Research in Higher Education, Vol. 48, No. 1, February 2007 (Ó 2006) DOI: 10.1007/s11162-006-9026-3

FACTORS INFLUENCING POSITIVE INTERACTIONS ACROSS RACE FOR AFRICAN AMERICAN, ASIAN AMERICAN, LATINO, AND WHITE COLLEGE STUDENTS Victor B. Saenz,*,** Hoi Ning Ngai,* and Sylvia Hurtado*

................................................................................................ ................................................................................................ This study explores the various factors that promote positive interactions across race for African American, Asian American, Latino, and White college students. A longitudinal survey was administered to all incoming students at nine public institutions (with a follow-up survey given at the end of their second year), examining activities related to cross-racial interaction and outcomes. This knowledge will be useful for college administrators, institutional researchers, and faculty as they work to meet the challenge of preparing students for a pluralistic society. The results of this study begin to delineate the conditions under which positive intergroup relations can be fostered in college and the key factors that inhibit or restrain the benefits such interactions bring to the development of students for a diverse workplace and pluralistic democracy.

................................................................................................ ................................................................................................ KEY WORDS: diversity; affirmative action; cross-racial interactions; intergroup relations; intergroup contact; admissions; race-conscious policies.

INTRODUCTION Rapid demographic changes within the United States and increased demands for access to postsecondary education have compelled institutions to continue diversifying their student bodies and focus on improving intergroup relations. While some associate greater diversity on college campuses with increased student interactions across race and positive educational outcomes (Astin, 1993; Chang, 1996; Antonio, *Higher Education Research Institute, Los Angeles Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, University of California, Box 951521, Los Angeles, CA, USA. **Address correspondence to: Victor B. Saenz, Higher Education Research Institute, Los Angeles Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, University of California, Box 951521, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1521, USA. E-mail: [email protected] 1 0361-0365/07/0200-0001/0 Ó 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

2

SAENZ, NGAI, AND HURTADO

1998), others allege that it produces fewer interactions, more self-segregation, and balkanized college environments (D’Souza, 1991; Rothman, Lipset, and Nevitte, 2003). In fact, some critics have gone so far as to assert that greater student diversity stems out of misguided affirmative action policies, provoking the development of ethnocentrism (D’Souza, 1991) and the aggravation of racial tensions among students (Thernstrom and Thernstrom, 1997). Underlying this ongoing debate is whether it is simply enough to have a diverse population of students or whether it is more imperative for students of different backgrounds to be connecting with each other in meaningful ways. While previous research (Chang, 1996; Chang, Astin, and Kim, 2004) focuses on the ability of diverse campus environments to provide more opportunities for cross-racial contact, current research articulates a more nuanced argument. Recent studies elaborate on the importance of quality interactions, indicating that greater racial and ethnic diversity on campuses can enhance learning environments if opportunities for positive and meaningful interactions are available for students (Bowen and Bok, 1998; Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pederson, and Allen, 1999; Antonio, 2001; Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, and Gurin, 2002). This shift in research focus suggests a need to reconsider not only the extent of cross-racial contact, but, more importantly, the nature of the interactions that take place. This study directly addresses this need, by exploring factors that predict positive cross-racial interactions among college students. Furthermore, this research aims to provide insights into the student- and institutional-level conditions necessary for achieving these positive intergroup interactions.

BACKGROUND Across multiple arenas, the debate over affirmative action has shifted from a discussion of moral and compensatory issues toward an understanding of the value of diversity within organizations and societyat-large (Milem, 2001). In the higher education setting, affirmative action in the form of race-conscious admissions policies has come under increasing scrutiny as a result of statewide initiatives (e.g., Prop. 209 in California), Appellate Court decisions (e.g., Hopwood v. Texas), policy responses (e.g., Talented Twenty Percent in Florida), and two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions (i.e., Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003, and Gratz v. Bollinger, 2003). While we face a more varied landscape of institutional practices in terms of how greater racial and ethnic diversity can be achieved on college campuses, the reasons for why higher education must continue to

POSITIVE INTERACTIONS ACROSS RACE

3

diversify have become more focused. In particular, the recent Supreme Court decisions were notably influenced by a prodigious amount of empirical research that elaborated on the educational benefits of diverse learning environments. However, in affirming that the goal of increasing diversity serves a compelling educational interest, the Grutter and Gratz decisions also instituted a narrow framework to restrict how institutions can use race-conscious admissions polices to achieve this goal. While the moral and compensatory arguments for increasing racial and ethnic diversity have not been abandoned, scholars must also focus on building a stronger empirical case for the educational value of diversity in higher education. This argument cannot be effectively made, however, without understanding better the conditions that lead to improved cross-racial interactions among college students, interactions that are necessary for achieving important educational outcomes that can be derived from more diverse institutional settings.

LITERATURE REVIEW Within the past decade, a number of studies have argued for the importance of racial and ethnic diversity on college campuses, especially in developing life-long knowledge and skills. Astin (1993) found that students who engaged in ‘‘diversity activities’’ (e.g., discussing racial issues, socializing with someone of another race, attending racial/ cultural awareness workshops, taking ethnic or women’s studies courses) reported greater gains on cultural awareness and commitment to racial understanding. Chang, Hakuta, Jones, and Witt (2003) articulated numerous benefits that diverse campuses facilitated for students, including higher-order thinking skills, less racial stereotyping, and greater likelihood of living, working, and socializing comfortably in integrated settings. Other studies have probed the issue further by considering how diversity brings about educational outcomes and directing attention to crossracial contact as a possible mechanism. In linking campus diversity with student interactions, Chang (1996) found that more racially diverse campuses had a positive, direct effect on the frequency in which students engaged in cross-racial interaction and discussed issues of race. When these interactions take place, empirical studies have suggested that they play an important role in achieving educational benefits. Students who reported frequent interactions with diverse peers showed a greater openness to diverse perspectives and a willingness to challenge their own beliefs after the first year of college (Pascarella, Edison, Nora, Hagedorn, and Terenzini, 1996). More recently, findings from a national report on ten public institutions revealed that positive interactions

4

SAENZ, NGAI, AND HURTADO

across race were significantly correlated with various cognitive, social, and democratic outcomes (Preparing College Students for a Diverse Democracy, Hurtado, 2003). Research has examined the effects of cross-racial interactions in both formal and informal college contexts. Formal interaction with others, through diversified curricula and diversity courses, had a consistently positive effect on complex thinking skills, retention, cultural awareness, interest in social issues, and support for institutional diversity initiatives (Chang, 2001; Hurtado, 2003). At the informal level, interactional diversity (i.e., the extent of interaction with diverse others) was observed to positively impact interpersonal and leadership skills (Antonio, 2000; Hu and Kuh, 2003). In a recent study by Saenz (2005) that employed a similar outcome measure and dataset as this study, students who reported a greater extent of diverse informal interactions prior to arriving in college were likely to report more frequent positive interactions during college and were more likely to have complex views of racial discrimination, as compared to their counterparts with fewer pre-college interactions. These results indicate a strong empirical link between students’ formal and informal cross-racial interactions—both before and during college—and important college outcomes related to diversity efforts. In addition to evaluating contexts of interaction, prior research has also addressed patterns of contact across racial/ethnic groups. Mack et al. (1995) found that different groups vary in their comfort level when interacting with others based on the contexts in which those interactions occur. For example, Asian students indicated the greatest discomfort when interacting with other groups in academic or social environments, while African American students indicated discomfort particularly when interacting with White students in more intimate contexts. In contrast, both Latino and White students expressed little discomfort when coming into contact with diverse others. A recent study by Chang et al. (2004) found that increasing the diversity of the student body had differential effects on patterns of cross-racial contact among White students as compared to students of color. While the pattern for White students suggested that the degree of cross-racial interaction was a function of the availability of students from other racial/ethnic groups, an explanation of the pattern for students of color was not as apparent, warranting additional investigation in future studies. Although research on diversity has been important in establishing the positive effects of cross-racial interaction, many of these studies were limited by their inability to pinpoint the conditions that influence the character of students’ experiences with diversity, relying on measures of frequency rather than quality. As findings from Chang et al. (2004) and

POSITIVE INTERACTIONS ACROSS RACE

5

Mack et al. (1995) suggested, students of varying racial backgrounds often experience diversity in complex ways, indicating a need for a more detailed analysis of those factors that might promote and facilitate positive cross-racial interactions. Saenz (2005) offered an important venture into this research void with his focus on the saliency of pre-college measures in affecting students’ positive cross-racial interactions during college. In the interest of extending this area of research as well as addressing the shortcomings of prior work that did not fully account for students’ racial backgrounds, we posed the following research question: What individual characteristics (including social psychological predispositions) and environmental conditions (including campus climate and institutional practices) promote positive interactions across race for African American, Latino, Asian American and White students in the second year of college? By adding to the existing body of research on the potential educational benefits of diversity, this study sought to advance our understanding of the student- and institutional-level conditions that predict positive cross-racial interactions in the early college years. Through the use of longitudinal data collected at college entry and at the end of the second year of college, we focused particularly on the influence of individual attitudes, curricular and co-curricular contexts, and various peer environments. Ultimately, we anticipate that our findings can inform the ongoing debate over the dynamics of racial and ethnic relations in higher education by offering empirical evidence on the ways that institutions can better facilitate positive cross-racial interactions, thereby enhancing the overall learning environment and campus climate for all students.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Given the extent to which prior research already provides strong support for the positive relationship between cross-racial interactions and educational outcomes, the motivating force behind this study is to determine the conditions for promoting positive intergroup relations or interactions on campus. Likewise, the focus is not on simply increasing the frequency of intergroup contact, but rather on improving the quality of interactions. If we are searching for ways in which students can engage in positive interactions with diverse others, what contexts and experiences are most likely to provide meaningful opportunities for dialogue and exchange? What factors inhibit substantive intergroup contact? Student self-reports of their positive interactions across race served as the principal outcome measure in this study, as we sought to uncover those factors that most effectively facilitated these exchanges on college campuses.

6

SAENZ, NGAI, AND HURTADO

In order to examine the impact of these various factors, we utilized Dovidio et al.Õs (2004) model of intergroup bias to provide key concepts with which to develop the conceptual framework for this study. Within their model, the authors address the extent to which enlightenment (i.e., acquisition of knowledge) and contact (i.e., interaction with others) work together through mediating processes (i.e., intervening affective aspects of the social environment) to affect intergroup bias. Instead of assessing the level of intergroup attitudes, as the model was designed to do, we chose instead to apply the concepts of enlightenment and mediating processes to the development of a conceptual framework to predict the quality and substance of intergroup contact on campus. For our purposes, we considered enlightenment and contact at two distinct points within our model: enlightenment serving as a category for a number of independent variables reflecting formal and normative opportunities for students to learn about diverse people and quality of contact serving as the dependent variable. Within this study, we used the term enlightenment to refer to those contexts that allowed for campusfacilitated exposure to diversity content and ideas (e.g., curriculum integration, extracurricular programs, intergroup dialogue in courses) and the term contact to refer to meaningful interactions with diverse others. In addition to considering the effect of enlightenment on contact, we also attempted to examine the role of mediating processes surrounding enlightenment and to determine how these processes influence students’ choice of experiences as well as their decision to engage with diverse others. We accounted for these mediating influences in two areas of the framework. First, we acknowledged the role that cognitive and affective processes can play with regard to a student’s choice of enlightenment experiences. We posited that these mediating influences include an individual’s level of attributional complexity (cognitive), level of intergroup anxiety (affective), and predisposition to learn about diversity (attitudinal). Ultimately, these qualities reflect a student’s mental and emotional readiness for exposure to diversity in college. Next, we recognize that additional mediating processes can impact whether or not particular college experiences translate into meaningful contact with diverse peers. These mediating influences include: (1) a student’s sense of connection with his/her respective institution, a connection that often stems out of his/her perception of the campus climate for racial/ethnic diversity, and (2) a student’s propensity to socialize, a quality that may compel some students to take a more active approach towards engaging with diverse peers. The notion is that students feeling marginalized or who lack general social skills are least likely to have positive interactions across

POSITIVE INTERACTIONS ACROSS RACE

7

Support for Diversity Edu. Student Characteristics

Pre-College Environment

Pre-College Characteristics

Attributional Complexity

CampusFacilitated Diversity Initiatives

Campus Climate

POSITIVE INTERACTIONS ACROSS RACE Propensity to Socialize

Intergroup Anxiety

Pre-College Mediating Processes

Peer Groups

Opportunities for Enlightenment (in College)

Quality of Contact Comfort in Social Environment (in College)

FIG. 1. Conceptual framework.

racial/ethnic groups, or perhaps other social groups at their particular college. The diagram in Fig. 1 offers a visual representation of the conceptual framework, taking into account pre-college experiences, college environments, and mediating processes on positive interactions across race. In the following review of our framework components, we articulate our rationale for why we chose particular variables to include in the study.

Pre-college Considerations Pre-college environments and interactions with diverse others tend to be highly correlated with interactions across race/ethnicity during the undergraduate years (Saenz, 2005; Hurtado, Engberg, Ponjuan, and Landreman, 2002). Depending on previous exposure to diverse people in their pre-college environments, students may be more or less inclined to interact with students of other racial/ethnic backgrounds upon arriving on college campuses (Saenz, 2005). Moreover, the extent to which students meaningfully engage others from different backgrounds in high school can determine their levels of attributional complexity (i.e., how they think about others’ behavior) and intergroup anxiety (i.e., how comfortable they feel with diverse people) upon college entry. Attributional complexity is a term derived from Fletcher, Danilovics, Fernandez, Peterson, and Reeder’s (1986) work on the ability of individuals to attribute behaviors beyond immediate group contexts (such as those defined by race) and move past generalizations and stereotypes. Intergroup anxiety is a concept taken from the work of Stephan and Stephan (1985), examining varying levels of comfort and tension across racial/ethnic groups. These competencies, along with a predisposition toward learning about diversity, serve as mediating influences on whether students choose to engage in particular enlightenment experiences.

8

SAENZ, NGAI, AND HURTADO

College Experiences Allport (1954) notes that one of the necessary conditions for positive intergroup contact and reduction of prejudice is the existence of authority or institutional support. Taking this into account, we examined the impact of campus-facilitated diversity initiatives, including curricular and co-curricular activities. Research into diversity coursework and activities suggest that such experiences allow students of different backgrounds to expand their knowledge of themselves and others through opportunities to discuss difficult issues and express different opinions (Chang, 1996; Hurtado, 1998; Zuniga, Nagada, and Sevig, 2002). In addition to diversity coursework, service learning, participation in intergroup dialogue, and other co-curricular activities, we also considered academic support services and faculty encouragement of student discussions as ways in which institutions can guide students toward more meaningful interactions across race. Although various structured experiences can promote positive interactions within academic spaces, additional research suggests that meaningful contact also occurs in informal settings, specifically those in which students work, study, and socialize together. These informal interactions are often determined by students’ choices in peer groups, including those defined by fraternities/sororities, ethnic organizations, athletics, and student government. Allport (1954) suggests that intimate relationships are the ones that are the most effective in allowing individuals to cross racial/ethnic boundaries and to learn from each other in meaningful ways. In these situations, where anxieties are attenuated, more opportunities may exist for conversation and dialogue to be positive and transformational. Another significant determinant of positive contact with diverse peers is overall comfort within the campus environment. Pettigrew (1998) notes that the context for intergroup contact must provide participants with the opportunity to become friends, suggesting that a supportive environment is necessary for quality interactions to take place. Levin, Van Laar, and Sidanius (2003) found that negative perceptions of campus climate led members of different racial/ethnic groups to have more ingroup friends rather than expand to other groups. As such, student perceptions of campus climate can have a strong impact on whether interactions take place at all. Finally, we accounted for those students who are simply more comfortable in social settings and may be more prone to interacting with others regardless of racial/ethnic backgrounds. We acknowledged these qualities of comfort as key mediating influences on whether students are able to bridge racial/ethnic differences. These

POSITIVE INTERACTIONS ACROSS RACE

9

are important variables to consider, as those who feel more connected and comfortable within the campus social environment—whether it is due to their participation in campus diversity initiatives or their connection to peer groups—may experience higher levels of positive contact.

METHOD Data Source This study utilized longitudinal data from the Preparing Students for a Diverse Democracy Project, a multi-campus national research project that surveyed students at college entry and again at the end of their second year. The Diverse Democracy Project was aimed at providing empirical evidence to inform the debate over the educational benefits of diversity and offer guidance for institutional practice that would link teaching and learning with diversity (Hurtado, 2003). Institutions were invited to participate in the Diverse Democracy Project because they exhibited a strong commitment to diversity initiatives as exemplified through curricular and co-curricular programming and because they had demonstrated recent success in diversifying their campuses (2003). Students were surveyed at college entry in the Fall of 2000 and again at the end of their second year in the Spring of 2002. Survey participation was restricted to students who matriculated in the Fall of 2000 at one of the 10 participating institutions. After one of the campuses was dropped from the longitudinal study due to an extremely low follow-up survey response rate, the remaining nine campuses had a return rate of about 36% (n = 13,520) for the first-year survey and a return rate of 35% (n = 4,757) for the second-year survey (Hurtado, 2003). Ultimately, the sample for this study included 4,757 students from nine public universities, with all students completing both the first-year and second-year surveys. To correct for low response rates and to generalize our results to the original sample population, statistical weights were created by institution to account for response bias in each survey (2003). Weights were then readjusted to ensure that the new weighted sample did not produce incorrect standard errors leading to possible Type I errors. Further, a review of the dataset revealed a small range of missing data (0–10%) for each of the measures in our analyses. In order to retain as much of the sample as possible, missing values for all independent measures were replaced using the EM algorithm function in the SPSS statistical software, a useful method for replacing missing data when a small proportion of a dataset is missing (2003). Once weighting was

10

SAENZ, NGAI, AND HURTADO

completed and missing data were replaced, the final sample consisted of 4,380 students distributed across the four racial/ethnic groups of interest: 686 Asian students, 224 African American students, 388 Latino students, and 3,082 White students.

Measures and Analyses The dependent measure for our study—positive interactions across race—was constituted using a scale of 7 items (alpha = 0.88). This measure consisted of items that assessed the extent to which one engaged students of other racial/ethnic backgrounds in: dining/sharing meals, having discussions about racial/ethnic relations outside of class, sharing personal feelings/problems, studying/preparing for class, socializing/partying, having intellectual discussions outside of class, and attending events sponsored by other racial/ethnic groups. The theme of community and sharing across these items suggests a positive and meaningful character to the interactions being assessed. The individual factor loadings ranged from 0.52 to 0.85 for the entire sample, and the factor held together well across all four racial groups under investigation, with the Cronbach’s alpha value ranging from 0.85 for African Americans to 0.89 for Latinos. A total of 22 pre-college and college measures were selected for the analyses, including: 14 single-item variables, 7 factor scales, and 1 institutional-level measure. The independent variables and the factor scales were chosen based on a review of those items that fit into our conceptual framework as well as those that have been found to be significant in prior research conducted as part of the Diverse Democracy Project. Variable definitions are shown in Table 1, along with coding schemes and scales. Items constituting factors are shown in Table 2. Factor analyses, using principal axis factoring and varimax rotation, were conducted to confirm the saliency of the outcome measure and of the other factors employed in our analyses. Factor scales were created using the regression method, which centers and standardizes the scale for each factor, preserving the variance of each individual item while enhancing the overall utility of the newly created scale. Additionally, an analysis of variance and post hoc t-tests were conducted to assess whether the four racial/ethnic groups were statistically different from each other on the outcome measure. Once all measures were thoroughly inspected and confirmed through missing data and factor analyses, separate multivariate regression analyses were run for each of the four racial/ethnic groups, comparing the unstandardized beta coefficients for each of the groups to determine the strongest predictors for positive interactions across race. Unstandardized

Frequency of studying with individuals from different racial/ethnic backgrounds in high school Pre-college Mediating Processes Pre-college support for diversity education Pre-college level of attributional complexity Pre-college level of intergroup anxiety (frequency of discomfort with different groups)

Dependent Variable Positive Interactions Across Race Independent Variables Background Characteristics SAT (math/verbal) Gender (Female) Socioeconomic status (family income, mother’s/father’s highest level of education) Pre-college Environment Pre-college racial environment (neighborhood, high school, friends) Extent of interactions with individuals from different racial/ethnic backgrounds in high school

Five-item factor scale Five-item factor scale Count: Discomfort w/Asians, Blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, Whites; four-point scale: 1 = ‘‘never,’’ to 4 = ‘‘often’’

Count: Interaction w/Asians, Blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, Whites; four-point scale: 1 = ‘‘no interaction,’’ to 4 = ‘‘substantial interaction’’ Five-point scale: 1 = ‘‘never,’’ to 5 = ‘‘daily’’

Three-item factor scale

Continuous: math: 200–800; verbal: 200–800 Dichotomous: 1 = ‘‘male;’’ 2 = ‘‘female.’’ Three-item factor scale

Seven-item Standardized Factor Scale*

TABLE 1. Variable Definitions and Coding Scheme

POSITIVE INTERACTIONS ACROSS RACE 11

1 1 1 1

= = = =

‘‘no,’’ ‘‘no,’’ ‘‘no,’’ ‘‘no,’’

2 2 2 2

= = = =

‘‘yes’’ ‘‘yes’’ ‘‘yes’’ ‘‘yes’’

Four-point scale: 1 = ‘‘strongly disagree,’’ to 4 = ‘‘strongly agree’’ Six-point scale: 1 = ‘‘0 hours,’’ to 6 = ‘‘over 20 hours’’

Four-point scale: 1 = ‘‘strongly disagree,’’ to 4 = ‘‘strongly agree’’

Four-point scale: 1 = ‘‘none,’’ to 4 = ‘‘three or more’’ Two-item factor scale

Two-item factor scale Three-item factor scale Four-point scale: 1 = ‘‘none,’’ to 4 = ‘‘three or more’’

Dichotomous: Dichotomous: Dichotomous: Dichotomous:

Continuous: 0–100

*Note: All factor scales were computed using standardized scales (regression method) unless otherwise noted. Blacks refers to African Americans.

Hours per week socializing

College Mediating Processes Perception of racial tension

Institutional Characteristics Structural diversity (percentage of underrepresented minorities) Peer Groups Lived on campus Participated in leadership training Participated in Greek organization Joined organization(s) that promote cultural diversity Campus-Facilitated Diversity Initiatives Participated in diversity co-curricular activities Participated in diversity course(s) Had opportunities for intensive dialogue between students of different backgrounds in classroom(s) Participated in service learning course(s) Took advantage of academic support services (tutoring, academic advising) Faculty demonstrated interest in development

TABLE 1. (Continued)

12 SAENZ, NGAI, AND HURTADO

Racial/ethnic composition of friends in high school

Racial/ethnic composition of high school

Pre-college racial environment Racial/ethnic composition of neighborhood

Father’s highest level of education

Positive interactions across race Dined or shared meal Had meaningful and honest discussions about race/ethnic relations outside of class Shared personal feelings and problems Studied or prepared for class Socialized or partied Had intellectual discussions outside of class Attended events sponsored by other racial/ ethnic groups Socioeconomic status Family income Mother’s highest level of education

Factors and Items

= = = = =

‘‘very ‘‘very ‘‘very ‘‘very ‘‘very

often’’ often’’ often’’ often’’ often’’

Alpha = .69 1 = ‘‘< $10,000,’’ to 8 = ‘‘> $150,000’’ 1 = ‘‘some high school,’’ to 6 = ‘‘doctorate or professional degree (e.g., JD, MD, PhD)’’ 1 = ‘‘some high school,’’ to 6 = ‘‘doctorate or professional degree (e.g., JD, MD, PhD).’’ Alpha = .84 1 = ‘‘all or nearly all people of color,’’ to 5 = ‘‘all or nearly all white’’ 1 = ‘‘all or nearly all people of color,’’ to 5 = ‘‘all or nearly all white’’ 1 = ‘‘all or nearly all people of color,’’ to 5 = ‘‘all or nearly all white’’

5 5 5 5 5

0.89

0.88

0.85

0.86

0.51 0.66

0.79 0.67 0.73 0.85 0.52

‘‘never,’’ ‘‘never,’’ ‘‘never,’’ ‘‘never,’’ ‘‘never,’’

1 1 1 1 1

= = = = =

0.74 0.72

Loadings

Alpha = .88 1 = ‘‘never,’’ 5 = ‘‘very often’’ 1 = ‘‘never,’’ 5 = ‘‘very often’’

Scales and Cronbach’s Alphas

TABLE 2. Items Constituting Factor Scales

POSITIVE INTERACTIONS ACROSS RACE 13

Pre-college support for diversity education Incorporating writings and research about different ethnic groups and women into courses Requiring students to complete a community-based experience with diverse populations Offering courses to help students develop an appreciation for their own and other cultures Requiring students to take at least one cultural or ethnic diversity course in order to graduate Offering opportunities for intensive discussion between students with different backgrounds and beliefs Pre-college level of attributional complexity I am interested in understanding how my own thinking works when I make judgments about people I really enjoy analyzing the reason or causes for people’s behavior

Factors and Items

0.69 0.68 0.68 0.72 0.63

0.59 0.66

1 = ‘‘strongly oppose,’’ to 4 = ‘‘strongly support’’ 1 = ‘‘strongly oppose,’’ to 4 = ‘‘strongly support’’ 1 = ‘‘strongly oppose,’’ to 4 = ‘‘strongly support’’ 1 = ‘‘strongly oppose,’’ to 4 = ‘‘strongly support’’ Alpha = .78 1 = ‘‘not at all like me,’’ to 5 = ‘‘very much like me’’ 1 = ‘‘not at all like me,’’ to 5 = ‘‘very much like me’’

Loadings

Alpha = .80 1 = ‘‘strongly oppose,’’ to 4 = ‘‘strongly support’’

Scales and Cronbach’s Alphas

TABLE 2. (Continued)

14 SAENZ, NGAI, AND HURTADO

I think a lot about the influence that society has on other people I believe it is important to analyze and understand our own thinking processes I think a lot about the influence that society has on my behavior Participated in diversity co-curricular activities Campus-organized discussions on racial/ethnic issues Diversity awareness workshops Enrolled in diversity courses Material/readings on gender issues Material/readings on issues on oppression Material/readings on race and ethnicity issues Took advantage of academic support services Tutoring sessions for specific courses Academic support programs 0.62

1 = ‘‘not at all like me,’’ to 5 = ‘‘very much like me’’

0.73 0.73

0.74 0.83 0.84

0.81 0.81

0.64

1 = ‘‘not at all like me,’’ to 5 = ‘‘very much like me’’

Alpha = .79 1 = ‘‘never,’’ to 5 = ‘‘very often.’’ 1 = ‘‘never,’’ to 5 = ‘‘very often’’ Alpha = .85 1 = ‘‘none,’’ to 4 = ‘‘three or more’’ 1 = ‘‘none,’’ to 4 = ‘‘three or more’’ 1 = ‘‘none,’’ to 4 = ‘‘three or more’’ Alpha = .69 1 = ‘‘never,’’ to 5 = ‘‘very often’’ 1 = ‘‘never,’’ to 5 = ‘‘very often’’

0.73

1 = ‘‘not at all like me,’’ to 5 = ‘‘very much like me’’

POSITIVE INTERACTIONS ACROSS RACE 15

16

SAENZ, NGAI, AND HURTADO

regression coefficients (b) were used for comparative purposes to evaluate betas across each of the four groups. These coefficients can be more easily interpreted to determine differences in the effect of a variable on one group versus another (i.e., an interaction effect). For example, comparing unstandardized regression coefficients (b) allows for conjectures to be made about how one specific pre-college or college experience has greater predictive strength for White students’ positive interactions than for the other three racial groups. Where large differences in betas were observed across racial groups, the coefficients for each of these groups were compared by way of a two-tailed t-test to determine whether the effect of a measure on one population was significantly different from its effect on another population. The critical p-value to determine t-test significance was set at p < .005. The t-tests (Sax, Bryant, and Harper, 2005) were conducted as follows: (b = beta coefficient; Sb = standard error of b; 1 = first group; 2 = second group): b1
b2 t ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi : S2b1 þ S2b2

In order to examine the predictive power of our independent measures, we used blocked hierarchical regression, entering our variables in seven blocks based on temporal order of impact and as informed by our conceptual framework. The variables were placed into the following blocks: background characteristics, pre-college environment, pre-college mediating factors, institutional characteristics, peer groups, campusfacilitated diversity experiences, and college mediating factors.

Conceptual/Analytic Model The first block of variables consisted of background characteristics: SAT scores, gender, and socioeconomic status. These items recognize prior research linking high-ability and high SES to greater likelihood of interactions with diverse others (Hurtado, Carter, and Sharp, 1995). The second block of variables in the regression model consisted of three measures of pre-college environment, one describing students’ racial environment (in their surroundings as well as in their friendship groups) and the other two measures describing the frequency and quality of interactions with diverse peers prior to college entry. Such measures serve as proxies that represent the extent of students’ pre-college exposure to diverse others, which often sets the tone for whether or not students feel comfortable engaging with diverse others in college. The third block included three measures of pre-college mediating processes:

POSITIVE INTERACTIONS ACROSS RACE

17

support for diversity education, level of attributional complexity, and level of intergroup anxiety. These measures provide a sense of how ready and willing students are to take in diverse perspectives and people from diverse backgrounds, potentially directing students toward particular experiences and outcomes. After accounting for student attitudes and experiences prior to college, the fourth block of variables consisted of a single institutional measure of structural diversity, as defined by the percentage of underrepresented minorities. In order to construct the item, percentages of Asian, African American, Latino, and Native American students were obtained for each of the institutions and summed to create the total percentage. The fifth block considered the role of peer groups in facilitating student experiences with diverse others. The block consisted of peer groups as defined by: living on campus, participating in leadership training, participating in Greek organizations, and joining organizations that promote cultural diversity. The sixth block of variables focused specifically on campus-facilitated diversity initiatives. The block included measures ranging from participation in diversity curricular and co-curricular activities, to faculty support of student development and interaction, to use of academic support services. The final block consisted of two additional factors that were considered college mediating processes. These processes reflect attitudes and abilities that may have overriding effects on the likelihood of positive interactions across race. The first measure, perception of racial tension, has been previously discussed in the context of students of color and their likelihood to self-segregate in racially tense environments (Levin et al., 2003). The second measure, hours per week socializing, acknowledges that those who are more naturally outgoing will be more likely to interact with diverse others and more capable of crossing racial/ethnic divides. Each of the seven blocks was force entered into the regression model for all four racial/ethnic groups. The effects of the 22 independent measures on the dependent measure, as well as the relationships between the independent variables, were assessed by examining the changes in their unstandardized regression coefficients (b) and the proportion of variance explained (adjusted R2) over the course of the model.

Limitations An important limitation of this study lies in the fact that the population of White students within our sample is substantially larger than the populations of Asian, African American, and Latino students. In conducting separate analyses for each of these racial/ethnic groups, it is

18

SAENZ, NGAI, AND HURTADO

likely that many more independent variables were deemed statistically significant for the White students given the large sample size. To address this, we set the significance threshold at a higher level (i.e., p < .001) for this particular regression model. While the low response rate across students was another limitation, weighting processes were utilized to address this issue. The small number of institutions (n = 9) in this dataset necessitated more conservative assessments of the institution-level variables, and ultimately only one such measure (i.e., structural diversity or proportion of students of color) was employed in our regression models. Furthermore, the fact that all of the institutions in this dataset were public research universities suggests that the results of our analyses may not be necessarily generalizable to other 4-year public or private institutional settings. Nonetheless, the public universities represented in this study represent arenas where the debate about diversity and the question about intergroup relations is likely to arise. The value of these data and analyses can also speak volumes for the potential of empirical research to inform the conditions for intergroup relations that students will carry forward into post-college careers.

RESULTS In comparing the mean-centered values (i.e., the overall sample mean was centered at zero, thereby creating a z-score for the measure) for the dependent measure across racial/ethnic groups, African American students reported the greatest levels of positive interactions across race (l=.33) at the end of the second college year, with White students reporting the lowest levels (l=).11), a figure well below the overall sample mean. African Americans, along with Latinos (l=.17) and Asians (l=.28), reported mean values that were well above the overall sample mean. Also, the standard deviation statistics indicate the least variability for African American students, thereby lending greater support to the idea that these students may be having more positive interactions with those of different racial/ethnic backgrounds on public university campuses. These initial trends across racial groups suggest important descriptive differences in students’ levels of positive interactions, a suggestion that is further examined through post hoc tests (see Table 3 for results). The Dunnett T3 post hoc test, which acknowledges heterogeneous variances across groups, indicates that significant differences in the dependent measure exist between White students and each of the other groups. That is, there is a statistically significant difference (p < .001) in mean

POSITIVE INTERACTIONS ACROSS RACE

19

TABLE 3. Mean Differences by Group on Dependent Measure: Positive Interactions Across Race

Total (n=4,380) Asian/Asian American (n=686) African American (n=224) Latino (n=388) White (n=3,082) (A) race

(B) race

White

Latino African American Asian/Asian American

Population Mean

Std. Deviation

.00 .28 .33 .17 ).11

1.00 .99 .88 1.03 .99

Mean Difference (A ) B) ).28 ).44 ).38

Sig. .00 .00 .00

Note: The population mean for the entire sample was centered at zero, using a z-score transformation. Mean differences between groups are significant at p<.001 level. Only significant differences are shown.

values for positive interactions between White and African American students, between White and Latino students, and between White and Asian students. Interestingly, no significant differences exist between Asian, African American, and Latino students. The lower population mean for White students coupled with the significant mean differences with the three other groups suggest that racial/ethnic boundary lines may be harder for White students to cross in the early college years. Nonetheless, a review of the regression models suggests that this may not be due completely to White students’ inabilities to cross those lines, but also to the availability of opportunities for interaction, especially given the varying levels of structural diversity across institutions. Indeed, as informed by our conceptual framework that highlights the role of enlightenment and mediating processes on the quality of students’ crossracial interactions, a closer examination of each regression model reveals important insights into the varying factors that influence each racial group.

African American Students In order to adjust for the small African American sample (n = 224) in comparison to the other groups, we utilize a more lenient significance level (p < 0.10) for this group’s regression model. For African American students, our model explains 24% of the variance in the dependent

20

SAENZ, NGAI, AND HURTADO

variable (adjusted R2 = 0.24) indicating a strong model specification. (See Table 4 for the results of this regression model.) Students’ SAT score (r = 0.14, p < .05) and their socioeconomic status (r = 0.15, p < .05) are strongly correlated with the outcome measure. Nonetheless these two measures are shown to be positively correlated with each other (r = 0.34, p < .01), and they are no longer significant predictors in the final model. Among pre-college measures in the second block, frequency of studying with individuals from different racial/ethnic backgrounds (b = 0.13, p < .05) and frequency of interactions with diverse peers (b = 0.13, p < .10) are associated with higher levels of positive interactions at the end of the second year. African American students that reported having predominantly white pre-college racial environments (b = 0.15, p < .05) are likely to have enhanced positive interactions with diverse peers in college. Of the mediating processes in the third block, only students who report strong pre-college support for diversity education (r = 0.18, p < .05) have any significant correlation with the outcome, yet this relationship is explained once the model accounts for African American students who join an organization that promotes cultural diversity. Conversely, students’ pre-college intergroup anxiety (b = ).13) has a negative effect on positive interactions, although its impact is only marginally significant. These findings indicate that African American students are strongly influenced by pre-college experiences and mediating processes that may already predispose them towards more quality interactions with diverse peers during college, a point also supported by previous research (Saenz, 2005; Hurtado et al., 2002). Within the college experience blocks that focus on student opportunities for enlightenment, two of the significant factors are students who report that a faculty member has taken an interest in their development (b = 0.19, p < .001) and students who report many hours per week spent socializing (b = 0.13, p < .001). For these students, what appears to be most important to positive interactions are individual social skills as well as faculty support and validation in college. Opportunities for intensive dialogue in class (b = 0.14, p < .05) also has a positive relationship to the dependent measure for African American students. In contrast, students who perceive more racial tension (b = ).16, p < .05) within the college campus are likely to report lower levels of positive interactions with diverse peers. Given the negative qualities associated with intergroup anxiety and perception of racial tension, it is reasonable to associate increased anxiety toward others and hostile campus climate with a decrease in the likelihood of positive interactions across race. Although marginally significant (p < 0.10), the finding that participation in diversity courses (b = ).12) leads to fewer positive interactions

Background Characteristics SAT Gender Socioeconomic status Pre-college Environment Pre-college racial environment Extent of interactions with individuals from different racial/ethnic backgrounds in HS Frequency of studying with individuals from different racial/ethnic backgrounds in HS Pre-college Attitudes Pre-college support for diversity education Pre-college level of attributional complexity Pre-college level of intergroup anxiety Institutional Characteristics Structural diversity (Percentage of underrepresented minorities)

Variables

.03

.10

.26***

.08

.18* .06 ).13

.21** .19*

.04 .06

.09 .09 .10

.14* .01 .15*

r

.02 .01 .02

Adj R2

.00

.13 .03 ).13

.13*

.15* .13+

.00 .02 .02

Final beta (b)

African American (n=224)

.24

.24 .24 .24

.18

.04 .11

.02 .04 .04

Adj R2

).05

.36*** .14** ).11*

.36***

.12* .27***

.16** .12* .08

r

.00

.15** .04 ).09

.14***

.06 .18*

.00** .17* .00

Final beta (b)

Latino (n=388)

TABLE 4. Predictors of Positive Interactions (African American and Latino Students)

POSITIVE INTERACTIONS ACROSS RACE 21

.34 .39

).16* .13***

).09 .27***

.20 .24

.32 .33 .33

).07 .00 .19***

.10 .04 .20**

.15 .15 .19

.25 .25 .26 .27

Adj R2

.31 .31 .32

.14* .14 .23***

.11 .11 .16

).16 .05 ).11 .11

Final beta (b)

.08 ).12 .14*

.00 .11 .09 .13

r

.09 .09 .09 .10

Adj R2

.18*** .34***

.21*** .22*** .21***

.35*** .23*** .31***

.16*** .21*** .14** .19***

r

.09 .16***

.04 .15** .06

.13* ).01 .11*

.01 ).06 .19 .05

Final beta (b)

Latino (n=388)

Significance levels: +p<0.10; *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001. The unstandardized beta (b) value for SAT is .00 due to a difference in scale relative to other variables in the analysis.

Peer Groups Lived on campus Participated in leadership training Participated in Greek organization Joined organization(s) that promote cultural diversity Campus-facilitated Diversity Initiatives Participated in diversity co-curricular activities Participated in diversity course(s) Had opportunities for intensive dialogue between students of different backgrounds in classroom(s) Participated in service learning course(s) Took advantage of academic support services Faculty demonstrated interest in development Additional Factors Perception of racial tension Hours per week socializing

Variables

African American (n=224)

TABLE 4. (Continued)

22 SAENZ, NGAI, AND HURTADO

POSITIVE INTERACTIONS ACROSS RACE

23

is due to the fact that the measure ‘‘opportunities for intensive dialogue’’ (b = 0.14, p < .05) has a sign-reversal or suppressor effect on diversity coursework, indicating a strong inter-correlation between these two measures (r = 0.57, p < .01). The strength of this relationship suggests that diversity coursework tends to employ pedagogical techniques that encourage more opportunities for dialogue between diverse students. The suppressor effect is important because it reveals that, once we control for this tendency, those diversity courses where such dialogue opportunities are not available can actually have a negative effect on the quality of student interactions.

Latino Students As a group, Latino students report significantly higher levels of positive interactions as compared to White students. The results for the Latino sample (n = 388) yield a model that accounts for the largest percentage of variance (adjusted R2 = 0.39) in the dependent measure as compared to the other racial groups. (See Table 4 for the results of this regression model.) This suggests a strong fit for the Latino sample and indicates a good selection of explanatory and predictive measures in our regression model. Within block one of the model, which includes background characteristics, Latino students with higher SAT scores (b = 0.001, p < .01) and Latina females (b = 0.17, p < .05) are both more likely than their respective counterparts to report higher levels of positive interactions. Among the second block of pre-college measures, frequency of studying with diverse others prior to college (b = 0.14, p < .001) is one of the strongest predictors of positive interactions for Latino students, as is frequency of pre-college interactions with diverse peers (b = .18, p < .05). For the mediating process measures in the third block, students who indicated a strong pre-college support for diversity education (b = 0.15, p < .01) were more likely to report higher levels of positive interactions with diverse peers. Again, we find that pre-college experiences and selected mediating processes are most salient for Latino students in terms of impacting the quality of their interactions with diverse peers during college. Within the college experience blocks that focus on student opportunities for enlightenment, Latino students who participate in diverse co-curricular activities (b = 0.13, p < .05), who report using academic support services (b = 0.15, p < .01), and who report having opportunities to engage in intensive dialogue with students of different racial groups (b = 0.11, p < .05) are more likely to report higher levels of

24

SAENZ, NGAI, AND HURTADO

positive interactions. Indeed, all of the measures within this block, including the peer group measures, have strong initial relationships with the outcome measure. For example, enrolling in diversity courses is shown to have a non-significant final beta coefficient, yet the effect of this measure in the final model was in fact explained by the inclusion of the measure ‘‘opportunities for intensive dialogue.’’ As in the model for African Americans, we observe a strong inter-correlation between these two measures for Latino students. Finally, Latino students who report many hours per week socializing (b = 0.16, p < .001) are much more likely than their counterparts to have higher levels of positive interactions. The impact of this measure can be observed throughout the final model, as the effects of many other measures are weakened once this facet is controlled. For Latino students, what appears to be most important to positive interactions is individual social abilities. However, the findings within the college experience blocks reveal that Latino students do benefit significantly when they partake in a variety of enlightenment opportunities during the early college years—opportunities that can translate into increased positive interactions with diverse peers.

Asian Students Even though the Asian sample (n = 686) consists of a relatively large number of students, the group yields about the same number of significant predictors as the African American and Latino regression models, with the model accounting for 30% of the variance in the dependent variable (adjusted R2 = 0.30). This suggests a strong model specification for this collection of independent measures on the outcome of interest. (See Table 5 for the results of this regression model.) While the first block of background characteristics for Asian students reveal some initial strong correlations with the outcome measure, each of the three input measures within the block (i.e., SAT scores, gender: female, and socioeconomic status) do not contribute significantly to the variance in the dependent variable by the final step in the regression equation. This is partly due to the strong inter-correlation between SAT scores and SES (r = 0.43, p < .01), a relationship observed among Latino and African-American students as well. Within the second block of the regression model, Asian students who report frequently studying with diverse peers in high school (b = 0.10, p < .001), who report a high frequency of pre-college interactions with diverse others (b = 0.21, p < .001), and who are exposed to a diverse pre-college environment (b = 0.09, p < .05) are more likely to report higher levels of positive

Background Characteristics SAT Gender Socioeconomic status Pre-college Environment Pre-college racial environment Extent of interactions with individuals from different racial/ethnic backgrounds in HS Frequency of studying with individuals from different racial/ethnic backgrounds in HS Pre-college Attitudes Pre-college support for diversity education Pre-college level of attributional complexity Pre-college level of intergroup anxiety Institutional Characteristics Structural diversity (percentage of underrepresented minorities) Peer Groups Lived on campus Participated in leadership training Participated in Greek organization Joined organization(s) that promote cultural diversity

Variables

.18*** .09*** .20*** .15*** .23*** .28***

.23*** .18*** ).17*** .08*

.08* .21*** .09* .13***

.07 .13 .16

.18 .19 .20 .20

.20 .21 .22 .22

r

.03 .05 .07

Adj R2

.05 .21** .02 .02

.00

.08* .09* ).11*

.10***

.09* .21***

.00 .06 .06

Final beta (b)

Asian (n=686)

.13 .13 .13 .14

.12

.11 .12 .12

.11

.04 .07

.01 .01 .01

Adj R2

TABLE 5. Predictors of Positive Interactions (Asian and White Students)

.06*** .11*** .04* .15***

.13***

.15*** .14*** ).08***

.04 .00 ).11** .09

.01***

.03 .07*** ).09***

.10***

.03 .17***

).16*** .25*** .29***

.00 .07* .00

Final beta (b)

.07*** .07*** .06***

r

White (n=3082)

POSITIVE INTERACTIONS ACROSS RACE 25

Significance Levels: *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.

Campus-Facilitated Diversity Initiatives Participated in diversity co-curricular activities Participated in diversity course(s) Had opportunities for intensive dialogue between students of different backgrounds in classroom(s) Participated in service learning course(s) Took advantage of academic support services Faculty demonstrated interest in development Additional Factors Perception of racial tension Hours per week socializing

Variables

.23*** .24*** .27*** .09* .03 .09* .04 .37***

.24 .24 .24 .24 .30

r

.23 .23 .24

Adj R2

.20 .21 .22 .22 .24

).01 .17***

.18 .19 .20

Adj R2

).04 .03 .00

.12*** .00 .08*

Final beta (b)

Asian (n=686)

TABLE 5. (Continued)

.08*** .22***

.14*** .18*** .15***

.28*** .17*** .25***

r

.01 .12***

.00 .13*** .05***

.19*** .00 .11***

Final beta (b)

White (n=3082)

26 SAENZ, NGAI, AND HURTADO

POSITIVE INTERACTIONS ACROSS RACE

27

cross-racial interactions in college. Among students’ pre-college mediating processes in the third block, strong initial and final relationships are observed between each of the three input measures and the outcome. More specifically, students who report more support for diversity education (b = 0.08, p < .05) and who have higher attributional complexity (b = 0.09, p < .05) are likely to report more positive interactions with diverse peers, while the reverse is true for students who show high levels of pre-college anxiety with diverse others (b = )0.11, p < .05). As with the prior two groups, we note that pre-college experiences and mediating processes are quite impactful for Asian students in their early college years, including the observation of a persistent negative effect of intergroup anxiety with diverse peers. Within the college-level predictors that focus on students’ opportunities for enlightenment, participating in leadership training (b = 0.21, p < .01) and in diversity co-curricular activities (b = 0.12, p < .001) both show a significant positive influence on the outcome measure. Meanwhile, having increased classroom opportunities for intensive dialogue (b = 0.08, p < .05) with diverse peers also proves to be a positive influence on the quality of cross-racial contact for Asian students. Other enlightenment measures also demonstrate strong initial relationships with the outcome, yet many are explained by the presence of other measures within the model. For example, enrolling in diversity coursework (r = 0.22, p < .01) and joining an organization that promotes cultural diversity (r = 0.37, p < .01) are strongly correlated with participating in co-curricular activities, and once the model accounts for this latter measure, the impact of the other two on the outcome measure is weakened. Finally, the strongest predictor of positive interactions for Asian students is the amount of hours per week they spend socializing (b = 0.17, p < .001). These findings highlight important ‘‘enlightenment’’ strategies for promoting more quality cross-racial interactions for Asian students, both within formal and informal institutional settings.

White Students As indicated previously, White students report the lowest level of positive interactions across race as compared to the other three groups. For White students, it is important to re-emphasize the fact that the large sample size (n = 3,082) may have a significant impact on the results, allowing a larger number of variables to enter the model as highly significant. Thus, only the most significant findings (i.e., p < .001) are highlighted. Overall, the model offers a good fit with an explained variance of 24%. (See Table 5 for the results of this regression model.)

28

SAENZ, NGAI, AND HURTADO

Within the pre-college experiences and mediating processes block for White students, several important findings emerge. For one, students who report more studying (b = .10, p < .001) and interacting (b = .17, p < .001) with diverse peers prior to college are likely to report higher levels of positive interactions in college. As in the previous model, White students who report higher attributional complexity (b = .07, p < .001) are significantly more likely to report positive interactions with diverse peers, while the converse is true for students who report high intergroup anxiety at college entry (b = ).09, p < .001). This finding was also significant for Asian students. One other interesting point relates to the initially strong negative relationship between White students that come from less diverse pre-college racial environments and the outcome measure (r = ).16, p < .001), as this negative relationship suggests that segregated pre-college contexts can indeed weaken the quality and frequency of cross-racial interactions. However, this measure is effectively explained once the model controls for students who study and regularly interact with diverse peers, indicating that, even within segregated contexts, students who are primed to interact with diverse peers can indeed break away from the cycle of segregation during college. Saenz (2005) also uncovered similar perpetuation effects regarding pre-college experiences that were of both a positive and negative quality, suggesting a potential point for institutional intervention. Understanding students’ predispositions in terms of their experiences with interacting with diverse peers is a key facet of fostering more positive learning environments for all students. Another important finding from this regression model is the positive predictive strength of structural diversity (b = .001, B = .11, p < .001) on positive interactions. More racially and ethnically diverse institutions not only enhance opportunities for interactions generally (Chang, 1996; Chang et al., 2004), but also generate more positive contexts for such interactions to occur. This result offers compelling new evidence for the positive effects of diverse institutional environments, presenting a strong challenge to the belief that increased diversity leads to conflict on campus (D’Souza, 1991; Thernstrom and Thernstrom, 1997; Rothman et al., 2003). Instead, this evidence suggests that increasing diversity in the student body is associated with increased positive cross-racial interactions among White students. It reaffirms the important link between more diverse institutional settings and positive outcomes for students. If diverse institutions do indeed promote greater positive interactions across race, then it is correct to deduce that many other educational benefits may be derived for students in such settings.

POSITIVE INTERACTIONS ACROSS RACE

29

Within the college experience blocks that focus on student opportunities for enlightenment, participating in diversity co-curricular activities (b = 0.19, p < .001) is one of the strongest predictors of the outcome measure, with having opportunities for intensive dialogue (b = 0.11, p < .001) and taking advantage of academic support services (b = 0.13, p < .001) also highly significant. Diversity co-curricular activities have a particularly strong impact (b = 0.19, p < .001) among White students. Students who report that a faculty member took an interest in their development (b = .05, p < .001) are also more likely to engage in higher levels of positive interactions with diverse peers, as are students who report many hours per week socializing (b = 0.12, p < .001). Classrooms that offer more opportunities for dialogue and engagement across racially/ethnically diverse students tend to promote appropriate atmospheres for increased positive interactions in college. Further, the more students partake in diversity and cultural education activities, the more likely they are to report higher levels of positive interaction with diverse peers. In short, each of these significant findings points to important pedagogical and curricular strategies that faculty and institutions can employ towards increasing positive cross-racial interactions, and they further suggest that the formal environment of a classroom is a critical context for such interventions.

Summary of Results Across Racial Groups Evaluating the regression models for each racial group has uncovered several important trends and differences that warrant further attention. As described in the methods section, we compared unstandardized beta coefficients to determine the strongest predictors for positive interactions across racial groups, which allows for conjectures to be made about how one specific pre-college or college factor has greater predictive strength for one group versus another. For example, Latina females are significantly more likely to report higher positive interactions than Latino males, although this same gender effect is not prevalent among the other three racial groups. African American students and White students are disparately affected by having come from white pre-college racial environments, with African American students more significantly and positively impacted by this pre-college factor on the outcome. Other important trends emerge from a comparison of unstandardized beta coefficients across groups. (See Table 6 for a list of selected comparisons.) The structural diversity measure has a significantly greater impact on White students’ positive cross-racial interactions than it does on Latinos (p < .05) and Asians (p < .01). This finding suggests that racially diverse

White pre-college racial environment Pre-college support for diversity education Structural diversity Structural diversity Participated in leadership training Participated in leadership training Participated in Greek organization Participated in diversity co-curricular activities Participated in diversity co-curricular activities Took advantage of academic support services Took advantage of academic support services Took advantage of academic support services Took advantage of academic support services Faculty demonstrated interest in development Faculty demonstrated interest in development Faculty demonstrated interest in development Perception of racial tension Perception of racial tension Perception of racial tension Hours per week socializing

Variable 0.15 0.15 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.21 )0.11 0.19 0.19 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.19 0.19 0.19 )0.16 )0.16 )0.16 0.17

b1 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 )0.06 0.19 0.12 0.08 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.09 0.01 )0.01 0.12

b2

t-value )1.94 )2.16 )1.67 )2.46 )2.47 )1.87 2.04 )1.67 )1.80 )1.81 )1.88 )1.95 )2.38 )1.98 )2.44 )3.05 2.95 2.49 2.04 )1.96

b1–b2 )0.13 )0.12 )0.01 )0.01 )0.21 )0.27 0.30 )0.07 )0.11 )0.15 )0.13 )0.13 )0.10 )0.14 )0.14 )0.19 0.25 0.17 0.16 )0.05

p<.05 p<.05 p<.05 p<.01 p<.01 p<.05 p<.05 p<.05 p<.05 p<.05 p<.05 p<.05 p<.01 p<.05 p<.01 p<.005 p<.005 p<.01 p<.05 p<.05

Significance

Note: The column for Groups is defined as follows: a-Asians; b-African Americans, l-Latinos, w-Whites. This method of comparing unstandardized regression coefficients through t-tests was cited in Sax et al.(2005)

b-w l-w w-l w-a a-w a-l w-l w-a w-b l-b l-a w-b w-a b-l b-w b-a b-l b-w b-a a-w

Groups

TABLE 6. Comparison of Unstandardized Regression Coefficients Across the Four Groups

30 SAENZ, NGAI, AND HURTADO

POSITIVE INTERACTIONS ACROSS RACE

31

institutional environments affect White students more prominently than nonwhite students, offering additional evidence for the efficacy of diverse college environments in facilitating greater student interactions. Participating in leadership training activities has a significantly greater impact on Asian students as compared to Whites (p < .01) or Latinos (p < .05). Additionally, participating in academic support activities has a greater effect on Latinos than it does on African Americans (p < .05) and Asians (p < .05). The same relationship holds for White students as compared to the latter two groups (p < .05; p < .01). These findings indicate that, for Latino and White students, engaging in academic support activities is a salient factor in promoting more positive cross-racial interactions. Among students who report that faculty show an interest in their development, a comparison of regression models shows that African American students are the most affected by this relationship with faculty. A similar trend is seen for the measure of campus racial tension, as African American students are significantly the most negatively affected by this measure on the outcome of positive cross-racial interactions. These findings imply that African American students who feel more supported by their faculty and who feel less racial tension on their campus are likely to have higher levels of positive interactions with diverse peers. In testing and comparing beta coefficients across racial groups, we reveal some critical trends relative to factors that can affect one group more prominently than another.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS Critics of diversity efforts in higher education do not acknowledge the complex nature that determines the quality of interaction with diverse peers on college campuses. The results of this study begin to delineate the conditions under which positive intergroup relations can be fostered in college and the key factors that inhibit or restrain the benefits such interactions bring to the development of students for a diverse workplace and pluralistic democracy. Our findings provide insight into the differences that exist across the regression models for our four racial/ ethnic groups and address the utility of our conceptual framework whose origins lay in key constructs proposed by Dovidio et al. (2004). We comment on the observable differences between groups in this last section of the paper as well as make recommendations for institutional practice and future research. Following the constructs in the conceptual framework, we found students’ pre-college background characteristics did not have a strong

32

SAENZ, NGAI, AND HURTADO

predictive relationship with positive interactions across race, with the exception of the Latino student sample. Within our conceptual framework, these measures served primarily to acknowledge broad differences in gender, socioeconomic status, and ability among students who attend public universities. Interestingly, SAT (having high scores) and gender (being female) were strong predictors of the outcome measure specifically for Latino students. While no significant ability or gender differences are evident for the other racial/ethnic groups in this study, these background characteristics position Latinos to report more positive interactions across race. It may well be that these characteristics are related to being placed in academic tracks in high school that also position them to engage more frequently with students from other backgrounds both in college (Conchas, 2006). This conclusion is based on the findings on students pre-college environments. The majority of students’ pre-college environment measures were found to be statistically significant predictors of the outcome measure, indicating that students carry early experiences with intergroup interactions into college. For example, having exposure to a predominantly white pre-college environment was found to be a significant predictor for African-American and Asian students. For all three groups of color, this measure conveys the importance of diverse neighborhood, school, and peer group environments to helping students become comfortable with interacting across racial/ethnic boundaries. And while simple exposure may not be enough, the opportunity for interaction needs to exist before learning from interaction can occur. In contrast to students of color, living in a White pre-college environment did not have a direct predictive relationship with the outcome measure for White students when other aspects of the model were taken into account. It was not the structural diversity in high school alone that had an impact but rather their interactions with diverse peers in high school was the key factor. For all four groups, the frequency and extent of interactions with diverse peers in high school appear to offer opportunities for students to have experiences and develop skills that make it more likely for them to engage diverse peers in college. While the goal of this research is to inform practice in higher education, it is apparent that skill development of this nature may need to be addressed earlier on at the secondary school level in order to achieve the greatest long-term benefits. Higher education certainly has the opportunity to take a lead role in partnering with secondary schools to develop programs that address issues of diversity throughout the course of adolescent student development. With the continued expansion of teacher education programs in the United States,

POSITIVE INTERACTIONS ACROSS RACE

33

this area of inter-racial communication and cooperation may need to be a key addition to the broader educational curriculum. One main area of focus within our conceptual model is the set of pre-college mediating processes (i.e., level of attributional complexity, level of intergroup anxiety, support for diversity education) that acknowledge the role of pre-college attitudes and predispositions on positive interactions across race in college. According to our findings, attributional complexity and intergroup anxiety are significant for Asian and White students, but not for African-American or Latino students. The differential effects of these mediating processes indicate that the role of pre-college attitudes on positive interactions varies by racial/ethnic group, with Asian and White students more likely to be affected than African-American and Latino students. These findings suggest that African-American and Latino students may be less bound to pre-college levels of intergroup anxiety in determining whether or not to engage diverse peers, which may be especially beneficial for students looking to explore diverse interactions despite past negative experiences. However, these findings also suggest that Asian and White students may be more likely to interact with diverse others given their interest in the complex relationships between thoughts, actions, and behaviors. Neither of these approaches to social relationships may necessarily be viewed as more valuable, as it simply suggests that some cognitive aspects and other more affective aspects work to facilitate or constrain in different groups. Support for diversity education among Latino and Asian students is one of the significant high school affective measures that denotes an interest in learning about others. This finding suggests that the predisposition of Latino and Asian students toward diversity coursework may lead them to have more positive interactions across race, particularly if their choices of college environments provide them with opportunities to participate in diverse learning communities. Ultimately, the goal of examining these pre-college mediating processes was to consider their role in predicting positive interactions across race, especially given the likelihood of their impact on students’ choices of college experiences. However, in order to test the direct and indirect effects of these mediating processes, future research may need to examine the dataset using more complex analytical methods, such as path analysis and structural equation modeling. While only one institutional-level variable was included in our conceptual framework, the structural diversity measure appears to have a particularly strong effect on the likelihood of White students to engage in positive interactions with diverse peers. This finding suggests that racially diverse institutional environments affect White students more

34

SAENZ, NGAI, AND HURTADO

prominently than nonwhite students. Moreover, it suggests that the presence of more racial/ethnic minorities on college campuses provides increased opportunities for White students to interact with diverse others, supporting prior research that emphasizes the importance of diverse college campuses in facilitating greater student interactions (Chang, 1996; Milem, 2001). Thus, there is no evidence to support the view that more diverse campus environments produce more conflict or more segregated environments as some have suggested (D’Souza, 1991; Rothman et al., 2003). Given the extent to which socializing has predictive power over positive interactions across race (as discussed later), it is surprising that peer group experiences did not enter into the models for most groups, though it is not for us to conclude that these groups have no role whatsoever. In fact, many peer groups may be associated with other activities on campus that are facilitated by diversity programming and courses, each of which has a significant effect on students. This finding of non-significance may be applied to practice, by pushing institutions to develop ways in which they can provide more diverse living and learning environments. Of those peer groups that are significant predictors of the outcome measure for at least one racial/ethnic group, participation in leadership training was beneficial for Asian students, while participation in a Greek organization was detrimental for White students, in terms of engaging with diverse peers. Both findings have implications for practice. Since leadership training has the potential to provide opportunities to engage with diverse peers across campus, this is having a marked effect on Asian American students compared with other students. The goal here is to ensure that leadership training is able to draw more students from different racial/ethnic groups on campus and build in more diversity elements into programs. The same approach holds true with regard to addressing the negative effects of participation in a Greek organization. Given the predominantly White composition of Greek organizations (Levin et al., 2003), it is not surprising that involvement has a negative effect on White students, as they are likely to interact more with other White students than with diverse peers. However, this situation presents itself as an important opportunity for institutions to take an active role in altering campus culture, specifically by encouraging Greek systems to become more inclusive and diverse. Such efforts serve not only to draw students of color into campus traditions, but also to provide all students with opportunities to connect across racial/ ethnic boundaries.

POSITIVE INTERACTIONS ACROSS RACE

35

While the findings discussed above provide some indirect guidance for institutional practice, an examination of the results of campusfacilitated diversity initiatives may suggest even more targeted areas for institutional intervention. With regard to positive interactions across race, opportunities for intensive dialogue in classes was a significant predictor for all four racial/ethnic groups, while faculty interest in student development was significant for African-American and White students. Given the importance of these variables to the classroom environment, improving faculty skills in teaching multicultural classrooms is crucial in terms of allowing students to engage diverse others within a meaningful academic space and supporting their intellectual growth within that space. In terms of policy implications, faculty support can serve as a reflection of institutional commitment to diversity and diverse students, and thus contribute to providing a positive and validating campus environment for all students. The importance of academic support services in facilitating greater positive interactions for Latino and White students emphasizes the role that institutions can take in supporting student learning, not only by providing particular services, but also by incorporating diversity into those services. For example, academic support services include tutoring sessions for specific courses. If institutions choose to utilize collaborative learning principles with a diverse group of students, the end products will not only be students with strong comprehension of subject matter, but students that recognize the contributions of diverse others to achieving that comprehension. By expanding academic support services, institutions may be able to provide students with safe spaces in which they can learn from each other and develop both academically and socially. Interestingly, participation in diversity co-curricular activities was a significant predictor of the outcome measure for three out of four groups, while those variables related specifically to academic coursework, namely diversity and service learning courses, entered into one of the models. Taken in combination, these findings suggest that students may not necessarily be engaging diverse others in more formal academic environments, but may be choosing to do so through their involvement in programs that provide less structured and more relaxed environments to cross racial/ethnic boundaries. As such, institutions may choose to direct their energies and resources to initiatives such as living-and-learning communities, environments that offer opportunities for students to engage each other both formally and informally within the same space. In addition to the pre-college mediating processes discussed earlier, another area of focus within our conceptual model is the set of college mediating processes (i.e., perception of racial tension, hours per week

36

SAENZ, NGAI, AND HURTADO

socializing) that acknowledge the importance of overall comfort within the campus environment on positive interactions across race. While perception of racial tension is a significant negative predictor of the outcome measure only for African-Americans, it is important to recognize that this result is one that needs to be addressed. This finding offers evidence that this population of students may still not be completely comfortable at institutions of higher education, and warrants further attention and intervention. Across all racial/ethnic groups, a student’s propensity to socialize (as defined by hours per week socializing) appears to be one of the strongest predictors of positive interactions across race after accounting for all other institutional- and student-level factors. Given the natural social abilities and tendencies of these students, they are more likely to interact with others despite differences in racial/ethnic backgrounds. Although this variable was utilized as more of a control measure, the predictive strength of this variable across the four groups suggests that it may be beneficial for institutions to consider ways in which they can provide more opportunities for students to engage each other in less formal contexts.

CONCLUSION Fostering positive intergroup relations on college and university campuses is key to enhancing students’ democratic skills and preparing them to negotiate differences in a diverse society. This study suggests that the presence of diverse peers, along with opportunities for facilitated interactions that expand student knowledge about diverse others, perspectives, and backgrounds, contributes to the development of important skills. This study also establishes that campus conditions as well as students’ individual predispositions are essential in considering whether and how positive interactions will occur. As a society, we have much to learn about crossing racial, social and political divides; this study suggests that institutions can provide meaningful opportunities for students to learn how to communicate across these boundaries.

REFERENCES Allport, G. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Antonio, A. L. (1998). Student Interaction Across Race and Outcomes in College. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

POSITIVE INTERACTIONS ACROSS RACE

37

Antonio, A. L. (2000). Developing Leadership Skills for Diversity: The Role of Interracial Interaction. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Antonio, A. L. (2001). Diversity and the influence of friendship groups in college. Review of Higher Education 25(1): 63–89. Astin, A. W. (1993). Assessment for Excellence: The Philosophy and Practice of Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, American Council on Education, Westport CT. Bowen, W., and Bok, D. (1998). The Shape of the River: Long-term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Chang, M. J. (1996). Racial diversity in higher education: Does a racially mixed student population affect educational outcomes? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Chang, M. J. (2001). The positive educational effects of racial diversity on campus. In: Orfield, G. (ed.), Diversity Challenged: Evidence on the Impact of Affirmative Action, Harvard Education Publishing Group, Cambridge, MA, pp. 175–186. Chang, M. J., Astin, A.W., and Kim, D. (2004). Cross-racial interaction among undergraduates: Some consequences, causes, and patterns. Research in Higher Education 45(5): 529–553. Chang, M. J., Hakuta, K., and Witt, D. (2003). Introduction. In: Chang, M. J., Hakuta, K., Jones, J., and Witt, D. (eds.), Compelling interest: Examining the Evidence on Racial Dynamics in Colleges and Universities, Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 1–21. Conchas, G. Q. (2006). The Color of Success: Race and High-achieving Urban Youth, Teachers College Press, New York. Dovidio, J., Gaertner, S., Stewart, T., Esses, V., Ten Vergert, M., and Hodson, G. (2004). From intervention to outcome: Processes in the reduction of bias. In: Stephan, W., and Vogt, W. (eds.), Education Programs for Improving Intergroup Relations: Theory, Research, and Practice, Teachers College Press, New York, pp. 243–265. D’Souza, D. (1991). Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus, Free Press, New York. Fletcher, G., Danilovics, P., Fernandez, G., Peterson, D., and Reeder, G. (1986). Attributional complexity: An individual differences measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51(4): 875–884. Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., and Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review 72(3): 330–366. Hu, S., and Kuh, G. (2003). Diversity experiences and college student learning and personal development. Journal of College Student Development 44(3): 320–334. Hurtado, S. (1998). Enhancing campus climates for racial/ethnic diversity: Educational policy and practice. Review of Higher Education 21(3): 279–302. Hurtado, S. (2003). Preparing College Students for a Diverse Democracy, University of Michigan, Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education, Ann Arbor, MI. Hurtado, S., Carter, D., and Sharp, S. (1995). Social Interaction on Campus: Differences among Self-perceived Ability Groups. Paper presented at the Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Boston, MA. Hurtado, S., Engberg, M. E., Ponjuan, L., and Landreman, L. (2002). Students’ pre-college preparation for participation in a diverse democracy. Research in Higher Education 43(2): 163–186. Hurtado, S., Milem, J. F., Clayton-Pedersen, A., and Allen, W. R. (1999). Enacting Diverse Learning Environments: Improving the Climate for Racial/ethnic Diversity in Higher Education (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Rep. Vol. 26, No. 8), George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development, Washington, DC.

38

SAENZ, NGAI, AND HURTADO

Levin, S., Van Laar, C., and Sidanius, J. (2003). The effects of ingroup and outgroup friendships on ethnic attitudes in college: A longitudinal study. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 6(1): 76–92. Mack, D. E., Tucker, T. W., Archuleta, R., DeGroot, G., Hernandez, A. A., and Cha, S. O. (1995). Inter-ethnic Relations on Campus: Can’t We All Get along? Paper presented at the 103rd Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, New York, NY. Milem, J. F. (2001). Increasing diversity benefits: How campus climate and teaching methods affect student outcomes. In: Orfield, G. (ed.), Diversity Challenged: Evidence on the Impact of Affirmative Action, Harvard Education Publishing Group, Cambridge, MA, pp. 233–246. Pascarella, E., Edison, M., Nora, A., Hagedorn, L., and Terenzini, P. (1996). Influences on students’ openness to diversity and challenge in the first year of college. Journal of Higher Education 67(2): 174–195. Pettigrew, T. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology 49: 65–85. Rothman, S., Lipset, S. M., and Nevitte, N. (2003). Does enrollment diversity improve university education? International Journal of Public Opinion Research 15(1): 8–26. Saenz, V. B. (2005). Breaking the cycle of segregation: Examining students’ pre-college racial environments and their diversity experiences in college. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles. Sax, L. J., Bryant, A. N., and Harper, C. E. (2005). The differential effects of student–faculty interaction on college outcomes for women and men. Journal of College Student Development 46(6): 642–657. Stephan, W., and Stephan, C. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues 41(3): 157–175. Thernstrom, S., and Thernstrom, A. (1997). America in Black and White: One Nation, Indivisible, Simon and Schuster, New York. Zuniga, X., Nagada, B., and Sevig, T. (2002). Intergroup dialogues: An educational model for cultivating engagement across differences. Equity and Excellence in Education 35(1): 7–17. Received June 8, 2005.