Transcript 5.6 Poster 2 Universal-Diverse Orientation Among First

5.6 Poster 2
Universal-Diverse Orientation Among First-Year College Students
Lisa B. Spanierman, Ph.D., Helen A. Neville, Ph. D., Hsin-ya Liao, M.A.,
Ying-Fen Wang, M.Ed., & Sean Cheng, B. S.
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
As college campuses become increasingly racially and ethnically diverse, it has become important
to learn more about students’ diversity attitudes and behaviors. Although unique experiences may occur
for students throughout their academic careers, we believe that the first year is a critical time in their
development. In order to develop effective diversity related programming, it is essential to examine
students’ diversity orientations upon their entrance to the university. Little empirical research exists on
the variables that may shape the diversity attitudes and behaviors of incoming first-year students.
Therefore, the purpose of this investigation was to begin to develop a contextual model of first-year
students’ diversity attitudes.
The present investigation used a mixed methods approach to examine students’ Universal
Diverse Orientations (UDOs; acceptance and appreciation of similarities and differences among people
as a function of culture). Based on a contextual model, we assessed the effects of a number of factors:
(a) demographic and personal characteristics, (b) contextual factors (e.g., racial and class background),
and (c) and racial attitudes as potential predictors of first-year students’ UDOs. Furthermore, we
explored the effects for four racial/pan-ethnic groups (i.e., African American/Black, Asian American,
Latino/a, and White) and a bi-/multi-racial group. Lastly, we also included a component that assessed
parents’ UDOs to determine if parent scores were related to their children’s universal-diverse
orientations.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Participants
• Web-Based Survey. 1222 first-year college students at a large, predominately White university in the Midwest
participated in the present study. 544 were men (44.5%) and 618 were women (50.6%); M = 18.18 years, SD =
.60. Participants were: Asian/Asian American (n = 298; 24.4%), Black (n = 147; 12.0%), Latino/a (n = 124; 10.1%),
Native American (n = 3; 0.2%), White (n = 551; 45.1%), Bi/Multi-racial (n = 78; 6.4%), and other (n = 20; 1.6%).
• Parent Phone Interviews. 675 student participants provided parent contact information. Of the 339 parents who
we were able to contact, 308 of them agreed to complete the survey; 222 (72%) were women and 86 (28%) were
men.
• Archival Data. A total of 915 student participants provided the name of their high school; information from 778
high schools was obtained. In addition, 731 participants provided permanent home addresses but only 724 of
those were in the U.S. and were thus usable.
Procedure
Early in the fall semester, first-year students were contacted to participate in our web-based study via email. The
incentive to participate was entry into a drawing to win cash a reward which resulted in a 52% response rate. In
addition to completing web surveys, participants were asked to provide the following information: (a) name of the
high school where they graduated from, (b) permanent home address, and (c) parent contact information. Parent
telephone interviews were conducted throughout the remainder of the semester.
Measures
• Miville-Guzman Universal-Diverse Orientation Scale-Short (MGUDS-S; Fuertes, Miville, Mohr, Sedlacek &
Gretchen, 2000). The 15-item scale was used to assess participants’ universal diverse orientations (i.e., openness
to and appreciation of diversity). Coefficient alphas ranged from .81 (parent sample) to .87 (Asian subsample).
• Color-blind Racial Attitudes Scale-Short (CoBRAS-S; Neville et al., 2004). The 14-item scale measured the
extent to which participants minimize and/or distort the existence of racism in the U.S. For the present study,
coefficient alphas ranged from .55 (Asian subsample) to .76 (total sample).
• Demographic questionnaire was used to obtain information such as: age, sex, religion, race of close friends,
name of high school, and permanent home address.
• Census data regarding neighborhood racial and class composition were obtained through the U.S. Census
Bureau website.
• High school composition information was collected through on-line resources.
Part I. Effects of Demographic/Personal Variables and Racial Attitudes on Universal-Diverse Orientations (UDOs)
Table 1. Correlations of Demographic/Personal Variables and Color-Blind Racial
Attitudes on UDOs among the Total Sample
Universal-Diverse
Orientation
Demographic/Personal Variables
Gender (Male = 0 and Female = 1)
.24*** (1158)
Religiosity
.17*** (1159)
Multicultural Courses
.16*** (1158)
Political Ideology (Bush/Cheney = 0 & Kerry/Edwards = 1)
.23*** (757)
Ingroup Friendship
-.14*** (1063)
Outgroup Friendship
.27*** (1011)
Color-Blind Racial Attitudes
-.30*** (1176)
Note. Numbers in the parenthesis are the sample size. *** p < .001.
The results indicated that females, higher levels of religiosity, more multicultural courses taken, greater preference
to vote for Kerry/Edwards, lower levels of ingroup friendships, higher levels of outgroup friendship, and lower levels
of color-blind racial attitudes were significantly associated with higher levels of UDOs.
Table 2. Regression Results Predicting UDO by Racial/Pan-Ethnic Groups
Universal-Diverse Orientation (as measured by the
MGUDS-Short)
Asian/
Black
Asian American
Latino/a
White
(n = 125)
(n = 288)
(n = 117)
(n = 514)
.28
.18
.15
.29
(.61)
(.68)
(.68)
(.60)
Racial/Pan-Ethnic Group
R2
SE
R2 Change
(After Adding Color-Blind Racial
.26***
.17*
.13
.25***
Attitudes)
Demographic/Personal Variables
Gender
.28***
.23*
.14
.19***
Religiosity
.20**
.02
.05
.16**
Multicultural Courses
.03
.04
.14
.10*
Political Ideology
.15 †
-.10
.09
.22***
Ingroup Friendship
.05
-.16
.15
-.22***
Outgroup Friendship
.26**
.28**
.10
.20***
Color-Blind Racial Attitudes
-.15 †
-.11
-.17
-.23***
Note. Standardized coefficients are presented. Higher values correspond respectively to female,
higher levels of religiosity, more multicultural courses taken, greater preference to vote for
Kerry/Edwards than Bush/Cheney, higher levels of ingroup friendships, higher levels of outgroup
friendships, and higher levels of color-blind racial attitudes. † p = .06. *p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p
< .001.
We then performed multiple regression analyses to examine the relative importance of the above
predictors on UDOs by each racial/pan-ethnic group. Later, we performed a hierarchical
regression to examine the incremental effect of color-blind racial attitudes after controlling for the
demographic/personal variables; this incremental effect was significant in Asian/Asian American,
Black, and White samples (p < .05).
Part II. Effects of Contextual Variables on UDOs
Table 3. Correlations of Contextual Variables on UDO
Asian/
Black
Latino/a
White
Total Sample Asian American
HS-Asian
.01 (777)
-.03 (189)
.02 (110)
-.03 (73)
.05 (347)
HS-Black
.10** (777)
.05 (189)
-.12 (110)
.18 (73)
.08 (347)
HS-Hispanic
.11** (777)
.05 (189)
.13 (110)
.05(73)
.10 (347)
HS-White -.15*** (777) -.05 (189)
.06 (110)
-.14 (73)
-.13*(347)
SES
.14*** (708) .03 (156)
.04 (99)
.16 (70)
.09 (328)
Dropout
.09* (708)
.03 (155)
.08 (99)
.01 (70)
.09 (329)
Renter
.12** (723)
.10 (163)
.13 (92)
-.20 (79)
.10 (320)
Note. HS-Asian = Percentage of Asian students in the high school; HS-Black = Percentage
of Black students in the high school; HS-Hispanic = Percentage of Hispanic students in the
high school; HS-White = Percentage of White students in the high school; SES = Percentage
of low SES students in the high school; Dropout = Dropout rate of the high school; Renter =
Percentage of specified renter-occupied housing units in the neighborhood. Numbers in the
parenthesis are the sample size. *p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
To examine contextual factors associated with individuals’ diversity attitudes, Pearson Product-Moment correlations were
calculated between UDO and various contextual factors.
Part III. Effects of Parents’ Universal-Diverse Orientation
Table 4 Correlations of Parents’ Universal-Diverse Orientation and Students’ UniversalDiverse Orientation
Students’ Universal-Diverse Orientation
Total
Asian/
Bi-/MultiSample Asian American Black
Latino/a
White
Racial
Parents’ Universal
.16**
-.08
-.02
.22
.26
.21**
Diverse Orientation
(308)
(50)
(46)
(21)
(160)
(27)
Note. Numbers in the parenthesis are the sample size. ** p < .01.
Lastly, we assessed parents’ UDOs to determine if parent scores were related to their children’s universaldiverse orientations.
Although many of the demographic/personal variables were significantly associated with students’ UDOs for the entire
sample, this was primarily true for the White sample only. This might be due to the fact that racial minorities exhibit
higher levels of UDO. Additionally, color-blind racial beliefs significantly predicted UDO for the White sample only. For
White students, the strongest predictors of UDO were political ideology, friendship group composition (i.e., ingroup and
outgroup friendships), and color-blind racial beliefs. For Blacks and Asian/Asian Americans, we found that gender and
outgroup friendships were significant predictors of UDO; religiosity was also a significant predictor for Whites and
Asian/Asian Americans. Among the Latino sample, no predictors were significant. Many of the contextual variables
(e.g., neighborhood racial composition, high school social class composition, etc.) were associated with the total
sample UDOs, but not for any specific racial group. Lastly, we found that parents’ UDOs were significantly associated
with children’s UDO for the White sample only. Because we only recruited participants from one university in the
Midwest, we recommend that the present study be replicated with students in diverse geographical locations to
determine the generalizability of the findings. Furthermore, future research should focus on additional contextual
variables such as focus on diversity issues in the high school. Because the results were strikingly different for Whites
and racial minorities in this study, perhaps diversity interventions should be
designed differently for these student populations. For example, developing awareness of institutional racism and
White privilege might be more important for White students than for racial minority students. Conversely, it seems
important that university administrators facilitate environments in which all students, regardless of race, can establish
friendships with people of other races.