering students’ inclusive-interacting capabilities, referring to the ability of a system or an individual to interact with and accommodate people who have a diverse range of characteristics, backgrounds, and needs. It is important to clarify that these curriculum-oriented programs were implemented within the broader school programs. They incorporated inclusive content related to SGMY culture, sexual diversity themes, and experiences of difference into various subjects or subjects that directly address social and emotional learning. These programs aimed to create a comprehensive approach to addressing homophobic behavior and promoting inclusivity throughout the school environment. While the specific age groups targeted by the programs were not explicitly mentioned in the analyzed literature, it can be inferred that the interventions were designed for students within the compulsory years of schooling, which typically include primary and secondary education. However, it is worth noting that the reviewed literature did not consistently report specific age groups or variations in program implementation based on age. It is plausible that some programs or program elements may have been adapted for different age groups to ensure age-appropriate content, strategies, and approaches.

In summary, the curriculum-oriented programs analyzed in this review focused on integrating inclusive content related to SGMY culture, sexual diversity themes, and experiences of difference into various subjects or subjects that address social and emotional learning. While the specific age groups targeted by the programs were not consistently reported, it is essential to consider age-specific needs and contexts in future research and program development to effectively address homophobic bullying.

Educator-Focused Programs to Reduce Homophobic Bullying

A total of 33.3% (N = 8) of the interventions were designed to lessen the frequency of homophobic bullying by engaging specifically with teachers and other educators. These programs recognized the importance of addressing educator’s sexual prejudice in reducing homophobic behavior (Anagnostopoulos et al., 2009; Ferfolja & Robinson, 2004; Greytak et al., 2013; Toomey et al., 2012; Zotti et al., 2019). For example, the national Diversity in School program in Brazil provided comprehensive-inclusive training to teachers, resulting in decreased homophobic attitudes towards LGBTQ + students and a more inclusive community (Carrara et al., 2016). Additionally, studies showed that when teachers actively intervened during episodes of homophobic bullying, students reported a higher level of perceived safety and experienced less harmful behaviors (Kosciw et al., 2009; O’shaughnessy et al., 2004; Kosciw et al., 2013).

Comprehensive Approaches to Combat Homophobic Bullying

A smaller portion, 12.5% (N = 3), of the programs adopted a whole-school approach, targeting students, teachers, and the broader school community. These programs recognized the critical role of community, family, and peer groups in preventing and addressing homophobic bullying and harassment (Schriber et al., 2016). For example, the RAINBOW-HAS program, an inter-European project, implemented various intervention activities at multiple levels, including awareness campaigns, training on affective-sexual diversity, mentoring services, and practices to promote inclusion and appreciation of diversity in schools (Hafford-Letchfield et al., 2016). Another program, “Welcoming School,” focused on leadership and professional development, family engagement, and inclusive classroom practices to create a welcoming and inclusive school environment (Westheimer & Szalacha, 2015).

Integration of Socio-Emotional Learning in Intervention Programs

Developing Self-Awareness Skills to Address Homophobic Bullying

As one of the core competencies in the CASEL adaptation from the Big Five Model, self-awareness is considered essential to enable student’s capacity to integrate emotions, reflection, and behavior across everyday personal and social challenges (Durlak et al., 2011; Schoon, 2021)​, and it is defined as by CASEL (Borowski, 2019) “the ability to accurately recognize one’s own emotions, thoughts, and values and how they influence behavior.” It is an essential component of emotional intelligence and is associated with many positive outcomes, including better social relationships, self-regulation, and decision-making. As our analysis indicates, most of the programs used integrated curricula to address homophobia in schools (16.7%), with 10 creating exercises to improve pupils’ awareness of concepts like difference and perseverance, as well as responsibility (Yoder et al., 2020). In LongLiveLove + + (Mevissen et al., 2018), designed through a systematic approach involving the constant feedback of both students and teachers, the focus of the curricula was to empower awareness, attitude, and self-efficacy in order to reduce sexual stigma in schools. However, a few programs encouraged task performance through extracurricular activities. For instance, Hombat (Apostolidou, 2020) aimed to increase awareness about homophobic bullying in the educational environment and to aid prevention through the creation and dissemination of counternarratives—intended as dialogic tools to address prejudice. Working also on the teachers’ skills in preventing and contrasting homophobic bullying, the program Diversity in Schools aimed, through the development of teacher skills, to improve students’ understanding of gender, sexual, and racial diversity, creating a healthy learning environment (Carrara et al., 2016).

Enhancing Self-Management Skills in Bullying Prevention Programs

The core cognitive processes of self-management can be identified in emotional regulation (ER) skills. Thompson (1994, pp. 27–28) defines ER as “the extrinsic and intrinsic processes responsible for monitoring, evaluating, and modifying emotional reactions, especially their intensive and temporal features, to accomplish one’s goals.” Self-management is the least frequent SEL component in the intervention analyzed in this review. Our analysis noted the development of self-management skills in only ten programs (13.9%). Notably, only the Second Step program was explicitly designed to develop ER, providing direct instruction on risk and protective factors linked to aggression and violence, including empathy training, emotion regulation, communication skills, and problem-solving strategies (Espelage et al., 2013). However, other programs, such as the Rainbow Youth, involved students in workshops by using dialog and personal narratives to engage students and help them develop ER related to the concept of diversity (Carlile, 2020), using these specific methods to enhance the way students respond to diversity (Barragán-Medero & Pérez-Jorge, 2020; Eick et al., 2016; Lucassen & Burford, 2015; Zmyj & Wehlig, 2019).

Fostering Relationship Skills for Promoting Inclusion and Empathy

This component focuses on cooperation, allowing students to experience the value of the difference in their environment directly. A total of seventeen programs (23.6%) aimed to engage collaboration among students to prevent homophobic behavior and to develop empathy towards the difference. One of the first programs to use this strategy was the “Gay-Straight Alliances,” an organization run by students for students focused on promoting peer-to-peer collaboration to fight stigma and homonegativity among youth (Eick et al., 2016; Saewyc et al., 2014). Therefore, through these activities, students acquire the ability to coexist harmoniously with others and appreciate the interconnectedness of all individuals (Ingram et al., 2019; Magić & Maljevac, 2016; OECD, 2015; Walton, 2004).

Moreover, in the Italian version of the program “It Gets better,” supervised by Ioverno and colleagues (2016), students were asked to cooperate for a final competition, empowering the relationship between task performance and positive emotions (Jarrell et al., 2016; OECD, 2015). The Australian “Pride and Prejudice” program provided a supportive and nurturing environment where students could explore issues of sexual diversity and homophobia by engaging with their peers (Higgins & King, 2001).

Cultivating Social Awareness to Counteract Homophobic Behavior

According to the CASEL (2019), social awareness is “the ability to accurately recognize the emotions and perspectives of others and to take an active interest in their concerns.” This includes being attuned to the emotional states of others and being able to respond to them sensitively and appropriately. Most of the studies included in this review (25%) stressed the components of tolerance, curiosity, and creativity to prevent or fight homophobic behavior. Indeed, one of the crucial issues when dealing with homophobic behavior is the lack of a critical mindset and perceptiveness among students from all backgrounds (Birkett et al., 2009). The effectiveness of perspective-taking has been exemplified in the program “Riot & Youth Performance,” where students reported significant positive changes in their likelihood to intervene and confidence to intervene when witnessing anti-LGBTQ + bullying successfully. This program shows that peer-to-peer education and intervention using performance coupled with dialog can contribute to practical anti-bullying efforts (Wernick et al., 2013). The educators of “Theatre Connect” used a different educational strategy, where students were asked to explore and share their identities using performances and dramatization, allowing individuals to communicate using unusual communication channels (Pufahl et al., 2021). Similarly, engaging through arts, in the film-based intervention “Out In Schools,” LGBTQ + students self-reported lower perceived odds of victimization based on their sexual orientation (Burk et al., 2018).

Proulx and colleagues (2019) verified the potential of “Inclusive Curricula” in the USA, pointing out positive mental health outcomes and fewer reports of bullying victimization in both SGMY and heterosexual youth.

Promoting Responsible Decision-Making in Bullying Prevention

CASEL defines responsible decision-making as the ability to consider ethical standards and safety concerns and assess the benefits and consequences of different actions for personal, social, and collective well-being (CASEL, 2015). Indeed, this area improves students’ capacity to engage with others, express their emotions, and welcome social influence. The awareness of one’s own choices in the relational framework represents a crucial leverage to improve the youth’s sensibility to give value to the differences that characterize everyone as a unique person. The final component of the CASEL Big Five Model for the socio-emotional learning components was identified in fifteen of the analyzed programs (20.8%). In the program “At School to Get to Know Each Other’s,” through a comprehensive and mediated role of associations, universities, and teachers, students learn how to interact with each other in the cultural frame of diversity (Hunt et al., 2016). In “Rainbow-Has,” students and their families were asked to work together in a network of associations, home parental families, and LGBTQ + networks, with the aim of fighting homophobia through common knowledge (Hafford-Letchfield et al., 2016). Similarly, in “Welcoming Schools,” parents, teachers, and students were asked to collaborate to promote family diversity and gender inclusiveness (Westheimer & Szalacha, 2015).

Discussion

Although discriminatory bullying has been extensively studied over the last decades, significant discontinuities still exist in our understanding of the dimensions and skills that should be targeted to prevent kids and adolescents from engaging in these hostile and maladjusted behaviors.

Recently, both educational and psychological research has unequivocally demonstrated that planning a prevention program directed to all students in a broader learning community (universal) is essential to create a safer and more inclusive environment for SGMY (Espelage et al., 2013, 2015a; Gower et al., 2018; Greytak et al., 2013; Payne & Smith, 2011). This whole-school approach introduces each student to a wide range of identities and narratives, fostering the ability to appreciate diversities as characteristics rather than a comparison between something owned or something missing (Espelage et al., 2014), and some of the best outcomes have been reported by those programs involving each actor actively participating in the students’ micro-systems (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2007). As reported in this review, the programs that proposed a comprehensive approach (7.2%) highlighted the importance and complexity of universal approaches in homophobic bullying prevention and its potential. Considering homophobic bullying as a systemic phenomenon, strategies designed to contrast and prevent bullying must consider the entire network in which the schools are involved, including the cultural, educational, technical, and societal systems (O’Higgins Norman et al., 2022). However, as shown by the low number of studies included in our review, there is still a paucity of convincing evidence supporting the effectiveness of Whole School Approaches (WSA) in addressing homophobic bullying, and further research on this specific issue is needed. Although the WSA interventions are tough and challenging to implement, the effective ones propose preventive actions both for micro- and macro-system levels, as well as initiative to foster those individual skills valuable as protective developmental factors (Goldberg et al., 2019; Ttofi & Farrington, 2011). Two of the best examples in this perspective are the Welcoming Schools (Westheimer & Szalacha, 2015) and the COMBAT (Apostolidou, 2020), which reported that improving the understanding of sexual and gender diversity for all the components of the system facilitated the development of a more inclusive and supportive community. In other words, only when those mechanisms are understood can they be incorporated into a new, balanced form of social sharing.

While it is true that whole-school approaches aim to induce change on a socio-ecological level and may face challenges in measuring long-term and structural transformations, it is crucial to critically assess the effectiveness of interventions. Rather than considering the reduced impact of such interventions as a natural consequence of their complexity, it is essential to acknowledge the possibility that some programs might have limited effectiveness. Consequently, the focus should be on continuously seeking and developing better programs and strategies to address the issue more effectively and achieve more meaningful outcomes (Flay et al., 2005; Richard et al., 2011). However, this change can ensure that the school community will benefit from a more inclusive, reflective, and socio-emotional-oriented education (Earnshaw et al., 2018).

In this perspective, several studies included in our literature review assessed the critical role played by the growth of social and emotional skills in peoples’ life-long development (Darling-Hammond et al., 2020; Durlak et al., 2011; Jennings & Frank, 2015; Jones et al., 2013; Mella et al., 2021; Osher et al., 2016; Smith & Low, 2013). Students can potentially show pro-social behaviors by developing socialization skills, engaging with others, respecting diversity, and enhancing their emotional understanding of themselves and others. While the review highlighted the importance of social-emotional development in addressing bullying and homophobia, it is crucial to note that the effects of SEL interventions, as reported in the findings, were small. It is essential to continue exploring and developing effective strategies to prevent bullying behaviors and promote inclusivity, particularly for minority groups in society. Our analyses show that most programs were not explicitly designed following the SEL taxonomy and a certain level of overlapping among the SEL dimensions was considered in the literature. However, SEL components were represented as privileged leverage for an adaptive developmental change. In this view, SEL fosters students’ self-confidence and responsible decision-making, which may decrease their odds of becoming involved in bullying behaviors, both as perpetrators and victims (Durlak et al., 2011; Espelage et al., 2012, 2015b). Moreover, such a cluster of social and emotional competencies provides children with the chance to learn how to successfully manage negative experiences and enhance their problem-solving capabilities, tackling step by step the bullying phenomenon (Osher et al., 2016). Additionally, supporting self-confidence and social awareness in children and youngsters could increase their willingness to intervene in bullying episodes, confirming the pivotal role played by bystanders in bullying prevention (Padgett & Notar, 2013; Polanin et al., 2012; Saarento & Salmivalli, 2015).

All the programs included in the review were situated in a school context. However, we observed that several studies (45.8%) employed external organizations to develop and implement the programs. Although schools notably operate within a collaboration network, this trend confirms that inclusive and protective policies for SGMY are often promoted by external organizations (Day et al., 2019). This implies that the interventions only affect a specific aspect of the system involving SGMY, thus hindering the establishment of holistic practices explicitly tailored to meet the needs and protect the rights of SGMY (Mule et al., 2009). Furthermore, most of the intervention programs involved in the present systematic review (79.1%) addressed homophobic bullying through curricular activities and the implementation of inclusivity-focused programs. This approach has proven to be effective in the short run, but it may not be enough to tackle the complex and systematic nature of homophobic bullying in the long term, as suggested by Schriber et al. (2016). Thus, further investigation is required to determine its sustained efficacy. In conclusion, it is highly advised that future research endeavors employ a longitudinal monitoring approach to confirm the existence of positive developmental outcomes over an extended period of time. This methodology will ensure that the findings are reliable and representative of the actual outcomes observed and will provide more comprehensive insights into the long-term effects of the variables considered.

Conclusions

In this systematic review, we examined the selected studies according to a taxonomy designed to assess the dimensions of SEL involved in intervention programs that prevent homophobic bullying. Although most of the programs detected in the international scientific literature were not intentionally designed based on the SEL taxonomy, our analysis aimed to highlight the core components of the SEL approach, providing a deeper understanding of the programs and the essential skills that scholars consider necessary to foster among adolescents to prevent homophobic bullying and cyberbullying. Identifying and examining these components will support academics, practitioners, and policymakers in devising more precise and effective prevention programs.

Violence and harassment towards SGMY should be addressed by creating universal and selective prevention programs (Horn & Russell, 2016; Schriber et al., 2016) that promote social and emotional learning and development from the early stages of education (Bear & Watkins, 2006).

Moreover, implementing whole-school approaches designed to include SGMY students, not intended as merely inclusive school policies, has a concrete potential to promote systemic changes (Abreu et al., 2016; Case et al., 2014; Leonardi & Staley, 2015).

Overall, this study strengthens the idea that the whole-school approach stands out as the most effective strategy in addressing homophobic bullying due to its comprehensive and systemic impact. By involving the entire educational community, this approach cultivates an environment where positive changes are both prompted and sustained. Indeed, this approach emphasizes the importance of inclusive curricula, developing social and emotional skills, and collaborating with external organizations to create a transformative and holistic environment. Thereby, educators have a crucial role in preventing prejudicial bullying by promoting a socio-ecological approach fostering shared values of respect, pro-sociality, and inclusion at the individual and community levels.