Transcript Poster_pg31 - University of Illinois Archives

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 II. Effects of Contextual Variables on UDOs
Table 3. Correlations of Contextual Variables on UDO
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).
31
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 universal-diverse 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.