Intenational Jounal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 3 No. 3; Febuay 2013 The Impact of College Expeience on Futue Job Seekes Divesity Readiness FELICE A. WILLIAS Louisiana State Univesity - Shevepot School of Business Depatment of anagement & aketing BE 303, Louisiana State Univesity Shevepot 1 Univesity Place, Shevepot, LA 71115, USA. T. NICHOLE PHILLIPS Univesity of ay Washington College of Business Geoge Washington Hall 212 Univesity of ay Washington 1301 College Avenue, Fedeicksbug, VA 22401, USA. Abstact any oganizations value wokplace divesity and devote lage expenditues to achieve this. As a college student enteing the wokplace, being divesity eady epesents an asset to oganizations. This study consides the impact of college on students divesity attitudes and thei divesity eadiness in pepaation fo encounteing a divese wokfoce. Theefoe, we examine whethe level of divesity exposue elates to divesity attitudes in incoming students, and whethe time in college, one s minoity status, o one s majo might affect thei divesity attitudes. We also examine the elationship between divesity attitudes and divesity behavioal intent fo students who ae about to ente the wokfoce given that being divesity eady may be seen as an asset to oganizations. Results suggest that one s level of exposue, time in college, and majo pedict divesity attitudes to a limited extent. Howeve, minoity status stongly pedicts one s divesity attitudes and divesity attitudes also stongly pedict divesity behavioal intent. Keywods: Divesity, Attitudes, College Expeience Intoduction Though oganizational scholas emain divided on the effects of divesity on wok goup pefomance (Williams & O Reilly, 1998; Webbe & Donahue, 2001), fo manages and pactitiones the costs associated with mismanaging divesity ae clea (Jackson et al., 1992; Robinson & Dechant, 1997)--inceased tunove and absenteeism among disenfanchised goups, and the oganization becoming a taget of costly lawsuits. Additionally, oganizations with a poo divesity eputation lose thei competitive edge and may stuggle to maket thei poducts to an inceasingly divese consume base (Cox & Blake, 1991; Robinson & Dechant, 1997). Thus, employes continue to value divesity in thei oganizations and make significant expenditues to ceate and maintain divesity in the wokplace. oe than 70 pecent of Fotune 500 companies have divesity initiatives (Digh, 1998; SHR, 1997) and US companies ae estimated to spend between $200 and $300 million a yea on divesity taining (Flynn, 1998). This emphasis by oganizations suggests that a divese wokplace is fast becoming a fact of life, and futue employees should be pepaed to paticipate in an oganizational cultue whee divesity is embaced and comfotably inteacting with divese othes is expected. If college age job-seekes can ente the wokplace having exposue to divese envionments and positive divesity attitudes, they may appea moe attactive to potential employes. One may theefoe conside examining the college expeience of students as an indication of elevant influences on divesity eadiness. Univesities seve as an impotant point of contact with divese othes and this contact may shape and infom individual divesity attitudes. 1
Cente fo Pomoting Ideas, USA www.ijhssnet.com Theefoe, in this pape, we examine the college expeience of students as an indication of elevant influences on divesity eadiness. Given that univesities seve as an impotant point of contact with divesity othes, this contact may shape and infom individual divesity attitudes. Liteatue Review Examining divesity attitudes in highe education have been of inteest to eseaches since Bown v. Boad of Education (Engbeg, 2004). Univesity envionments in paticula pesent an ideal envionment fo studying ace elations and esulting divesity attitudes given that highe education also povides many individuals thei fist oppotunity fo meaningful coss-acial inteaction (Chang, 2002, p. 1). Studies of divesity attitudes using a student sample have theefoe focused on inteventions such as facilitating diect contact as well as edesigning cuicula to facilitate impoved integoup attitudes. The findings of pio elated eseach povide a good foundation fo examining students divesity attitudes as they evolve ove students college yeas. We seek to futhe contibute to this liteatue by sequentially examining the attitudes of students upon enty, acoss thei fou yeas, and the implications of thei divesity attitudes upon leaving college. It is also ou position that examining students divesity attitudes may povide valuable insight into how these attitudes evolve and the implications of such fo both educational institutions and business oganizations. The hypothesized elationships ae pesented in Figue 1. Divesity Attitudes Geneally speaking, an attitude is a summay evaluative tendency towad a psychological object captued in attibute dimensions such as good/bad, (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2000; Eagly & Chaiken, 1998). Given that attitudes develop aound evaluative esponding implies that an attitude encompasses diect and indiect expeiences of individuals. Though expeience it becomes plausible fo a vaiety of attitudes including those elated to divesity to be developed. Divesity attitudes involve being awae of and accepting both the similaities and diffeences that exist among individuals (iville et al, 1999). Divesity Attitudes and Contact Expeiences that occu with dissimila othes esult in mental associations linking divese othes with elevant pio expeience and a coesponding divesity attitude. Expeience is integal in attitude fomation and the contact hypothesis suggests that integoup attitudes may be impoved by inteaction with dissimila othes. Contact Hypothesis Integoup contact has long been consideed one of psychology s most effective stategies fo impoving integoup elations (Dovidio, Gaetne, & Kawakami, 2003). The contact hypothesis (Allpot, 1954; Ami, 1969; Pettigew and Topp 2000) theefoe has epesented a pomising and popula avenue fo educing integoup bias and conflict. Suppot fo the contact hypothesis has been found in the liteatue as Ami (1969) found that the extent to which individuals inteact with diffeent cultual goups esults in moe positive attitudes towad people fom those goups. oe ecent eseach suppots the notion that close contact mitigates negative views of diffeent goups. Pettigew and Topp (2000) epoted the esults of a meta-analytic eview of tests of the contact hypothesis based on 203 studies involving ove 90,000 paticipants. Cheng (1999) found that a acially divese envionment on college campuses inceases the likelihood that goups will socialize with each othe and discuss acial issues. Bickson (2000) also shows that a lage body of eseach illustates the positive effects of contact specifically in educational settings settings, which has paticula elevance fo this study. The empiical evidence suggests that contact has an impotant ole in explaining positive attitudes towad divese othes. As such the following hypothesis is offeed: 2 H1: Individuals who have been exposed to moe divese envionments will have moe positive divesity attitudes Divesity Attitudes acoss College Yeas and Cuiculum Suppot has been found in the liteatue fo the effect of integoup contact on attitude change though intepesonal attaction, and studying the cumulative effects of contact will be useful in bette undestanding the phenomena.
Intenational Jounal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 3 No. 3; Febuay 2013 Both lab and longitudinal studies have been helpful in shedding light on the integoup effects of polonged contact, but in geneal moe studies examining this elationship ae necessay. This sentiment is echoed by Lopez (2004) who suggests that it is necessay fo eseaches to confim whethe long-tem pattens of integoup contact may have the geatest impact compaed to moe shot tem o situational contact that is often studied. As such we popose to examine the following hypothesis as a means of assessing whethe polonged contact with divese othes acoss one s college yeas should show moe positive divesity attitudes above and beyond isolated contact: H2: Students will show moe positive divesity attitudes the longe they ae in a divese college envionment Pettigew and Toop (2000) epoted that contact effect sizes wee geate fo White Ameicans than othes who have taditionally held minoity status and disadvantaged positions in the United States. Given that White Ameicans typically come to highe education institutions fom moe ethnically homogenous envionments, it would seem that they would be moe able to gain new insight fom inteacting with individuals fom othe goups (Guin, Peng, Lopez, and Nagda, 1999). Fo othe minoity students, ethically divese envionments ae moe likely to be familia given the demogaphic eality and necessity of such inteactions (Guin et al., 1999). Given that integoup contact with non-minoities is likely to be moe pevalent fo minoities, the expectation is that acoss thei fou yea college expeience, thei inteaction with dissimila othes will be familia enough that it may not esult in extensive changes in thei integoup attitude. Howeve, because of the esticted contact with minoity goups that is common to most White Ameicans, inceased outgoup contact fo non-minoities ove thei college yeas may esult in moe positive divesity attitudes fo dissimila othes with whom they would have peviously had limited inteaction. H3: Non-minoities will show moe changes in thei divesity attitudes as compaed to minoities acoss fou yeas of college When consideing othe specific choices acoss a student s college life that may affect thei attitudes, choice of college majo may potentially affect on divesity attitudes. Pevious eseach elating divesity attitudes and cuiculum indicates that expeience with a divesity-elated cuiculum esults in geneally positive outcomes. Lopez (2004) found that a cuiculum that included ace and ethnicity pedicted highe levels of acial awaeness and suppot fo equity pogams among White students. Hutado (2005) also found that duing an academic yea, students who engaged in divesity elated couses scoed highe on a numbe of outcomes such as cultual awaeness, plualistic oientation, and the belief that acial inequality is a poblem. Similaly, Guin, Nagda, and Lopez (2004) specifically found that enollment in divesity couses influenced acial attitudes acoss acial goups. Given the content of college majos, it is not inconceivable that a student s majo choice may expose them to cuiculum diffeences. In social science aeas such as psychology and philosophy, students ae moe likely to take couses which include ace and gende issues and focus on integoup awaeness, toleance, and inteaction. Business students on the othe hand, eceive some exposue to divesity elated but still have fewe compulsoy couses which focus on integoup diffeences. We theefoe expect that students who ae moe exposed to issues suounding integoup contact may acoss thei college life establish a moe positive attitude towad divesity than students who typically have less exposue to the subject matte. We theefoe hypothesize that: H4: Non-business majos will show moe positive divesity attitudes as compaed to business majos acoss fou yeas of college Divesity Attitudes and Divesity Intent Based on the theoy of easoned action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) attitudes affecting behavioal intentions ae influenced by the extent to which individuals associate behavio with positive o negative outcomes. This follows fom the pemise of the theoy that intentions to behave have a diect impact on actual behavio and that intentions ae pedicted in pat by attitudes. Evidence of the close elation between intent and behavios has been shown in a eview of studies elated to the theoy of easoned action (Ajzen, 1991). 3
Cente fo Pomoting Ideas, USA www.ijhssnet.com Following the logic of the theoy of easoned action and planned behavio which suggests that behavioal intent is patially pedicted by attitudes, we expect that intentions to engage in divesity elated behavio, o divesity behavioal intent will be associated with positive divesity attitudes. Consistent with pevious eseach, divesity behavioal intent efes to the intent to engage in behavios that ae appopiate in a divese oganizational setting (Linnehan, Chobot-ason, & Konad, 2006) such as divesity awaeness and coss cultual awaeness. Linnehan, Konad, Reitman, Geenhalgh, and London (2003) suggest that focusing on behavios and thei elated intentions may be moe useful to manages and divesity taines. They suggest divesity elated behavios and intent may signal employees who ae able to wok in and inteact with othes in a divese envionment. To the extent that employees ente an oganization divesity eady, possessing the elevant positive divesity attitudes and divesity behavioal intent, they may appea moe attactive to employes who value divesity. Building on Fishbein and Azjen s wok on the Theoy of Planned Behavio, we expect that the development of moe positive divesity attitudes acoss one s yeas in college will be associated with impoved divesity behavioal intent. The following hypothesis will theefoe be tested: ethods Paticipants H5: Intentions to engage in divesity elated behavio will be positively elated to divesity attitudes fo gaduating college age students Paticipants wee ecuited fom business and psychology couses fom a lage pedominantly White univesity in the Southeasten United States and a Histoically Black College and Univesity (HBCU) located in the easten United States. A total of 637 paticipants povided complete esponses fo all instuments. Sixty-two pecent of the subjects self epoted thei ace as non-minoity (White Ameican) and appoximately 51 pecent of the sample was female. The aveage age of paticipants was between 20 and 21 yeas old and 51 pecent wee Business majos. Appoximately 24 pecent of the paticipants wee undeclassmen. Table 1 povides a detailed demogaphic coss section of the study paticipants. easues Level of Divesity. Level of Divesity assesses how much divesity student wee exposed to in thei community gowing up. This was measued using a single item on a thee point scale with 1=exposue to envionments with <10 pecent minoity epesentation, 2=exposue to an envionment with 10-25 pecent minoity epesentation, and 3=exposue to envionments with >25 pecent minoity paticipation. easues of fou divesity attitudes wee collected. They include measues of affimative action attitudes (AAA), symbolic pejudice (SP), geneal egalitaianism (GE), and pesonal value of divesity (PVD). Each was assessed using a Liket scale anging fom 1 Stongly Disagee to 6 Stongly Agee. Affimative Action Attitudes. Attitudes towad affimative action efe to an individual s favoable o unfavoable peceptions elated to affimative action pogams. This was measued using a five-item scale developed by Bell et al. (1997). In ou sample, the coefficient alpha eliability of this scale was =.76. Symbolic Pejudice. The measue of Symbolic Pejudice eflects an individual s abstact o sociocultual beliefs about the beneficiaies of affimative action pogams. It was measued using a fou-item scale developed by Little, uy, and Wimbush (1989). Highe scoes epesented moe pejudice. The obtained coefficient alpha eliability in ou study sample was =.82. Geneal Egalitaianism. Geneal Egalitaianism addesses peceptions of equality in society. It was measued using a six item scale developed by Fedeico and Sidanius (2000). The coefficient alpha eliability obtained in ou sample was =.81. Pesonal Value of Divesity. Pesonal Value of Divesity eflects the instumentality of divesity. It was measued using thee items developed by o Baak, Chein, and Bekman (1998) who epoted eliability of =.53. The eliability obtained in ou sample was =.66. 4
Intenational Jounal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 3 No. 3; Febuay 2013 Two measues of divesity intent wee assessed. These wee measues of divesity awaeness (DA) and coss cultual conflict (CCC). Each of the scales epesented subscales developed and validated by Helm, Sedlacek and Pieto (1998) using facto analyzed divesity initiative items. Each scale used a Liket scale anging fom 1 Stongly Disagee to 6 Stongly Agee. Divesity Awaeness. Divesity Awaeness eflects being conscious of appopiate actions elated to divese othes. It was measued using six items with a epoted coefficient alpha eliability of =.67 which was consistent with the alpha of =.70 obtained in ou sample. Coss Cultual Comfot. Coss Cultual Comfot involves being comfotable in situations with o diectly inteacting with ace and ethnicity. This may efe to one s peception of thei own o of othes ace/ethnicity. It is measued using five items with a epoted coefficient alpha of.73 which was consistent with the coefficient alpha eliability of =.72 obtained in ou sample. Results The means, standad deviations and zeo ode coelations fo all study vaiables ae pesented in Table 2. Hypothesis 1 states that those who had been exposed to moe divese envionments would have moe positive divesity attitudes. We tested this hypothesis using undeclassmen (i.e., feshman and sophomoes) and the esults ae summaized in Table 3. Among the divesity attitudes, only the geneal egalitaianism and pesonal value of divesity of undeclassman was significantly associated with the amount of divesity exposue ( =.08, p <.05; =.09*, p <.05). The means fo the diffeent levels of divesity wee in the hypothesized diection with those who had been exposed to highe levels of divesity having moe positive attitudes than those who had less exposue, though most diffeences ae elatively small. Oveall, Hypothesis 1 eceived minimal suppot. Hypothesis 2 states that students would have moe positive divesity attitudes the longe they ae in a college envionment and these esults ae summaized in Table 4. Though each of the fou attitudes was significantly pedicted by one s yea in college, the means fo geneal egalitaianism wee not in the hypothesized diection. Undeclassmen eceived highe means than uppeclassmen suggesting highe levels of geneal egalitaianism ealie in college life. Each of the effect sizes wee faily stong and anged fom =.11, p<.05 to =.24, p<.001. Hypothesis 2 theefoe eceived modeate suppot oveall. Hypothesis 3 states that non-minoities would show changes in thei divesity attitudes than minoities ove fou yeas of college. Effect sizes wee significant fo all the divesity attitudes (Geneal Egalitaianism, =.33, p<.001; Pesonal Value of Divesity, =.14, p<.01; Affimative Action Attitudes, =.32, p<.001; Symbolic Pejudice, =.26, p<.001). Howeve, the means wee not in the hypothesized diection. Table 5 summaizes the esults. In geneal, the means fo minoity students was highe than those fo non-minoity students. oe specifically, the means fo uppeclassmen minoity students at non-hbcu wee highe than fo any othe goup on all of the divesity attitudes (Geneal Egalitaianism, =4.677, SD=.855; Pesonal Value of Divesity, =4.933, SD=.805; Affimative Action Attitudes, =3.878, SD=.960; Symbolic Pejudice, =4.833, SD=.927). Fo the HBCU minoity students, undeclassmen moe fequently had highe means on divesity attitudes. Hypothesis 3 eceived patial suppot. Hypothesis 4 states non-business majos will show moe positive divesity attitudes compaed to business majos acoss fou yeas. These esults ae epoted in Table 6. All of the divesity attitudes wee significantly pedicted by majo and yea in college (Geneal Egalitaianism, =.26, p<.001; Pesonal Value of Divesity, =.11, p<.05; Affimative Action Attitudes, =.24, p<.001; Symbolic Pejudice, =.22, p <.001). The means fo Pesonal Value of Divesity and Symbolic Pejudice wee in the hypothesized diection howeve the othe means wee not. Inteestingly, the affimative action attitudes of business majos actually declined slightly duing college. Thus, Hypothesis 4 is patially suppoted. An additional analysis was conducted to examine all fou potential influences on a divesity attitudes duing college campus, minoity status, yea and majo. Results of a multiple egession analysis indicate that these vaiables pedict diffeences in divesity attitudes to diffeent extents. In most cases, minoity status is the dominant pedicto of attitudes, but fo thee of the fou attitudes, at least one othe vaiable contibutes to pediction beyond minoity status. Pesonal Value of Divesity was the least well pedicted by these vaiables and was the one vaiable that was not coelated with minoity status. 5
Cente fo Pomoting Ideas, USA www.ijhssnet.com Hypothesis 5 states intentions to engage in divesity elated behavio will be positively elated to divesity attitudes fo gaduating college age students Table 7 summaizes the esults fom the egession which shows that in geneal all of the divesity attitudes significantly pedicted divesity awaeness and thee of the fou divesity attitudes significantly pedicted coss cultual comfot. Specifically, Pesonal Value of Divesity had the lagest effect size acoss both indicatos of divesity behavioal intent (Coss Cultual Comfot, =.53, p<.001; Divesity Awaeness, =.47, p<.001). Though affimative action attitudes significantly pedicted divesity awaeness, it did not pedict coss cultual comfot. Thus, Hypothesis 5 eceived modeate suppot. Discussion Results of this study suggest that the level of exposue to divese envionments befoe and duing college appea to be associated, at least to some extent, with the divesity attitudes of college students. Students fom moe divese backgounds on aveage did possess moe positive divesity attitudes they wee moe divesity eady than those coming fom less divese backgounds. Futhe, the level of divesity of college campus seem to play a small oll in enhancing seveal divesity attitudes duing the time individual spend in college. The stongest pedicto of most divesity attitudes, though, was minoity status. Individuals that come fom envionments whee they wee membes of ace minoities do ente college moe divesity awae. This may suggest that while these individual may come fom eithe moe o less divese backgounds, being a membe of the minoity population pedisposes individuals to develop geate divesity awaeness iespective of the level of divesity in one s envionment. This explanation is suppoted by the expeiences of minoity college students who attended a HBCU. While the divesity attitudes of non-minoities geneally inceased duing college, the divesity attitudes of minoity students in a college envionment in which they wee the majoity stayed the same o declined slightly duing thei college yeas. Each of the divesity attitudes significantly pedicted divesity behavio intent indicated by coss cultual comfot and divesity awaeness. As suggested ealie this finding has diect implications fo both educational institutions as well as employes. Knowing that divesity attitudes pedict divesity behavioal intent, thee is an oppotunity fo educational institutions to povide pogams which futhe pomote divesity attitudes thoughout students college expeiences. A limitation of the study was the lack of paticipation by non-minoity (White, Caucasian) students fom the HBCU campus. The impact of paticipating as a minoity membe in a college community whee they ae effectively minoity membes would have been paticulaly inteesting and a stong test of the contact hypothesis and would have pemitted a deepe investigation of the ole that minoity status plays in the development of divesity awaeness. Futhe, even though the non-hbcu campus did offe acial and ethnic divesity, this campus was still elatively homogenous. Oveall the esults fom the study wee pomising as many of the factos we identified pedicted divesity attitudes. Also, divesity attitudes wee stongly pedictive of divesity behavioal intent in uppeclassmen. To the extent that educational institutions can successfully influence students divesity attitudes acoss thei college life both fomally and infomally, they may be able to systematically addess some of the wokplace issues which esult fom stained intepesonal elations aound divesity. Similaly, oganizations can also deive benefits fom employees who ae awae of and equipped to handle the challenges of a divese oganizational envionment. The findings which an contay to the hypothesized diections may also povide an indication of inteesting phenomenon which may be woth exploing. In paticula, the finding that minoity attitudes wee geneally bette than that of non-minoity s acoss thei fou yeas in college even though they ae in a pedominantly nonminoity envionment is inteesting. This may indicate the need to focus on minoity attitudes as most pevious studies have moe often exploed non-minoity attitude changes towad minoity goup membes. Futue studies should attempt to addess these concens which will undoubtedly add value to this body of liteatue. 6
Intenational Jounal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 3 No. 3; Febuay 2013 Refeences Allpot, G. W. (1954). The natue of pejudice. Boston: Addison-Wesley. Ami, Y. (1969). Contact hypothesis in ethnic elations. Psychological Bulletin, 71, 319-342. Appel,., Catwight, D., Smith, D. G., and Wolf, L. E. (1996). The impact of divesity on students: A peliminay eview of the eseach liteatue. Washington, DC: Association of Ameican Colleges and Univesities. Ajzen, I. & Fishbein,. (2000). Attitudes and the attitude-behavio elation: Reasoned and automatic pocesses. In W. Stoebe &. Hewstone (Eds.), Euopean eview of social psychology. Chicheste, England: Wiley. Astin, A. W. (1993). Divesity and multicultualism on the campus: How ae students affected? Change, 25, 44-49 Bell,. P., Haison, D. A., & claughlin,. E. (1997) Asian Ameican attitudes towad affimative action in employment: Implications fo the model minoity myth. Jounal of Applied Behavioal Science, 33, 356-377 Blanchad, F. A., Weigel, R. H., and Cook, S. W. (1975). The effects of elative competence of goup membes upon intepesonal attaction in coopeating inteacial goups. Jounal of Pesonality and Social Psychology, 32, 519-530. Bewe,. B., & Kame, R.. (1985) The psychology of integoup attitudes and behavio. Annual Review of Psychology, 36: 219-243 Bickson, S. (2000) The impact of identity oientation on individual and oganizational outcomes in demogaphically divese settings. Academy of anagement Review, 25(1), 82-101 Byne, D. (1971) The attaction paadigm. New Yok: Academic Pess Chang,. J. (2002) The impact of an undegaduate divesity couse equiement on students acial views and attitudes. The Jounal of Geneal Education, 51, 21-42 Cheng, C. (1999) asculinities fom magin to cente: Studies on gende, status, and epesentation. Jounal of en s Studies, 7(3), 295-430 Chu, D., & Giffey, D. (1985) The contact theoy of integation: The case of spot. Sociology of Spot Jounal, 2: 323-333. Cox, T. H., & Blake, S. (1991) anaging cultual divesity: Implications fo oganizational competitiveness. Academy of anagement Executive, 5(3), 45-67 Digh, P. (1998) Coming to tems with divesity. HR agazine, 43(12), 117-120. Dovidio, J. F., Gaetne, S. L., & Kawakami, K. (2003) Integoup contact: The past, pesent, and the futue. Goup Pocesses and Integoup Relations, 6(1); 5-21 Eagly, A. H. & Chaiken, S. 1998. Attitude stuctue and function. In D. T. Gilbet & S. T. Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology: 269-321. Boston, A: cgaw-hill. Engbeg,. E. (2004) Impoving integoup elations in highe education: A citical examination of the influence of educational inteventions on acial bias. Review of Educational Reseach, 74, 473-524 Fedeico, C.., & Sidanius, J. (2000) Sophistication and the antecedents of whites acial policy attitudes: Racism, ideology, and affimative action in Ameica. Public Opinion Quately, 66: 145-176 Fenandez, J. P. (1991) anaging a divese wokfoce. Lexington, A: Lexington Books Fishbein,. 1963. An investigation of the elationships between beliefs about an object and the attitude towad that object. Human Relations, 16: 233-240. Fishbein,., & Azjen, I. (1975) Belief, attitude, intention, and behavio. Reading, A: Addison Wesley Flynn, G. (1998, Decembe) The hash eality of divesity pogams. Wokfoce, 26-34 Guin, P., Nagda, B. A., and Lopez, G. E. (2004) The benefits of divesity in education fo democatic citizenship. Jounal of Social Issues, 60, 17-34 Guin, P., Peng, T., Lopez, G. E., and Nagda, B. A. (1999) Context, identity, and integoup elations. In D. A. Pentice and D. T. ille (Eds.), Cultual divides: Undestanding and ovecoming goup conflict, (pp. 133-172). New Yok: Russell Sage Foundation Haison, D. A., Kavitz, D. A., aye, D.., Leslie, L.., & Lev-Aey, D (2006) Undestanding attitudes towad affimative action pogams in employment: Summay and meta-analysis of 35yeas of eseach. Jounal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1013-1036 Heide, F. (1958) The psychology of intepesonal elations. ahwah, NJ: Lawence Elbaum Helm, E. G., Sedlacek, W. E., & Pieto, D. O. (1998) The elationship between attitudes towad divesity and oveall satisfaction of univesity students by ace. Jounal of College Counseling, 1: 111-120 Hofstede, G. (1983) National cultues in fou dimensions: A eseach theoy of cultual dimensions acoss nations. Intenational Studies of anagement and Oganizations, 13: 52-60. Hutado, S. (2005) The next geneation of divesity and integoup elations eseach. Jounal of Social Issues, 46, 115-125 Hutado, S. (1996) How divesity affects teaching and leaning: A climate of inclusion has a positive effect on leaning outcomes. Educational Recod, 77(4), 27-29 7
Cente fo Pomoting Ideas, USA www.ijhssnet.com Jackson, S. E., & Associates (1992) Divesity in the wokplace: Human esouces initiatives. New Yok: Guilfod. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2000) The thee C s of educing pejudice and discimination. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing pejudice and discimination (pp.239-268) Hillsdale, NJ: Elbaum. Landis, D., Hope, R. O., & Day, H. R. (1984) Taining fo desegegation in the militay. In N. ille &. B. Bewe (Eds.), Goups in contact; The psychology of desegegation (pp. 257-278). Olando, FL: Academic Pess Linnehan, F., Chobot-ason, D., & Konad, A.. (2006) Divesity attitudes and noms: The ole of ethnic identity and elational demogaphy. Jounal of Oganizational Behavio, 27, 419-442. Linnehan, F., Konad, A., Reitman, F., Geenhalgh, A., & London,. (2003). Behavioal goals fo a divese oganization: The effects of attitudes, social noms, and acial identity fo Asian Ameicans and Whites. Jounal of Applied Social Psychology, 33: 1331-1359. Little, B. L., uy, W. D., & Wimbush, J. C. (1989). Peceptions of wokplace affimative action plans: A psychological pespective. Goup and Oganization anagement, 23: 27-47. Lopez, G. E. (2004) Inteethnic contact, cuiculum, and attitudes in the fist yea of college. Jounal of Social Issues, 60, 75-94 cleod, P. L., Lobel, S., & Cox, T. H. (1996) Ethnic divesity and ceativity in small goups. Small Goup Reseach, 27, 248-264. iliken, F. J. & atins, L. L. (1996) Seaching fo common theads: Undestanding the multiple effects of divesity in oganizational goups. Academy of anagement Review, 21(2), 402-433 ille, A. G. (1972) Effect of attitude similaity-dissimilaity on the utilization of additional stimulus inputs in judgments of intepesonal attaction. Psychonomic Science, 26(4), 199-203 iville,. L., Gelso, C. J., Pannu, R., Liu, W., Touadji, P., Holloway, P., & Fuetes, J. (1999) Appeciating similaities and valuing diffeences: The iville-guzman Univesality-Divesity Scale. Jounal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 291-307 oody, J. (2001) Race, school integation, and fiendship segegation in Ameica. Ameican Jounal of Sociology, 107: 679-716. o Baak,. E., Chein, D. A., & Bekman, S. (1998) Oganizational and pesonal dimensions in divesity climate: Ethnic and gende diffeences in employee peceptions. Jounal of Applied Behavioal Science, 34: 82-104. usil, C., Gacia,., oses, Y., and Smith, D. (1995) Divesity in highe education: A wok in pogess. Washington, DC: Association of Ameican Colleges and Univesities Newcomb, T.. (1961) Stabilities undelying changes in intepesonal attaction. Jounal of Abnomal and Social Psychology, 66(4), 376-386 Ng, E. S. W., & Buke, R. J. (2004) Peson-oganization fit and the wa fo talent: Does divesity management make a diffeence? Women in anagement Review, 19: 317-324. Pettigew, T. F., and Topp, L. R. (2000) Does integoup contact educe pejudice? Recent meta-analytic findings. In S. Okamp (Ed.), Reducing pejudice and discimination. (pp.93-114) Hillsdale, NJ; Elbaum. Robinson, G., & Dechant, K. (1997) Building a business case fo divesity. Academy of anagement Executive, 11(3), 21-30. Society fo Human Resouce anagement, (1997) SHR Suvey of divesity pogams. Alexandia, VA: Society fo Human Resouce anagement Singh, R., & Ho, S. Y. (2000) Attitudes and attaction: A new test of the attaction, epulsion, and similaitydissimilaity asymmety hypothesis. Bitish Jounal of Social Psychology, 39(2), 197-211 Snyde,., Bescheid, E., & Glick, P. (1985) Focusing on the exteio and the inteio: Two investigations of the initiation of pesonal elationships. Jounal of Pesonality and Social Psychology, 48(6), 1427-1439 Spanieman, L. B., Neville, H. A., Liao, H., Hamme, J. H., and Wang, Y. (2008) Paticipation in fomal and infomal campus divesity expeiences: Effects on students acial democatic beliefs. Jounal of Divesity in Highe Education. 1(2), 108-125 Spinge, L., Palme, B., Teenzini, P. T., Pascaella, E. T., & Noa, A. (1996) Attitudes towad campus divesity: Paticipation in a acial o cultual awaeness wokshop. Review of Highe Education, 20(1), 53-68 Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) ind in society: The development of highe psychological pocesses. Havad Univesity Pess; Cambidge, A. Webbe, S. S., & Donahue, L.. (2001) Impact of highly and less job elated divesity on wok goup cohesion and pefomance: A meta-analysis. Jounal of anagement, 27(2), 141-162 Williams, K. Y., & O Reilly, C. A. (1998) Demogaphy and divesity in oganizations: A eview of 40 yeas of eseach. In B.. Staw and L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Reseach in Oganizational Behavio, 20: 77-140. Geenwich, CT: JAI Pess. Wight, P., Feis, S. P., Hille, J. S., & Koll,. (1995) Competitiveness though management of divesity: Effects on stock pice valuation. Academy of anagement Jounal, 38, 272-287. 8
Intenational Jounal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 3 No. 3; Febuay 2013 Figue 1 Divesity Contact Divesity Attitudes Divesity Intent Level of Exposue H1 Affimative Action Attitudes Symbolic Pejudice Geneal Egalitaianism H5 Divesity Awaeness Coss Cultual Conflict Pesonal Value of Divesity H2 H3 H4 Yea in School inoity Status ajo Table 1: Coss Section of Paticipants by Campus and Race/Ethnicity, ajo, and Uppe- vesus Undeclassmen Campus and Race Yea in School ajo Non-HBCU Non-inoity Non-HBCU inoity HBCU inoity Total Undeclassmen Business Count 47 9 12 68 % within ajo 69.1 13.2 17.6 100.0 % within Campus and Race 46.5 29.0 66.7 45.3 % of Total 31.3 6.0 8.0 45.3 Non Business Count 54 22 6 82 % within ajo 65.9 26.8 7.3 100.0 % within Campus and Race 53.5 71.0 33.3 54.7 % of Total 36.0 14.7 4.0 54.7 Uppeclassmen Business Count 130 48 81 259 % within ajo 50.2 18.5 31.3 100.0 % within Campus and Race 44.1 48.0 88.0 53.2 % of Total 26.7 9.9 16.6 53.2 Non Business Count 165 52 11 228 % within ajo 72.4 22.8 4.8 100.0 % within Campus and Race 55.9 52.0 12.0 46.8 % of Total 33.9 10.7 2.3 46.8 9
Cente fo Pomoting Ideas, USA www.ijhssnet.com Table 2: eans, standad deviations and zeo ode coelations fo all study vaiables Vaiable ean SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 1. Geneal 4.30.92 (.81) Egalitaianism 2. Pesonal Value of 4.74.74.38** (.66) Divesity 3. Affimative 3.51.92.51**.18** (.76) Action Attitudes 4. Symbolic 4.51 1.00.60**.32**.53** (.82) Pejudice 5. Divesity 4.00.76.34**.46**.29**.27** (.70) Awaeness 6. Coss Cultual Comfot 4.66.69.21**.55**.08*.22**.32** (.72) 7. Level of Divesity 2.11.81.08*.09*.04.04 -.01.14** -- 8. Yea in School a 1.76 -- -.03.02.08*.04.02 -.01 -.07 -- 9. ajo b 1.49 --.05.05 -.02.02.02.07.06 -.07 -- 10. inoity Status c 1.38 --.33**.01.32**.25**.10* -.01.17**.06 -.17** -- 11. Campus d 1.17 --.22** -.11**.23**.20**.04 -.09* -.003.08 -.30**.59** Notes: N=637. a 1 = Undeclassmen, 2 = Uppeclassmen; b 1 = Business, 2 = Non-Business; c 1 = Non-inoity, 2 = inoity; d 1=non-HBCU, 2 = HCBU; * p <.05 ** p <.01 Table 3: Hypothesis 1: Divesity Exposue as a pedicto of Divesity Attitudes fo College Undeclassmen Divesity Attitudes Effect Size () Divesity Level 1 Geneal Egalitaianism.08* 3.93 (1.09) Pesonal Value of.09* 4.55 Divesity (.81) Affimative Action.04 3.32 Attitudes (1.01) Symbolic Pejudice.04 4.14 (1.15) Note: N=150. * p <.05 ** p <.01 ***p<.001 Divesity Exposue Divesity Level 2 4.32 (.89) 4.69 (.65) 3.48 (.86) 4.56 (.89) Table 4: Hypothesis 2: Yea in College as a pedicto of Divesity Attitudes Divesity Level 3 4.57 (.94) 4.82 (.67) 3.33 (.99) 4.50 (1.08) Yea in School Divesity Attitudes Effect Size Undeclassmen Geneal Egalitaianism 23*** 4.34 (.982) Pesonal Value of Divesity.11* 4.72 (.698) Affimative Action Attitudes.24*** 3.38 (.945) Symbolic Pejudice.20*** 4.44 (1.043) Uppeclassmen 4.28 (.899) 4.74 (.756) 3.56 (.913) 4.53 (.991) Note: N=637. Effect size is the coelation between being an uppeclassman and levels of divesity attitudes. * p <.05 ** p <.01 ***p<.001 10
Intenational Jounal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 3 No. 3; Febuay 2013 Table 5: Hypothesis 3: inoity Status and Yea in School as Pedictos of Divesity Attitudes Divesity Attitudes Effect Size Geneal Egalitaianism.33*** 4.20 (.98) Pesonal Value of Divesity.14** 4.71 (.65) Affimative Action Attitudes.32*** 3.23 (.95) Symbolic Pejudice.26*** 4.30 (1.04) inoity Status by Campus and Yea in College Non-HBCU Non-HBCU Non-HBCU Non-in Non-in inoity Unde Uppe Unde 4.02 (.86) 4.74 (.70) 3.31 (.90) 4.32 (.99) 4.47 (.99) 4.79 (.86) 3.59 (.93) 4.47 (.98) Non-HBCU inoity Uppe 4.68 (.86) 4.93 (.81) 3.88 (.96) 4.83 (.93) HBCU inoity Unde 4.92 (.74) 4.65 (.66) 3.84 (.70) 5.17 (.92) Non-HBCU inoity Uppe 4.71 (.75) 4.54 (.83) 4.00 (.59) 4.90 (.88) Notes: N=637. HBCU =Histoically Black College o Univesity, in = inoity, Unde = Undeclassmen, Uppe = Uppeclassmen. * p <.05 ** p <.01 ***p<.001 Table 6: Hypothesis 4: ajo and Yea in College as pedictos of Divesity Attitudes ajo and Yea in College Divesity Attitudes Effect Size B Unde Geneal.26*** 4.26 Egalitaianism (.95) Pesonal Value of.11* 4.69 Divesity (.65) Affimative Action.24*** 3.42 Attitudes (1.01) Symbolic Pejudice.22*** 4.49 (1.07) NB Unde 4.25 (.89) 4.70 (.79) 3.56 (.96) 4.49 (1.00) B Uppe 4.41 (1.01) 4.74 (.74) 3.34 (.89) 4.40 (1.02) NB Uppe 4.32 (.91) 4.79 (.71) 3.55 (.87) 4.58 (.98) Notes: N=637. B = Business, NB = Non-Business, Unde = Undeclassmen, Uppe = Uppeclassmen. * p <.05 ** p <.01 ***p<.001 Table 7: Hypothesis 5: Zeo Ode Coelations Between Divesity Attitudes and Divesity Behavioal Intent fo College Uppeclassmen Divesity Behavioal Intent Geneal Egalitaianism Pesonal Value of Divesity Divesity Attitudes Affimative Action Attitudes Symbolic Pejudice Coss Cultual Comfot.20***.53***.04.21*** Divesity Awaeness.33***.47***.25***.26*** Note: N=487. * p <.05 ** p <.01 ***p<.001 Table 8: Summay Regession Analyses fo Divesity Attitudes fo Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4 Geneal Egalitaianism Pesonal Value of Divesity Affimative Action Attitudes Symbolic Pejudice ß ß ß ß Campus.09 -.17***.08.10* Yea in School -.04.02.07.03 inoity Status.30***.11*.27***.21*** ajo.12***.02.06.09* R.35.17.33.28 R 2.12.02.11.08 Adjusted R 2.12.01.10.07 Note: N=637. * p <.05 ** p <.01 ***p<.001 11