Attitudes toward Campus Diversity:
Participation in a Racial or Cultural Awareness Workshop

Leonard Springer, Betsy Palmer, Patrick T. Terenzini, Ernest T. Pascarella, and Amaury Nora

Tables

Eight years ago, a study by the American Council on Education (Commission, 1988) concluded that the nation's long-term welfare depends upon increasing educational attainment among our growing numbers of racial and ethnic minorities. The goal remains elusive. Recent electoral results and legislation threaten the egalitarian educational policies promoted more [End Page 53] than four decades ago by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education (1954). The resurgence of racial and ethnic violence in the United States (e.g., Associated Press, 1994; Goleman, 1990) is of growing concern to students, faculty, and administrators in higher education.

Researchers increasingly document the casualties of the conflicts. Ehrlich's (1990, 1992) investigations indicate that nearly 1 million U.S. college students experience racially or ethnically motivated violence annually and that most victims do not report these incidents to any campus official. Indeed, nearly a quarter of minority students on college campuses report racially or ethnically motivated assaults, vandalism, or harassment; and more than half of minority group members experience related distress as a result (Ehrlich 1990, 1992). Ehrlich suggests that, in an "era of declining opportunities and resources, college students tend to view classmates from different backgrounds as competitors rather than partners" (Levin & McDevitt, 1995, p. B2). Researchers have established the relationship between racism on campus and diminished academic performance (e.g., Nettles, 1988), reduced degree persistence (e.g., Arbona & Novy, 1990), and greater alienation from the institution (e.g., Cabrera & Nora, 1994; Hurtado, 1992). A growing body of literature also substantiates a significant relationship between a college student's field of study and his or her attitudes toward different groups of individuals. Guimond and Palmer (1989), Guimond, Begin, and Palmer (1989), and Sidanius, Pratto, Martin, and Stallworth (1991) report that students in relatively conservative major fields, such as business, engineering, and the natural sciences, express progressively less favorable attitudes toward individuals with different backgrounds or characteristics (including racial minorities) over the course of their college careers. Conversely, students in relatively liberal majors, such as education, the humanities, and the social sciences, show increasingly favorable attitudes. These studies have focused on single institutions, however, and have not examined potential differences between the attitudes of men and women.

Gender-related differences might confound interpretations of the effects of various major fields on students' attitudes. Other researchers have documented significant gender-related variation in racial attitudes among college students at a broad range of institutions. A nationwide survey of first-year students, for example, recently revealed that more men (17.1%) than women (13.7%) believed that racial discrimination is no longer a major problem in America (Chronicle of Higher Education, 1995). Studies (e.g., Springer, Terenzini, Pascarella, & Nora, 1995) increasingly indicate that White female undergraduates in general tend to hold more favorable intergroup attitudes than White male undergraduates, a reversal of dynamics documented during the 1950s and early 1960s (Qualls, Cox, & Schehr, 1992). It remains unclear whether these differences remain net of the impact of [End Page 54] various major fields. Recent studies (e.g., Hagedorn, Nora, & Pascarella, 1995) report that men remain overrepresented in relatively conservative fields, such as engineering and the physical sciences, while women continue to be overrepresented in relatively liberal fields, such as education and the social sciences.

To address the problem of intergroup conflict, faculty and administrators at several colleges and universities have developed and implemented racial or cultural awareness workshops for students. Surprisingly, little research has been conducted to assess the effectiveness of these programs. (See a review in Neville & Furlong, 1994.) Previous studies suggest that students who participate in prejudice-reduction programs increase their understanding of racism and their commitment to combatting racist practice, but "these findings might reflect the students' preexisting desire and receptivity to learn about racism, thus reflecting a subject selection bias" (Neville & Furlong, 1994, p. 371).

Exacerbating the already difficult problems in interpreting the results of previous analyses, studies have primarily focused on single institutions and have generally overlooked the possibly different (or interactive) effects of individual characteristics such as gender and environmental impacts, such as the socializing influences associated with different major fields on the likelihood of students participating in prejudice-reduction programs and on changes in their attitudes toward diversity. In a rare exception, Smith (1992) concluded that White women developed more favorable attitudes toward affirmative action as a result of participating in programs designed to increase racial awareness, but White men did not. Because of limitations in sample size at a single institution, she was unable to assess the possible interaction of gender and major.

Multi-institutional studies (e.g. Astin, 1993; Pascarella, Edison, Nora, & Terenzini, 1996) have generally documented the positive impact of racial and cultural awareness workshops. No known research, however, has examined major field and gender simultaneously when assessing the likelihood of attending and the effects of participating in interventions designed to develop more favorable attitudes toward diversity on campus among college students. Questions remain regarding whether the positive effects of racial and cultural awareness workshops on students' racial attitudes extend generally to men and women and to students in both liberal and conservative majors.

This study assesses the effects of awareness programs on the attitudes of White students toward diversity on campus. This investigation will answer three important questions: (a) What precollege differences are significantly associated with White students' attitudes toward diversity on campus? (b) Are men and women, and students in different majors, more or less likely [End Page 55] to participate in racial or cultural awareness workshops during their first year of college? (c) Are the effects of participation different for men and women and for students in different majors?

Method

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework for this study is based on more than 40 years of social-psychological research on intergroup relations. (See reviews in Pettigrew, 1986; Stephan, 1987.) We suggest that attitudes (A) and behaviors (B) are a function of the societal context (S), the environment (E), and the person (P): (B/A)=ƒ(S+E+P). We further suggest that the social and economic climate in the United States during the early to mid 1990s has discouraged the general development of more favorable attitudes toward diversity among White college students. Similarly, we assume that collegiate environments, such as the socializing influences of major fields and of racial or cultural awareness programs, affect students' attitudes toward diversity differently, net of individual characteristics such as gender and socioeconomic status. Women in general, we hypothesize, start college with more favorable attitudes toward diversity than men in general and maintain more favorable attitudes throughout their college careers.

Research Design

We employed a quasi-experimental, three-wave panel design for this analysis of survey data, assessing attitudes in waves one (fall 1992) and three (spring 1994) and workshop participation in wave two (spring 1993). Assessing behavior or self-reported treatments during an intermediate wave avoids a potentially spurious source of higher correlation--items appearing on the same questionnaire tend to be more highly correlated--(Campbell & Stanley, 1963) and clarifies the temporal order of attitudinal change (Finkel, 1995). We collected data for the National Study of Student Learning (NSSL), a large multi-institutional study of U.S. college students. The NSSL is a three-year, longitudinal research project begun in 1992 under the auspices of the National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment (NCTLA). The project seeks to "expand knowledge about college impact by examining the influence of academic and nonacademic experiences on (a) student learning, (b) student attitudes about learning, (c) student cognitive development, and (d) student persistence" (Pascarella, Whitt, et al., 1996, p. 182).

Institutional Sample

The target population of institutions for this study included all colleges and universities in the United States, except for historically Black institutions [End Page 56] (because of the general absence of White students) and specialized institutions such as theological seminaries, tribal colleges, and technical institutes. The institutional sample consisted of 17 colleges and universities in 10 states. Institutions were selected based on the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics' Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). The sample represented nationwide differences in these institutions on a variety of characteristics reflected in IPEDS data (e.g., geographic location, size, governance, degree-granting status, racial composition, and ethnic composition). Six colleges or universities were located in the Midwest, three in the West, four in the East, and four in the South. Undergraduate enrollments in the institutional sample in fall 1992 ranged from approximately 1,000 to more than 25,000. The proportion of White undergraduates at the institutions sampled at that time ranged from 32% to 97%. Nine institutions were public; 8 private. Three of the private institutions were bachelor's-granting, liberal arts colleges. Of the remaining 14 institutions, 2 were community colleges, 5 were master's-granting colleges, and 7 were doctoral-granting universities (3 of which were classified as research universities).

Student Sample, Instruments, and Variables

The student sample for this investigation (a subsample of a group that included racial and ethnic minorities) was designed to represent the population of White first-year undergraduates at institutions of higher education in the United States in fall 1992. In summer 1992, we gave an administrator at each of the 17 participating institutions a target sample of eligible students at the college or university at which he or she was employed. The total number of eligible White students was 16,561. We asked administrators to select 2,813 (17.0% overall) of these students at random to achieve the target sample. Of the selected students, 1,828 (65.0% of those selected) actually participated in the fall 1992 data collection--before starting their first year of college. In spring 1993, after their first year, 1,300 (71.1% of the fall 1992 participants) of these same students participated in the first follow-up data collection. In spring 1994, after their second year, 1,061 students (81.6% of the spring 1993 participants) completed the second follow-up.

Each data collection lasted about three hours. We paid students a stipend for participating. Precollege survey forms included the American College Testing Program's (1989) Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP), which assessed students' declared majors in 23 categories, and a questionnaire designed to tap students' attitudes toward learning and demographic characteristics not covered by the CAAP. We also gathered information on students' sex, family income, father's education, and degree aspirations. Family income and father's education were not combined [End Page 57] into a single scale for socioeconomic status because research (e.g., Springer, Terenzini, Pascarella, & Nora, 1995) has suggested that the variables can have divergent effects on attitudes toward diversity.

The fall 1992 data collection also measured students' attitudes toward diversity on campus with items that reflected the importance students placed on interacting with diverse individuals and learning about people from other cultures as part of their collegiate experiences. Students indicated during the spring 1993 data collection (after their first year of college) whether they had participated in a racial or cultural awareness workshop during the 1992-1993 academic year. (All campuses offered such workshops, although our study made no effort to determine whether students who did not take them knew that they were available.) We again assessed students' diversity-related attitudes in 1994 (at the end of their second year of college) and operationalized the construct as a two-item, five-point Likert scale labeled "attitude toward diversity" (1992: = .78, 1994: = .81). Table 1 lists the item content of the scale and the means and standard deviations of all variables included in the analyses.

The 1994 data collection (after students' second year) again assessed students' declared major fields. We collapsed categories of students' majors based on research associating different majors with relatively liberal or conservative attitudes among faculty and students (e.g., Feldman & Newcomb, 1994; Ladd & Lipset, 1973). Feldman and Newcomb propose that definitions of liberal and conservative vary with time and locality. They describe the label "conservative" as generally "applied to a person who believes in self-advancement by personal exertion and in the essential rightness of the existing social and economic inequalities . . . . By contrast, the liberal . . . position is one which favors change" (1994, p. 19).

Studies of attitudes of students in different major fields have produced somewhat ambiguous results, however, largely because of a failure to "follow students who start and stay in the same major field" (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, p. 312). To address this problem, we classified 368 (238 female, 130 male) of the 1,061 students in the sample as a reference group because they did not declare a major or switched from one field to another (conservative to liberal or vice versa) during their first two years of college. The reference group comprised 34.7% of the sample. The 335 students (230 female, 105 male) who remained in liberal fields comprised 31.6% of the sample and the 358 students (209 female, 149 male) who remained in conservative fields accounted for the remaining 33.7%.

Data Analysis

We addressed the three research questions with separate analyses. First, we employed a two-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to determine whether students' sex or major or both were associated significantly with [End Page 58] their attitudes toward diversity before college--net of their degree aspirations, family income, and father's education. (Mother's education was not included in the analysis because of multicollinearity.) Second, a logistic regression assessed whether students were more or less likely to participate in a racial or cultural awareness workshop during their first year of college based on differences in sex, major field, degree aspiration, father's education, [End Page 59] family income, and attitude toward diversity. Logistic regression generally predicts probabilities of a dichotomous dependent measure (such as participation and nonparticipation) more accurately than linear regression (Menard, 1995). Third, a three-way ANCOVA (with the addition of precollege attitude toward diversity as a covariate) assessed the impact of participating in the workshop on students' attitudes toward diversity at the end of their second year of college.

Results

Results of the first ANCOVA (see Tables 2 and 3) indicate that, after controlling for family income, father's education, and degree aspirations, both sex and major field were significantly related to students' precollege attitudes toward diversity on campus. The multivariate F test suggests that the model fits the data, F(8,1053) = 7.0, p < .001. The model explained 8.9% of the variance in students' attitudes. As hypothesized, women held significantly more favorable precollege attitudes toward diversity than men, F(1,1060) = 29.1, p < .001, and students in liberal majors held more favorable initial attitudes than students in conservative majors, F(2,1059) = 11.0, p < .001. We found no interaction between sex and major. Students with higher degree aspirations, F(1,1060) = 15.8, p < .001, and students with more highly educated fathers, F(1,1060) = 18.3, p < .001, generally held more favorable attitudes. Family income was not significantly related to students' attitudes toward diversity.

Table 4 reports the results from the logistic regression predicting participation in a racial or cultural awareness workshop. The model chi-square (9, N = 1,061) = 103.9, p < .001, which is analogous to the multivariate F test for linear regression (Menard, 1995), suggests that the model fits the data quite well, accurately predicting 76.4% of the cases. According to the model, students who stayed in conservative majors during their first two years of college were significantly less likely (p < .001) to participate in a racial or cultural awareness workshop during their first year of college than students who stayed in liberal majors or students in the reference group (those who switched from a liberal to a conservative major, or vice versa, or those who remained undecided). Students who stayed in liberal majors did not differ significantly from students in the reference group in their likelihood of participating. Students with fathers who had some postbaccalaureate education (p < .05) and students with higher degree aspirations (p < .001) were also more likely to participate in the workshops. Of greater interest, however, these differences remained net of students' attitudes toward diversity, which, not surprisingly, were also significantly and positively related to their participation (p < .001). Other assessed variables did not have significant effects. [End Page 60]

Based on the logistic regression coefficients, we calculated probabilities of workshop participation for groups of students by major (the only significant main effect). Students who switched majors or remained undecided (the reference group) were predicted to participate at a rate of 27.7%. The predicted participation rate of students who stayed in liberal majors was 31.3%, in contrast to the significantly lower 15.4% predicted participation rate of students who stayed in conservative majors.

Finally, Table 5 reports that the end-of-second-year model fit the data well, F(15,1046) = 31.5, p < .001, explaining 30.6% of the variance in students' attitudes in 1994. Net of precollege attitude and other covariates, participation in a racial or cultural awareness workshop, F(1,1060) = 30.9, p < .001, sex, F(1,1060) = 19.1, p < .001, and major field, F(2,1059) = 4.5, p < .05, all had significant effects on students' attitudes toward diversity on campus at the end of their second year of college. More importantly, no interaction effects were found, indicating that the effect of participation was general--leading to more favorable attitudes for men and women and for students in liberal and conservative majors. Indeed, as reported in Table 6, students who participated in the workshops developed more favorable attitudes toward diversity on campus, while students who did not participate developed less favorable attitudes. [End Page 61]

Limitations

This study is limited in several ways. Most importantly, we had no information about the content, length, or quality of the workshops at the sample institutions. Workshops vary widely along these dimensions and might reflect considerably divergent ideologies about diversity. In addition, effects might differ depending upon whether participation in the workshops was voluntary or mandatory, but this information also was not available to us. Moreover, the social-psychological processes through which students' attitudes changed were not investigated. Although the study suggests that participation in a racial or cultural awareness program leads to more favorable attitudes toward diversity among White college students, it does not explain how or why this effect takes place. Furthermore, this study assessed only changes during the first two years of college. Changes might take place at a different rate, or even in a different direction, during the remainder of students' college careers.

Similarly, attitude toward diversity is a complex construct that the two-item scale employed for the study might only begin to tap. Although students were asked to provide "honest" responses to survey items, their answers to these questions might reflect social desirability, or the perceived expectations of evaluators, to some extent. In addition, workshop participation was the only behavioral consequence of students' attitudes assessed in this study, an association confounded by the lack of data on whether participation [End Page 62] was required. Moreover, other potentially significant behavioral antecedents to attitude change, such as social interaction with minority students or participation in courses such as African American studies, were not assessed.

Limitations in the institutional and student sample also have a bearing on interpretations of the data. Although the sample is multi-institutional [End Page 63] and representative of a fairly broad range of colleges and universities in the United States, the sample is too small for us to generalize conclusions to all such institutions with a great deal of confidence. Similarly, the student sample might reflect some self-selection. Students who participated in the follow-up studies might not necessarily have represented the backgrounds, attitudes, and behavior of those who left the institution or those who chose not to participate for other reasons.

Discussion and Conclusions

Despite these limitations, the study has several important implications for higher education researchers and practitioners. The results indicate that [End Page 64] gender-related and major-field-related differences in attitudes toward diversity are separate--that the more favorable attitudes among women in general cannot be attributed entirely to the greater numbers of women concentrated in such liberal majors as education and the social sciences rather than such conservative majors as engineering and the physical sciences. In addition, the results suggest that participating in a racial or cultural awareness workshops does, indeed, promote the development of more favorable attitudes toward diversity on campus among White students. Moreover, the effects are general--being positive for men and women and for students in both liberal and conservative majors. Although students in conservative majors are less likely to participate in the workshops, if they do participate, they do tend to develop more favorable attitudes toward diversity on campus at the same rate as students in more liberal majors. The finding is of particular importance because students in conservative majors (especially male students) start college with significantly less favorable attitudes toward diversity on campus.

At a time when racially motivated hostility appears to be increasing, faculty and administrators at colleges and universities can facilitate the social development of students by implementing effective educational interventions. [End Page 65] A growing body of literature (e.g., Banks, 1995) suggests that prejudice reduction through the development of more favorable racial attitudes represents one of many important aspects of multicultural education. The results of this investigation indicate that leaders on campus might be able to improve their racial climates (Hurtado, 1992) by promoting participation in a racial or cultural awareness workshop. Males, students with less educated parents, students with lower degree aspirations, and students in conservative majors such as business, engineering, and the physical or natural sciences could especially benefit from participation.

Several resources are available for practitioners who would like to develop racial or cultural awareness workshops on their campuses. Henley and Arnold (1990), for example, discuss the development of workshops on unlearning racism. Pope (1993) describes the implementation of racial or ethnic awareness programs. Christie and Borns (1991) list several resources including printed material, videotapes, organizations, consultants, and descriptions of activities that might prove valuable to individuals working to understand and counteract racism on college campuses. Acknowledging the time demands on college students, effective incentives such as academic credit might raise participation rates in these programs (Neville & Furlong, 1994).

Although this study clarifies somewhat the effects of participation in a racial or cultural awareness workshop on White students' attitudes toward diversity on campus, several important questions remain unanswered. Are the effects different if participation is voluntary or mandatory? What is the impact of participation on African American, Asian American, Native American, Chicano, or Latino students? Do the observed changes in attitudes have measurable behavioral consequences? Do the observed effects replicate after students' first two years of college and at a broader range of institutions? How and why do students' attitudes change?

To address these questions, researchers might employ a variety of methods and designs. Longitudinal designs for research on students at four-year institutions might follow Feldman and Newcomb's (1994) suggestion of investigating the first two years of college separately from the remaining years, a procedure which would account for likely differences in the effects of general education requirements during the first two years versus the subsequently greater emphasis on specialized study in one's major field. Additional research might also include variables reflecting courses taken by students. More long-term research, extending into students' post-college careers, is also needed to better understand the lasting impact of collegiate interventions such as those investigated in this study. The results of this investigation, however, represent an important step in understanding the positive effects of racial and cultural awareness workshops on students while they attend college.

Leonard Springer is a Researcher at the Learning through Evaluation, Adaptation, and Dissemination (LEAD) Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Betsy Palmer is a doctoral candidate in the Graduate Program of Higher Education, The Pennsylvania State University. Patrick T. Terenzini is a Professor and Senior Scientist at the Center for the Study of Higher Education, also at Pennsylvania State. Ernest T. Pascarella is Professor of Higher Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Amaury Nora is a Professor of Higher Education at the University of Houston. The research reported in this paper was conducted under the auspices of The National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment, funded by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) under Grant No. R117G10037. The opinions herein do not necessarily reflect the position or policies of OERI, and no official endorsement should be inferred. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, November 1995, at Orlando, Florida.

References

American College Testing Program. (1989). Report on the Technical Characteristics of CAAP: Pilot Year 1, 1988-89. Iowa City: Author, 1989.

Arbona, C., & Novy, D. M. (1990). Noncognitive dimensions as predictors of college success among Black, Mexican-American, and White students. Journal of College Student Development, 31(5), 415-421.

Associated Press. (1994, 29 June). U.S. had more than 7,000 hate crimes in '93, F.B.I. head says. New York Times, p. A9.

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Banks, J. A. (1995). Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions, and practice. In J. A. Banks & C. A. McGee Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 3-24). New York: Macmillan.

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 US 483 (1954).

Cabrera, A. F., & Nora, A. (1994). College students' perceptions of prejudice and discrimination and their feelings of alienation: A construct validation approach. Review of Education, Pedagogy and Cultural Studies, 16(3-4), 387-409.

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Christie, R., & Borns, R. (1991). Resources. In J. C. Dalton (Ed.), Racism on campus: Confronting racial bias through peer interventions (pp. 77-84). New Directions for Student Services, No. 56. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac. (1995, 1 September). Attitudes and characteristics of freshmen, fall 1994. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Commission on Minority Participation in Education and American Life. (1988). One-third of a nation. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Ehrlich, H. J. (1990). Campus ethnoviolence and the policy options. Baltimore: National Institute Against Prejudice and Violence.

Ehrlich, H. J. (1992). Campus ethnoviolence: A research review. Baltimore: National Institute Against Prejudice and Violence.

Feldman, K. A., & Newcomb, T. M. (1994). The impact of college on students. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. (Original work published 1969)

Finkel, S. E. (1995). Causal analysis with panel data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Goleman, D. (1990, 29 May). As bias crime seems to increase, scientists study roots of racism. New York Times, pp. C1, C5.

Guimond, S., & Palmer, D. L. (1989). Education, academic program and intergroup attitudes. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 26(2),
193-216.

Guimond, S., Begin, G., & Palmer, D. L. (1989). Education and causal attributions: The development of 'person-blame' and 'system-blame' ideology. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52(2 333-343.

Hagedorn, L. S., Nora, A., & Pascarella, E. T. (1995, April). Pre-occupational segregation among first-year college students: An application of the Duncan Dissimilarity Index. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Photocopy in our possession.

Henley, B., & Arnold, M. S. (1990). Unlearning racism: A student affairs agenda for professional development. Journal of College Student Development, 31(2), 176-177.

Hurtado, S. (1992). The campus racial climate: Contexts for conflict. Journal of Higher Education, 63(5), 539-569.

Levin, J., & McDevitt, J. (1995, August 4). The research needed to understand hate crime. Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. B1, B2.

Ladd, E. C., Jr., & Lipset, S. M. (1973). Academics, politics, and the 1972 election. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

Menard, S. (1995). Applied logistic regression analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Nettles, M. (1988). Factors related to black and white students' college performance. In M. T. Nettles (Ed.), Toward Black Undergraduate Student Equality in American Higher Education (pp. 17-34). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Neville, H., & Furlong, M. (1994). The impact of participation in a cultural awareness program on the racial attitudes and social behaviors of first-year college students. Journal of College Student Development, 35(5), 371-377.

Pascarella, E. T., Edison, M., Nora, A., & Terenzini, P. T. (1996). Influences on students' openness to diversity and challenge in the first year of college. Journal of Higher Education, in press.

Pascarella, E. T., Whitt, E. J., Nora, A., Edison, M., Hagedorn, L. S., & Terenzini, P. T. (1996). What have we learned from the first year of the National Study of Student Learning? Journal of College Student Development, 37(2), 182-192.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pettigrew, T. F. (1986). The contact hypothesis revisited. In M. Hewstone & R. Brown (Eds.), Contact and Conflict in Intergroup Encounters (pp. 169-195). Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.

Pope, R. L. (1993). Multicultural-organization development in student affairs: An introduction. Journal of College Students Development, 34(3), 201-205.

Qualls, R. C., Cox, M. B., & Schehr, T. L. (1992). Racial attitudes on campus: Are there gender differences? Journal of College Student Development, 33(6), 524-529.

Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., Martin, M., & Stallworth, L. (1991). Consensual racism and career track: Some implications of social dominance theory. Political Psychology, 12(4), 691-721.

Smith, K. M. (1992). Gender differences and the impact of college on white students' racial attitudes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Springer, L., Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella, E. T., & Nora, A. (1995, April). Do white students perceive racism toward minority students on campus? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Photocopy in our possession.

Stephan, W. G. (1987). The contact hypothesis in intergroup relations. In Clyde Hendrick (Ed.), Group Processes and Intergroup Relations. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 13-40.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]