INTERRACIAL CONTACT: THE IMPACT ON UNDERGRADUATE BUSINESS
STUDENTS RACIAL PERCEPTIONS
By
Kevin Philo Leonard

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Higher, Adult, and Life Long Education - Doctor of Philosophy
2013

ABSTRACT
INTERRACIAL CONTACT: THE IMPACT ON UNDERGRADUATE BUSINESS
STUDENTS RACIAL PERCEPTIONS
By
Kevin Philo Leonard
The impact of interracial interaction has been looked at from a myriad of
approaches and different populations; time and time again researchers have found similar results
showing a wide variety of personal, institutional, and societal benefits are correlated to
interactions with diverse individuals. Wishing to further examine the impact of interracial
interaction, I set out to explore the relationship between frequent and positive interracial contact
and business students’ racial perceptions. In order to investigate this potential relationship, the
following research question was investigated: do undergraduate business students who have
frequent and positive interracial interactions exhibit more of less positive racial perceptions of
other races? Participants included 910 domestic undergraduate business students enrolled at a
large public research university in the Midwest.
A structured web-based quantitative survey design was used to answer this question.
Measures include students’ perceptions/attitudes toward other racial groups (dependent variable),
the opportunity for contact, frequency of contact, and quality of contact (independent variables),
and various demographic variables designed to collect information ranging from students’ age
and gender to their hometown and parents education level.
Data was analyzed using t-test and ANOVA statistical procedures. The final results of
this study indicate that business students who have frequent (weekly or daily) and positive
interracial interactions typically possess more positive racial perceptions than their peers whose
interactions are infrequent (never, once or twice a year or semester) and less positive. More

specifically, the findings show that (1) business students who reported more opportunities for
contact (i.e., structural diversity) generally had moderately more positive racial perceptions than
students who reported having less opportunity for interracial contact, (2) business students who
identified interacting frequently (weekly or daily) with members of other racial groups possessed
moderately more positive racial perceptions than students whose interactions were less frequent
(never or once or twice a year/semester), (3) business students who rated their overall interracial
experiences to date as positive or very positive held significantly more positive racial perceptions
than students who rated their interracial interactions as neutral, negative or very negative, and (4)
a business student’s race significantly influences his or her racial attitude.

DEDICATION
I dedicate this work in loving memory of my Grandmother Beatrice Constance Leonard.
Because you were never provided the opportunity of a formal education, this degree is for you. I
love and miss you greatly.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thank you to the members of my dissertation committee for their dedicated support and
extreme patience as I moved through this process: Professor Reitumetse Mabokela, my
academic advisor and chair of my committee; Professor Marilyn Amey; Professor Matthew
Wawrzynski; and Dr. Ernest S. Betts, who has been my mentor and friend for over 20 years.
Sincere thanks and love to my best friend and partner Shannon Erin Mulally, who has
believed in me even when I did not believe in myself. Your unyielding love, understanding,
encouragement, and patience mean the world to me. I could not have done this without you.
I am forever thankful for my parents, George H. and Angela M. Leonard, who infused in
me the work ethic and democratic values that have made me the man I am today. Thank you for
teaching me to appreciate the importance of informal and formal education settings and for the
sacrifices you made to provide me opportunities neither of you had growing up.
Great thanks to Dawn (Chi) Chang, graduate assistant for the CSTAT Program at
Michigan State University, for her patience and commitment to helping me relearn SPSS and
assisting me in executing the proper statistical procedures to analyze my data.
To my colleagues Dr. Darrell King and Mrs. Anne Samuel Crain, thank you for your
encouragement, words of advice, and for picking up the slack around the office as I worked
towards accomplishing this goal.
And last, but not least, thank you to my son Finn (Griffin) Philo Leonard who has taught
me what is really important in life; to love unconditionally and laugh uncontrollably. I hope I
can be as good of a parent to you as Grandpa George and Grandma Angie Leonard have been to
me.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................1
Problem Statement....................................................................................................................2
Purpose of Study & Research Question .................................................................................10
Introduction to Theoretical Framework..................................................................................10
Significance of Study .............................................................................................................11
Definitions ..............................................................................................................................14
Dissertation Overview ............................................................................................................16
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................................................17
PART I: RACIAL DIVERSIFICATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION .......................................................17
U.S. Institutions of Higher Education 1636-2012 .............................................................17
Impact of Racial Tensions on College Campuses .............................................................22
Challenges Created by a Diverse Student Body ................................................................26
Is a Racially Diverse Campus Beneficial? ........................................................................30
Benefits of Diversity in Higher Education? ......................................................................32
Workforce Diversity and the Role of Higher Education ...................................................33
Campus Climate and the Role of Interracial Interaction ...................................................39
PART II: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ......................................................................................42
Historical Synopsis of Contact Theory..............................................................................44
Interracial Contact and College Students ..........................................................................47
Interracial Contact and Racial Perceptions........................................................................51
CHAPTER THREE
METHODS .......................................................................................................................................62
Research Design .....................................................................................................................62
Sample ....................................................................................................................................65
Survey .....................................................................................................................................66
Procedure and Respondents ....................................................................................................73
Measures .................................................................................................................................77
Dependent Variables .........................................................................................................77
Independent Variables .......................................................................................................79
Demographic Variables .....................................................................................................80
Data Analysis..........................................................................................................................82
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS .........................................................................................................................................83
Demographics of Respondent Group .....................................................................................83
Race ...................................................................................................................................84

vi

Gender ...............................................................................................................................85
Class Level ........................................................................................................................85
Hometown .........................................................................................................................86
Parents’ Education Level ...................................................................................................87
Major .................................................................................................................................88
Self-Reported GPA ............................................................................................................90
Independent Variable Analysis...............................................................................................91
Opportunity for Contact ....................................................................................................91
Frequency of Contact ........................................................................................................98
Quality of Contact ...........................................................................................................104
Summary...............................................................................................................................106
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................107
Opportunity for Contact .......................................................................................................108
Frequency of Contact ...........................................................................................................110
Quality of Contact ................................................................................................................113
Student’s Race ......................................................................................................................114
Limitations and Future Research ..........................................................................................116
Implications for Practice/Recommendations ........................................................................118
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................123
APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................126
Appendix A: Prenotification Email .....................................................................................127
Appendix B: Email Request with Survey Link ...................................................................128
Appendix C: Informed Consent Form .................................................................................129
Appendix D: Follow Up/Reminder Email ...........................................................................131
Appendix E: Follow Up/Reminder Email Sent to Minority Students ..................................132
Appendix F: Racial Perceptions Survey ..............................................................................133
Appendix G: Inter-Item Correlation Matrix & Scale Statistics for Instrument ....................140
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................142

vii

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: Cronbach’s Alpha for Each Construct of the Instrument.............................................72
TABLE 2: Reliability Statistics for Split-Half Test of Each Construct of the Instrument ............72
TABLE 3: Summary of the Scales Used in the Study ...................................................................77
TABLE 4: Listing of the Fourteen Dependent Variables ..............................................................78
TABLE 5: Scales Used to Measure Participants’ Level and Quality of Interracial Contact .........79
TABLE 6: Scales Used to Measure Participants’ Demographic Variables ...................................81
TABLE 7: T-Test: Demographic Variables ...................................................................................86
TABLE 8: Analysis of Variance: Demographic Variables............................................................90
TABLE 9: Analysis of Variance: Opportunity for Contact ...........................................................97
TABLE 10: Analysis of Variance: Frequency of Contact ...........................................................103
TABLE 11: Analysis of Variance: Quality of Contact ................................................................105
TABLE 12: Inter-Item Correlation - Dependent Variable (Students Racial Perception) ............140
TABLE 13: Inter-Item Correlation – Independent Variable (Opportunity for Contact) ............140
TABLE 14: Inter-Item Correlation – Independent Variable (Frequency of Contact) .................141
TABLE 15: Scale Statistics – Dependent Variable (Students Racial Perceptions) .....................141
TABLE 16: Scale Statistics – Independent Variable (Opportunity for Contact).........................141
TABLE 17: Scale Statistics – Independent Variable (Frequency of Contact) .............................141

viii

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: Non-White Hispanic White Population (2000 Census Data) .....................................21

ix

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
The United States, its workforce, and colleges/universities are becoming increasingly
diverse. Unfortunately, racial tensions have also been on the rise throughout society, within our
work environments, and on our college campuses. Confronted with this rise in racial tensions,
societal and business leaders have looked to our universities to prepare students to be active
participants in this increasingly heterogeneous society and workforce (Bowen & Bok, 1998;
Association of American Colleges and Universities, 1995; Bikson & Law, 1994). Subsequently a
wide range of scholars (Chang, 2001, 2002; Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002; Whitt, Edison,
Pascarella, Terenzini, & Nora, 2001) assert that the increasing enrollments of underrepresented
groups on our college campuses provide these institutions with the opportunity to tackle the issue
of prejudice and better prepare students to live and work in a diverse and global society (Pike &
Kuh, 2006). This stance is grounded in a wealth of research (Milem, 1994; Pettigrew, 1998;
Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006; Sigelman & Welch, 1993; Tropp, 2007) stemming from a sociological
theory developed by Gordon Allport (1954) called the “contact hypothesis”, which contends
interaction with individuals from different racial groups can reduce prejudice and discrimination.
However, the benefits of a diverse campus have come under attack by opponents who argue that
diverse student bodies and learning environments provide very little educational benefit and can
actually worsen relations between groups (Wood & Sherman, 2001; Bloom, 1987; D’Souza,
1991). Therefore, the purpose of this study is to assess the impact interracial contact has on
students’ perceptions of other racial groups, specifically focusing on undergraduate business
students at a large Midwestern university. The study employs the contact hypothesis as a
theoretical framework by which to examine the following question: Do undergraduate business

1

students who have more frequent and positive interracial interactions exhibit more or less positive
racial perceptions of other races?
Problem Statement
The United States has seen a significant increase in the racial diversity of its population
over the past century. The U.S. population grew by 2.8 million people between 2004-2005 and
minorities accounted for approximately 81% of this growth (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006). As of
2005 minorities represented approximately 33% of the U.S. population, by 2020, it is expected
that minorities will constitute 39% of the U.S. population, and that by 2050 racial minorities will
represent almost half of that same population (NCES, 2007; U.S. Department of Labor, 2001). As
the U.S. has increased in diversity so too have its colleges and universities. Between 1976 and
2004, minority undergraduate enrollments increased from 17% to 32 % (NCES, 2007). It is
estimated that by 2015 historically underrepresented racial groups will make up approximately
two fifths of undergraduate enrollments (Carnevale & Fry, 2000) and that shortly after 2020
minority students will, for the first time in history, outnumber Whites on college campuses (Van
Der Werf & Sabatier, 2009). The U.S. workforce (people generally between the ages of 25-64) is
also in the midst of a comprehensive demographic transformation. The National Center for
Public Policy and Higher Education (NCPPHE) estimates that between 1980 and 2020 the White
working-age population will decline from 82% of the workforce to 63%, while the minority
portion of the workforce will double from 18% to 37% (2005).
Some see this shift in the demographic makeup of society, especially as it pertains to
higher education and the U.S. labor force, as a move in the right direction. In a review of the
research examining the benefits of diversity within higher educational, Milem and Hakuta (2000)
discovered that a diverse student body enriches the learning and lives of individual students, the

2

institutions themselves, the economy/private enterprise, and larger society. For instance, students
who reported increased levels of contact with diverse ideas and people showed growth in their
cognitive and active thinking processes (Gurin, 1999). Others have shown that diversity has a
transformative effect on colleges and universities by enriching their educational mission and
changing what is taught, who teaches it, and how it is to be taught (Chang, 1999). At the societal
level, research has shown that diverse institutions better prepare students to become active and
involved citizens in an increasingly complex, diverse, and global society (Bowen & Bok, 1998;
Gurin, 1999). Additional research points to the influence a diverse college environment has on
students’ perceptions, beliefs, values, and behaviors regarding race and diversity. For instance,
Astin (1993a) and Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) indicated that during college, students who
engage diverse peers tend to develop more tolerant views of diversity and individual differences
often carrying these attitudes with them after graduation (Whitt, et al., 2001). Chang (1996)
indicated that a more diverse student body tended to lead to increased socialization across races
which Astin (1993a) reported leads to increased cultural awareness and racial understanding.
More recent studies point to the consistent role interaction with diverse peers’ plays in developing
students with increased cultural awareness and other multicultural competencies (e.g., Chang,
Denson, Saenz, & Misa, 2006, Engberg, 2007, Hurtado, 2003, 2005, Jayakumar, 2008).
From a corporate perspective, research has provided evidence that companies employing
diverse workforces enjoy a competitive advantage over less diverse competitors (Cox, 1993).
“For example, the 50 companies recognized by Fortune Magazine in 1998 as the best places for
racial minorities to work had a total five-year return to shareholders of 201 percent versus 171
percent for the S&P 500” (Salomon & Schork, 2003, p.38). Since the early 1990’s, business
leaders have recognized that to be competitive in a global market, they must diversify their

3

workforce while learning to effectively manage that workforce to take advantage of the benefits a
diverse workforce brings (Cox & Blake, 1991; Buttner, Lowe, & Billings-Harris, 2006; Salomon,
et al., 2003). For most corporations, the primary drivers for diversity are: enhanced access to a
broader talent pool, improved innovation, stronger customer relations, improved productivity,
increased speed and agility, and stakeholder demand (Salomon, et al., 2003). However, the
competitive advantage a diverse workforce brings to a company still remains the principal reason
corporations have begun to embrace diversity. Cox, et al. (1991) identified six primary areas
where diversity gives a corporation a competitive advantage: cost, resource acquisition,
marketing, creativity, problem solving, and organization flexibility. From a cost perspective,
those companies that fail to manage a diverse workforce face the added costs associated with
discrimination lawsuits, high employee turnover, and retraining. Employees are one of every
corporation’s key resources. Those companies who earn a reputation as being favorable places for
diverse populations to work gain an edge over their competition by being able to secure the top
talent from the labor pool (Carr-Ruffino, 2005; Cox, 1993). The cultural sensitivity and insight
about untapped populations and markets diverse employees bring with them also enhance the
marketing efforts of a company (Carr-Ruffino, 2005; Cox, 1993). Diversity also adds to the
number of perspectives at the table allowing for a level of untainted creativity that can give a
corporation an advantage over their competitors (Carr-Ruffino, 2005; Cox, 1993). Heterogeneous
groups also improve the decisions made by companies regarding problems or challenges they are
facing (Carr-Ruffino, 2005; Cox, 1993). Lastly, a management model based on effectively
managing a diverse population creates a corporation that can fluidly adjust to other environmental
factors and changes they will encounter (Carr-Ruffino, 2005; Cox,1993).

4

However, the shift in the racial makeup of society has also created challenges for higher
education and corporate America. As the U.S. has increased in diversity, so have the number of
reported racial, sexual, and religious based hate crimes (Potok, 2012). Hate crimes are defined as
any crime motivated by hostility towards the victim because of his or her membership in a group
based on characteristics such as skin color, gender, sexual orientation or religious belief. The
Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a civil rights organization that tracks hate crimes and
groups throughout the U.S., reported that between 2000 and 2011 hate groups increased from 602
to 1018; an increase of over 59% in eleven years (Potok, 2012). The FBI reported an increase in
hate crimes of 2% from 7,624 to 7,783 between 2007 and 2008 (Federal Bureau of Investigation
Uniform Crime Report, 2010). Unfortunately, the aforementioned increase in racial tension and
hate crimes has not been restricted to mainstream society. As our colleges and universities,
historically viewed as establishments of understanding and tolerance, have become more
heterogeneous there has been an increase in racial tensions, racially motivated incidents and
voluntary racial segregation on many campuses. Levine and Cureton (1998) reported that 41% of
surveyed deans noted increased tension on campus regarding issues of diversity and that three out
of every five campuses identified issues surrounding diversity as the main source of conflict
between students. The same study found that 35 % of all colleges and universities surveyed
reported having specific locations on campus, such as dorms or dining facilities, which belonged
to certain racial groups (Levine et al., 1998). This voluntary self-segregation has become so
common that it is reported occurring on campuses throughout the U.S. (Chau, 2004; Li, 2012;
The Chronicle, 2013). In addition, the SPLC reported that college campuses are the third most
common setting for hate crimes (SPLC, 2005). Regrettably for employers, the attitudes students’
form in college often follows them to the workforce where reports of workplace discrimination

5

have been on the rise. Despite the enforcement of laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act,
the Equal Pay Act of 1963, Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the number of employment discrimination charges filed reached a record
high of 99,922 in 2010 (Wong, 2011). There is also a price to be paid for workplace
discrimination. It is estimated that workplace discrimination costs American corporations
approximately $64 billion a year (Burns, 2012). This hefty price tag represents the annual
estimated cost of losing and replacing more than 2 million American workers due to workplace
discrimination or suppressed job performance and the associated court costs and settlements
(Burns, 2012).
The financial benefits of a diverse workforce and the financial costs and loss of
productivity associated with rising workplace discrimination have clearly grabbed corporate
America’s attention. As corporations have become aware of the impact diversity has on their
bottom line they have begun to articulate to educators a set of workplace competencies or skill
sets corporate leaders feel are necessary for students to possess in order to traverse a diverse
workforce and society (Bikson et al., 1994; Engberg & Hurtado, 2011). These diverse workforce
competencies include the ability for students to see the world from multiple perspectives,
tolerance of different beliefs, openness to having one’s views challenged, ability to work
cooperatively with diverse people, and the ability to navigate difficult and sometime controversial
issues (as cited in Engberg et al, 2011). Corporations are extremely serious about being able to
secure employees with these aforementioned skill sets. As corporations have become cognizant
of the competitive advantage a diverse workforce gives them, many corporations have ceased
recruitment activities and funding at universities whose students they feel lack the cultural

6

competencies to work with and lead diverse groups of people (Contreras, 2007). In a word, this is
also becoming a bottom line issue for higher education.
Although students can and often do develop these skills on the job, higher education plays
an important role in the acquisition of diverse competencies and skill sets (Engberg et al, 2011).
Universities serve as a setting where various forms of knowledge converge, different perspectives
are fostered, and students encounter racial/ethnic diversity and divergent viewpoints for the first
time (Engberg et al., 2011). However, questions continue to persist as to whether colleges and
universities are capable of developing students with the competencies needed to navigate a
diverse workforce and society. In Bikson and Law’s (1994) study of sixteen corporations and
sixteen academic institutions, the researchers found that corporations felt universities were failing
to develop students who could effectively lead and work with individuals whose ideals, values,
norms, belief systems, and life styles were different from their own. However, the Association of
American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) disagree with this stance; they believe that
colleges and universities are uniquely positioned “by their mission, values, and dedication to
learning, to foster and nourish the habits of heart and mind that Americans need to make diversity
work in daily life” (AAC&U, 1995, p. xvi). In addition, most educators still view the mission of
higher education to be the development of cognitive and interpersonal skills within their
graduates that prepare these students for work and citizenship in a diverse modern society
(Engberg et al, 2011). In fact, higher education administrators typically support the increased
diversification of their colleges and universities, siding with the aforementioned research that
points to racially diverse student bodies being instrumental in preparing students to be effective
and responsible citizens of a multicultural and global society (antonio, 2001b).

7

Understanding the benefits of diverse student populations and the need to develop
students with the skills necessary to navigate a diverse workforce and society, institutions of
higher education have begun to work on improving the diversity of their campus. To assist in the
diversification of these traditionally homogenous communities, educators have often turned to
affirmative action programs. “Affirmative action programs grew out of democratic principles
concerning equity and social justice” and were designed to offset the damage caused by
discriminatory practices and policies existing within colleges and society (Milem, et al., 2002, p.
390). Proponents of affirmative action argue that affirmative action policies are still necessary to
remedy past and present discrimination within higher education and society (Gurin, et al., 2002).
These attitudes are due in large part to the fact that although enrollment and retention rates for
minorities have improved, the gap between White and Latino, Black, and American Indian
student participation and degree completion rates continues to widen (Almanac of Higher
Education, 2008; Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, & Allen, 1999; NCES, 2010). Furthermore,
a large percentage of the growth that does exist in minority student enrollment has been in
American Indians, Latinos, and Blacks enrolling at two-year colleges, where students tend to be
less likely to obtain a bachelor’s degree (Bernstein & Eaton, 1994; Fry 2010).
Over the last two decades, research regarding diverse campuses, and the affirmative action
policies used to create them, has come under attack throughout the United States. Affirmative
action opponents contend that such policies impede the formation of a race-blind society and may
even harm those it is supposed to help (Hinrichs, 2009). Others argue that diverse student bodies
and learning environments provide very little educational benefit and do not improve relations
between groups (Bloom, 1987; D’Souza, 1991; Wood & Sherman, 2001). Many even go as far as
stating that affirmative action policy is inequitable and discriminatory in nature (D’Souza, 1991).

8

Since affirmative action was first challenged but upheld in the 1978 Regents of the University of
California v. Bakke case, the use of affirmative action in college admissions has since been
banned by ballot initiatives in California, Washington, Michigan, and Nebraska, and by state
legislative action in Florida and Texas and is facing similar challenges in other states.
With rising racial tensions in society and on college campuses, with corporate leaders
calling on educators to help develop students with the cultural and racial competencies necessary
to work in an increasingly diverse workforce, and the existence of a wide array of research that
clearly supports the positive impact a diverse student body has in helping educators develop
students with the cultural and racial competencies employers and society needs, why have
opponents of affirmative action had such success in challenging and banning its use in college
admissions? Partly because there has been research, although limited, that entirely or partially
does not support diverse learning environments (Ford, 1973; Jackman & Crane, 1986; Welch &
Sigelman, 2000) and to a certain extent, because the debate over affirmative action is more often
won in the court of public opinion than in a court of law or the halls of academia. The debate
over affirmative action has unfortunately been convoluted and distorted by numerous public
figures who have reinforced the various myths and misconceptions held by the American people
about Affirmative Action and the benefits of racial diversity in higher education (Milem, et al.,
2002). Considering the challenges diversity initiatives continue to face, it would appear that
additional research is needed to support the efforts of educators and corporate leaders who
continue to see the essential role diversity plays in developing future citizens and employees with
the cultural and racial competencies and attitudes necessary to navigate an increasingly diverse
workplace and society.

9

Purpose of Study & Research Question
The purpose of this study is to assess the influence interracial contact has on students’
perceptions of other racial groups, specifically focusing on domestic undergraduate business
students at a large Midwestern university. The study employs the contact hypothesis as a
theoretical framework through which to examine the following question:
1. Do undergraduate business students who have more frequent and positive interracial
interactions exhibit more or less positive racial perceptions of other races?
Introduction to Theoretical Framework
The current study is grounded in the intergroup contact theory because it is my goal to
assess how interracial contact impacts students’ perceptions of individuals from different racial
backgrounds. One of the primary theories regarding the reduction of prejudice has been the
intergroup contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954). The essence of the contact hypothesis is that
racism and prejudice are the result of a lack of knowledge of and exposure to different racial
groups. The intergroup contact hypothesis suggests that the more contact that occurs between
individuals from different racial groups the more these individuals can learn about one another,
which in turn leads to a reduction of their negative beliefs and feelings towards other groups. In
1954, Allport added four conditions needed in order for intergroup contact to facilitate positive
attitudinal outcomes. These include all group members being of equal status, a shared common
goal or task, the support of authoritative figures, laws, or customs, and intergroup cooperation.
A significant amount of research has been conducted on the intergroup contact hypothesis
and the conditions necessary for contact to be successful (Jackman & Crane, 1986; Pettigrew &
Tropp, 2006, Tropp, 2007). Chang (1996) found that a diverse student body tended to lead to
increased socialization across races, and Astin (1993) reported that socializing with a person of a

10

different race often increased cultural awareness and racial understanding for these students.
Pettigrew (1998) argued that a significant portion of the research on interracial contact clearly
supports its ability to reduce prejudice and intergroup bias. Further details and additional
research on the intergroup contact hypothesis will be provided in Chapter two.
Significance of Study
The diversification of the U.S., its workforce, and institutions of higher education will
only continue to increase in the coming decades. Unfortunately, the reports of racial incidents
and discrimination lawsuits will also likely continue to increase unless something is done to
lessen these racial tensions. Two leading educational associations (Association of American
Colleges and Universities, 2002; National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant
Colleges, 1997) assert that it is the duty of institutions of higher education to provide educational
environments that promote increased civic responsibility and ethical behaviors amongst its
students, thus helping develop citizens capable of negotiating a racially and globally diverse
society (Mayhew & Engberg, 2010). If one of the key missions of institutions of higher
education continues to be the development of democratic minded leaders for an increasingly
heterogeneous workforce and society, then providing an environment for students that can lessen
racial tensions will be of utmost importance.
One of the suggested solutions for reducing racial tension has been to increase interaction
amongst different racial groups. Over 55 years ago, Allport (1954) proposed that interactions
between different racial groups would lead to reductions in prejudice and discrimination (Cowan,
2005). Since then, a slew of researchers have conducted studies supporting Allport’s “contact
hypothesis” that contact with peers from different racial and ethnic backgrounds increases the
chance for interracial interaction, which in turn has been shown to positively impact individuals’

11

perceptions, beliefs, values, and behaviors regarding race and diversity (Chang, 2001). A recent
review by Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) of over 500 studies found that interracial contact clearly
has the ability to reduce prejudice and intergroup bias. Nevertheless, there exists a small
contingent of researchers who continue to question and challenge the benefits of diverse
educational institutions, the true impact interracial contact has on racial attitudes, as well as the
affirmative action admissions and hiring policies used to diversify college campuses (D’Souza,
1991; Jackman & Muha, 1984; Rothman, Lipset, & Nevitte, 2003; Sowell, 1989).
One reason for these questions continuing to persist could be inconsistencies in the
findings of prior interracial contact research. For instance, Forbes (1997) reviewed over 40
studies on the impact of interracial contact on racial perceptions and found that 90% of these
studies supported the theory that positive attitudes were often the result of contact (Forman &
Ebert, 2004). Whereas, after a review of over 50 articles on the contact hypothesis, Ford (1986)
posited that the findings did not provide enough evidence to reach the conclusion that interracial
contact reduced tension and prejudice (as cited in Forman et al., 2004). For this reason, some of
the significance of the current study is the need for additional research that addresses the
feasibility of interracial contact to reduce racial prejudice and bias.
Some also see such research as one of the few ways left to defend race-conscious
admission and hiring practices that have been crucial to helping increase the diversity of college
campuses across the country (Milem, et al., 2002). Thus, the current study can provide additional
support for those states and universities where affirmative action admission policies are coming
under attack. The more research that supports the impact cross-racial interaction and racially
diverse learning environments have on reducing racial bias, the harder it will be for critics of
affirmative action and other racial diversity initiatives to sway public opinion against the

12

implementation of policies and support programs geared towards creating racially diverse college
campuses, classrooms, and living environments.
Today’s college students are also the future voters and policymakers who will determine
which policies are adopted by society. Studies have shown that a student’s racial attitude often
has a direct impact on his or her views regarding policies focused on achieving racial equality in
society (Inkelas, 2000; Sax & Arredondo, 1999). Therefore, additional research that helps
increase understanding as to the role interracial contact has on students’ racial attitudes can be
useful to educators who are responsible for developing citizens with the understanding and
capacity to govern and lead in an increasingly diverse and democratic society.
Current students are also our future workforce and business leaders. Studying
undergraduate business student’s attitudes towards other racial groups is important because the
attitudes these individuals possess are likely to travel with them into the workplace (Buttner, et
al., 2006). Currently little research exists examining the racial attitudes/perceptions of this
population. Therefore, this study can provide useful information to both educators and
corporations seeking to respectively graduate students and hire employees capable of adapting to
a more diverse and global workforce.
Lastly, as researchers over the years have added more situational factors in order for
optimal contact to occur, Allport’s hypothesis has also become less applicable to most interracial
contact situations (Pettigrew, 1998). Too many factors end up excluding most interracial
situations, which can result in the hypothesis rarely predicting positive results from contact, even
though research has typically found positive results (Pettigrew, 1998). What Pettigrew (1998)
found was that “most studies report positive contact effects, even in situations lacking key
conditions” (p. 68). Because of these findings, some researchers have suggested that future

13

studies should focus on creating a broader variety of measures of interracial contact (Forman &
Ebert, 2004; Wood and Sonleitner, 1996). For this reason, the current study will focus less on the
aforementioned situational factors and more broadly analyze students’ interracial contact by
looking at how the opportunity for contact, frequency of contact, and quality of contact affect
students’ racial perceptions of diverse others.
Definitions
The following items are terminology commonly used in the discussion of contact theory
and diversity and will be used frequently in this study.
Diversity: Considering that the focus of this study will be on the influence racial
diversity has on students’ perceptions of other racial groups, it seems important to define the
meaning of diversity. Building upon the work of Gurin (1999), Chang (1999) and Milem, et al.
(2002) this study identifies three types of diversity that impact students. These are structural
diversity, interactional diversity, and curricular/co-curricular diversity. Structural diversity refers
to the numerical representation of students from different racial groups. Interactional diversity
characterizes students’ exchange of information, ideas or experiences with people from different
racial groups. Curricular/Co-curricular diversity refers to students’ exposure to different races
through the formal classroom or workshops that focus on cultural awareness or ethnic studies.
Interracial Interaction/Contact, Cross-Racial Contact/Interaction, and Intergroup
Contact/Interaction: Each of these terms will be used interchangeably throughout this study and
when used will refer to the opportunity for contact or interaction occurring between individuals or
groups of individuals and different races or racial groups through various forms of diversity.
These terms can refer to how frequently respondents have dated, studied, discussed racial issues,

14

or taken time to learn more about someone of a different race with someone outside of their
defined racial identity.
Minority or Students of Color: Although broad in definition, for the purposes of this
study minority, minorities, and students of color will refer to a group of people who differ racially
from the dominant group in society. When used in this study, it will refer to people who are of
American Indian, Black, Asian, Latino/Chicano, or Bi-racial ancestry.
Race: Race is viewed from an anthropological perspective within this study. When used
it will be referring to an arbitrary classification of people, based on a combination of various
physical characteristics, primarily skin color.
Racism: Is a belief that some races have distinct cultural characteristics that make them
superior to others, which often leads to abusive behavior, hatred or intolerance towards these
other races.
Affirmative Action: A great deal of the confusion over affirmative action rests in a
misunderstanding of how it is defined. To help clarify for readers what is meant when affirmative
action is referred to in this study, affirmative action will be defined as it is by the American
Psychological Association (1999): Affirmative action is a remedy for both past and continuing
discrimination based on race, ethnicity, and gender. Affirmative action policies seek to put in
place voluntary and mandatory efforts by federal, state, and local governments, private
employers, and schools that combat discrimination, foster fair hiring practices, and ensure the
advancement of qualified individuals.
Democratic Citizen: Advocates who support diverse learning environments and interracial
interaction argue that experiences with diversity educate and prepare students to become citizens
of a multicultural democracy. In other words, to be democratic citizens (i.e., individuals prepared

15

to embrace an egalitarian society in which all members enjoy equal social, political, and
economic rights and opportunities regardless of their race, gender, ethnicity, religion or other
traits and characteristics).
Dissertation Overview
The following chapters of this study provide a review of relevant literature, the research
methodology employed, findings of the study, and discussion of the implications of the data.
Chapter two provides the context of the study through a review of the literature concerning the
diversification of the American higher education system, the benefits of a diverse campus, a
historical overview of Gordon Allport’s Contact Theory, and analysis of the existing and relevant
research on interracial interaction and college students. Chapter three identifies the research
methodology employed in this study and the reasons for its implementation. Chapter four
presents readers with findings based on survey data collected from business students enrolled at a
large public Midwestern University. The final chapter discusses the primary interpretations,
implications, limitations, and recommendations of the study.

16

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter presents a review of the literature on which the current study is grounded.
The following literature review is presented in two parts. Part I provides an historical overview
of the diversification of the U.S. higher education system, the effect this diversification has had
on colleges and universities, and reviews the challenges a racially diverse campus creates for
educators and administrators. In addition, I will examine the arguments surrounding the benefits
of a racial diverse campus, the influence a diverse student body has on an institution’s climate,
and the role higher education has in preparing their students for the rapidly diversifying
workforce. In Part II, a review of the theoretical framework upon which this study is grounded is
discussed. I will provide an historical overview of the intergroup contact theory, which is a social
psychological theory that posits interaction occurring under appropriate conditions between
racially dissimilar groups or individuals leads to reduced prejudice and improved interactions,
followed by a review of the existing research on intergroup contact theory as it pertains to
reducing racial bias and prejudice amongst college students. Lastly, I will analyze a select group
of studies in greater detail that examine how interracial contact impacts how students view and
engage individuals from different racial groups during and after college.
Part I: Racial Diversification of Higher Education
U. S. Institutions of Higher Education 1636 - 2012
Although U.S. institutions of higher education are more racially and ethnically diverse
than at any other time in their storied history this diversification is a relatively recent
development. From the founding of America’s first university, Harvard, in 1636 until after the
Civil War, nearly all minorities and women were excluded from obtaining a college education

17

(Anderson, 2002). During this time period most American colleges and universities were
privately funded institutions whose primary purpose was the education of society’s elite. Oberlin
College was one exception; opening its doors in 1833 Oberlin admitted its first Black students in
1835 and by the 1840s and 1850s achieved average Black enrollment rates of between 4 and 5
percent (Anderson, 2002). Nonetheless, educational historians estimate that during the first 230
years of the U.S. higher education system (1636-1866), fewer than 30 Black students graduated
from the existing colleges and universities (Sollors, Titcomb, & Underwood, 1993).
The shift of the U.S. educational system from one composed mostly of elite privately
funded institutions to one comprised of institutions primarily funded by the public through taxes
transformed the landscape of American higher education. Immediately following the Civil War
and continuing through World War I (1866-1919), an increasing number of higher educational
institutions were opened throughout the United States (Anderson, 2002). A significant portion of
this growth was spurred by the passing of the Morrill Act of 1862, which established the creation
of numerous land-grant colleges whose focus would be “serving the educational, cultural,
economic, and political interests of various local and state constituencies” (Anderson, 2002, p.
5). Although enrollments in higher education grew rapidly during this time, increasing from
approximately 2,243 students in 1882 to over 135,000 enrolled students by 1916, the racial
composition of these institutions changed little with Blacks and other non-White groups
continuing to be excluded from participation in the American higher education system
(Anderson, 2002).
The exclusion of minorities from White institutions of higher education continued to be
supported by the Jim Crow laws of the southern states and the institutionalized racism of the
northern states for another five decades. The ruling in the 1896 Supreme Court case, Plessey v.

18

Ferguson, helped to reinforce the continued segregation of America’s higher education system.
Plessy created a legal foundation for what at the time were only state or local segregation laws.
Jim Crow laws were state and local laws enacted largely by southern states between 1876 and
1965 that mandated a legal right for racial segregation of all public facilities, with a clause for
“separate but equal” treatment for Blacks and other minorities. In reality, Blacks and minorities
were subjected to horrific discrimination and provided inferior accommodations compared to
those of Whites, especially when it came to institutions of higher education. Unlike their
southern counterparts, institutions of higher education in the north did not have laws to keep
Blacks and other minorities from enrolling or teaching at their institutions. Instead, they relied
on an equally effective tool known as institutional racism. Anderson (2002, p. 3) describes
institutional racism as a “form of ethnic discrimination and exclusion through routine
organizational policies and procedures that do not use ethnicity or color as the rational for
discrimination, but instead rely on non-racist rationales to effectively exclude members of ethnic
minority groups.”
As a result of these laws and policies, the higher education of minorities took much
different paths than those of Whites. For instance, Blacks seeking advanced education from
1866 until well after World War II had little choice but to enroll in what have come to be known
as Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). Initially, mainly northern missionary
societies and abolitionists established Black colleges. Unfortunately, many of these institutions
were poorly funded and often focused on the assimilation of Blacks so that they were more
acceptable to Whites (Brazzell, 1992). Publicly funded Black colleges did not come to fruition
until after the Gaines decision of 1938, which ordered institutions either to admit Blacks or to
provide them another school of equal stature within their state borders. However, the few public

19

institutions that were created to serve Blacks following the Gaines decision were marginalized
and inferior colleges compared to existing White institutions (Anderson, 2002) largely due to
pressure placed on political leaders by White citizens in the south who feared that providing
Blacks with an equal education would lead to Blacks demanding social equality (Anderson,
2002). So although these institutions played in important role in the education of Black
Americans, for decades most of these institutions were limited by states to providing their
students with no more than an elementary or secondary level education (Anderson, 2002).
Native and Chicano Americans struggling to obtain an equitable education shared many
similarities with those of Black Americans. Two of the more notable similarities were that few
of these colleges provided collegiate level courses and most were founded with the goal of
assimilating Chicano or Indigenous populations (see Belgrade, 1992 and Moreno, 1999 for more
in-depth discussion).
Unfortunately, this pattern of segregation and racial discrimination remained unchanged
from the 1930s through the early 1970s. Even after the passing of Brown v. the Board of
Education in 1954, which legally mandated the admission of minorities to White colleges and
universities in the southern states, it took almost two decades before minorities were admitted
with regularity to all White colleges or universities (Anderson, 2002). However, by the late
1960s and early 1970s the racial landscapes of American institutions of higher education began
to change. For instance, African American enrollment at Harvard rose from about 100 students
in 1961 to 1000 students by 1973 (Weinberg, 1977). In addition, “by 1968 almost half of the
nation’s colleges and universities were making some efforts to recruit and provide financial
assistance to students of color” (Anderson, 2002, p. 10). Although there were numerous forces
at work that led to this increased access for minorities, the civil rights movement played an

20

integral role. As the civil rights movement grew to include racial groups beyond Black
Americans and social unrest increased, it became clear to government officials that something
would need to be done to address the longstanding and entrenched practices and policies that for
centuries had kept minorities from having more than limited access to educational, political,
economic, and social institutions (Anderson, 2002).
The something would come in the form of one of the most heralded pieces of legislation
in the history of the United States. In his 1963 civil rights speech, John F. Kennedy called for
the creation of a body of law that would ban racial discrimination throughout the United States.
However, due to President Kennedy’s assassination in November of 1963, President Lyndon B.
Johnson saw to the creation and implementation of this legislation, which has become known as
the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Historically, various legislative acts had been passed to address the
inequalities that existed for minorities in society; the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would be the first
to succeed. The Act officially outlawed all major forms of discrimination throughout the United
States. Schools, employers, government agencies and public businesses could no longer
discriminate against individuals because of their race. The Act also invalidated the Jim Crow
laws of the south, beginning the elimination of segregation for races in schools, housing and
employment. As a result, enrollments of minorities in higher education institutions surged,
beginning the creation of a mosaic on college campus never seen in the history of the American
higher education system.
Even though slow in coming, the four decades since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have
seen a rapid shift in the racial composition of U.S. institutions of higher education. Some of this
growth can be attributed to minorities finally being able to enroll in White colleges and
universities, but it has also been fueled by the fast changing racial composition of the United

21

States that has led to an increased number of racially diverse college age youth (Keller, 2001;
NCES, 2007). For instance, between 1984 and 1994, minorities on college campuses increased
by over 60% whereas White student enrollment only increased by 5% (Pascarella & Terenzini,
1998). The National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) has predicted that the steady
increase in college-bound students will continue into the next decade and that most of this
growth will be in the form of minority and other historically underrepresented groups (2007). An
examination of enrollment rates between 1976 and 2004 demonstrates that in less than three
decades, minorities went from accounting for 17% to approximately 32% of the total
undergraduate enrolled population (NCES, 2007). This growth is not slowing down. The
Educational Testing Service estimates that by 2015 approximately 80% of the predicted 2.6
million new college students will be of a race other than White (Carnvale & Fry, 2000).
This shift in the makeup of the student body has had a significant effect on institutions of
higher education. One of the most notable effects has been the increase in racial tensions among
students across college campuses and universities. The following section provides an overview
of how these tensions have affected institutions of higher learning.
Impact of Racial Tensions on College Campuses
Even though our colleges and universities have become increasingly diverse, society as a
whole still remains relatively segregated. Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians still largely
reside in neighborhoods and attend schools with racial compositions similar to their own (Orfield
& Lee, 2006; Reardon & Yun, 2002). Frankenberg, Lee, and Orfield (2003) found that 72% of
Blacks and 76% of Hispanics attend high schools where half or more of the student body was not
White, whereas only 11% of Whites attended schools that were predominately non-White
(Frankenberg, Lee & Orfield, 2003). The following map of the United States (Figure 1) provides

22

a visual reference for the segregation that still exists throughout the United States (U.S. Census
Bureau 2010 Census). Counties where minorities represent 50% of the population or more are
represented in dark blue and counties where Whites account for 90% or more of the population
are represented in white. The fact is that for many students, college is often the first time these
national patterns of racial segregation are broken down through diversity experiences with
individuals from racial groups different than their own (Bowman & Brandenberger, 2012; Gurin
et al., 2002).
Figure 1
Minority Population as Percentage of County Pop. (2010 Census Data)

Map Created by U.S. Census Bureau (2010). For interpretation of the references to color in this
and all other figures, the reader is referred to the electronic version of this dissertation.
23

What impact has this had on America’s higher educational institutions? One of the most
notable effects has been an increase in racial tensions and incidents on campuses nationwide. As
the number of Black and other minority student populations grew, once invisible groups began to
have a visual presence on what had been all White college campuses. With this visibility came
increased reports of harassment, intimidation, and violence. By the late 1980s, these types of
violence and intimidation were common enough to warrant their own classification as hate
crimes (Levin, 2002). Hate crimes are generally defined as crimes that are motivated by the
perpetrator’s bias toward the victim and done with the intention of hurting and intimidating
individuals because of their race, religion, national origin, gender, or sexual orientation (U.S.
Department of Justice Community Relations Service, 2003).
Prior to the early 1990’s, advocacy groups like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and
the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) provided most of the data on hate crimes (Levin,
2002). The passage of the 1990 Hate Crime Statistics Act changed the reporting process by
mandating the FBI collect hate crime data as part of their Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR)
program. The FBI was aided in this collection of data with the passing of the Clery Act in 1992
requiring universities to openly report crimes occurring on their campuses, specifically
identifying those crimes that appear to be motivated by prejudice (Levin, 2002). Shortly
thereafter, the FBI conducted a study that specifically looked at hate crimes on college campuses.
Surveying 450 higher education institutions from 40 states, they found that 222 or 49% of these
institutions reported at least one hate crime incident occurring on their campuses in 1998 (FBI
Uniform Crime Report, n. d.). In 1996, colleges and schools accounted for 799 or approximately
9.1% of all hate crimes, where by 2008 these same institutions accounted for 907 or 11.7% of all
hate crimes reported (FBI Uniform Crime Report, 2010). Since 1996, the FBI has listed schools

24

and college campuses as the third most common place for hate crimes to occur, with people’s
residences and public highways being the two most common respectively (FBI Uniform Crime
Report, 2010). These numbers may not seem overly significant, but they are likely just the tip of
the iceberg. Because hate crimes are often difficult to prove and because colleges are often
reluctant to label incidents as hate crimes due to the negative press associated with them, it is
likely that many hate crimes are misclassified, go unidentified, or are not reported by victims
(Wessler & Moss, 2001). The SPLC predicts that the real number of hate crimes in the U.S.
annually is 15 times higher than those currently reported by the FBI (Southern Poverty Law
Center, 2005). Current FBI statistics show that less than 10,000 hate crimes occur per year.
Regardless of the exact numbers, a review of hate crimes on college campuses reveals a
disturbing problem for universities and colleges. Recent examples of hate crimes occurring on
college campuses include an individual who ignited a homemade pipe bomb with the letters
KKK written on it in the dorm room of two Black students enrolled at a small college in Utah
and an incident where three White students at a university in Maine left an anonymous racist and
threatening voicemail message for a Black student that began with the statement “I wonder what
you’re gonna look like dead?” (Altschiller, 2005, p.135). In 2002, on the campus of Oklahoma
State University, three fraternity members simulated a Ku Klux Klan lynching with one member
dressed in a Klan robe pretending to hang another member wearing a prison uniform in
Blackface while the third member stood over him dressed in overalls, bearing a confederate flag
and a bullwhip (Case, 2005). Other incidents in the last decade include cotton balls found strewn
about the floor outside of a Black cultural center at University of Missouri-Columbia, a swastika
found scrawled on the bathroom wall near a Jewish studies center on the campus of the
University of Miami, and death threats against Black students on a bathroom wall at Hocking

25

College in Ohio (Surge in Campus Hate Crimes, 2010). In 2010, two of the more notable
incidents included a rope noose found hanging from a tree outside a Black cultural center on the
campus of the University of Maryland and a student group at UC San Diego organizing a
“Compton Cookout” to mock Black History Month to which guest were encouraged to dress in
cheap urban clothing, sport chains, gold teeth, nappy hair and come prepared to eat watermelon,
chicken, and drink malt liquor and cheap beer (Surge in Campus Hate Crimes, 2010).
These acts are often seen as more shocking by society because they typically view higher
educational institutions as oases of tolerance and understanding. In short, college is not only the
first time students have the opportunity to live, study, work, and engage with individuals that
look different from themselves, it is also the first time many interact with individuals that exhibit
social behaviors, lifestyles, values, and ideals that are substantially dissimilar to their own. This
lack of knowledge and experience with the “other”, fear of the unknown, students’ desires for
acceptance by their peer group, feelings of increased competition for limited resources and even
perceived rivalries between groups or individuals can account for some of the aforementioned
acts occurring on our college campuses.
Whatever the cause, these incidents have created numerous challenges for university
administrators who are trying to maintain their image as bastions of tolerance and democratic
principles. Although the challenges are numerous, the following section will highlight what
research has identified as the most salient challenges for colleges and universities regarding the
increasing diversity of their student bodies.
Challenges Created by a Diverse Student Body
Even though student bodies have diversified rapidly, U.S. education institutions
curriculums, organizational policies and practices, administrative structures, and faculty have

26

been much slower to adjust to the increasingly diverse and complex needs of these new student
bodies. For the first time in the history of the U.S. education system, colleges and universities
were faced with the challenge of supporting populations of students of which they had little prior
knowledge or experience. This lack of knowledge created numerous challenges for institutions of
higher education. Although not comprehensive, some of the more prominent challenges for
institutions of higher education include a professoriate unfamiliar in working with students from
different racial and cultural backgrounds, a student population unprepared for the challenges
associated with college, increased demands to diversify the curriculum, the self-segregation of
racial groups, and the challenge of reducing existing racial tensions (Altbach, Lomotey, &
Rivers, 2002).
Like much of the student population at most predominantly White institutions, the faculty
has remained overwhelmingly White, male and middle class (Altbach et. al., 2002). As a result,
many faculty members are at a disadvantage when it comes to engaging and having insight into
the instructional needs of lower income and minority students. Beyond being unfamiliar with
this new population of students, the professoriate has also resisted changes to what they see as
the academic ethic (responsibility of higher education) and the historical traditions of colleges
and universities (Altbach et. al., 2002). This stance has resulted in many faculty opposing
structural and curricular changes designed to create more supportive environments for minority
students (Altbach, et. al., 2002). The lack of minority faculty on college campuses has also
negatively impacted the graduation and retention rates of minority students in comparison to
those of White students (Allen, Epps, Guillory, Suh, Bonous-Hammarth, & Stassen, 2002).
Another challenge for higher education institutions has been that many minority students
come to college from secondary school programs that are inferior to those attended by White

27

students. As a result, students from these school systems often enter college lacking the
academic preparation necessary to be immediately competitive at the college level. This
deficiency was not initially recognized by colleges and universities, resulting in higher than
average attrition rates for most minority populations, especially in comparison to those of Whites
(Altbach, et. al., 2002). The good news is that over the last two decades, attrition rates have
improved for most minority groups. To achieve this increase, institutions of higher education
have had to implement college-level remediation courses designed to help bring these students’
performance to the college level and to create uniquely designed advising and support programs
(Solmon, Solmon, & Schiff, 2002). The challenge has been that the remedial courses and
support services implemented to assist these populations often require reassigning a proportion
of an institution’s increasingly limited resources, resulting in these courses and programs
typically being the first to be cut during difficult budgetary times (Solmon, et. al., 2002).
As the overall number of minority groups on campus grew, they started to display a level
of solidarity surrounding issues that directly impacted them on campus. One such issue has been
their desire to see an integration of their cultural and ethnic perspectives into the traditional
curriculum (Altbach, et. al., 2002). Even though much of the traditional curriculum has remained
unchanged, organized student activism throughout the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s led to the
establishment of various ethnic studies programs at colleges and universities across the United
States (Altbach, et. al., 2002). Such programs include African American, Asian, Latino and
Native American Studies Programs. Unfortunately, most of these programs have not been well
funded and in most instances exist on the peripheral edges of these institutions, causing
marginalized student groups to often feel even more marginalized. These programs also have not
been well received by faculty, who are steadfast in their opposition to tampering with the

28

traditional curriculum, and administrators, who only see the increased costs associated with the
creation of these new specializations and courses (Altbach, et. al., 2002). This debate gained
momentum when former U.S. Secretary of Education William Bennett spoke out against what he
called the “watering down” of the traditional liberal arts curriculum in the late 1990’s and has
remained on the national stage ever since (Altbach, et. al., 2002).
Universities and colleges are also facing the challenge of an increasing number of
homogenous communities on campus. A growing number of students have formed smaller
enclaves within the larger campus community based on commonalities such as race, gender,
religion, and sexual orientation. Minorities as well as White students have historically sought
out individuals with whom they feel safe, who they feel understand them, and around whom they
can speak freely without being judged based on their beliefs or values (Whitt, Edison, Pascarella,
Terenzini, & Nora, 2001). This has been especially true for minority students who also struggle
to find a cultural fit on campuses, who are more likely to have been on the receiving end of racist
behaviors and who see few professors and staff from their racial group to whom they can turn to
for advice and support. Desire for safe places where students can technically “be themselves” is
understandable, however the segregation of the population into groups based on commonalities
such as race can also increase the focus on and heighten tensions about these differences, which
itself can lead to increased racial tension on campuses (Astin, 1993).
Lastly, institutions continue to deal with increasing racial tensions and incidents on their
campuses. Some institutions have had marginal success implementing programs and policies
designed at reducing racial tensions and racist behaviors, however, racially motivated acts and
crimes continue to occur on campuses nationwide. The limited success of these programs and
policies is largely because most are half-hearted attempts or temporary fixes by the

29

administration to what is an ongoing problem (Altbach, et. al., 2002). In addition, because of
social media outlets such as Facebook and Twitter, when racial incidents do occur, the
institution’s image and reputation are brought into question and at times irreparably damaged
before the university is even aware of the issue.
Taking into consideration the impact and challenges an increasingly racially diverse
student body creates for institutions of higher education, one should not be surprised that
individuals have raised doubts as to the benefits and necessity of racially diverse campuses.
This has led to a two sided debate that has raged on for over three-decades. The following
discussion will address the main facets of this debate and provide an overview of the research
that supports and opposes the need for diverse student bodies.
Is a Racially Diverse Campus Beneficial?
Since the early 1980’s a nationwide debate has ensued as to the benefits of a racially
diverse campus (antonio, 2001b). Considering the increased racial tensions and challenges often
associated with a racially diverse campus, it is not surprising that such a polarizing discussion
has emerged. Diversity has also become intertwined with many age-old educational issues; for
instance, discussions about freedom of speech in the classroom are now focused on incidents of
racially motivated hate speech, issues surrounding faculty hiring and promotion now are
discussed from the perspective of the racial composition of the university faculty, and
discussions about student conduct now center on the increasing incidents of racism on campus
(Altbach & Lomotey, 1991; Dalton, 1991; Hively, 1990). The infusion of diversity into all
aspects of the university has led individuals engaged in the aforementioned debate to develop
stances supporting or opposing diversity. These perspectives have changed little over the last

30

three decades. To assist readers in understanding both sides of this debate, proponents and
opponents arguments concerning diversity will be reviewed in the following paragraphs.
Higher education leaders and other proponents of campus diversity have generally
supported the increasing diversification of their campuses, firmly believing that a racially diverse
student body is necessary for institutions of higher education to adequately prepare their students
to be effective citizens in a multicultural and global society (e.g., Bolinger, 2001, Rudenstine,
1996; Young, 1995). Proponents believe that students who engage with peers from different
racial and ethnic backgrounds develop more understanding and tolerant viewpoints and attitudes
concerning diversity. They also believe that diversity positively impacts students in numerous
ways including improving their retention rates, overall satisfaction with college, and critical
thinking skills. Conversely, critics oppose the diversification of our institutions of higher
learning pointing to increased racial tensions and self-segregation on college campuses as
examples of how racial diversification has actually led to students entering society with
increased levels of racial intolerance and ethnocentrism (D’Souza, 1991; Sowell, 1989).
Opponents also tend to believe that increased interaction with other racial groups provides few if
any positive social or educational outcomes.
Diversity in the curriculum has also been an area of contention. Individuals on both sides
of the debate view the undergraduate curriculum as having tremendous potential to influence
future society (Baez, 2000). Proponents, who envision a future society that values and respects
cultural difference, see higher education as the vehicle by which to achieve that future. These
individuals view the traditional curriculum as an obstacle to this goal because they feel it ignores
the multicultural tapestry that makes up American society. As a result, throughout the 1980’s and
1990’s, proponents pushed for the transformation of the undergraduate curriculum to include

31

representation of women and minorities. On the other hand, opponents typically view the
undergraduate curriculum as a tool through which to develop a common and shared cultural
identity that unites American society around a set of generally shared goals (Baez, 2000). These
individuals perceive changes or challenges to the traditional curriculum (i.e., changing the
curriculum to reflect the perspectives of multiple groups) as a threat to the “American cultural
tradition” (Baez, 2000, p.384). Although the debate over diversity in higher education still
continues today, both sides have been somewhat successful in achieving their objectives. For
instance, proponents have succeeded in diversifying campuses and in making the undergraduate
curriculum more open to the perspectives of others via the creation of ethnic and gender studies
programs, whereas opponents have been relatively successful in maintaining much of the
traditional curriculum as it has always been taught.
The ongoing debate over the benefit of diversity in higher education has led to a
mounting body of literature on the topic; however, this still is a relatively new area of
educational research (Denson & Chang, 2009). Even though a significant portion of the
literature supports the aforementioned beliefs of proponents, research does exist that raises
questions as to the benefits of a diverse learning environment. The following section provides an
overview of the relevant literature in support and opposition of a racially diverse student body.
Benefits of Diversity in Higher Education
Over the last two decades a number of studies have arisen that address the benefits of
diversity in higher education. Three diversity types have been identified based on studies by
Gurin (1999), Chang (1999) and Milem and Hakuta (2000). These diversity types are structural
diversity, curricular/co-curricular diversity, and interactional diversity. Structural diversity
refers to the numerical representation of students from different racial groups. Curricular/Co-

32

curricular Diversity refers to students’ exposure to different races through the formal classroom
or workshops that focus on cultural awareness or ethnic studies. Interactional diversity
characterizes students’ exchange of information, ideas or experiences with people from different
racial groups. Milem, et al. (2000) found that exposure to diversity through multiple
perspectives, as described above, contributed to augmented openness to diversity, higher levels
of intellectual engagement, improved complex thinking, and increased motivation (antonio,
2001b).
From the structural diversity perspective, Bowen and Bok (1998) found that White and
Black alumni reported benefiting from attending an institution with an increased enrollment of
racially diverse students. Specifically, these alumni felt that diversity improved their ability to
engage members of other races and led to more positive attitudes toward other races in general
(Denson et al., 2009). Antonio (2001a) found that the presence of even one minority student in a
predominately White undergraduate discussion group enhanced the complexity of thought for the
entire group.
In a review of research existing on the impact of co-curricular diversity, Denson et al.
(2009) identified numerous scholars who showed co-curricular diversity relating positively to
such outcomes as racism and intergroup understanding (Chang, 2002), intergroup attitudes
(Lopez, 1993), critical thinking skills (Pascarella, Palmer, Moye & Pierson, 2001), cognitive and
affective development (Astin, 1993a), learning and democracy outcomes (Gurin, Dey, Hurtado,
& Gurin, 2002), and civic, job-related and learning outcomes (Hurtado, 2001).
Other scholars have focused specifically on the impact cross-racial interaction (i.e.,
interactional diversity) has in developing cultural awareness and racial understanding in students.
Astin (1993b) found that socializing with someone from a different racial group often led to

33

increased cultural awareness, a commitment to racial understanding, a higher level of academic
development, and greater satisfaction with college (antonio, 2001a). In a multi-institutional
study of interracial interaction, Chang (1996) found that increased structural diversity directly
led to increased frequency of interracial interaction. He found that increased interracial
interactions ranging from the discussion of racial issues in college to attending racial/cultural
awareness workshops enhanced student retention rates, satisfaction with college, and individual’s
intellectual and social self-concept (Chang, 1996). Other researchers have shown interaction
diversity to be positively associated with student learning and personal development (Hu & Kuh,
2003), critical thinking skills (Nelson Laird, 2005), and student satisfaction with their overall
college experience (Chang, 2001).
Although the studies that support diversity in higher education tend to be more prevalent,
not all studies on this subject report positive findings. Directly contradicting much of the
research that supports a racially diverse student body, Umbach and Kuh (2006) found that
students attending liberal arts colleges with largely homogenous student bodies tended to report
having more experience with and a deeper understanding of diversity then did their counterparts
attending larger and typically more racially diverse institutions. Rothman, Lipset, and Nevitte
(2003) concluded that racial diversity provided few positive outcomes and even led to negative
effects on students’ attitudinal and educational outcomes (Denson et. al., 2009). They found that
as the number of minorities increased student satisfaction decreased, the perceived quality of
education declined, and reports of discrimination increased (Rothman et. al., 2003). Other
academic scholars have also posed questions as to the real impact of interacting with diverse
peers in college. D’Souza (1991) argued that a multicultural campus only leads to balkanization
(self-segregation) and increased levels of racial intolerance, even ethnocentrism. In a study that

34

focused mostly on White students attending Ivy League institutions, he argued that interactions
with diverse peer groups most often led to increased racial tensions and created inhospitable and
disaffirming campus environments for all students. In research conducted under the auspices of
the National Association of Scholars, Wood and Sherman (2001) attempted to discredit research
findings that support the diversity rationale, while countering with the argument that diversity
does not lead to a free exchange of ideas or positive diversity outcomes because the research
supporting it is flawed (Pike & Kuh, 2006).
The rapid diversification of American society and increasing levels of racial
heterogeneity in colleges and universities (NCES, 2007), coupled with the increasing demand
corporations are placing on institutions of higher education to produce employees prepared to
work in an increasingly diverse and global environment (Engberg, 2007), will likely make both
arguments less relevant over time. Based on the growth in minority enrollment that has already
occurred, combined with the aforementioned diversity projections, it is highly likely that
educators and administrators will be more concerned with how to create institutions able to serve
this new student body effectively and producing graduates capable of working in diverse
environments than they will be about arguing if a diverse student body is beneficial or not.
To help illuminate my decision to focus this study on the impact interracial contact has
on the racial perceptions of domestic undergraduate business students, the following section will
highlight Corporate America’s push to hire employees who possess the democratic skills
necessary to work with and manage diverse populations while also discussing the role
institutions of higher education have in preparing their students to enter an increasingly diverse
society and workforce.

35

Workforce Diversity and the Role of Higher Education
Since the beginning of the last decade, it has been increasingly understood that for
corporations to remain competitive in a global marketplace, they must learn to capitalize on the
benefits associated with a diverse workforce (Cox & Blake, 1991; Salomon & Schork, 2003;
Buttner, Lowe, & Billings-Harris, 2006). The importance corporations place on diversity is
evident in the fact that today almost every U.S. Corporation has implemented some sort of
diversity policy within its company (Salomon, et al., 2003). In a small random sampling of
Fortune 500 companies, over 80 percent reported having a formal diversity program (Ogunjimi,
2010). Research has also provided evidence supporting this movement, showing that
corporations able to employ an educated and diverse workforce enjoy a competitive advantage
over less diverse competitors (Cox, 1993). For instance, 50 corporations identified by Fortune
magazine as the best places for minorities to work had five-year stakeholder returns over 15%
higher than the S&P 500 (Salomon, et al., 2003). Commonly identified drivers of diversity
within corporations include access to a broader talent pool, improved innovation, stronger
customer relations, improved productivity, increased speed and agility, and stakeholder demand
(Salomon, et al., 2003). Cox, et al. (1991), identified six primary areas where diversity gives a
corporation a competitive advantage: cost, resource acquisition, marketing, creativity, problem
solving, and organizational flexibility. In short, the competitive advantage a diverse workforce
brings to a company remains the principal reason corporations have begun to embrace diversity.
Many corporations deem the advantages of a diverse workforce to be significant enough
that the desire to find qualified employees with the skills sets necessary to work effectively with
individuals of other races has become increasingly urgent. In their push to find the diverse talent
necessary to remain competitive, corporations have turned to universities who they are pressing to

36

step up the production of employees capable of leading a diverse and global workforce. For
instance, sixty-five of America’s leading businesses filed an amicus brief in support of the
University of Michigan’s affirmative action cases expressing their concern with being able to hire
and maintain a diverse workforce. These corporations made the case that in order for them to hire
and maintain a diverse workforce; they need individuals “who have been educated and trained in
a diverse environment” (Gratz et al., v. Bollinger et al., 2003: Grutter et al., v. Bollinger et al.,
2003b, p. 1). This push for employees qualified to face the challenges of a diverse workforce is
supported by research that shows exposure to campus diversity teaches students to think
critically, solve problems more quickly, and value diverse perspectives (Gurin, et al, 2002), all of
which are skills that translate into greater efficiency within diverse work environments (Engberg,
2007).
Although a sizeable amount of research has been conducted on the learning and
democratic benefits of diversity, little research until recently has been conducted linking a diverse
student body to student’s preparation for future employment. The role higher education plays in
producing employees ready to enter an increasingly diverse workforce was elevated during the
affirmative action lawsuits the University of Michigan faced in the late 90’s early 00’s. Gurin
(1999), in a report used during the University of Michigan Supreme Court cases concerning the
use of race in university admissions, provided empirical evidence as to the relevance diversity
plays in improving student learning, in enhancing civic values, and in their preparation for future
employment. This argument resonated with Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who
in writing the majority opinion for the 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger ruling stated, “Diversity
promotes learning outcomes and better prepares students for an increasingly diverse workforce,
for society, and for the legal profession. Major American businesses have made clear that the

37

skills needed in today’s increasingly global marketplace can only be developed through exposure
to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints” (Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306,
330 [2003]).
However, some questions still exist as to whether colleges and universities are capable of
producing employees with the skills necessary to be competitive in today’s marketplace. In a
report issued by the RAND Institute, corporate leaders ranked cognitive and social skills, such as
the ability to communicate, negotiate, and interact across difference, much higher than specific
knowledge while emphasizing that these skills remain “in shortest supply among entry-level
candidates” (Bikson & Law, 1994, p. 26). On the other hand, the Association of American
Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) believes colleges and universities are uniquely positioned,
“by their mission, values, and dedication to learning, to foster and nourish the habits of heart and
mind that Americans need to make diversity work in daily life” (AAC&U, 1995, p. xvi). More
recently, the AAC&U (2002) has even begun to advocate for a college level education that
produces an “empowered, informed, and responsible” student capable of negotiating the
inevitable differences of a diverse society (p. xi). The National Association of State Universities
and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC) (1997) asserts that it is the duty of institutions of higher
education to provide educational environments that promote increased civic responsibility and
ethical behaviors amongst its students, thus helping develop citizens capable of negotiating a
racially and globally diverse society (Mayhew & Engberg, 2010). Couple the pressure being
placed on universities and colleges by corporations to produce employees qualified to effectively
work in an increasingly diverse labor force with the research pointing to the improved learning
and democratic outcomes students gain when exposed to diversity and it becomes clear that
colleges and universities are not only capable of training and preparing their students to be

38

effective members of an increasingly diverse society and workforce, but they are likely the best
setting in which such preparation and training should occur.
Whether they want this responsibility or not, institutions of higher education will need to
respond to the diversification of their campuses, the future preparatory needs of their student
bodies, and the pressures of their corporate partners. If colleges and universities truly embrace
the ideology that one of their key missions is the development of democratic and civic-minded
leaders for an increasingly heterogeneous society, then providing a campus environment for their
students that can improve the racial tensions on their campuses will be of utmost importance. In
the next section I will review the impact of a campus’s climate on student development and
retention and discuss the role interracial interaction can play in improving the climate of our
colleges and universities.
Campus Climate and the Role of Interracial Interaction
To accomplish the monumental task of preparing students to be the democratic citizens
society and corporations are demanding, educators must address the aforementioned challenges
created by an increasing racially diverse student body; paying close attention to those challenges
associated with the mounting racial tensions on their campuses. At the minimum, racial tensions
on campus disrupt the teaching and learning process, but if left unchecked they can poison the
entire climate of a campus (Hurtado et al., 1999). Everything from the attitudes, values, and
expectations of the faculty, staff, and students to an institution’s historical policies and social
structures create a general atmosphere often referred to as an institution’s campus climate
(Peterson & Spencer, 1990). The less welcoming the campus climate is to various individuals or
groups, the more likely these groups and individuals are to encounter harassment or feelings of
isolation that can directly impact their academic and social integration.

39

Numerous studies have identified a negative campus climate being responsible for
students feeling alienated, experiencing poor academic adjustment and performance, lacking
institutional commitment, experiencing lower levels of social, personal and emotional
adjustment, and less than positive experiences with university faculty and staff (see Cabrera &
Nora, 1994; Hurtado, Carter, & Spuler, 1996; Nora & Cabrera, 1996; Smedley, Myers, and
Harrell, 1993). Research has shown that a college’s perceived racial climate tends to impact
minority students at a higher rate than White students (see Astin, 1993b, Cabrera et al., 1994,
Huffman, 1991, Loo & Rolison, 1986, and Tierney, 1987). However, Gilliard (1996) and Nora,
et al., (1996) found that White student persistence rates were also negatively impacted by
perceptions of a poor campus climate. Essentially, an institutional climate that exposes students
to prejudice, or an environment which they perceive as discriminatory, impedes every student’s
cognitive (academic performance and adjustment) and non-cognitive (social, personal and
emotional adjustment) development; which often leads to numerous outcomes negatively
impacting a student’s level of institutional commitment and retention. In light of the increasing
diversification in our institutions of higher education and workforce, and the negative outcomes
associated with a poor campus climate, college and university administrators will need to address
how to lessen racial tensions on their campuses; creating a safe and welcoming learning
environment for every student.
One often suggested solution for improving relations among groups that are experiencing
conflict has been to increase exposure to and interaction between individuals from different
backgrounds. This theory has been coined the “contact hypothesis”, but is also known as
Intergroup Contact Theory, and was developed over 60 years ago by psychologist Gordon
Allport in his book the Nature of Prejudice (1954). Allport (1954) proposed that under

40

appropriate conditions (equal status, common goals, intergroup cooperation, and support of
authority figure/law/custom) interpersonal contact between different groups would lead to
reductions in prejudice and discrimination (Cowan, 2005). Essentially, if individuals have the
opportunity to converse, work, socialize, and live with individuals different from themselves,
they will gain a level of understanding and appreciation for those whom they view as different;
as a result of this new understanding and appreciation, prejudice and discrimination should then
diminish. Since the origination of this theory, a slew of researchers have conducted studies
supporting Allport’s theory that contact with peers from different racial and ethnic backgrounds
increases the chance for interracial interaction, which can positively impact individuals’
perceptions, beliefs, values, and behaviors regarding race and diversity (Chang, 2001). For
instance, a recent meta-analysis by Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) of over 500 studies found that
interracial contact in most instances reduced prejudice and intergroup bias.
Combine this information with the challenges and benefits associated with a diverse
student body and it would make sense for educators to strongly consider how intergroup
interaction can improve race relations on their campuses while enhancing the preparation of their
students to enter an increasingly diverse society and workforce. To support educators who may
encounter resistance to diversity initiatives and existing research on the benefits associated with
diverse campuses and classrooms, I put forth the current study with the goal of assessing the
influence interracial contact has on domestic undergraduate business students’ perceptions of
other racial groups. To do this, I will employ the contact hypothesis as a theoretical framework
through which to examine the question, do students who have higher levels and quality of
interracial contact exhibit more or less positive racial perceptions of other races? This theory will
be analyzed in greater depth in the following section of this chapter.

41

PART II: Theoretical Framework
The United States, its institutions of higher learning and workforce are becoming
progressively more diverse. To remain competitive in an ever-increasing diverse and global
economy, society will need individuals capable of understanding and working with diverse
groups of individuals who may not share the same physical features, ideologies, religious beliefs,
language, or culture. The burden of developing such democratic citizens has largely fallen on
the shoulders of our colleges and universities which society and corporations view as being best
suited for preparing citizens capable of negotiating a racially and globally diverse society and
workforce. Faced with these expectations, educators have begun to seek ways of developing
students prepared to be democratic citizens of an increasingly diverse society and workforce. A
half-century-old theory that has been shown to improve what Gurin, et al. (2002, p. 339) deemed
student “democracy outcomes”, is to increase the amount of contact and interaction between
individuals from different backgrounds. Through increased contact and experiences with diverse
peers, students showed improved racial understanding and cultural awareness (antonio2001b;
Milem, Umbach, & Liang, 2004), ability to work with other races (Orfield & Whitla, 2001), and
citizenship years after college (Duncan, Boisoly, Levy, Kremer, & Eccles, 2003). Psychologist
Gordon Allport developed this theory, which is commonly known as the contact hypothesis or
intergroup contact theory, in his 1954 work called the Nature of Prejudice. Allport hypothesized
that interracial contact occurring under a set of four conditions (equal group status, shared or
common goals, intergroup cooperation, and the support of authorities, laws, or customs) would
lead to reductions in prejudice towards other racial groups.
Based on Allport’s study and the findings of numerous studies conducted on his theory
since, a number of educational institutions have begun to implement educational initiatives

42

designed to increase and encourage opportunities for positive interracial interactions (Engberg,
2004). These initiatives include multicultural courses, workshops, and training sessions designed
to enhance students’ awareness and understanding of different racial groups and their cultures
(Banks, 2001; Humphreys, 2000) and have largely focused on interracial contact as a medium
through which to explore differences, build cooperative communities, and gain exposure to
different perspectives and worldviews (Engberg, 2004; Zuniga, Nagda, & Sevig, 2002).
Although research has generally shown these initiatives to be successful (antonio, 1998; Astin,
1993a; Cabrera, Nora, Terenzini, Pascarella, & Hagedorn, 1999; Gurin, 1999; Vilalpando, 2002),
much of this empirical work has focused on interracial interactions from only one of three
distinct forms of racial diversity that include, structural diversity (racial composition of the
student body), curricular/co-curricular diversity (course/workshop efforts to expose students to
different races and cultures), and interaction diversity (face-to-face cross racial contact) (Denson
et al., 2009). Few studies have attempted to look at how a student’s amount of exposure to the
multiple types of diversity, regardless of type, influences her or his perception of other racial
groups.
Because students can engage with one another in multiple ways across the diversity
spectrum, to only focus on how exposure to one type of diversity impacts their non-cognitive and
cognitive development seemingly limits a researcher’s ability to assess the true impact of
interracial contact. Milem, et al. (2000) found that exposure to diversity through multiple
perspectives contributed to openness to diversity, higher levels of intellectual engagement,
enhanced critical thinking, and increased motivation (antonio, 2001b). In fact, Pettigrew (1998)
was critical of the field for concentrating on the effects of contact in isolated situations rather
than observing the cumulative effects of numerous contacts (Yeakley, 1998). This critique is

43

extremely relevant considering that it has been shown that attitude changes occurring from one
point of contact typically lessens over time, whereas attitude changes occurring from multiple
points of contact are more lasting (Yeakley, 1998). Thus, the current study endeavors to
determine if students who have higher levels of interracial contact exhibit more or less positive
racial perceptions of other races. In other words, do increased levels of cross-racial interaction
reduce or increase students’ prejudices towards other racial groups? Because of my interest in
evaluating the impact that increased levels of interracial contact have on students’ perceptions
and prejudices, the following study is grounded in Allport’s contact theory. In the proceeding
section I provide a historical overview of this theory.
Historical Synopsis of Contact Theory
Many advances in civil rights and in creating a society more open to diversity and
multiculturalism have been made over the past four decades, however the sad reality is that
racism and prejudice have been institutionalized in our society and institutions of higher
education (Pincus & Ehrlich, 1988). University administrators therefore must begin to address
ways in which they can reduce racial tension and prejudice while improving the overall climate
of their campuses. One of the seminal works regarding the reduction of racial tensions and
prejudice has been social scientist Gordon Allport’s study concerning the intergroup contact
hypothesis (1954). The essence of the contact hypothesis is that racism and prejudice are a
byproduct of ignorance and a lack of exposure to different racial groups. Simply stated, the more
contact that occurs between individuals from different groups the more they learn from one
another, which leads to a growth in liking and a reduction in prejudice. Initial research on
intergroup contact theory often showed that interracial contact had either no effect or negative
effects on racial perceptions and attitudes (Amir, 1976). Social scientists Watson (1947) and

44

Williams (1947) began to develop theories concerning interracial contact shortly after World
War II (as cited in Pettigrew, 1998); however, Allport’s hypothesis has proven to be the most
influential of these theories because it was the first to specify a set of conditions necessary for
interracial contact to successfully reduce prejudice (Pettigrew, 1998). First presented in The
Nature of Prejudice (1954), Allport theorized that for interracial contact to result in positive
outcomes, it needed to occur under a set of four conditions. First, groups need to be of equal
status (i.e., one racial group cannot have less power or ranking than the other), second, the
groups involved must have a shared or common goal, third, there must be intergroup cooperation
(i.e. for the groups to attain their goals the groups must work interdependently), and lastly,
contact must occur under the auspices of an authority figure, set of laws, or agreed upon customs
(Pettigrew, 1998). Allport (1954) warned that contact by itself, without these conditions, would
more often than not lead to an increase in prejudice.
Studies seeking to test the feasibility of Allport’s modification to the intergroup contact
theory quickly followed. After the desegregation of the Merchant Marine in 1948, a Brophy
(1946) found that the more voyages White seamen took with Blacks, where most or all of the
conditions noted above were present, the more positive their racial attitudes became (as cited in
Pettigrew, 1998). Kephart (1957) discovered that White police officers in Philadelphia who had
worked with Black officers under the aforementioned conditions tended to have fewer objections
to having a Black partner, taking orders from higher ranking Black officers, and to other Black
officers joining their districts (as cited in Pettigrew, 1998). Deutsch and Collins (1951)
compared desegregated housing projects in New York City with segregated projects in Newark
found a sharp difference in how White housewives viewed their Black neighbors (as cited in
Pettigrew, 1998). White housewives living in desegregated complexes were shown to have a

45

higher level of esteem for their Black neighbors and generally favored interracial housing (75%
approval) compared to their counterparts in Newark (25% approval).
In the five decades since Allport’s defining work, intergroup contact theory has become a
principal topic of study for many social psychologists. Although not all contact theory research
has supported what has become known as Allport’s contact hypothesis (see Brooks, 1975; Ford,
1973; Jackman & Crane, 1986; Welch & Sigelman, 2000), most studies report positive effects of
interracial contact, even in situations lacking Allport’s key conditions (Pettigrew, 1998).
Allport’s hypothesis has also been supported in studies involving a variety of settings, groups
and societies, including research on interracial workers in South Africa (Borman & Mynhardt,
1991), American perceptions of Asian immigrants (Riordan, 1987), disabled persons (Anderson,
1995), the mentally ill (Desforges, et al., 1991), homosexuals (Herek & Capitanio, 1996) AIDS
victims (Werth & Lord, 1992) and the elderly (Caspi, 1984) (as cited in Pettigrew, 1998). In
2006, Pettigrew and Tropp performed a meta-analysis on 525 contact theory studies that showed
significant association between interracial contact and reductions in prejudice and improved
racial attitudes. Their extensive findings indicated that interracial contact leads to a reduction in
racist attitudes and perceptions, that the reduction in prejudice towards those individuals in the
study often led to a generalized reduction in prejudice towards the entire population, that
prejudice reduction occurred across a plethora of targets (gender, class level, disability, sexual
orientation) and in a variety of settings and that reductions in racial bias even occurs when only a
few of Allport’s contact conditions are met. Focusing on the field of mental health, Smith,
Constantine, Dunn, Dinehart, and Montoya (2006) performed two separate meta-analyses
covering over 80 studies on the impact of multicultural training on mental health professionals’
levels of prejudice and bias. In both meta-analyses, they found significant evidence that

46

participants who engaged in multicultural training displayed lowered levels of prejudice and
racism.
In summary, a significant array of research on the contact hypothesis has been conducted
across varied settings, groups, cultures, and societies. This research as a whole tends to support
Allport’s theory that contact occurring under most or all of his specified conditions leads to
reductions in prejudice and improved perceptions of other groups. The theoretical foundations of
Allport’s theory, and the numerous studies on interracial contact that have followed, help in
understanding how such forms of contact can lessen racial tensions and long held prejudices.
Because of the rapidly changing demographics of higher education and the impact college and
peers have on students’ intellectual and personal development (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991;
Kuh, 1993), extensive research has also been conducted on this topic from the perspective of
college students. To better understand how this theory impacts college students, specifically
their racial perceptions and prejudices of others, the following section will look at interracial
contact theory research from the collegiate perspective.
Interracial Contact and College Students
Racial tensions on college campuses are often invasive, impacting almost every aspect of
the campus community, resulting in less than positive campus climates. Due to the importance
campus climate plays in a students’ academic (cognitive) and social (noncognitive) development,
a substantial quantity of research has been conducted on the impact interracial interaction has on
college students’ racial biases and openness to diverse perspectives and cultures. The
aforementioned research has focused on initiatives ranging from multicultural courses, diversity
workshops and training sessions to intergroup dialogue, collaborative learning and community

47

service programs. The following paragraphs highlight some of the more notable studies
performed on the subject of interracial interaction in relations to college-aged students.
In 2002, Chang conducted a study that set out to examine the impact diversity courses
had on students’ prejudicial attitudes. Using a cross-sectional design that examined 15 diversity
courses, he found that students surveyed prior to taking the diversity course showed higher levels
of prejudice than those surveyed after completing the course. Hurtado (2001) and Gurin, et al.
(2002) also studied the effects diversity-based courses had on White, Asian, Latino, and Black
student awareness, appreciations, and acceptance of different racial groups. Hurtado (2001)
found significant correlations between enrollment in a diversity course and the three outcomes
listed above, whereas Gurin, et al. (2002) noted positive influence on racial attitudes for White,
Asian, and Latino students, but not for Blacks.
Participation in diversity workshops was also found to improve relationships between
different racial groups. Pascarella, Edison, Nora, Hagedorn, and Terenzini (1996) and Whitt,
Edison, Pascarella, Terenzini, and Nora (2001), in a national study of CIRP data, found that
participation in diversity workshops during a student’s first year led to increased openness to
diversity for all students, but impacted White students’ attitudes more positively than those of
minority students. Vogelgesang (2001) noted significant improvements in openness to diversity
for Asian, White, and Black students but insignificant effects for Latino/a student’s.
Even programs whose intent is not explicitly directed at reducing racial tensions and
prejudice, such as service-learning projects, have been shown to positively affect students’
attitudes and perceptions. Etzioni (1983) felt this was likely due to these programs providing
students from diverse racial backgrounds the opportunity to interact with and get to know one
another on equal terms while working together to complete a common task or goal (as cited in

48

Engberg, 2004). Astin and Sax (1998) and Astin, Sax, and Avalos (1999) used CIRP data to
assess the impact service learning has on students’ openness to diversity. Astin and Sax found
that four specific types of service learning (i.e., education, public safety, environmental, and
humanitarian) significantly promoted racial understanding, enhanced their knowledge of
different racial groups, and helped students relate to people from different races and cultures
(1998). Astin et al., studied the long-term effects of participation in service projects and found
that students engaged in service-learning were more likely than non-participants to encourage
racial understanding and socialize with diverse groups 5 years later (1999).
Of the abundance of research that has been conducted on the educational interventions
used in reducing racial bias and promoting racial understanding amongst students, a considerable
number of these studies focus specifically on face-to-face interactions between students. The
focus on face-to-face interactions is likely due to researchers understanding the role students play
in one another’s cognitive and non-cognitive development. Feldman and Newcomb (1969)
argued that although numerous socializing agents’ impact students, their peers are the primary
vehicle for much of the socialization that transpires within colleges and universities. Chickering
(1969, p. 253) concurred stating, “a student’s most important teacher is another student”.
Alexander Astin (1993) found that a student’s peer group in some way or another affected almost
every aspect of a student’s development.
Much of the research on face-to-face interaction focuses on analyzing the impact of
educational interventions such as peer-facilitated training, living learning communities,
intergroup dialogue, and collaborative learning. Nelson, Johnson, Boyd, and Scott (1994)
conducted a study examining the effects of a short-term peer-facilitated diversity training session
on White students (as cited in Denson, 2009). Nelson et al. (1994) found that students in the

49

experimental group were more hopeful about intergroup understanding, less likely to believe
minority students were unqualified to be at their institution, and were more comfortable
intermingling with minority students (as cited in Denson, 2009). Pike (2002) examined the
impact living-learning communities (a residential option that incorporates educational
opportunities and scholarship into students living arrangements) have on students’ openness to
diversity. The results of this study showed that participation in a living-learning community
resulted in increased openness to diversity when compared with individuals living in a traditional
residence hall setting (Pike, 2002). Another notable result of Pike’s (2002) study was that both
living-learning communities and traditional residence hall living were positive predictors of
increased student openness to diversity compared to living off campus. Gurin, Peng, Lopez, and
Nagda (1999) and Gurin, Nagda, and Lopez (2004) investigated the impact of intergroup
dialogue initiatives (i.e., programs designed to promote conversations amongst racially diverse
students about difference and intergroup relations) on students enrolled in a dialogue course at
the University of Michigan. Both sets of researchers found that White and minority student
participants exhibited less divisiveness between different racial groups, improved racial
awareness, increased support for affirmative action and multicultural programming efforts, and
enhanced awareness of causes of inequality (Gurin et al., 1999 and Gurin et al., 2004). Gurin et
al. (1999) and Gurin et al. (2004) also investigated the long-term effects of intergroup dialogues
and noted that participants still exhibited higher levels of racial awareness than non-participants
4 years later. Cabrera, Nora, Crissman, Terenzini, Bernal, and Pascarella (2002) focused on
assessing the impact of collaborative learning initiatives (i.e., small-group instruction or tutoring
sessions compared to traditional lecture format) on students’ racial bias. Results of this study
showed that students engaged in collaborative learning had a significant impact on their

50

openness to diversity and multiculturalism (Cabrera et al., 2002). Lastly, Hurtado, et al. (1999),
Chang (1996), Astin (1993b), and Pascarella & Terenzini (1991) also performed studies that
established increased cross-racial interaction led to positive attitudes and perceptions of students
concerning race and a multitude of other multicultural issues.
It should be noted that not all studies have resulted in positive findings (see Nagda and
Zuniga, 2003; Rothman, Lipset, & Nevitte, 2003; Neville & Furlong, 1994; Vogelgesang, 2001;
Brehm, 1998; and Henderson-King & Kaleta, 2000). But as a whole, a significant portion of the
research on the impact of interracial interaction clearly supports its ability to reduce prejudice
and intergroup bias (Pettigrew, 1998).
Based on the results of the aforementioned research, it is likely that interracial interaction
in the campus environment can occur in multiple contexts and vary in frequency and quality yet
still result in positive democratic outcomes in students such as improved racial understanding
and cultural awareness (antonio, 2001a; Milem, et al., 2004), ability to work well with members
of other racial groups (Orfield and Whitla, 2001), and citizenship after college (Duncan, et al.,
2003), as well as a wide range of other non-cognitive and cognitive abilities (antonio, 2001a).
Because having a racially diverse campus is seen by many as a way in which to educated
students about the realities of the increasingly diverse and global world in which they will
eventually be living and working (Astone & Nunes-Wormack, 1990; Tierney, 1993), the
following section will analyze research that has shown cross-racial interaction leading to
improved racial perceptions within students.
Interracial Contact and Racial Perceptions
Understanding the impact interracial contact has on students’ racial perceptions (i.e.,
student’s attitudes regarding other racial groups or individuals) is the foundation for the research

51

question posed in this study, “Do students who have higher levels of interracial contact exhibit
more or less positive racial perceptions of other races?” The following reviewed studies indicate
that increased interracial contact tends to result in improved racial perceptions. For this reason, I
will provide an in-depth review of these studies, using the results of their research to help in the
analysis and discussion of the current study’s findings in the following chapters.
Wishing to provide additional support for the benefits associated with racial diversity on
college campuses, antonio (2001a) examined the effect of interracial interaction on students’
leadership skills and cultural knowledge and understanding; specifically seeking to ascertain if
differences existed between the effects of interracial contact on students who had close friends
from different racial backgrounds versus individuals with racially homogeneous friendship
groups whose interracial interactions were more casual in nature. antonio drew data for his study
from a national longitudinal study performed by the Higher Education Research Institute
between 1991-1996. Two freshman cohorts from 115 4-year institutions were given a precollege survey in 1991 and 1992 conducted by the Cooperative Institutional Research Program
(CIRP), which was followed by a second survey distributed to the same group in 1996. antonio
used two key independent variables (reported frequency of interracial interaction and a student’s
self-reported feelings of racial exclusion) and a third primary independent variable (racial
diversity of a student’s close friends) to assess the impact these variables had on two dependent
variables (a student’s self-reported leadership ability and cultural knowledge and understanding).
Looking at the frequency of interracial interactions between students with many or few
close friends, antonio found that students with higher levels of diversity amongst their close
friends dined, studied, dated and roomed with students of a different racial background at two to
five times higher frequency than their peers with a more homogenous friendship group.

52

However, almost one in four students with more heterogeneous friendship groups felt excluded
from school activities because of their racial background versus students with same-race friends
of whom only 1 in 10 felt excluded. Nevertheless, students with more racially diverse friendship
groups reported greater gains in cultural knowledge and understanding in college.
Overall, antonio (2001a) found the effect of interracial interaction in regard to a student’s
leadership ability and cultural knowledge and understanding to be positive for all students
regardless of the racial diversity of their close friends. Still, leadership ability was most
enhanced among those students with same-race friendship groups who socialized and studied
with students of a different race. On the other hand, white students with diverse friendship
groups were significantly more likely to report gains in cultural knowledge and understanding
compared to minority students, however, minorities with same-race friends also showed
significant gains in cultural knowledge compared to White students.
Building upon the foundations of an earlier study by Milem and Umbach (2003), which
looked at personality types, outcomes of diversity and school/community desegregation to
determine the role these factors played in predicting students’ likelihood of engaging in diverse
activities once in college, Milem, Umback and Liang (2004) set out to further explore the effect
of students’ diversity experiences prior to and during college. Understanding that a student’s
experience with diversity prior to college is as important as her or his experiences in college, the
researchers sought to understand the role a student’s pre-college and college diversity
experiences have in predicting their engagement in diversity related activities during their first
two years of college (Milem, et al., 2004). Milem, et al., (2004) used data collected from a
survey panel of students attending a public research university in the mid-Atlantic region. This
data was part of a larger study exploring how colleges create diverse learning environments and

53

prepare students to live and work in an increasingly diverse and global democracy. Data were
collected from 2,911 first-year students during their summer orientation program in 2000. In the
spring of 2002, a follow-up survey was sent to the 2,911 of which 536 students responded. Due
to the small number of minority students that responded to the survey, the researchers focused on
White students.
The researchers identified four independent variables they found to influence students’
experiences with diversity while in college. These included the students’ pre-college
environment (i.e., amount of racial diversity to which students had been exposed prior to
college), their plans to engage in diversity related activities once in college, the extent to which
students have been exposed to diverse ideas or information in their college classes, and the extent
to which students believed that the university provided them opportunities to learn about
different racial groups. These variables were analyzed to determine the impact they had on three
primary dependent variables (i.e., the frequency student engages in cross-racial interactions
while in college, student involvement in extracurricular diversity related activities while in
college, and a student’s engagement in diversity-related activities).
Assessing the impact the independent variables had on the identified dependent variables,
Milem, et al., (2003) found on the whole students who were raised in more racially diverse
environments and that had more interaction with diverse individuals prior to college were more
likely to engage in interracial interaction and diversity related activities while in college. In
regard to the frequency with which students engaged members of other racial groups, the study
found that three independent variables (diverse interactions prior to college, classroom diversity,
and perception of opportunities for diverse interactions) had positive effects on the frequency
with which White students interacted with diverse peers once in college. In addition, student

54

involvement in extracurricular diversity related activities was positively impacted by students’
pre-college diverse interactions, plans to engage in diversity-related activities once in college,
and exposure to diversity in classes. Lastly, pre-college diversity of interactions, plans to engage
in diversity-related activities, and experiences with classroom diversity all had positive effects on
student involvement in diversity related activities while in college.
It is worth noting that all dependent variables were indirectly and directly affected by
several factors that emerged as predictors of a student’s experience with diversity prior to and
once in college (Milem et al., 2004). A student’s family income and gender were shown to be
significant predictors of their experience with diversity prior to college. For instance, as family
income increased, students were less likely to report they interacted across racial groups prior to
college and were less likely to attend diverse high schools, live in racially diverse
neighborhoods, and have racially diverse peers. Additionally, White women were more likely
than men to report cross-interracial interaction prior to college. In comparison, students who had
cross-racial interactions prior to college were more likely to report planned engagement in
diversity related experiences in college; and similarly, White women were more likely than men
to have these plans. Once in college, gender and student major where shown to be significant
factors impacting students’ likelihood to engage in diversity in their classes and perceptions of
their opportunities for diverse interactions while in college. White women in particular were
more likely to report that they engaged in diversity in their classes in college then men. Student
major was also a significant predictor of exposure to diversity in the classroom. For instance,
Milem et al. found that students with social majors (i.e., nursing, political science, spec. ed., and
philosophy) indicated that they encountered diverse information or ideas in their classes more
often than students whose majors were defined as realistic (i.e., electrical and mechanical

55

engineering and military sciences), investigative (i.e., biology, mathematics, sociology,
economics, and civil engineering), and enterprising (i.e., business, journalism, communications,
and computer science) (2004).
Orfield and Whitla (2001) analyzed the impact of diversity on law students’ educational
experiences. Their study reports on data collected from an exploratory survey of five law
schools and a more thorough survey administered by the Gallup Poll to students enrolled at the
University of Michigan Law School and Harvard Law School. Gallup and the research team,
using extensive follow-ups, were able to achieve a combined response rate of 81% of law
students from U of M and Harvard (1,820 students).
In measuring frequency of contact growing up and in high school, Orfield, et al. (2001)
found that almost no Blacks or Latinos who succeeded in enrolling in these two elite law schools
came from a highly segregated childhood and education, whereas almost half of Whites enrolled
at these two institutions came from highly segregated backgrounds. Surprisingly, all racial
groups were shown to have much less segregated college experiences. For instance, although
more than forty-percent of students experienced very little interracial contact in high school, less
than twenty-percent reported a similar pattern in college, with over fifty-percent reporting high
levels of interracial contact. Overall, the researchers found that few if any students reported a
total absence of interracial contact once in college, with 55 percent of Harvard students and 60
percent of University of Michigan students reporting high levels of interracial contact.
To assess how racial diversity impacted students’ learning experiences enrolled at these
two elite law schools, Orfield, et al. (2001) posed a set of fourteen questions. Participants were
asked about the impact of racial diversity on their ability to think about problems and solutions in
classes, their ability to work more effectively or get along better with members of other races, the

56

way topics are discussed informally at meals, over coffee, or at other similar occasions, the way
topics have been discussed in the majority of their classes; and whether they consider having
students of different races to be a positive or negative element of their educational experience. In
addition, students were asked if conflicts because of racial differences reinforced stereotypes,
challenged them to rethink their values, or ultimately became positive learning experiences.
Participants were also asked about whether discussions they had with students from different
racial backgrounds changed their view of the equity of the criminal justice system, their view of
the issues that need to be considered in resolving serious conflicts over rights, their view of
conditions in various social and economic situations, their view of the kind of legal or
community issues that they will encounter as a professional, and their values regarding civil
rights. Lastly, students were asked about the impact of one on one racial interaction versus
interracial classes and what they thought should be done about the admissions policy at the law
school they attended?
Orfield, et al. (2001, p. 30) argued, “One of the strongest possible impacts of experiences
of diversity would be an actual change in beliefs and values growing out of the interaction”. The
results of their study largely support this argument, showing a substantial change in values
amongst law students who reported powerful experiences from their interaction with students
from diverse backgrounds in law school. For instance, when asked whether or not diversity had
affected their ability to work more effectively and/or get along with members of other racial
groups, over 67 percent of Harvard law students and over 71 percent of University of Michigan
law students reported that racial diversity highly or moderately enhanced their ability to work
with other racial groups. The results were also overwhelmingly positive when students were
asked about their overall assessment as to whether diversity was a positive or negative element

57

of their educational experience. Eighty-nine percent of Harvard students and 91 percent of
Michigan law students reported a moderate to high positive impact on their educational
experiences. Even when asked about conflicts caused by racial differences, law students at both
institutions reported positive results with over fifty-percent reporting that conflict significantly or
moderately enhanced the likelihood of them rethinking their values while also leading to positive
learning outcomes. However, one of the most notable value changes was in students’ view of
civil rights. Fifty-nine percent of Whites, 64% of Asians, 64% of Latinos, and 46% of Blacks
reported that discussions with individuals from different racial background changed their values
regarding civil rights (Orfield, et al., 2001).
Wishing to see if racial attitudes change when individuals from different races live
together, Duncan, Boisjoly, Levy, Kremer, and Eccles (2003) examined how racial attitudes
change when White students’ were randomly assigned to live with someone from another racial
group for their first year of college. Data were collected from 682 students enrolling in a large
state university in the fall of 1998, 1999, and 2000, focusing exclusively on White students who
were randomly assigned rooms and roommates as part of the university’s lottery process.
Although the researchers drew data from multiple courses including CIRP data, outcome
measures were collected using a survey administered halfway through students’ sophomore,
junior or senior year depending on when they entered the university between 1998 and 2000.
Key outcome measures concerning students attitudes toward affirmative action were
measured with the following statements: “affirmative action in college admission should be
abolished,” “affirmative action is justified if it ensures a diverse student body on college
campuses,” and “having a diverse student body is essential for high quality education” (Duncan,
et al., 2003). To assess the impact of roommates on other social attitudes, participants were also

58

asked to evaluate the statement “wealthy people should pay more taxes” (Duncan, et al., 2003)
To determine if roommate assignment affected behavior researchers also asked questions
pertaining to personal contact with people from other racial groups, level of comfort with people
from other racial groups, and how often respondent did volunteer work. Lastly, researchers also
examined the extent respondents endorsed helping promote racial understanding.
Duncan, et al. (2003) found that endorsement of affirmative action was half to two-thirds
of a standard deviation higher for Whites who were randomly assigned a Black roommate than
among Whites not assigned a Black roommate. Their findings even pointed to evidence that
higher numbers of Black floor mates (who were not roommates) was associated with more
liberal attitudes toward affirmative action policies. The study produced some evidence that
roommates with different racial backgrounds influenced Whites’ level of contact and comfort
levels with people from other racial groups, however, racial composition of roommates had small
to no impact on Whites’ redistributive attitudes (willingness to tax the rich). Overall, the study
results showed that “students become more sympathetic to the social groups to which their
roommates belong, with racial attitudes being most closely associated with roommate’s race and
income redistribution attitudes being closely associated with roommate’s income” (Duncan, et
al., 2003, p. 13).
Two recent studies sought to understand the influence diversity experiences in college
have on student’s pluralistic orientations (i.e., the ability of individuals to see different
perspectives, work with diverse people, and overall tolerance of different beliefs) and preparation
for a diverse U.S. workforce. Wanting to understand the long-term effects undergraduate
diversity experiences have on cross-cultural workforce related outcomes, Jayakumar (2008)
collected and examined longitudinal data on White students over a ten-year time span. CIRP

59

data was collected from surveys administered to entering White freshman at predominately white
baccalaureate-granting institutions in1994, then in 1998 the same group was surveyed again,
with the final survey being sent in 2004 after these students had entered the workforce.
Jayakumar (2008) found that diversity and interracial interaction in college helps White students
develop the cross-cultural workforce competencies and racial attitudes necessary to function in a
diverse workforce. Most notably, the results of Jayakumar’s study suggest that exposure to
diversity and interracial interaction in college is more crucial to the development of pluralistic
orientations and cross-cultural workforce competencies than precollege or post college diversity
exposure (2008). Seeking to better understand the connection between a student’s diversity
experiences in college to a student’s preparation for future employment, Engberg (2007)
conducted a longitudinal study using data collected by the Preparing Students for a Diverse
Democracy research project. Participants attended 1 of 10 public universities from across the
U.S. that varied in size and racial makeup and that where known to have a strong commitment to
diversity initiatives. Findings from Engberg’ (2007) study generally revealed that college
diversity experiences directly and indirectly impact students development of more pluralistic
orientations. In addition, findings suggested that intergroup interactions were strongly related to
students’ with stronger pluralistic abilities and dispositions (Engberg, 2007).
Based on the strands of literature reviewed above, it seems that each form of diversity,
from classroom diversity to informal cross-racial interaction, fosters improved racial perceptions
among students. This study attempts to contribute to understanding the role interracial interaction
has in shaping business student’s perceptions of other racial groups by answering the question,
“Do undergraduate business students who have more frequent and positive interracial interactions
exhibit more or less positive racial perceptions of other races?” The current study is grounded in

60

the intergroup contact theory due to my interest in assessing how interracial contact (level and
quality) impacts students’ perceptions of individuals from different racial backgrounds. The
essence of the contact hypothesis is that racism and prejudice are the result of a lack of
knowledge of and exposure to different racial groups (Allport, 1954). The intergroup contact
hypothesis suggests that the more contact that occurs between individuals from different racial
groups the more these individuals can learn about one another, which in turn leads to a reduction
of their negative beliefs and feelings towards other groups. I am focusing on undergraduate
business students as the sample for the study due to the impact this population will have on the
future U.S. workforce. Considering that business continually ranks as one of the top five college
majors in the country and was recently listed as the number two most popular major by
CollegeStats.org (Holtz, 2010), business students will make up a significant percentage of our
country’s future workforce. In short, business students are the next generation of workers who
must adapt to the growing challenges associated with an increasingly diverse and global
workforce. In addition, major American corporations have made it clear that the skills these
future employees will need to compete in an increasingly diverse marketplace can only be
developed through their exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints, which
is the premise for intergroup contact theory (Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 330 [2003]).
Chapter three will provide readers with a review of the methods used in the current study, data
source, data collection process, population, and sample, variables being measured and the steps
for data analysis.

61

CHAPTER THREE
METHODS
This chapter provides an overview of the methodological approach used to answer the
question posed in the study. The method includes the research design, overview of the sample,
data collection procedures, measurement scales utilized in data collection, and statistical
processes implemented in analysis of data. This study assesses whether a relationship exists
between the level (opportunity and quantity) and quality of interracial interaction a student has
had and his or her perceptions of other racial groups. The researcher collected data from a
population of 3,959 domestic undergraduate business students enrolled at a large public research
university in the Midwest to answer the question: Do domestic undergraduate business students
who have frequent and positive interracial interactions exhibit more or less positive racial
perceptions of other racial groups? Within this question I also examined the significant
differences that exist when taking a respondent’s race, gender, parents educational level,
hometown, or self-reported GPA into consideration. The researcher also assessed whether all
variables, a combination of variables, or any one independent variable resulted in more or less
positive racial perceptions amongst respondents.
Research Design
To help answer these questions the study uses a quantitative survey design. This specific
research design was chosen for three reasons. First, this study is based on a clearly defined
research question that seeks to determine if a relationship exists between students’ level of
interracial contact and their racial perceptions about other racial groups. Quantitative research
generates numerical data that can be analyzed using inferential statistics to predict relationships
between predetermined variables whereas qualitative data involves the use of words, pictures, or

62

objects to contextualize or provide a detailed description of a group of people or situation
(Baumann & Bason, 2004). In short, quantitative research by nature is largely about measuring
relationships between independent variables (the level of interracial contact) and dependent
variables (students racial perceptions), which is the premise of this study. Second, the structured
survey design allows me to measure students’ attitudes about other racial groups. Structured
surveys, or surveys that involve individuals responding to a set or series of questions through
media sources such as mail or online, have been shown to be an excellent way to measure the
knowledge, attitudes, feelings, beliefs, and behavior of different groups of people (Baumann, et
al., 2004). Lastly, a quantitative survey design was selected because research suggests that
quantitative survey designs are well suited for studies that involve multiple variables and large
sample populations (O’Sullivan & Rassell, 1999). Such designs have also been shown to be
useful in describing the characteristics of a large population (O’Sullivan, et al., 1999). Few other
methods of observation can provide this general capability. As a result, very large samples are
feasible, making the results statistically significant even when analyzing multiple variables, as is
the case with this study.
The survey used to collect data was web-based and was created and conducted using
Qualtrics Research Suite software. This delivery method was selected for various reasons, the
most relevant being this sample’s (18-22 year old undergraduate college students) comfort with
technology, ease of access to the internet, and their familiarity in filling out surveys on-line via emarketing and social media services such as Facebook and Email. Every student at the institution
from which participants were selected is provided an Email account and free access to the Internet
at numerous points throughout campus. This method was also selected because web based
surveys have been shown to reduce the time required to implement the survey, improve data

63

collection times, increase the size of the population to which the survey can be distributed, and
decrease operational issues and interviewer errors (Owens, 2002). Additionally, web-based
surveys allow for other researchers to analyze the study’s findings in multiple ways, which can
enhance the findings of the study (O’Sullivan, et al., 1999). Finally, web-based surveys provide a
low cost and environmentally advantageous alternative to paper surveys because they require no
postage expenses or paper for envelopes and the printed survey (Owens, 2002).
Although there are numerous advantages to using a web-based survey, there are also
limitations in using this approach. Web-based survey research is relatively new compared to
paper survey research; hence there remains a great deal to be learned about the most effective and
efficient ways to conduct a web-based survey. Some of the factors that have been identified as
influencing the quality of data collected by web-based surveys include coverage bias and low
response rates compared to face-to-face and mailed surveys (Solomon, 2001). Coverage bias
occurs when the sample population does not have access to or chooses not to use the Internet
(Solomon, 2001). Although there are great disparities in Internet access based on individual’s
racial and socioeconomic backgrounds, some populations have extremely high rates of access and
use the Internet frequently; U.S. college students are one such population (Solomon, 2001). A
meta-analysis of response rates in web-based surveys has also found that personalizing
communications, pre-contacting the sample prior to emailing them the link to the survey, and
performing follow-up contacts to the initial Email increase response rates (Cook, Heath, &
Thompson, 2000). Each of these techniques was implemented in this study and is elaborated on
under the procedures section of this chapter.

64

Sample
The sample from which data were collected consisted of 3,959 domestic undergraduate
students who declared a College of Business related major or were enrolled in the business
college of a large mid-western research university during the spring semester or 2012. The
institution’s College of Business has a secondary admissions requirement, thus freshman and
sophomore students who have not completed the prerequisite courses and reached the 56 credits
needed for admission to the college are considered declared business students. The entire
domestic undergraduate business sample was surveyed in an attempt to maximize the
generalizability of the study’s results. The domestic undergraduate sample of the college at the
time of the survey consisted of 2,075 (52.4%) freshman and sophomores and 1,884 (47.6%)
junior and senior students. Of the 3,959 domestic undergraduate students, 1,530 (39%) were
female and 2,429 (61%) were male. The racial breakdown of the 3,959 domestic undergrad
business student sample was 83.2% White (3,296), 5.7% African American/Black (226), .3%
Native American (5), 5.4% Asian American (214), 2.7% Latino (108), 1.7% Multiracial (69), and
1% unreported (41). Access to the names and email addresses of the sample from which data
were collected was obtained with the help of the Assistant Dean for the College of Business.
Undergraduate business students were chosen for study for two primary reasons. First, as
was stated by Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who wrote for the majority in the
2003 Grutter v. Bollinger ruling:
Diversity promotes learning outcomes and better prepares students for an increasingly
diverse workforce, for society, and for the legal profession. Major American businesses
have made clear that the skills needed in today’s increasingly global marketplace can
only be developed through exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and
viewpoints. (Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 330 [2003])

65

Considering that business continually ranks as one of the top five college majors in the country
and was recently listed as the number two most popular major by CollegeStats.org (Holtz, 2010),
the sample was selected because undergraduate business students will comprise a significant
percentage of our country’s future workforce and citizenry. These business students are the next
generation of workers who must adapt to the growing challenges associated with an increasingly
diverse and global workforce. Therefore, understanding how interracial contact affects their
perceptions of other racial groups will be of utmost importance to the universities responsible for
developing employees for corporations who continue to stress the need for employees prepared to
work with and lead an increasingly diverse and global workforce. Secondly, as an employee of
an academic support program within the College of Business where this study was conducted, one
of my responsibilities is to work closely with corporate recruiters to place undergraduate business
students for internships, co-ops, and full-time employment. Corporate recruiters regularly share
with our program the skill sets they are looking for in prospective employees, one of which is the
desire to secure employees capable of working with and managing diverse individuals and teams.
Thus, the College of Business domestic undergraduate student population presents the unique
opportunity for the findings of this study to be used to inform our corporate recruiting partners
and college administrators as to the programming and initiatives that currently are or could help
develop students with more positive racial perceptions.
Survey
Data in this study were collected using an on-line survey designed with Qualtrics Research
Suite software, and the survey consisted of both modified questions from surveys used by other
researchers who have conducted research on interracial interaction and questions designed
specifically by the researcher for the study (see Forman & Ebert, 2004; Chang, 2001; Chang, et

66

al., 2006); and the Monitoring the Future Survey in Bachman, O’Malley, Johnston, Rodgers,
Schulenburg, Lim, & Wadsworth, 1996). Measures include students’ perceptions toward other
racial groups (dependent variable), the opportunity for contact, frequency of contact, and quality
of contact (independent variables), and various demographic questions designed to collect
information ranging from students’ class level and gender to their hometown and parents
education level. Variables are discussed in greater detail in the measures section of this chapter.
The survey is comprised of three sections. The first section contains questions designed to
measure students’ perceptions regarding other racial groups, section two has three parts designed
to measure the level and quality of interracial contact a student has had, and section three consists
of demographic questions. The sections of the survey were ordered this way for two reasons. The
first was to minimize the survey’s transparency or the ability for respondents to tell what the
instrument was trying to measure. If a survey designed to measure attitudes or behaviors is
overly transparent, this can make participants believe they know what attitudes/behaviors the
research is looking for and thus they respond to questions as they believe the research would
deem positive or socially desirable (Fishman, et al., 2003). This behavior is called social
desirability bias and occurs when respondents try to present themselves in the best possible light
(Fishman, et al., 2003). When dealing with sensitive topics such as race and racism, respondents
are often unable or unwilling to respond accurately regarding their true feelings/attitudes (Fisher,
1993). Therefore, questions that were very direct about measuring respondents’ level of
interaction with other racial groups were placed after those questions designed to measure
participants’ perceptions about race. Second, the demographic section was placed at the end of
the survey because research has shown that asking questions about race, residency, grades, or
ones socioeconomic background can be seen as inappropriate or threatening by participants

67

before a level of trust is even established in the survey process (Pew Research Center, 2012).
Thus, to increase the likelihood that respondents finished the survey, demographic questions were
positioned at the end.
Survey questions were a combination of questions specifically designed by the researcher
for this study and modified questions from existing surveys. Modified survey questions were
taken from studies by Forman and Ebert (2004), Chang (2001), Chang et al., (2006), and
Bachman, O’Malley, Johnston, Rodgers, Schulenburg, Lim, & Wadsworth (1996). Modified
questions include questions 1, 4, 11, 12, and 14 in section one of the survey, questions 1, 2, 5, 13,
and 21 in section two of the survey, and question one in section three of the survey (refer to
Appendix F for a detailed breakdown and exact wording of each question).
The survey contained 43 questions: 14 close-ended declarative statements designed to
collect data concerning the dependent variable (students’ perceptions of other racial groups), 21
questions concerning the independent variables (level of interracial contact), and 8 demographic
questions. Demographic questions were dichotomous in nature, asking respondents to respond by
selecting yes or no to questions or by choosing an option from a set of multiple-choice answers.
Data for questions regarding the level of interracial contact (independent variable) and student
perceptions of other racial groups (dependent variable) were collected using Likert-type scales
that allow subjects to indicate a level of agreement or disagreement with various statements or to
express attitudes or preferences to various questions. For detailed information about the
formatting of the survey please refer to the measures section of this chapter or Appendix F.
Although the present survey consisted of 11 previously tested questions, the current
study also included questions specifically designed by the researcher for the current study. Thus,
it was necessary to establish the validity and reliability of the overall survey. The validity of an

68

instrument is the degree to which it measures what it is designed to measure (Aiken, 1985) and
the reliability of an instrument is the extent to which results of an instrument are consistent
across repeated measurements of the same individuals (Creswell, 2003). There are numerous
types of validity, however the most common include internal validity (extent to which a measure
accurately shows if there is a relationship between two variables), construct validity (extent to
which a measure used in a study fits the concepts being studied), and external validity (extent to
which the findings of the study can be generalized) (Creswell, 2003). Reliability consists of
internal and external reliability. Internal reliability is the extent to which a measure is consistent
within itself and external reliability is the extent to which a measure varies from one use to
another. To address possible reliability and validity issues with the measures used in this study, I
engaged in various processes and procedures that have been identified as being useful in
improving and assessing the validity and reliability of a survey.
To deal with construct validity issues, I first sought the assistance of experts in
diversity research and survey design in creating the survey. These individuals provided critical
feedback as to the structure, formatting of questions, and over-all readability of the measure. In
addition, I acquired the assistance of two business graduate assistants and an academic advisor in
the College of Business who provided feedback about the structure and wording of the survey
and questions. The graduate assistants and advisor were each provided a hard copy of the survey
with space for feedback and comments under each of the 43 questions. Based on the feedback of
the consulted experts, graduate assistants, and academic advisor, survey questions 8, 15, 16, 19,
20, 21, 22, 25, 28, and 34 were reworded for ease of reading and clarification purposes.
Questions 2, 3, 5, 8, 10, and 13 were reworded from positive leaning to negative leaning in their
scoring. In addition, response choices for questions 26-34 were adjusted changing the response

69

option “every day” to “daily”. One question, “How often do you play sports with people of other
races?”, was removed as it was found to be repetitive of question 25 which inquired about
respondents engagement in intramural sports.
Next, a pilot-test of the survey was conducted to help further address the reliability of
the instrument. Eleven students responded to the pilot-test and were members of the sample that
was surveyed for this study. This sampling consisted of six females and five males, three
Caucasians, three Blacks, two Hispanics, two Asians, and one multiracial student. Of those
completing the pilot-test one was a freshman, three were sophomores, five identified themselves
as juniors, and two were seniors. The pilot-test was created using Qualtrics Research Design
software and was administered to the aforementioned participants online. Each participant
received an Email in early March explaining that I was seeking his or her assistance in pilottesting a survey I designed to use for my dissertation. The selected sample was given
instructions about providing feedback and informed that if they chose to participate they would
be entered into a drawing for a $10 iTunes gift card. To participate, respondents were asked to
click on a link at the bottom of the Email that took them to the informed consent page where they
then had a choice to not participate in the pilot-test or to participate by clicking on the arrow at
the bottom of the page. Space was provided after each question for students to inquire as to the
meaning of questions or provide feedback on the overall wording, language and structure used
throughout the survey. Based on these individuals’ responses, only question 32 elicited
consistent feedback from three respondents. Each felt the response choices offered did not
provide them an adequate selection based on their dating experiences. This question was
considered for removal, however after discussing the feedback with an expert in the area of
diversity research, it was decided to keep this question in the final survey.

70

To improve external validity, follow-up procedures were implemented to increase
response rates, which is essential to obtaining a sufficient sample size necessary to determine if a
relationship existed among the variables of the study. The exact follow-up steps taken in the
study are discussed in greater detail in the procedures section of this chapter. Control variables,
such as respondents’ class level, residency status, gender, race, hometown description, parents’
education level, and self-reported GPA were also used to help improve external validity. Such
demographic questions have been shown to be fairly standard for most surveys and can help
researchers make sure they do not generalize the findings of the research beyond the groups in
the study (Cresswell, 2003).
Next, the reliability of the instrument was examined using internal consistency
reliability and the split-half method using the sample data (N=910). Internal-consistency
reliability determines the degree to which individual items of an instrument measure a common
concept (Creswell, 2003). Because the instrument consisted of one construct designed to measure
the dependent variable (student’s racial perceptions/Q1-Q14) and three constructs to measure the
independent variable (Opportunity for Contact/Q15-Q25, Frequency of Contact/Q26-Q34, and
Quality of Contact/Q35), each was tested separately. Quality of Contact was not included in the
reliability analysis as it used only one question (Q35) to measure the quality of participant’s
interracial interactions. As a commonly used measure of internal-consistency reliability (Duke
& Mallette, 2004), Cronbach’s coefficient alphas () were calculated for each construct. Then
each item, within each construct, was evaluated to determine if its deletion would increase alpha.
Any item, that when deleted would significantly increase alpha was deleted and coefficient
alphas were re-run. Only question 3 (A person’s ability to learn is closely related to their race) in
the dependant variable construct was found to significantly increase the coefficient alpha. Thus,

71

this question was deleted and new alphas were generated. These final results can be found in
Table 1. Cronbach’s alphas for each construct were found to be greater than .70.
Table 1
Cronbach’s Alpha for Each Construct of the Instrument
(N=910)

Students Racial Perceptions (n=13) (Q3 Removed)
.846
Opportunity for Contact (n=11)
.901
Frequency of Contact (n=9)
.785
Note: N = sample; n = number of questions comprising each construct; Q = question; and  =
Cronbach’s Alpha
To further test the internal consistency of the instrument, each construct was also
subjected to the Split-Half Method. This involved splitting each construct into halves, which
were scored separately, and then the score of one half of the variable was compared to the score
of the remaining half to test the reliability. Coefficient alphas () for each half of the test,
correlation between forms, and Spearman-Brown Coefficients were calculated for each
construct. These results can be found in Table 2. Coefficient alphas were all greater than .60
Table 2
Reliability Statistics for Split-Half Test of Each Construct of the Instrument

Frequency of Contact

(n=6)

.746

.717
(n=5)

.829

.844

(n=5)

Opportunity for Contact

 Part 2

(n=6)

Students Racial Perceptions

 Part 1
(n=7)

(N=910)

(n=4)

.670

.607

Correlation
Between

Spearman-Brown
Coefficient

.739

.850

.756

.862

.658

.796

Note: N = sample; n = number of questions comprising each part of the split-half test; and  =
Cronbach’s Alpha
and Spearman-Brown Coefficients for each construct were greater than .75. Considering that a

72

modest reliability of .50 or .60 is generally acceptable in the early stages of research, a reliability
of .70 is seen as respectable, and .80 or higher is optimal for instruments that will be widely
implemented (DeVellis, 1991; Henk & McKenna, 2004), it would seem that these results affirm
the reliability of the instrument. Inter-Item Correlation Matrix and Scale Statistics for each
internal consistency reliability tests were also run for each construct. The results of these matrix
and statistics can be found in Appendix G.
Procedure and Respondents
A 10-minute web-based survey was used to collect data from undergraduate business
students enrolled at a large mid-western university. Because several studies have found that
response rates for web-based or internet surveys tend to be lower than those for mailed surveys
(Medin, Roy & Ann, 1999; Couper, Blair & Triplett, 1999), steps were taken to implement
various procedures in the data collection process that have been shown to improve response rates
for web-based surveys. These procedures included personalizing all communication between the
researcher and participants, pre-contacting participants prior to sending them the survey, offering
monetary incentives to participants, and follow-up contact with non-respondents (Cook et al.,
2000).

The following paragraphs in this section further elaborate the specific procedures used

to conduct the current study.
As was discussed previously, all students enrolled at the institution from which the sample
being studied was selected are provided email accounts and multiple free Internet access points
throughout campus. Using web survey software (Qualtrics Research Suite), participants
identified with the aid of the Assistant Dean of the Multicultural Business Programs were sent a
personalized prenotification email in late March informing them of the forth-coming survey and
its intent (Appendix A). The personalized pre-notification email included information about the

73

study, advised that participants would be contacted within a week’s time, and promised that upon
completion of the forth-coming survey participants would be entered to win one of 10 $10
iTunes gift certificates (see Appendix A for exact wording and formatting). The survey was
conducted at this point of the spring semester to allow for fist year undergraduate students to
have as close as possible to a full academic year of college experiences before being surveyed. If
this study had been conducted in the fall or early spring, first year respondents would likely have
had limited opportunities to engage in many of the activities measured in this study; skewing the
study’s results.
One week after the pre-notification Email was sent, a personalized email with a link to the
on-line survey was sent to students requesting their participation in the study (Appendix B). This
email included a brief overview of the survey’s intent, discussed possible risks associated with
the study, reminded students about the incentive, reviewed the precautions taken to secure
participants privacy, as well as contact information should they wish to contact the researcher or
his advisor with questions or concerns (see Appendix B for exact wording and formatting). The
final paragraph of this Email notified participants that by clicking on the link at the bottom of the
email, they would be taken to the informed consent form (Appendix C). In addition, this email
notified students that if they were under 18 years of age, they could not participate in this study
without their parent’s permission.
The informed consent form (see Appendix C for exact wording and formatting) provided
students with a detailed overview of the study they were being asked to participate in, an
estimate of how long the study would take, explained that the study was voluntary and that they
could withdraw without penalty at any time, and outlined what steps would be taken to protect
their confidentiality. Students were again reminded about the incentive if they chose to

74

participate and given the name of the researcher and how to get in touch with him or his advisor
if the participant had any concerns or questions. The final paragraph of the consent form then
instructed participants to click the arrow button (>>) at the bottom of the page if they wished to
proceed to the survey or to exit the survey by closing the page if they did not wish to take the
survey. If students clicked on the arrow button (>>) at the bottom of the informed consent form,
they were taken directly to the first page of the on-line survey.
Completion rates of participants were monitored on a daily basis and follow up reminder
emails (Appendix D) were sent to non-respondents once a week for three weeks, with the last
reminder being sent to non-respondents the second to last week of April. After assessing the
makeup of the pool of respondents, a final reminder email (Appendix E) was sent just to
minority/multiracial students to increase the number of respondents within this demographic.
The survey link was deactivated and the survey officially closed one week after the final
reminder was sent to minority/multiracial students. Upon closing the survey, the researcher
downloaded all responses into SPSS for cleanup and analysis. All students who submitted a
completed survey were entered into a drawing for one of 10 $10 iTune gift cards. Winners were
notified via email with a link to their gift certificate.
Of the 3,959 students sent a pre-notification email, email request with a link to the survey,
and/or follow up email reminders, 28.8% (1142/3959) responded. Three individuals from this
pool identified themselves as international students and thus were excluded from further analysis
as the focus of this study was on domestic students. Respondents where then screened for
incomplete surveys (surveys where one or more questions in section one or section two of the
survey were left unanswered), which resulted in an additional 229 respondents being excluded
from analysis and a final response rate of 22.9% (910/3959).

75

The 910 surveys used in the data analysis consisted of 680 (75%) White students, 90
(9.8%) Black/African American students, 67 (7.3%) Asian students, 46 (5%) multiracial
students, 25 (2.7%) Hispanic/Latino students, and 2 (.2%) American Indian/Alaskan
Native/Native Hawaiian. Four hundred and ninety six (54.5%) were female and 414 (45.5%)
were male. Of the 910 surveys used, 199 (21.9%) were freshman, 208 (22.8%) were
sophomores, 212 (23.3%) were juniors, and 291 (32%) were seniors. Demographically, 22.9%
(209) respondents identified their hometowns as being rural, 67.6% (615) as being suburban, and
9.5% (86) as coming from an urban environment. Lastly, of the 910 respondents 193 (21.2%)
identified themselves as Accounting majors, 181 (19.9%) identified as Supply Chain
Management majors, 155 (17%) identified as Marketing majors, 152 (16.7%) identified
themselves as majoring in Finance, 137 (15.1%) majored in Hospitality Business, and 57 (6.3%)
and 35 (3.8%) identified themselves as General Management and Human Resource Management
majors respectively. College of Business demographic statistics were consulted to determine if
the sample was representative of students in the business college. Chi-square goodness of fit
tests was run comparing the race, gender, and class level of the sample to the population. Based
on these three indices, results revealed that the sample was statistically different from the
population (race = 46.87 > 3.84; gender = 97.14> 3.84; class level = 21.49> 3.84). However,
based on the computed effect sizes for the three indices (race = 0.05; gender = 0.11; class level =
0.02), results indicate that the proportion of the sample only differed slightly from the proportion
of the population in terms of race, gender, and class level. In other words, although the sample
did have slightly more females, minorities, and upperclassmen, there was very little practical
difference between the sample and the population.

76

Measures
Identified variables include the dependent variable (students’ perceptions towards other
racial groups), the independent variables (opportunity for contact, frequency of contact, and
quality of contact) designed to assess the level of interracial interactions students’ have with their
peers, and various demographic questions designed to collect information ranging from students’
class level and gender to their socio-economic background and hometown description. Question
37, “Are you an international student”, was not included in the analysis as it was only asked to
make sure only domestic undergraduate business students were retained for the study. Table 3
provides a brief overview of each scale used in the study.
Table 3
Summary of the Scales Used in the Study
Scale

Number of Items

Description

Dependent Variable

14

Students Racial Perceptions

Independent Variable

21

Level of Contact (Opportunity for Contact,
Frequency of Contact, and Quality of Contact

Demographic Variable

8

Respondents race, residency status, gender,
hometown, parent’s education, class level,
undergraduate major, and self-reported grade
point average

Dependent Variables
The dependent variable analyzed in this study focuses on participants’ racial perceptions.
The on-line survey included 14 items that represent the dependent variable (see Table 4 for a brief
listing of each). These items consist of various statements pertaining to race and the importance
of diversity, for example “Initiatives designed to create racial equality in education and workforce
77

settings are no longer needed” and “A racially diverse work environment does not provide a
corporation any benefit” (for the exact formatting of these statements please see Appendix F).
Respondents were asked to select a response from a four point Likert-type scale, where
1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neither Agree nor Disagree, 4=Agree, and 5=Strongly
Agree, that best represents their level of agreement or disagreement with the statement. Questions
1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, and 14 were positively worded questions. Questions 2, 3, 5, 8, 10, and 13
were negatively worded questions and thus were reverse scored in the final analysis so that a
score of 1 was equal to a score of 5 and a score of 5 was equal to a score of 1. Thus, students
exhibiting higher values represent individuals with more positive racial perceptions and students
with lower values represent individuals with less positive racial perceptions.
Table 4
Listing of the 14 Dependent Variables
________________________________________________________________________
 My experiences with people from racial backgrounds different than myself have been
an important part of my personal growth and development.
 Initiatives designed to create racial equality in education and workforce settings are no
longer needed.
 A person’s ability to learn is closely related to their race.
 I am comfortable interacting with individuals from racial groups different than my own.
 Racism no longer exists in modern society.
 It is important to interact with people from racial groups different than my own.
 A racially diverse campus is beneficial for all students.
 Stereotypes are generalizations that accurately describe different racial groups.
 A racially diverse workforce is crucial for America to remain competitive in a global
economy.
 I believe people should only marry individuals from their own racial group.
 I seek out opportunities to meet and learn about individuals different from myself.
 It is my responsibility to challenge racism when I see it.
 A racially diverse work environment does not provide a corporation any benefit.
 I appreciate and respect the values, ideals and beliefs of individuals from racial groups
different than my own.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

78

Independent Variables
Participants’ level of interracial contact serves as the independent variable for this study.
Interracial contact was measured using three indicators: opportunity for contact, frequency of
contact, and quality of contact. Opportunity for contact was measured using a scale consisting
of 11 items, frequency of contact was measured using a scale of 9 items, and quality of contact
was measured using a scale consisting of one item (see Table 5 for an overview of each of these
scales). Response options varied for each scale. When responding to questions about the
opportunity for contact respondents answered: (1) “all my race”, (2) “almost all my race“, (3)
“about half my race”, (4) “almost all other race(s)”, and (5) “all other race(s)” resulting in
higher scores representing increased opportunity for interracial contact. Respondents answering
questions about the frequency of contact they have had with other racial groups chose from the
following responses: (1) “never”, (2) “once or twice a year”, (3) “once or twice a semester”,
(4) “every week”, and (5) “daily”, with higher scores representing greater frequency of
interracial contact. Participants responding to the quality of the contact they had had selected one
of the following responses: (1) “very negative”, (2) “negative”, (3) “neither negative no
positive”, (4) “positive”, and (5) “very positive”, with higher scores corresponding to an overall
positive feeling about their interracial contact experiences.
Table 5
Scales used to Measure Participants’ Level and Quality of Interracial Contact
________________________________________________________________________
OPPORTUNITY FOR CONTACT
 What is the racial makeup of the high school from which you graduated?
 What is the racial makeup of the neighborhood in which you grew up?
 What is the racial makeup of your family?
 Which do you feel best describes the makeup of the university/college you attend?
 How would you describe your closest group of friends growing up?
 How would you describe your closest group of friends in college?
 Which best describes the students in most of the college classes you have taken?
79

Table 5 (cont’d)
 How would you describe the makeup of the professional business organizations in which you
are most active?
 Which best describes the faculty and staff at the university/college you attend?
 Which best describes the roommate(s) you have had since coming to college?
 How would you describe the makeup of the social activities in which you most often
participate?
________________________________________________________________________
FREQUENCY OF CONTACT
 How often do you receive tutoring from someone of a race different than your own?
 How often do you have serious conversations with students of a different race?
 How often have you lived with someone from a different racial group?
 How often do you work with someone of another race?
 How often do you eat meals with individuals from a different racial group?
 How often are you taught by faculty from a different racial group?
 How often do you date someone from a different racial group?
 How often do you study with someone from a different racial group?
 How often do you use the services provided by the Multicultural Business Programs in
the Eli Broad College of Business?
________________________________________________________________________
QUALITY OF CONTACT
 Overall, how would you describe your feelings about the experiences you have had
with people from different racial backgrounds?
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Demographic Variables
To minimize the unintended influences of other variables, several control variables were
included in the analysis. These eight demographic measures include questions regarding
participant’s race, residency status, gender, hometown, parental education status, current class
level, specific department within business major, and self-repotted college grade point average
(see Table 6 for an overview of each of these measures). Race was measured using the following
item: “How do you describe yourself?” Response categories for this measure include
1=Black/African American, 2=American Indian/Alaskan Native/Native Hawaiian, 3=Asian,
4=Hispanic/Latino, 5=White, and 6=Multiracial. A participant’s residency is measured using a
code of “1” if International and “2” if Domestic. Although the initial database intentionally
excluded International students, this question was presented to participants to help ensure only
80

domestic student data were used in analysis of the survey data. A participant’s gender was
measured using a code of “1” if Male, “2” if Female, and “3” if Transgender. A description of a
participant’s hometown was measured using the following scale: 1=Rural, 2=Suburban and
3=Urban. A participant’s parental education level was based on the level of education obtained
by his or her most highly educated parent and was measured using the following scale: 1=some
high school, 2=completed high school, 3=some college, 4=completed college, 5=graduate/
professional school beyond college. Class level was measured using the scale: 1=Freshman,
Table 6
Scales used to Measure Participants’ Demographic Variables
________________________________________________________________________
 How do you describe yourself?
 Are you an international student?
 What is your gender?
 Which of the following best describes your hometown?
 Which of the following best describes the education obtained by your most highly educated
parent?
 Which of the following best describe your current class level?
 What is your current undergraduate major?
 What is your current college cumulative grade point average?
________________________________________________________________________
2=Sophomore, 3=Junior, and 4=Senior. A students major was measured using the following
scale: 1= Accounting, 2 = Finance, 3 = Marketing, 4 = Supply Chain Management, 5 = Human
Resource Management, 6 = General Management, 7 = Hospitality Business, and 8 = NonBusiness Major/Other. This question was posed to participants to help ensure only data from
business students were analyzed. Lastly, grades were measured using participant’s self-reported
grade point average in college.
Data Analysis
The findings from the analysis of the survey data are presented in detail in Chapter 4.
Data gathered from the survey were entered in and analyzed using the Statistical Package for the
81

Social Sciences (SPSS) computer program. The following paragraphs provide a brief overview
of the data analysis procedures that were conducted.
As was outlined above in the measures section, there are numerous factors (opportunity
for contact, frequency of contact, quality of contact, and various demographic characteristics) that
are believed to influence a student’s perceptions of other racial groups. The question is to what
extent these factors effect a student’s racial perceptions of other racial groups? In order to
determine the significance of the relationship existing between the predictor variables
(opportunity for contact, frequency of contact, quality of contact, and demographics) and the
criterion variable (students’ racial perceptions), T-tests and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) were
conducted. Simultaneously, correlation coefficients were performed to assess the strength of the
linear relationship between the criterion variable and the predictor variables.
In Chapter 4, I will provide a thorough review of the statistical procedures mentioned
above, but more specifically the results of each technique performed on the data are explored in
detail.

82

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
The current study sought to investigate the relationship between students’ racial
perceptions (SRP) and the level of contact they have had with other racial groups. Specifically,
do undergraduate business students who have higher levels of interracial contact exhibit more or
less positive racial perceptions of other races? Level of contact was represented by three
predictor variables, which have been labeled as opportunity for contact, frequency of contact,
and quality of contact.
In the following paragraphs, the statistical findings regarding the aforementioned
research question were explored through various statistical analysis procedures performed using
the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). T-tests and one-way ANOVA’s were
performed on the demographic variables to determine if there were any significant differences
between the means (averages) of different groups. Next, for each question that comprised the
independent variable (Opportunity for Contact, Frequency of Contact, and Quality of Contact),
one-way analysis of variances was conducted to determine if a significant relationship existed
between these questions and the criterion variable Student’s Racial Perceptions (SRP).
Simultaneously, correlation coefficients were developed to assess the strength of the linear
relation between the outcome variable (student’s racial perceptions) and the predictor variables
(opportunity for contact, frequency of contact, quality of contact, and demographics).
Demographics of Respondent Group
This section provides a review of the demographic data of the respondent group,
including supplementary statistical information on each demographic variable to determine if
there were any significant differences between the means (averages) of different groups (i.e.,

83

men and women) in relation to their student racial perception score. In addition, Pearson
correlation coefficients were run on each demographic variable to test the strength of the linear
relationship between each variable and the dependent variable (student racial perceptions). An
alpha level of .05 was used for all statistical tests, Tukey B was used in all post hoc analysis, and
Levene’s Test of Homogeneity of Variances was used to test homogeneity of variances.
Race
Respondents who self-identified as African American/Black, Native American, Asian
American, Hispanic/Latino, and Multiracial were collapsed into a minority variable due to the
number of students in each racial category being too small to conduct individual statistical
analysis. Those students responding to the survey included 681 (74.8%) White and 229 (25.2%)
Minority students.
An independent-sample t-test was run to determine if there were differences in students’
racial perception scores between minority students and majority students. Homogeneity of
variances was violated, as assessed by Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances (p = .005), so
separate variables and the Welch-Satterthwaite correction were used. Student racial perception
scores were higher for minority students (M = 60.46, SD = 5.28) than majority students (M =
54.78, SD = 6.55), a statistically significant difference 5.68, 95% CI [4.83 to 6.52], t (482) =
2

13.212, p = .000,  = .161. In addition, eta-squared revealed a large effect of .161, indicating
that the race of a student had a large effect on his or her SRP. Refer to Table 7 for statistical
significance and effect sizes for the demographic variables analyzed using t-tests.
Pearson coefficient correlation was run to assess the relationship between student’s racial
perception (SRP) and their race. There was a moderate positive correlation between the race of

84

respondents and SRP scores, r (908) = .367, p<.001, with respondents race accounting for 13%
of the variation in SRP scores.
Gender
Survey respondents included 496 (54.5%) female and 414 (45.5%) male undergraduate
business students. No respondents identified themselves as transgender. Thus, an independentsample t-test was run on gender (males and females) to determine if there were mean differences
in student’s gender and racial perception scores. Homogeneity of variances was violated using
Levene’s Test for Equality (p = .026), thus separate variables, and Welch correction was used.
Male SRP scores (M = 55.23, SD = 7.19) were lower than the female SRP scores (M = 57.03,
SD = 6.20), which was a statistically significant difference (-1.80, 95% CI [-2.68 to -.919], t(821)
2

= -4.01, p = .000,  = .017), however, eta-squared revealed a small effect of .017, indicating that
the gender of a student had a small effect on his or her SRP.
A Pearson product-moment correlation was run to assess the relationship between
students’ racial perception (SRP) and their gender. There was a small negative correlation
between respondents’ gender and SRP scores, r (908) = -.134, p<.001, with respondents’ gender
explaining 2% of the variation in SRP scores.
Class Level
Of those students who completed the survey, 199 (21.9%) were freshman, 208 (22.8%)
were sophomores, 212 (23.3%) were juniors, and 291 (32%) were seniors. For the purposes of
analysis, freshman and sophomore students were collapsed into one mean titled underclassmen
and junior and senior students were collapsed into another mean titled upperclassmen. This was
done because pre-admission business students (underclassmen) share many of the same
experiences, as is the case with post admission business students (upperclassmen).
85

An independent-sample t-test was run to determine if there were differences in students’
racial perception scores between underclassmen and upperclassmen. There was homogeneity of
variances, as calculated by Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances (p = .387). Student racial
perception scores were lower for under class students (M = 55.67, SD = 6.99) than upper class
students (M = 56.69, SD = 6.47), a statistically significant difference was found, -1.07, 95% CI
2

[-1.95 to -.194], t (908) = -2.377, p = .017,  = .006, however, eta-squared revealed a very small
effect of .006, which indicated that the class level of a student had a very small effect on his or
her SRP.
A Pearson product-moment correlation was run to assess the relationship between
student’s racial perception (SRP) and the current class level of students. There was a small but
weak positive correlation between the class level of respondents and SRP scores, r (908) = .079,
p = .008, with respondents class level explaining 1% of the variation in SRP scores.
Table 7
T-Test: Demographic Variables
2

Demographic Variables

N

t

p



Race

910

13.212

.000

.161

Gender

910

-4.006

.000

.017

Class Level

910

-2.397

.017

.006
2

Note: p < .05; N = Sample Size; t = t-test for Equality; p = Significance /Probability;  = Eta
Squared (Effect Size)
Hometown
Students indicated the setting of the hometown in which they grew up by selecting rural
(small town/village), suburban (medium city), or urban (large metropolitan city). Two hundred
86

and nine respondents identified with growing up in a rural setting, 615 identified their hometown
as being suburban in nature, and 86 respondents identified their hometown as being urban.
A one-way ANOVA was run to determine if there were any significant differences in the
hometown settings in which students grew up and their SRP scores. There was homogeneity of
variances, as assessed by Levene's Test of Homogeneity of Variance (p = .286). SRP score was
statistically significantly different between students identifying with growing up in a rural or
suburban hometown and those students growing up in an urban setting, F(2,907) = 14.337,
2

p<.001,  = .030, however, eta-squared indicated that the hometown of a student had a small to
moderate effect on his or her SRP. Student Racial Perceptions increased from the rural (M =
55.83, SD = 6.96) and suburban (M = 55.83, SD = 6.53) to the urban group (M = 59.21, SD =
6.48). Tukey post-hoc analysis revealed that the mean increase from rural/suburban groups to
urban (3.38, 95% CI [54.88 to 61.24], p<.001) was statistically significant. Refer to Table 8 for
statistical significance and effect sizes for the demographic variables analyzed using ANOVA.
A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was run to assess the relationship
between student’s racial perception (SRP) and the hometown they grew up in. There was a small
positive correlation between the hometown of respondents and SRP scores, r (908) = .116, p<
.001, with where a respondent grew up explaining 1% of the variation in SRP scores.
Parents’ Education Level
Participants were asked to pick from five descriptors that they felt best portrayed the
education level obtained by their most highly educated parent. Choices included, “some high
school”, “completed high school”, “some college”, “completed college”, and
“graduate/professional school beyond college”. For the purpose of analysis, responses “some
high school” and “completed high school” were collapsed into a group identified as high school
87

and “some college” and “completed college” were collapsed into a group identified as college.
Graduate/Professional school and beyond was not combined. Two hundred and thirty-three
(25.6%) respondents identified at least one parent having a high school level education, 353
(38.8%) said at least one of their parents had a college level education, and 324 (35.6%) noted
that at least one of their parents possessed a graduate or professional level degree.
A one-way ANOVA was run to determine if there were any significant differences in
students’ parents’ highest education level and their SRP scores. There was homogeneity of
variances, as assessed by Levene's Test of Homogeneity of Variance (p = .088). However, there
was no statistically significant difference in SRP score between the different levels of a student’s
2

parents education, F (2,907) = .174, p =.840,  = .000. Similarly, eta-squared revealed a very
small effect .000, indicating no practical difference in a student’s SRP based on the level of his
or her parent’s education.
Pearson correlation coefficient was run to assess the relationship between student’s racial
perception (SRP) and education level of their parents. There was virtually no negative or
positive correlation between the education level of respondents’ parents and SRP scores, r (908)
= -.011, p = .371.
Major
Respondents were also asked to report their self-identified major. This question was used
for two purposes. First, because the focus of this study is on business students, any students who
did not identify themselves as a business major were excluded from analysis. Second, I was
curious if there was any significant difference in the major students identified with and their
student racial perception scores. Students had eight options to choose from that included
accounting, finance, marketing, supply chain management, human resource management, general
88

management, hospitality business, and non-business major/other. For the purposes of analysis,
accounting (ACC) and finance (FIN) (n=345, 37.9%), marketing (MKT) and supply chain
management (SCM), (n=336, 36.9%) and human resource management (HRM), general
management (GM), and hospitality business (HB) (n=229, 25.2%) were collapsed respectively,
creating three grouped majors (ACC/FIN, MKT/SCM, and HRM/GM/HB). The majors were
grouped this way for two reasons. One reason was because grouping the majors provided more
statistically relevant group sizes than did the eight individual major groups. But more
importantly, grouping majors was performed based on studies regarding the impact of
individual’s personality traits on ones choice of college major (Chacko, 1991; Holland, 1985;
Hugstad, 1997; McPherson, 1999; Miller & Miller, 2005; and Noel et al., 2003). Research on
this phenomenon has pointed towards students with similar personality traits gravitating towards
similar majors. In short, decisions on which majors to group together were influenced by studies
conducted on business students and which personality traits gravitate toward which business
majors.
A one-way ANOVA was run to determine if there was any significant difference in the
major a student identified with and their SRP score. There was homogeneity of variances (p =
.371). In addition, there was statistically significant difference in SRP scores between the
2

different grouped business majors, F (2,907) = 3.081, p =.046,  = .006. Similarly, eta-squared
revealed a very small effect of .006, indicating almost no practical difference in a student’s SRP
based on his or her business major. SRP score increased from ACC/FIN group (M = 55.56, SD
7.04) to HRM/GM/HB group (M = 56.26, SD = 6.84), to MKT/SCM group (M = 56.84, SD =
6.24), in that order. Tukey post-hoc analysis revealed that the mean increase from ACC/FIN to
MKT/SCM (1.27, 95% CI [54.82 to 57.51]) was statistically significant (p = .046).
89

A Pearson product-moment correlation was run to assess the relationship between
student’s racial perception (SRP) and their business major. There was practically no negative or
positive correlation between respondents business major and SRP scores, r (908) = .049, p =
.069.
Self-Report GPA
Lastly, respondents were asked to share their self-reported current college grade point
average. Due to the wide range of grades reported by respondents and to improve the statistical
analysis of data, self-reported grades between 0.00 and 2.99 were grouped together (N=100,
11%), as were students with a 3.00 to 3.49 (N=374, 41.1%), and students with 3.50 to 4.00
(N=436, 47.9%).
Table 8
Analysis of Variance: Demographic Variables
2

dfb
2

dfw
907

F
14.337

p
.000


.030

Parent’s Education Level

2

907

.174

.840

.000

Major

2

907

3.081

.045

.006

Self-Report GPA

2

907

1.727

.178

.003

Demographic Variables
Hometown

Note: p is significant at 0.05; dfb = Degrees of Freedom Between Groups; dfw = Degrees of
2

Freedom Within Groups; F = F-Distribution; p = Significance /Probability;  = Eta Squared
(Effect Size)
To determine if there was any significant difference in a student’s self-reported grade
point average and SRP score, a one-way ANOVA was run on the data collected. There was
homogeneity of variances, as assessed by Levene's Test of Homogeneity of Variance (p = .968).
However, there was no statistically significant difference in SRP score between the different

90

2

levels of students’ current college grade point average, F (2,907) = 1.73, p = .178,  = .003.
Similarly, eta-squared revealed a very small effect of .003, which indicated no practical
significant difference between a student’s self-reported G.P.A. and his or her SRP.
Pearson correlation coefficient was run to assess the relationship between students’ racial
perception (SRP) and their self-reported GPA. No negative or positive correlation was found
between self-reported grade point average and SRP scores, r (908) = -.054, p = .051. In the next
section, a review of the statistical analysis performed on the independent variables will be
reviewed.
Independent Variable Analysis
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on each question that comprised
the independent variables (Opportunity for Contact, Frequency of Contact, and Quality of
Contact). The values yielded were then used to determine if a significant relation existed
between these individual questions and the dependent variable, students’ racial perception (SRP).
An alpha level of .05 was used for all statistical tests, Tukey B was used in all post hoc analysis,
and Levene’s Test of Homogeneity of Variances was used to test homogeneity of variances. In
addition, Pearson correlation coefficients were run on each independent variable to test the
strength of the linear relationship existing between each variable and the dependent variable
(student racial perceptions). In the following paragraphs, findings of these analyses are reported.
Opportunity for Contact
The predictor variable opportunity for contact was designed to evaluate the structural
diversity of students’ lives. Or more simply stated, the variable opportunity for contact was
designed to measure the opportunity students had to interact with individuals of other racial
groups by assessing a rough estimate of the racial makeup of students’ living environments,
91

classes, and friendship groups. The opportunity for contact was assessed using 11 questions (Q15
through Q25 on the survey – see Appendix F for a detailed listing of each question). Responses
to questions in this section included: (1) All my race (2) Almost all my race (3) About half my
race (4) Almost all other race(s) (5) All other race(s). A score of 11 indicated numerically that a
student had little to no opportunity to interact with other racial groups due to a lack of diversity
in his or her environment. Whereas a score of 55 indicated that a student had numerous
opportunities to interact with members of other racial groups on a regular basis.
Every question was investigated using one-way ANOVA. Levene’s Test of Homogeneity
of Variance showed homogeneity of variances for each question, except question twenty-five.
ANOVA results showed statistical significant relation existed between each question comprising
the independent variable (opportunity for contact) and students’ racial perception; however, etasquared results indicated only a medium to large effect on student’s SRP for eight of the 11
questions. The following paragraphs provide a review of the ANOVA results. Detailed ANOVA
results for each question can be found in Table 9.
Question 15 asked respondents to select the response that best described the racial
diversity of the high school from which they graduated. A one-way ANOVA showed that SRP
scores was statistically significantly different based on the racial makeup of one’s high school, F
2

(4, 905) = 9.99, p<. 001,  = .042. The eta-squared, however, only indicated a small effect on
SRP scores (see Table 9). Based on the results of a post hoc analysis, participants who attended
schools consisting of a student body of almost all other races had more positive SRP scores (M =
59.50; SD = 6.14) than did students attending high schools with racial makeup representative of
the other four conditions.

92

Question 16 solicited students’ responses in regard to the racial makeup of the
neighborhood in which they grew up. Students racial perception was shown to be statistically
significantly different based on the racial makeup of the neighborhood in which a participant
2

grew up, F (4, 905) = 7.78, p <.001,  = .033. However, eta-squared showed that the racial
makeup of the neighborhood students grew up in only had a small effect on a student’s SRP.
Statistical results revealed that students who grew up in neighborhoods consisting of individuals
that were mostly other races (all or almost all) had more positive racial perceptions than did
those students who grew up in neighborhoods comprised of individuals who were mostly (all or
almost all) the same race as the respondent.
Question 17 inquired as to racial makeup of a respondent’s family. Due to the limited
number of respondents that answered all other races on this question, this response option was
grouped with the response option, almost all other races, for statistical purposes. Results showed
that student’s racial perceptions were statistically significantly different in regard to the racial
2

diversity of their family, F (3, 906) = 6.83, p <.001,  = .022. However, eta-squared indicated
that the makeup of a student’s family only had a small effect on their SRP. One finding of note
was that student’s whose families were made up entirely of members of the same race showed
less positive racial perceptions than did students whose families consisted of one or more
members of a different racial group.
Question 18 sought respondents’ views as to the racial composition of the
university/college they currently attend. There were a limited number of students who selected
the response, all my race, on this question. Thus, this response option was grouped with the
response, almost all my race, for statistical purposes. Based on how students described the
makeup of their university/college, SRP scores were shown to be statistically significantly
93

2

different, F (3, 906) = 29.34, p <.001,  = .088. In addition, eta-squared revealed a moderate to
large effect of .088, indicating that the racial composition of the university/college a student
attended moderately affected his or her SRP. Post hoc results found that students who perceived
their college/university to be comprised of individuals mostly of other racial groups (all or
almost all other races) had more positive racial perceptions than did those students who
perceived their institution to consist of individuals that looked similar to them (about half or
almost all their race).
Question 19 requested that students select the response that best described their closest
group of friends growing up. Results showed that SRP was statistically significantly different
based on the racial composition of respondents closest friends growing up, F (4, 905) = 16.25,
2

p<.001,  = .066. Eta-squared found a moderate effect between the racial makeup of a
student’s friends growing up and their SRP. Students whose friends growing up was entirely or
mostly the same race had significantly less positive racial perceptions than did students whose
childhood friendship group consisted of individuals mostly of other racial groups (about half or
almost all other races).
Question 20 asked respondents to choose the response that best defined their closest
group of friends in college. SRP was shown to be statistically significantly different with regard
to the racial composition of respondents’ closest group of friends in college, F (4, 905) = 32.33,
2

p<.001,  = .125. In addition, eta-squared indicated that the racial makeup of a student’s
closest group of friends in college had a medium to large effect on their SRP. Similar to
question eighteen, students whose closest friends were entirely their race had significantly less
positive racial perceptions than did students whose college friendship group consisted of one or

94

more members of another race. And like question eighteen, those students whose friends were
mostly their race showed less positive racial perception scores than those respondents whose
college friendship groups consisted of individuals from mostly other racial groups (about half or
almost all other races).
Question 21 inquired about the racial composition of the courses respondents had taken
so far in college. Due to the limited number of respondents that answered all my race on this
question, this response option was grouped with the response, almost all my race, for statistical
purposes. ANOVA results showed that SRP was statistically significantly different based on the
2

racial makeup of student’s college classes, F (3, 906) = 43.55, p<.001,  = .102. Eta-squared
revealed that that racial makeup of a student’s college classes had a moderate to large effect on
their SRP. Specifically, analysis showed that respondents who perceived their classes to consist
of individuals half or almost entirely their race had less positive racial perceptions scores than
did those respondents who perceived their classes to consist of individuals who were mostly or
entirely from other racial groups.
Question 22 asked respondents to select the response option that best described the racial
composition of the professional business organizations in which they were most active. ANOVA
results showed SRP was statistically significantly different in regard to the racial makeup of the
2

professional organizations in which respondents were most active, F (4, 905) = 23.43, p<.001, 
= .094. Eta-squared results indicated that the racial mix of the professional organization(s) in
which a student was involved had a moderate to large effect on their SRP. Post hoc analysis
revealed that students who participated in professional organizations whose members were
mostly the same race (all or almost all) had less positive racial perceptions than respondents
engaged in professional organizations with a diverse membership (half, almost all, or all other
95

races). Students who were involved in professional organizations with membership almost
entirely another race had more positive racial perceptions than did those students whose
professional organizations membership racial composition was half their race.
Question 23 directed respondents to select the response that best described the racial
composition of the faculty/staff at the university/college they currently attend. As with previous
questions, a limited number of students selected the response all my race on this question. For
statistical purposes, this response option was grouped with the response almost all my race. SRP
was shown to be statistically significantly different based on the racial makeup of the faculty and
2

staff at the college respondents attended, F (3, 906) = 36.81, p<.001,  = .108. In addition, etasquared indicated that the racial composition of the faculty/staff had a moderate to large effect on
a student’s SRP. Results illustrated that respondents who perceived the racial composition of
their institution’s faculty/staff to be half or almost all their race had less positive racial
perceptions of others than did students who described the faculty/staff of their institution being
all or almost all some other race.
Question 24 requested that respondents select the response that best described the racial
composition of the roommate or roommates they have had since coming to college. Student’s
racial perception scores were shown to be statistically significantly different based on the race of
2

student’s college roommate(s), F (4.905) = 14.55, p<.001,  = .060. Eta-squared found a
moderate effect between the racial makeup of a student’s roommate(s) since coming to college
and their SRP. Post-hoc analysis found that students whose college roommate(s) were the same
race had less positive racial perceptions than respondents whose roommate(s) consisted entirely
of individuals from different racial groups as well as those respondents who identified half of
their roommates being of some other racial group. In addition, students whose roommates were
96

almost all their race had less positive racial perceptions than did respondents with roommate(s)
consisting entirely of individuals from different racial groups than their own.
Question 25 asked respondents to select the response that best described the racial
composition of the social activities in which they most often participate. Racial perception
scores were found to be statistically significantly different in relation to the racial makeup of the
Table 9
Analysis of Variance: Opportunity for Contact
dfb dfw

Opportunity for Contact

F

p

2



Q15 - What is the racial makeup of the high school from which
you graduated?
Q16 – What is the racial makeup of the neighborhood in which
you grew up?
Q17 – What is the racial makeup of your family?

4

905

9.997

.000 .042

4

905

7.775

.000 .033

3

906

6.830

.000 .022

Q18 – Which do you feel best describes the makeup of the
university/college you attend?
Q19 – How would you describe your closet group of friends
growing up?
Q20 – How would you describe your closet group of friends in
college?
Q21 – Which best describe the students in most of the college
classes you have taken?
Q22 – How would you describe the makeup of the professional
business organizations in which you are most active?
Q23 – Which best describes the faculty and staff at the
university/college you attend?
Q24 – Which best describes the roommate(s) you have had since
coming to college?
Q25* - How would you describe the makeup of the social
activities in which you most often participate?

3

906 29.338 .000 .088

4

905 16.246 .000 .066

4

905 32.553 .000 .125

3

906 34.553 .000 .102

4

905 23.427 .000 .094

3

906 36.810 .000 .108

4

905 14.551 .000 .060

4

108 27.239 .000 .124

Note: N = 910; p < .001; dfb = Degrees of Freedom Between Groups; dfw = Degrees of
Freedom Within Groups; F = F-Distribution; p = Significance /Probability; * = Welch Robust
2
Test of Equality of Measures;  = Eta Squared (Effect Size)
social activities in which respondents most often engaged, Welch’s F (4, 108) = 27.24, p<.001,
2

 = .124. In addition, eta-squared indicated that the racial mix of the social activities in which a
97

student most often engaged had a medium to large effect on their SRP. Results revealed that
respondents who participated in social activities entirely made-up of individuals of the same race
had less positive racial perception of others than did students whose social activities involved
one or more individuals of another race. Even students who engaged in social activities
comprised mostly of the same race had less positive racial perceptions than did respondents
whose social activities included members half or almost entirely another race.
Lastly, a Pearson product-moment correlation was run to assess the relationship between
student’s racial perception (SRP) and the opportunity for interracial interaction (Q15-Q25). A
moderate positive correlation was found to exist between the opportunity respondents had for
cross-racial interaction and SRP scores, r(908) = .349, p<.001, with the opportunity for
interracial contact explaining 12% of the variation in SRP scores.
Frequency of Contact
The independent variable, frequency of contact, was evaluated using questions twenty-six
through thirty-four on the survey (see Appendix F for a detailed listing of each question). The
measure frequency of contact was created to assess the interactional diversity of students’ lives.
In short, this variable was developed to gauge the frequency with which a student interacted with
individuals of other racial groups. Responses to questions in this section included: (1) Never (2)
Once or Twice a year (3) Once or Twice a Semester (4) Every Week (5) Daily. A respondent
whose answers to the questions comprising this variable totaled 9 indicated a student who
seldom if ever engaged members of other racial groups. However, a student whose responses
totaled 45 indicated a student who interacted with members of other racial groups on a daily
basis.

98

Each question was investigated using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).
Levene’s Test of Homogeneity of Variance showed homogeneity of variances for each question,
except Q33. ANOVA results showed a statistical significant relation between each question
comprising the independent variable, frequency of contact, and student’s racial perception (SRP).
Eta-squared results indicated a moderate to large effect on student’s SRP for eight of the nine
questions. The following paragraphs provide a review of the ANOVA results. ANOVA results
for each question can be found in Table 10.
Question 26 inquired as to how often respondents received tutoring from someone of a
different race. ANOVA results showed SRP scores to be statistically significantly different based
on how often a student received tutoring from a member of a different racial group, F (4, 905) =
2

21.23, p<.001,  = .086. In addition, eta-squared revealed a moderate to large effect of .086,
indicating that how often a student was tutored by someone of a different race moderately
affected his or her SRP. Post hoc analysis revealed that students who had never been tutored by
someone of a different race had less positive racial perceptions than did respondents who
received tutoring even once a semester from an individual of another racial group. In addition,
students who received tutoring from a member of another race on a weekly basis were shown to
have a more positive racial perception than those tutored one or twice a semester by a member of
a different race.
Question 27 asked respondents how often they engaged in serious conversations with
students from different racial backgrounds. Results showed evidence that SRP scores were
statistically significantly different based on the frequency with which respondents engaged
2

members of another race in serious conversation, F (4, 905) = 22.13, p<.001,  = .089. Etasquared indicated that how often a student engaged in serious conversations with members of
99

another racial background had a medium to large effect on his or her SRP. Further analysis
found that respondents who participated in serious conversations with members of another race
on a daily basis had more positive racial perceptions then even those students who conversed
with members of a different race on a weekly basis or less often (all four other conditions).
Even students who conversed with other races on a weekly basis had more positive racial
perceptions than those who seldom (once or twice a semester/year) or never conversed with
members of another racial group. In short, students who conversed with other racial groups
twice a semester or less were found to have poorer racial perceptions than students who
identified with all other conditions.
Question 28 inquired about how regularly respondents had lived with someone from a
different racial group. Results found a statistical significant difference between SRP score and
2

how often students lived with someone of a different racial group, F (4, 905) = 13.84, p<.001, 

= .057. However, eta-squared results indicated that how often a student lived with someone of a
different race only had a small to medium effect on her or his SRP. Further analysis found that
students who had never lived with someone from another racial group had more negative
perceptions of other racial groups than did those respondents who had lived with members of
another race only once or twice a year or on a daily basis.
Question 29 asked respondents how often they worked with someone of another race.
ANOVA results found SRP scores to be statistically significantly different based on the
frequency with which respondents worked with individuals of another race, F (4, 905) = 31.29,
2

p<.001,  = .121. Additionally, eta-squared indicated that how often a student worked with
someone of another race had a moderate to large effect on his or her SRP. Post hoc analysis
confirms that respondents who worked with other races on a daily basis had more positive racial
100

perceptions than did students under all four other conditions. Even students who only worked
with members of another race on a weekly or once or twice a semester basis had more positive
racial perceptions than did those students who seldom (once or twice a year) or who never
worked with someone of a different racial group.
Question 30 inquired about how often participants ate meals with individuals from other
racial groups. One-way analysis exhibited SRP scores that were statistically significantly
different based on the frequency with which students dined with members of another race, F (4,
2

905) = 24.45, p<.001,  = .097. Eta-squared revealed a moderate to large effect of .097,
indicating how often a student dined with a member of another race had a moderate effect on his
or her SRP. Analysis provided evidence that students who never dined with members of a
different racial group had less positive racial perceptions than respondents who ate with a
member of another race once a semester or more frequently. Results also indicated that
respondents who sat down to a meal with a member of another racial group on a weekly or daily
basis possessed more positive attitudes about others than those who only dined with another race
once or twice a year or semester.
Question 31 asked respondents how often they are taught by faculty of a different racial
group. Results revealed that SRP scores were statistically significantly different based on the
regularity with which students were taught by faculty from other racial groups, F (4, 905) =
2

17.52, p<.001,  = .072. Eta-squared found a moderate effect between how often a student was
taught by faculty of a different race and his or her SRP. Analysis found that students who had
never been taught by someone of a different racial group had significantly less positive racial
perceptions than those respondents who were taught on a weekly or daily basis by a member of
another race. Most notable was that respondents who received instruction from a member of
101

another race on a daily basis held significantly more positive perceptions of other races than did
students who responded to every other condition.
Question 32 inquired as to how often respondents dated someone of a different race.
Results found statistically significant different SRP scores based on how often respondents date
2

members of another race, F (4, 905) = 15.41, p<.001,  = .064. Eta-squared indicated a
moderate effect between how often a student dated someone of a different race and his or her
SRP. Analysis confirmed that those students who dated someone of another race once a year or
more often had much more positive racial perceptions than did those individuals who never dated
a member of another racial group.
Question 33 asked respondents how often they study with someone from a different racial
group. SRP scores were statistically significantly different based on how often students studied
with someone from a racial group other than their own, Welch’s F (4, 273.64) = 33.89, p<.001,
2

 = .123. Additionally, eta-squared indicated that how often a student studied with someone of
another race had a moderate to large effect on his or her SRP. Post hoc analysis found that
students who studied with students of another race once a semester or more often had more
positive racial perceptions than students who only studied with a member of another race once a
year or less. Furthermore, students who studied with someone of another race on a weekly or
daily basis showed more positive racial perceptions than those who only studied with someone of
a different race once or twice a semester.
Question 34 requested respondents to select the response which best represented how
often they used the Multicultural Business Program’s (MBP) services. This program is an
academic unit housed in the College of Business where this study was conducted. MBP provides
tutorial support, academic and career advising, professional development and other support
102

Table 10
Analysis of Variance: Frequency of Contact
dfb dfw

Frequency of Contact
Q26 – How often do you receive tutoring from someone of a
race different than your own?
Q27 – How often do you have serious conversations with
students of a different race?
Q28 – How often have you lived with someone from a different
racial group?
Q29 – How often do you work with someone of another race?

F

p

2



4

905 21.233 .000 .086

4

905 22.125 .000 .089

4

905 13.843 .000 .057

4

905 31.289 .000 .121

Q30 – How often do you eat meals with individuals from a
4 905 24.449 .000 .097
different racial group?
Q31 – How often are you taught by faculty from a different
4 905 17.516 .000 .072
racial group?
Q32 – How often do you date someone from a different racial
4 905 15.405 .000 .064
group?
Q33* - How often do you study with someone from a different
4 274 33.891 .000 .123
racial group?
Q34 – How often do you use the services provided by the
4 905 24.193 .000 .097
Multicultural Business Programs in the Eli Broad College of
Business?
Note: N = 910; p < .001; dfb = Degrees of Freedom Between Groups; dfw = Degrees of Freedom
Within Groups; F = F-Distribution; p = Significance /Probability; * = Welch Robust Test of
2
Equality of Measures;  = Eta Squared (Effect Size)
services with a focus on promoting opportunities for students to engage in these aforementioned
activities with a multiracial group of peers. Data revealed SRP scores to be statistically
significantly different based on how often respondents used the services provided by MBP, F (4,
2

905) = 24.20, p<.001,  = .097. Eta-squared revealed a moderate to large effect of .097,
indicating how often a student used MBP services had a moderate effect on his or her SRP.
Analysis of the data found that students who used MBP services and programming on a weekly
or daily basis had more positive racial perceptions than respondents who used MBP once or
twice a semester or less often. Even those students who took advantage of MBP services just
103

once or twice a semester had more positive racial perceptions than those students who never
sought out its services.
A Pearson product-moment correlation was run to assess the relationship between
student’s racial perceptions (SRP) and the frequency of interracial contact. There was a
moderate positive correlation between how often respondents interacted with other racial groups
and SRP scores, r (908) = .459, p<.001, with the frequency of interracial contact explaining 21%
of the variation in SRP scores.
Quality of Contact
The independent variable, quality of contact, was evaluated using just question thirty-five
on the survey. The variable quality of contact was created to analyze the general feelings
students’ had about their interaction with individuals from other racial groups. To be exact, this
independent variable was designed to determine how positive or negative students felt about
their cross-racial interactions (i.e., the quality of their interactions). Questions 35 asked
respondents to select the response that best described their feelings about the overall experiences
they have had with people from different racial backgrounds. Response choices were: (1) Very
Negative (2) Negative (3) Neutral (4) Positive (5) Very Positive. A student response of 1
indicates a student who felt very negative about their overall cross-racial interactions, where as a
student response of 5 indicates a student who felt very positive about their cross-racial
interactions.
ANOVA results revealed SRP scores to be statistically significantly different based on
the quality of contact respondents had with members of a different race, F (4, 905) = 70.25,
2

p<.001,  = .237. Eta-squared also revealed a large effect of .237, indicating that how negative
or positive a student’s interactions were with members of another race had a large effect on his
104

or her SRP. Refer to Table 11 for ANOVA results. Post hoc analysis revealed that students who
felt very positive about their overall experiences with members of different racial groups had
significantly more optimistic racial perceptions than did students who responded to all four other
conditions. However, those students who felt generally positive about her or his cross racial
interactions also had more optimistic perceptions of others than those respondents who described
their experiences as being neutral, negative or very negative. Even those students who described
their interracial interactions as neutral (neither negative nor positive) had more positive
perceptions than those who described their interactions with others as negative.
A Pearson product-moment correlation was run to assess the relationship between
student’s racial perception (SRP) and the overall quality of interracial contact. There was a
moderate positive correlation between the quality of interracial contact students have had and
SRP scores, r (908) = .486, p<.001, with the quality of interracial contact explaining 24% of the
variation in SRP scores.
Table 11
Analysis of Variance: Quality of Contact
dfb dfw

Quality of Contact

F

p

2



Q35 – Overall, how would you describe your feelings about the
4 905 70.248 .000 .237
experiences you have had with people from different racial
backgrounds?
Note: p < .001; dfb = Degrees of Freedom between Groups; dfw = Degrees of Freedom Within
2

Groups; F = F-Distribution; p = Significance /Probability;  = Eta Squared (Effect Size)
Summary
This chapter presented findings from the survey data collection. One-Way ANOVA’s and
t-tests were conducted on the independent variables (Demographics, Opportunity for Contact,
Frequency of Contact, and Quality of Contact) to assess if a significant relationship existed
105

between these variables and the dependent variable students racial perceptions (SRP).
Statistically significant relationships were found to exist between the demographic variables
race, gender, class level, and hometown and the dependent variable, however, eta-squared
revealed small effects for the demographic variables gender, class level, and hometown. On the
other hand, eta-squared revealed that the race of a student had a large effect on his or her SRP.
No statistical or practical significant relationships were found between a student’s parent’s
education level, major, or student’s cumulative grade point average and his or her SRP.
Statistically significant relationships were found between each question that comprised the
independent variables opportunity for contact, frequency of contact, and quality of contact and
students racial perceptions, however, eta-squared revealed only moderate to large effects for 17
of the 21 questions (Q18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34). Etasquared revealed that the quality of contact (how positive or negative a student deemed their
interracial interactions) had a large effect of .237, indicating that the quality of a student’s crossracial interactions had a large effect on his or her racial perceptions. Questions 15, 16, 17, and
28 were found to be statistically significant, but eta-squared indicated that each had only a small
effect on a student’s racial perceptions. The findings presented in this chapter will be discussed
in further detail in Chapter 5.

106

CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents a discussion on the findings of this study. In the following
paragraphs I use the theoretical framework presented in Chapter 2 to explore how interracial
interaction in undergraduate domestic business students impacts their racial perceptions of
others. This discussion includes a review of the study’s more notable findings and how they
relate to the research question, followed by a review of the limitations and recommendations for
future research and implications for practice.
To review, the purpose of this study was to determine if undergraduate business students
who have higher levels of interracial contact exhibit more or less positive racial perceptions of
other races. The final results of this study indicate that business students who have frequent
(weekly or daily) and positive interracial interactions typically possess more positive racial
perceptions than their peers whose interactions are infrequent (never, once or twice a year or
semester) and less positive. More specifically, the findings show that (1) business students who
reported more opportunities for contact (i.e., structural diversity) generally had moderately more
positive racial perceptions than students who reported having less opportunity for interracial
contact, (2) business students who identified interacting frequently (weekly or daily) with
members of other racial groups had moderately more positive racial perceptions than students
whose interactions were less frequent (never or once or twice a year/semester), (3) business
students who rated their overall interracial experiences to date as positive or very positive
possessed significantly more positive racial perceptions than students who rated their interracial
interactions as neutral, negative or very negative, and (4) a business student’s race significantly
influences his or her racial attitude.

107

Opportunity for Contact
ANOVA results on questions 15 through 25 indicated that business students who reported
more opportunities for contact generally had more positive racial perceptions than students who
reported having less opportunity for interracial contact. These findings are largely consistent
with much of the seminal research on cross-racial interaction. Numerous researchers have
acknowledged the role structural diversity, or the level of diversity an individual is subject to,
plays in exposing students to the racial diversity necessary to influence their perceptions of
others (antonio, 1998; Chang, 1996; Chang et al, 2006; Luo & Jamieson-Drake, 2009; Gurin, et.
al., 2002; Hurtado, et. al., 1999).
Each question that comprised the variable opportunity for contact was shown to be
statistically significant, however, question 15 (the racial mix of a student’s high school), question
16 (the racial mix of a student’s neighborhood growing up), and question 17 (the racial mix of a
student’s family) were found to have little practical significance. Conversely, the diversity of
student’s peer groups (i.e., their high school and college friends and roommates) prior to and
during college and the diversity of a student’s college setting (i.e., the university, professional
organizations, college classes, faculty/staff, and social activities they attended or were involved
in) were shown to not only be statistically significant, but to also have a moderate to large effect
on students racial perceptions (SRP). Questions 19, 20, and 24 inquired about the racial makeup
of student’s peer groups (i.e., closest high school friends, closest college friends and college
roommates respectively). Students who reported having peer groups consisting of peers half or
less the same race as the student were shown to possess more positive racial perceptions than
students who reported their peer groups consisting of individuals entirely or almost entirely the
same race as the student. These results are supported by existing research. For instance,

108

Pascarella et al. (1996) and Whitt et al. (2001) discovered that students who had the opportunity
to interact with diverse peers showed more openness to diversity and Levin, van Laar, and
Sidanius (2003) established that students who had friends outside their race had fewer biases
towards racially different others. Research on the influence of having a different race roommate
in college also found that students develop more positive attitudes and become generally more
sympathetic concerning the racial groups to which their college roommates belong (Boisjoly et
al, 2006; Duncan et al., 2003). Question 20, the racial makeup of a student’s closest friends in
college, was shown to have the most significant effect on a student’s racial perceptions. These
findings are not overly surprising since researchers from Astin (1993a; 1993b) to Tinto (1993)
have found that students’ peers in college play a significant role in their lives (Ellison & Powers,
1994; Engberg et al., 2004; Levin et al., 2003; Pettigrew, 1997; Sigelman et al., 1993). The role
peers play in a student’s lives was best summed up by Astin (1993a, p. 389) who stated, “the
student peer group is the single most potent source of influence on growth and development
during the undergraduate years”. Questions 18, 21, 22, 23, and 25 inquired about the racial
makeup of the student’s college setting (i.e., the university, college classes, professional
organizations, faculty and staff, and the social activities in which they engaged respectively).
Students who reported being exposed to college settings consisting of individuals half or less the
same race as the student were shown to possess more positive racial perceptions than students
who reported their college settings consisting of individuals entirely or almost entirely the same
race as the student. The racial makeup of a student’s college classes, faculty and staff, and social
activities were found to have the most significant effect on a student’s racial perceptions.
Similarly, Lopez (2004) and Chang (2002) found that students who engaged in diverse groups
and social activities had improved cultural understanding and reductions in racial prejudice. In

109

addition, Gellin (2003) concluded that through involvement in diverse organizations and social
groups students gain exposure to a variety of viewpoints and the exchange of diverse ideas that
encourage students to reevaluate how they view the world. Although not unique, the
aforementioned findings regarding the influence a student’s peer groups and college settings has
on their racial perceptions provides additional support for the extensive research that exists on
the effect diverse peer groups and college settings have on students cultural knowledge and
attitudes regarding race (Astin, 1993b; Chang, 2001; Chang et al., 2004; Denson, et al., 2009;
Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, & Allen, 1999; Inkelas, 2004; Pike et al., 2006, Tatum,
1999; Tinto, 1993).
Frequency of Contact
Findings indicated that students who interacted with members of a different race on a
frequent (weekly or daily) basis possessed significantly more positive racial perceptions than
those students who never or seldom engaged members of another race. These findings are not
overly surprising as they are consistent with a wealth of research concerning the influence of
frequent interracial interaction on racial attitudes and other democratic outcomes. Numerous
studies have shown that students who regularly interact with diverse peers through a variety of
experiences tend to possess more positive racial perceptions and pluralistic orientations (antonio,
2001b; Chang, 1999; Chang, 2002; Engberg et al., 2011; Gurin, Dey Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002;
Hurtado, 1992; Lopez, 2004; Jayakumar, 2008; Springer, Palmer, Terenzini, Pascarella, & Nora,
1996). For instance, Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) in a meta-analysis of over a hundred interracial
contact studies uncovered significant association between frequent contact amongst diverse peers
and positive racial attitudes.

110

Every question that comprised the variable frequency of contact was shown to be
statistically significant, however question 28, how often a student had lived with someone of a
different race, was found to have only a small to moderate effect on SRP. In contrast, question
26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 (i.e., how often a student was tutored by, engaged in serious
conversation with, worked with, dinned with, was taught by, dated, and studied with someone of
a different race respectively) were shown to not only be statistically significant but to also have
moderate to large effects on SRP. Of these seven questions, working and studying with someone
of a different race was found to have the most significant effect on SRP. Being tutored by,
having a serious conversation with, and dinning with an individual of a different race was found
to have the next highest effect on a student’s racial perceptions, with being taught by and dating
someone of a different race having the lowest effect on SRP of the seven aforementioned
questions. On the whole, these findings are not unusual. For instance, Hurtado (2001) established
that students who studied with an individual from a different racial background often possessed
more pluralistic orientations. In addition, Hurtado, Dey, and Trevino (1994) found that students
who socialized with diverse peers and participated in diverse student organizations tended to also
dine, study, live, and date individuals from different racial groups more frequently; which are
interactions types shown by this study and others (Chang, et al., 2006; Hurtado, 2001; Whitt, et
al., 2001) to be related to a student’s racial attitudes and openness to diversity. Lastly, question
34, which asked students’ how often they used the services provided by the Multicultural
Business Programs (MBP), was also shown to be statistically significant and to have a moderate
to large effect on SRP and is unique to this study. MBP is an academic unit located in the
College of Business where this study was conducted and is the academic program through which
I am employed. Students who reported using MBP services on a weekly or daily basis were

111

shown to possess more positive racial perceptions than students who only used MBP once or
twice a semester/year or who never used MBP’s services. The services MBP provide include
holistic academic advising, peer centered tutoring, professional development programming,
community service and leadership opportunities, and placement assistance. Created over 20
years ago to help improve retention rates for minorities in the business college, MBP currently
serves over 1000 students a year (40-45% of which are White) and has grown into a program that
promotes multiculturalism and inclusion of all students regardless of race or nationality.
Although the statistical and practical significance of question 34 is similar to those questions
above, it provides insight to a unique student support program that deserves further examination.
Although eight of the nine questions that makeup the independent variable frequency of
contact were found to have both statistical and practical significance, what is still not known is
do students with positive racial perceptions engage diverse peers more frequently or is it that
students who frequently interact with diverse peers develop more positive racial perceptions. In
other words, because of the correlational nature of this study, this finding does not establish a
causal link between frequent engagement of diverse peers and more positive racial perceptions.
What the results of this study do demonstrate is that students who choose to engage in
interactions with diverse peers on a frequent (weekly or daily) basis possess more positive racial
perceptions. Even though I was unable to prove causality, the independent variable frequency of
contact was found to have the second strongest correlation (r =.459) to a student’s racial
perception, explaining 21% of the variation in SRP scores. Based on these results and the
findings above, it is apparent that interracial interaction not only has a moderate to large effect
on, but also is positively correlated to students’ racial attitudes. Thus, what these findings do

112

provide is additional evidence to support existing research that speaks to the influence frequent
cross-racial interaction has on student racial perceptions.
Quality of Contact
The independent variable quality of contact was found to have the strongest correlation (r
=.486) to a student’s racial perception of all variables examined in this study, explaining 24% of
the variation in SRP scores. Results showed that business students who rated their overall
interracial experiences to date as positive or very positive possessed significantly more positive
racial perceptions than students who rated their interracial interactions as neutral, negative or
very negative. Unlike the variables opportunity for contact and frequency of contact, the variable
quality of contact consisted of only one question (Q35) that asked students to select the response
that best described their feelings about their overall interactions with individuals of a different
race. Nevertheless, this individual question was shown to not only be statistically significant but
to have a large effect on SRP. Actually, how negative or positive a student deemed their overall
interracial experiences was shown to have the greatest effect on a student’s racial attitude of all
the variables measured. These results are generally consistent with those of other studies. Gurin
et al. (2002) demonstrated that positive informal interaction with individuals of other races was
related to more positive civic attitudes. Astin (1993a) found that students who had positive
diversity experiences reported reduced prejudice. Engberg (2007) established that students who
interacted with racially diverse peers in informal settings, characterized by pleasant and positive
exchanges, developed strong pluralistic orientations. In a study based on a national sample,
Hurtado (2003) found that students who had more positive (open, honest, and personal)
interactions with diverse peers were more likely to retain greater cultural awareness and positive
civic attitudes then those students whose cross-racial interactions were deemed negative.

113

Another finding of interest was that 79% of students who responded to this study
described the nature of their overall interracial interactions to date as being positive or very
positive. Taking the above finding into consideration, even though this study found that students
who interacted on a frequent (weekly or daily) basis with diverse peers possessed more positive
SRP scores, the nature of these interactions would appear to play an equal if not more influential
role in predicting SRP. Allport (1954) himself proposed that simple contact alone is insufficient
to bring about positive changes in intergroup relations and attitudes. For this reason, Allport
(1954) developed four prerequisite conditions upon which contact should be based for crossracial interaction to result in positive effects (equal status, common goals, intergroup
cooperation, and support of laws, authorities, or customs). These conditions plainly describe a
setting designed to make the interactions between races as positive as possible (Gurin, Nagada,
& Lopez, 2004). The findings of Pike and Kuh (2006), Pettigrew (1998), and Gurin et al. (2002)
support these results. Based on these researchers thorough review of the impact of interracial
interaction, they argue that the frequency of interaction is not adequate in and of itself to reduce
prejudice and improve racial attitudes, but that the quality of the interaction is equally crucial.
Student’s Race
Results showed that minority students were likely to exhibit less racial prejudice towards
others from different racial backgrounds than White respondents when all variables were held
constant. Of the demographic variables in this study, a student’s race was the only one found to
have both statistical and practical significance. The race of a student was found to have a large
effect (2 = .161) on SRP, which was the second largest effect size of all examined variables.
Although the demographic variables gender, class level, and hometown were all found to be
2

statistically significant, each were found to have small effects,  = .017, 005, and .030

114

respectively. The demographic variables parent’s educational level, major, and self-reported
G.P.A. were found to have no statistical or practical significance. This finding is similar to those
ascertained in prior studies. For instance, Neville and Furlong (1994) found that Black students
tended to exhibit more positive racial attitudes than White students and Whitt et al. (2001) found
that minority students were more open to diversity than their White peers. On the other hand,
these findings are also incongruent with other studies. For example, Gurin et al. (2002) found
that both Whites and minorities benefited equally from cross-racial interaction, whereas Hyun
(1994) found greater positive effects on White students levels of prejudice than those of Blacks.
However, in a meta-analysis of studies on intergroup interaction, Engberg (2004) found that
White students generally benefit the most from interracial contact and thus exhibit more positive
racial attitudes after interacting with racially diverse individuals than do their minority
counterparts.
When taking into consideration the significant differences that exist between different
racial groups, these findings are not overly surprising (Levine & Cureton, 1998). However, these
findings still leave to speculation why such varied results exist. The minorities in the current
study possessing more positive perceptions could be attributable to the fact that they tend to have
more interracial interactions due to the fact that although shifting, there still are more Whites
(especially on predominately White campuses) than any other racial group. This numerical
representation of Whites increases the chances a minority student has to interact with White
students and limits the opportunity a White student has to interact with minority students
(Sigelman et al., 1993). Then again, that minorities in this study possess more positive racial
attitudes could also be attributed to the fact that White students and minorities tend to enter
college with very unique and different attitudes about race (Astin, 1993a). As they progress

115

through college these differences in attitudes become more defined and amplified (Astin, 1993a).
For example, a minority student may enter college with more positive racial perceptions than a
White student due to the unique experiences the minority student had growing up. Already being
ahead of the curve, as the minority student continues to be exposed to diverse peers in college his
or her racial perceptions continue to improve. While the White student’s attitude in college
improves at the same rate as that of the minority student, because the White student entered
college with less positive perceptions to begin with the positive nature of her or his racial
attitudes still lags behind their minority counterparts. However, because this study did not
examine racial differences more closely, it is difficult to speculate beyond the aforementioned
possibilities.
Limitations and Future Research
Although the findings of this study add to and expand on the existing research regarding
the impact of cross-racial interaction, this study still has several limitations that must be noted.
First, a significant limitation to the generalizability of this study is that it focuses its attention
solely on domestic undergraduate business students at one institution and more importantly in
one academic area. Therefore, these findings cannot be generalized to the larger institution,
other academic areas on the same campus, or other universities due to the fact that each major
and campus (see Holland, 1985 and Milem et al., 2003) has their own unique student bodies and
campus culture that impact the experiences of their students in ways for which this study cannot
account. Future research should attempt to seek a sample comprised of different institutions or
across different majors at the same institution. Involving students across a wide range of majors
could help educators identify the nuances known to exist between majors (Milem et al., 2003).

116

Nevertheless, as an exploratory study, the results are still a strong indicator as to the relationship
between the level of interracial contact and students racial perceptions.
In addition, the survey used in this study was developed for and tested on business
students at a large 4-year research institution. Thus, it is possible that the survey used in this
study does not translate for business students enrolled at smaller 4-year institutions, community,
or private colleges. Future research may wish to investigate if this instrument is the best measure
for other college types and settings.
Next, due to the small numbers of respondents in each minority racial category, I was
required to combine them into one minority/multiracial category for statistical purposes. Thus,
this study fails to account for the differences that research has shown exists between different
racial groups (Hurtado et al., 1996; Minatoya et al., 1983). If feasible, it would be beneficial for
future research to try and secure large enough samples from each racial category being studied to
account for these differences. However, considering the growing diversification of colleges and
universities, I can only hope that obtaining a sufficient number of respondents for each minority
category may become less challenging for future researchers.
It is also important to note that I serve as an academic advisor within the College of
Business where this study was conducted; therefore, many students who use the services of the
program for which I work know me. As a result, some selection bias may exist in this study.
Certain students could have agreed or declined to participate in this study due to their past
interactions with me or the office for which I work. Although significant measures were taken to
minimize such bias (see Chapter 3) these steps cannot completely address all possible bias.
Lastly, this study has attempted to account for as many variables as possible that could
impact students’ racial perceptions. Yet, it is difficult to isolate or anticipate the numerous

117

external influences that can confound the effects of those identified variables, such as a students’
precollege experiences. Therefore, future research may want to look at including other controls
or processes that can further minimize external confounding effects.
Implications for Practice/Recommendations
The research and discussions within higher education concerning the benefits of a diverse
student body and cross-racial interaction have been pervasive. This dialogue has looked at how
interracial interaction impacts everything from students’ cognitive processes to their attitudes
about diversity. However, with racial tensions on the rise on college campuses (SPLC, 2005;
Potok, 2012) and increasing demands from corporations being placed on colleges to produce
employees who possess attitudes necessary to work with an increasingly diverse workforce (as
cited in Engberg et al, 2011), it appears that research on how interracial interaction influences
student’s racial perceptions is not only relevant but still needed. Thus, in spite of the
aforementioned limitations, the findings of this study have important theoretical and practical
implications.
From a theoretical perspective, the findings of this study confirm those findings of
existing research regarding the influence and benefits of interracial interaction. For instance, the
results of this study confirm the role structural diversity (opportunity for contact) plays in
exposing students to the diversity necessary to influence their perceptions of other racial groups
(antonio, 1998; Chang, 1996; Chang et al, 2006; Luo & Jamieson-Drake, 2009; Gurin, et. al.,
2002; Hurtado, et. al., 1999). This study also confirms the findings of existing research on the
benefits of frequent (Astin, 1993a; Engberg, 2007; Gurin et al., 2002; Hurtado, 2003; Pettigrew,
1998) and positive (antonio, 2001b; Chang, 1999, 2002; Gurin et al., 2002; Lopez, 2004)
interracial interaction and racial attitudes. Results also confirm previous studies’ findings as to

118

the significant impact student’s peers and college settings have on their attitudes regarding race
(Astin, 1993b; Chang et al., 2004; Denson et al., 2009; Engberg et al., 2004; Gellin, 2003;
Hurtado, et al., 1999; Inkelas, 2004; Lopez, 2004; Pike et al., 2006, Tatum, 1999; Tinto, 1993).
Lastly, the current study confirms the findings of existing research as to the type of activities,
which when engaged in frequently have the most significant impact on student’s racial
perceptions (Chang et al., 2006; Hurtado, 2001; Hurtado et al., 1994; Whitt et al., 2001).
This study’s findings also add to and expand on those of existing interracial interaction
research. For instance, although a sizeable amount of research has been conducted on the
benefits of interracial interaction little research has been conducted linking interracial interaction
to a student’s preparation for future employment. Understanding that the attitudes students form
in college follow them into the workforce (Buttner et al., 2006), this study examined how
interracial interaction impacts business students’ racial attitudes. The findings of this study
demonstrate that business students who engage in frequent and positive interracial interaction
possess racial attitudes in line with what corporations have deemed necessary to be productive
members of an increasingly diverse workforce.
This study’s findings also have practical implications for business colleges and
corporations. As corporations have begun to understand the impact diversity has on their ability
to remain competitive they have placed added pressure on educators to develop students with a
set of diverse workplace competencies they identify as necessary to traverse a diverse workforce
(Bikson et al., 1994; Carr-Ruffino, 2005; Engberg & Hurtado, 2011). These diverse workplace
competencies include being able to work with diverse people, to view the world from multiple
perspectives, and to navigate challenging issues (as cited in Engberg et al, 2011). The inability to
secure employees who possess these diverse workplace competencies directly affects

119

corporations’ bottom line. Companies that are able to secure a diverse workforce with the skill
set needed to navigate the challenges of working with diverse individuals retains a competitive
advantage over its competition (Buttner et al, 2006; Carr-Ruffino, 2005; Cox, 1993; Salmon et
al., 2003). Business colleges who are unable to produce graduates who possess these
aforementioned diversity competencies also face the prospect of corporations taking their
corporate dollars and employment opportunities to those business colleges who can provide them
with students who possess the aforementioned competencies (Contreras, 2007). Therefore, it is
increasingly likely that the success of business colleges will be measured by how well they
prepare their students for the challenges of an increasingly diverse workforce. The results of this
study (i.e., business students who have frequent (weekly and daily) and positive interracial
interactions typically possess more positive racial perceptions than their peers whose interactions
are infrequent and less positive) should thus prove useful to business colleges seeking to develop
students with more positive racial perceptions as well as the corporations seeking to hire these
students as future employees.
This study’s findings also highlighted various peer groups, college settings, and activities
shown to have moderate to large effects on business student’s racial perceptions. Business
colleges and educators can look to these results for ideas as they begin to contemplate how to
provide students with opportunities to interact with diverse peers. For example, results from this
study pointed to the racial makeup of business student’s closest friends in college and the social
activities in which they engaged having a moderate to large effect on a student’s racial
perceptions. Thus, business colleges could look at creating social events or programming that
bring diverse groups of students together on a bi-weekly or monthly basis. This study’s results
also indicated that studying with and dinning with individuals from different racial groups had a

120

significant effect on a student’s racial perceptions, which could suggest to business educators
that they might want to look at creating meal time study groups consisting of individuals from
racial diverse backgrounds.
The results of this study also highlight the need for whatever interracial interactions occur
between students to be positive in nature. The results of this study found that students who
described their interactions with other races as negative or very negative held less positive racial
attitudes than their peers who describe their interactions as positive or very positive. Therefore,
as business colleges and educators create opportunities for cross-racial interaction to occur, they
will want to focus on making sure these interracial interaction opportunities are structured to
maximize the likelihood they will result in positive cross-racial interactions. Educators should
keep Allport’s (1954) four specified conditions (equal group status, common goals, intergroup
cooperation, and authority support) in mind when designing opportunities for positive crossracial contact; however, they should not view these conditions as absolute. As Pettigrew (1998)
pointed out, research has found that “even in situations lacking key conditions” positive contact
effects are often found (p. 68). Educators looking for ideas about how to create frequent and
positive interracial interaction opportunities for their students can also refer to studies by
Engberg (2004) and Hurtado, et al., 1999. These two studies provide an in-depth review of
various educational interventions and diverse learning environments being used by colleges that
have been shown, to varying degrees, to reduce racial bias.
Given that students who used the services of the Multicultural Business Programs (MBP)
on a weekly or daily basis possessed more positive racial perceptions than students who never or
seldom used MBP, it is also recommended that business colleges and educators consider
implementing similar academic support programs within their colleges. A unique aspect of MBP

121

that educators should consider is that MBP exposes students to diverse peers through activities
not focused on diversity but that instead focus on promoting academic achievement, professional
and leadership development, community service, and job placement. In addition, with minimal
changes any business college could implement parts or the entire MBP model.
I am also employed by MBP, which is housed within the business college from which the
population for this study was selected. Although academic advising is one of the main
responsibilities of this office, we also work closely with corporate recruiters to place
undergraduate business students for internships, co-ops, and full-time employment. Corporate
recruiters regularly share with our program the skill sets they are looking for in prospective
employees, one of which is the desire to secure employees capable of working with and managing
diverse individuals and teams. MBP sponsors numerous programs and activities throughout the
year designed to help business students develop the racial attitude and diversity skills
corporations are demanding. These activities include the MBP Tutoring Program, corporate
sponsored dinners, part-time job opportunities, study groups and lounges, and social activities like
laze tag tournaments and golf outings. MBP also sponsors four diverse professional student
organizations, which it encourages students to join. Considering that the findings of the current
study showed that students who join racially diverse professional organizations, or who are
tutored by, converse with, dine with, work with, study with, or socialize with diverse peers
frequently (weekly or daily) possess the positive racial attitudes corporations are seeking, the
findings of this study can also be used to inform our corporate recruiting partners and college
administration about the effectiveness of the programming MBP currently has in place.
Additionally, these results can be used to secure additional funding and support from corporations
and business college administration for programming MBP sponsors that was shown by the study

122

to have significant effects on student’s racial perceptions, such as the tutor program, leadership
conferences, professional student organizations, and various social activities.
Lastly, even though this study found differences in racial perceptions between Whites
and minorities (minorities were found to possess more positive racial perceptions), Cabrera, et al.
(1999) found that minorities and Whites adjusted to college in a very similar manner; more
importantly they found that a campus climate of prejudice negatively impacted students
regardless of race. Thus, educators who are seeking to create opportunities for frequent and
positive across race interactions should be careful to not only focus on improving the attitudes
and perceptions of one group over another but instead focus on creating activities and
opportunities for engagement that improve the racial perceptions of all students regardless of
their race or ethnicity.
Conclusion
The impact of interracial interaction has been examined from a myriad of approaches and
different populations; time and time again researchers have found similar results showing a wide
variety of personal, institutional, and societal benefits are correlated to interactions with diverse
individuals. Wishing to further examine the impact of interracial interaction, I set out to explore
the relationship between interracial contact and business students’ racial perceptions. In order to
investigate this potential relationship, the following research question was explored: do
undergraduate business students who have frequent and positive interracial interactions exhibit
more or less positive racial perceptions of other races?
The results of the study can be added to the wealth of literature that has shown a
connection between interracial contact and improved or positive racial attitudes (Astin, 1993a;
Chang et al, 2006; Engberg, 2007; Engberg et al, 2003; Engberg et al, 2011; Hurtado, 2005;

123

Jayakumar, 2008; Pettigrew, 1998). More specifically, undergraduate business students who
engage diverse individuals frequently (weekly or daily basis) through various activities and
settings and who deem these interactions as positive in nature tend to possess more positive
racial perceptions than their peers who engage diverse peers less frequently and who view their
cross-racial interactions to be generally negative.
This study’s findings also expand on those of existing cross-racial interaction research.
Very few studies have been conducted linking interracial interaction to a student’s preparation
for future employment and fewer yet have looked specifically at undergraduate business
students. Understanding that the attitudes students’ form in college follows them into the
workforce, this study examined how interracial interaction impacts business students’ racial
attitudes. This study demonstrates that business students who engage in frequent and positive
interracial interaction possess more positive racial attitudes, which provides support for the role
interracial interaction in college plays in developing men and women with the racial attitudes
necessary to be productive members of an increasingly diverse workforce.
The findings of this study also have numerous practical implications for business colleges
and corporations and come at a crucial time for both. Racial incidents on college campuses are
becoming increasingly common. Within the last year three such incidents were reported on the
campus where this study took place, one of which involved a Black doll being hung in effigy
from the ceiling of a campus laboratory. Corporations are also dealing with rising costs
associated with increasing discrimination and harassment lawsuits and incidents within the
workplace. Within the next 10-15 years many institutions of higher education will for the first
time enroll equal numbers of minority and majority students. Similarly, it is projected that by
2020 the U.S. work force will also look much different, with women and minorities holding a

124

majority of all available jobs (NCPPHE, 2005). So even if there is room to debate exactly when
this shift will occur, all signs point to it occurring in the not too distant future. Therefore, it is of
utmost importance that educators begin to look at how they serve an increasingly diverse student
body, as well as how they will develop graduates with the racial attitudes and diverse work
competencies corporations are seeking. Educators can use the findings of this study to begin this
process.
Unfortunately, as federal and state funding for colleges and universities continues to
shrink, additional funding to implement programming that creates more opportunities for
interracial interaction may be difficult to come by, especially within those universities that lack
strong institutional support for such diversity initiatives (Terrell, Rudy, & Cheatham, 1993).
Hence, for corporations to secure diverse and democratic minded employees from these
institutions, they will likely need to take a more active role by placing added pressure on
university administrators to provide support for such initiatives or be faced with funding
programs that promote cross-racial interaction out of their own pockets.

125

APPENDICES

126

APPENDIX A
Prenotification Email
Dear (First Name of Student):
My name is Kevin Leonard and I am a PhD candidate in the Higher, Adult and Lifelong
Education program at Michigan State University. I am contacting you to bring your attention to a
study I am conducting that focuses on students who are majoring in business. The purpose of my
study is to try and assess how various activities impact students’ perceptions of different groups
of individuals.
In about a week’s time you will receive an email from me with a link to a web based survey. I
am hoping you can assist me with this study by completing this survey.
Please understand that your participation in this project is completely voluntary and you can
withdraw from the study at any time. Should you decide to participate, your privacy will be
protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.
As a way of saying thank you, all participants who complete the survey will have their name
entered in a drawing to win one of 10 $10 iTunes gift cards.
If you have any questions about study, please feel free to contact me at: 419 Eppley Center, E.
Lansing, MI 48824 or via email at leonard1@msu.edu or at 517.974.6514.
Sincerely,
Kevin P. Leonard
Researcher
Cell 517-974-6514
Office 517-353-3524
leonard1@msu.edu
419 Eppley Center
Michigan State University
E. Lansing, MI 48824

127

APPENDIX B
Email Request with Survey Link
Dear (First Name of Student):
My name is Kevin Leonard and I am a PhD candidate in the Higher, Adult and Lifelong
Education program at Michigan State University. I contacted you a few weeks back informing
you of study I was conducting regarding how various activities impact students’ perceptions of
different groups. At this time I am asking you to participate in this study by completing the
following survey. The survey is on-line and should not take more than 10 minutes of your
time.
Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. To protect your
privacy, your name will be disassociated from all responses given. In addition, your name will
not be used in any written records, reports, or the final research paper. If requested, the results of
this study will be provided to you.
Your participation in this project is completely voluntary. You may withdraw from the study at
any time without giving reason and with no negative consequences. You may also refuse to
answer any question on the survey by skipping it and moving onto the next question. If you wish
to withdraw from the survey after your survey has been submitted, you can Email the researcher
at leonard1@msu.edu or call 517.353.3524 to request the deletion of your information and
responses from the study.
If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a participant in this study, or are
dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact my advisor, Dr.
Reitumetse Mabokela (mabokela@msu.edu or 517.353.6676) or the Michigan State University
Human Research Protection Program at 517.355.2180, FAX 517.432.4503, irb@msu.edu , or
207 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824.
All participants who complete the survey will have their name entered in a drawing to win one of
10 $10 iTune gift cards.
Clicking on the link below will take you directly to the survey where you will be asked to read
and confirm your consent to participate in this research study. Thank you in advance for taking
time to assist me with this study. NOTE: If you are under 18 years of age, you cannot
participate in this study without your parent’s permission. If you are 18 years of age or
older, please proceed by clicking the link below.
<Link to Survey>
Sincerely,
Kevin P. Leonard
Researcher
Cell 517.974.6514 or leonard1@msu.edu
128

APPENDIX C
Informed Consent Form
Study on the Impact of Interracial Contact
You are being invited to participate in a research study about how interracial contact affects
people’s attitudes about other racial groups. Please read this form and ask any questions you may
have before agreeing to be in the study. This study is being conducted by: Kevin P. Leonard,
PhD Candidate in the Higher Adult and Lifelong Education program in the College of Education
at Michigan State University.
The purpose of this study is to see what affect, if any, increased levels of interracial interaction
have on students’ attitudes about other racial groups. You have been selected as a possible
participant in this study because as a business student you are part of a population that not only
closely resembles the entire student body of Michigan State University but also because you are
part of a group of individuals who will make up a significant portion of the next generation of
workers entering an increasingly diverse and global workforce.
At this time I am asking you to participate in this study by completing the following survey. The
survey is on-line and should not take more than 10-15 minutes of your time. This will be a onetime survey. Upon completion of the survey, no further action on your part is required. If you
are under 18 years of age, you cannot participate in this study without your parent’s permission.
If you are 18 years of age or older, please proceed.
Because participation is voluntary, and responses are confidential, there are no foreseeable risks
associated with this research beyond those ordinarily encountered in daily life. Although you will
not directly benefit from participation in this study, your participation in this study will help
contribute to a deeper understanding about the impact of interracial interaction on people’s
perceptions.
Your participation in this project is completely voluntary. You may withdraw from the study at
any time without giving reason and with no negative consequences. You may also refuse to
answer any question on the survey by skipping it and moving onto the next question. If you wish
to withdraw from the survey after your survey has been submitted, you can Email the researcher
at leonard1@msu.edu or call 517.353.3524 to request the deletion of your information and
responses from the study.
Your confidentiality will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. Your data will
be included in a summary report along with data from others. The report will not include any
information that will allow anyone to identify any of your individual responses. The data will be
stored on a password-protected server, which will be accessible only by the research team. The
data will be kept for at least 5 years in accordance with American Psychological Association
guidelines. Only the above-mentioned researchers, their respected institutions, and the
Institutional Review Board at MSU will have access to the research data.

129

After the data collection process is complete, there will be a random drawing from the student
participant pool. Winners will each receive a $10 iTunes gift card. A maximum of 10 gift cards
will be awarded. If you are a winner, you will be sent an iTunes email gift certificate to the
Email you provided in the amount of $10.
The researcher conducting this study is Kevin P. Leonard. If you have any concerns or questions
about this study, such as scientific issues, how to complete any part of it, or to report harm
caused by the study, please contact the researcher at 419 Eppley Center, East Lansing, MI 48842,
leonard1@msu.edu or at 517.353.3524.
If you have any questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would
like to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this research
study, you may contact anonymously the Michigan State University Human Research Protection
Program at 517.355.2180, FAX 517.432.4503, irb@msu.edu, or 207 Olds Hall, MSU, East
Lansing, MI 48824 or my advisor, Dr. Reitumetse Mabokela at mabokela@msu.edu or
517.353.6676.
Clicking the >> at the bottom of this page indicates that you have read the consent form and are
voluntarily agreeing to participate in this research study allowing your data to be included in the
data set used by the researcher. Once you click the >> button at the bottom of this page you will
be taken to the first page of the survey. If you have decided not to participate in this study,
please exit out of this page by closing it.

130

APPENDIX D
Follow Up/Reminder Email
(First Name of Student):
I have contacted you a couple times over the past few weeks seeking your help with a study I am
conducting on how various activities impact students’ perceptions of different groups.
I hate to be a bother, as I realize your time is valuable and your schedule is hectic at this time of
year, but your participation in this study is crucial to helping educators and corporations gain a
better understanding of how students’ interactions impact their perceptions of different
populations.
As a way of saying thank you for making time to participate in this study, your name will be
entered in a drawing to win one of 10 $10 iTunes gift cards.
Again, your participation in this project is completely voluntary. At any time during the study
you may refuse to provide information or discontinue your participation without giving a reason
and with no negative consequences.
If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a participant in this study, or are
dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact my advisor, Dr.
Reitumetse Mabokela (mabokela@msu.edu or 517.353.6676) or the Michigan State University
Human Research Protection Program at 517.355.2180, FAX 517.432.4503, irb@msu.edu, or 207
Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824.
Clicking on the link below will take you to the survey. Thank you again for taking time to assist
me with this study.
<Link to Survey>
Sincerely,
Kevin P. Leonard
Researcher
Cell 517-974-6514
Office 517-353-3524
leonard1@msu.edu
419 Eppley Center
Michigan State University
E. Lansing, MI 48824

131

APPENDIX E
Follow Up/Reminder Email Sent to Minority Students

(First Name of Student):
I am seeking your help with a survey I am conducting for my PhD dissertation. Your feedback is
needed for this study, without it, I feel my study will be lacking in depth and diversity.
I realize you are busy and this is finals week, but all I am asking is for 10 minutes of your
time. If you could just take 10 minutes to fill out my survey, I would be very appreciative. As a
way of saying thank you for making time to participate in this study, your name will be entered
in a drawing to win one of 10 $10 iTunes gift cards.
Again, your participation in this project is completely voluntary. At any time during the study
you may refuse to provide information or discontinue your participation without giving a reason
and with no negative consequences.
If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a participant in this study, or are
dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact my advisor, Dr.
Reitumetse Mabokela (mabokela@msu.edu or 517.353.6676) or the Michigan State University
Human Research Protection Program at 517.355.2180, FAX 517.432.4503, irb@msu.edu , or
207 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824.
Clicking on the link below will take you to the survey. Thank you again for taking time to assist
me with this study.
<Link to Survey>
Sincerely,
Kevin Leonard
Researcher
Cell 517-974-6514
Office 517-353-3524
leonard1@msu.edu
419 Eppley Center
Michigan State University
E. Lansing, MI 48824

132

APPENDIX F
Racial Perceptions Survey
The purpose of this on-line survey is to assess individuals’ perceptions of other groups. There is
no right or wrong answers. It should take you no more than 10-15 minutes to complete this
survey. Completion of the survey is voluntary and all responses will be kept confidential to the
highest extent allowable by law.
INSTRUCTIONS: Please try and answer each question from the point of view of the race or
ethnicity with which you most identify. Please answer each of the following questions to the best
of your ability. Select only one answer to each question unless otherwise instructed.
SECTION ONE
Dependent Variable = Students Racial Perceptions
INSTRUCTIONS: Below is a series of statements. Please try and answer each question from
the point of view of the race with which you most identify. Please select the response that best
indicates your level of agreement or disagreement with each of the following statements.
Q1. My experiences with people from racial backgrounds different than myself have been
an important part of my personal growth and development.
1 = Strongly Disagree

2 = Disagree

3 = No Opinion

4 = Agree

5 = Strongly Agree

Q2. Initiatives designed to create racial equality in education and workforce settings are
no longer needed.
1 = Strongly Disagree

2 = Disagree

3 = No Opinion

4 = Agree

5 = Strongly Agree

Q3. A person’s ability to learn is closely related to their race.
1 = Strongly Disagree

2 = Disagree

3 = No Opinion

4 = Agree

5 = Strongly Agree

Q4. I am comfortable interacting with individuals from racial groups different than my
own.
1 = Strongly Disagree

2 = Disagree

3 = No Opinion

4 = Agree

5 = Strongly Agree

4 = Agree

5 = Strongly Agree

Q5. Racism no longer exists in modern society.
1 = Strongly Disagree

2 = Disagree

3 = No Opinion

133

Q6. It is important to interact with people from racial groups different than my own.
1 = Strongly Disagree

2 = Disagree

3 = No Opinion

4 = Agree

5 = Strongly Agree

Q7. A racially diverse campus is beneficial for all students.
1 = Strongly Disagree

2 = Disagree

3 = No Opinion

4 = Agree

5 = Strongly Agree

Q8. Stereotypes are generalizations that accurately describe different racial groups.
1 = Strongly Disagree

2 = Disagree

3 = No Opinion

4 = Agree

5 = Strongly Agree

Q9. A racially diverse workforce is crucial for America to remain competitive in a global
economy.
1 = Strongly Disagree

2 = Disagree

3 = No Opinion

4 = Agree

5 = Strongly Agree

Q10. I believe people should only marry individuals from their own racial group.
1 = Strongly Disagree

2 = Disagree

3 = No Opinion

4 = Agree

5 = Strongly Agree

Q11. I seek out opportunities to meet and learn about individuals different from myself.
1 = Strongly Disagree

2 = Disagree

3 = No Opinion

4 = Agree

5 = Strongly Agree

Q12. It is my responsibility to challenge racism when I see it.
1 = Strongly Disagree

2 = Disagree

3 = No Opinion

4 = Agree

5 = Strongly Agree

Q13. A racially diverse work environment does not provide a corporation any benefit.
1 = Strongly Disagree

2 = Disagree

3 = No Opinion

4 = Agree

5 = Strongly Agree

Q14. I appreciate and respect the values, ideals and beliefs of individuals from racial
groups different than my own.
1 = Strongly Disagree

2 = Disagree

3 = No Opinion

4 = Agree

5 = Strongly Agree

SECTION 2
Independent Variables = Interracial Contact
INSTRUCTIONS: Below is a series of statements. Please try and answer each question from
the point of view of the race with which you most identify.

134

OPPORTUNITY FOR CONTACT
Q15. What is the racial makeup of the high school from which you graduated?
1 = All My Race
2 = Almost All My Race
3 = About Half My Race
4 = Almost All Other Race(s)
5 = All Other Race(s)
Q16. What is the racial makeup of the neighborhood in which you grew up?
1 = All My Race
2 = Almost All My Race
3 = About Half My Race
4 = Almost All Other Race(s)
5 = All Other Race(s)
Q17. What is the racial makeup of your family?
1 = All My Race
2 = Almost All My Race
3 = About Half My Race
4 = Almost All Other Race(s)
5 = All Other Race(s)
Q18. Which do you feel best describes the makeup of the university/college you attend?
1 = All My Race
2 = Almost All My Race
3 = About Half My Race
4 = Almost All Other Race(s)
5 = All Other Race(s)
Q19. How would you describe your closest group of friends growing up? (The 3-5 individuals
you played with, hung out with, talked to at least 2-3 times a week.)

1 = All My Race
2 = Almost All My Race
3 = About Half My Race
4 = Almost All Other Race(s)
5 = All Other Race(s)
Q20. How would you describe your closest group of friends in college? (The 3-5 individuals you
hang out with, party with, talk to, eat with at least 2-3 times a week.)

1 = All My Race
2 = Almost All My Race
3 = About Half My Race
4 = Almost All Other Race(s)
5 = All Other Race(s)

135

Q21. Which best describes the students in most of the college classes you have taken?
1 = All My Race
2 = Almost All My Race
3 = About Half My Race
4 = Almost All Other Race(s)
5 = All Other Race(s)
Q22. How would you describe the makeup of the professional business organizations
(business fraternities and/or student groups) in which you are most active?
1 = All My Race
2 = Almost All My Race
3 = About Half My Race
4 = Almost All Other Race(s)
5 = All Other Race(s)
Q23. Which best describes the faculty and staff at the university/college you attend?
1 = All My Race
2 = Almost All My Race
3 = About Half My Race
4 = Almost All Other Race(s)
5 = All Other Race(s)
Q24. Which best describes the roommate(s) you have had since coming to college?
1 = All My Race
2 = Almost All My Race
3 = About Half My Race
4 = Almost All Other Race(s)
5 = All Other Race(s)
Q25. How would you describe the makeup of the social activities in which you most often
participate? (i.e. non-business fraternity/sororities, parties, tailgates, dances, university sponsored sporting
events, intramural sports)

1 = All My Race
2 = Almost All My Race
3 = About Half My Race
4 = Almost All Other Race(s)
5 = All Other Race(s)
FREQUENCY OF CONTACT
Q26. How often do you receive tutoring from someone of a race different than your own?
1= Never
2 = Once or Twice a Year
3 = Once or Twice a Semester
4 = Every Week
5 = Daily

136

Q27. How often do you have serious conversations with students of a different race?
1= Never
2 = Once or Twice a Year
3 = Once or Twice a Semester
4 = Every Week
5 = Daily
Q28. How often have you lived (i.e. currently or previously shared apartment/dorm room) with someone
from a different racial group?
1= Never
2 = Once or Twice a Year
3 = Once or Twice a Semester
4 = Every Week
5 = Daily
Q29. How often do you work with someone of another race?
1= Never
2 = Once or Twice a Year
3 = Once or Twice a Semester
4 = Every Week
5 = Daily
Q30. How often do you eat meals with individuals from a different racial group?
1= Never
2 = Once or Twice a Year
3 = Once or Twice a Semester
4 = Every Week
5 = Daily
Q31. How often are you taught by faculty from a different racial group?
1= Never
2 = Once or Twice a Year
3 = Once or Twice a Semester
4 = Every Week
5 = Daily
Q32. How often do you date someone from a different racial group?
1= Never
2 = Once or Twice a Year
3 = Once or Twice a Semester
4 = Every Week
5 = Daily

137

Q33. How often do you study with someone from a different racial group?
1= Never
2 = Once or Twice a Year
3 = Once or Twice a Semester
4 = Every Week
5 = Daily
Q34. How often do you use the services provided by the Multicultural Business Programs
in the Eli Broad College of Business? (i.e. Academic Advising, MBP Tutorial Program, Resume
Assistance, Mock Interviews, Corporate Presentations and Site Visits)

1= Never
2 = Once or Twice a Year
3 = Once or Twice a Semester
4 = Every Week
5 = Daily
QUALITY OF CONTACT
Q35. Overall, how would you describe your feelings about the experiences you have had
with people from different racial backgrounds?
1 = Very Negative
2 = Negative
3 = Neutral
4 = Positive
5 = Very Positive
SECTION 3
Demographic Questions
Q36. How do you describe yourself?
1 = Black/African American
2 = American Indian/Alaskan Native/Native Hawaiian
3 = Asian
4 = Hispanic/Latino
5 = White
6 = Multiracial (Two or More Races)
Q37. Are you an International Student?
1 = NO
2 = YES
Q38. What is your gender?
1 = Male
2 = Female
3 = Transgender
138

Q39. Which of the following best describes your hometown?
1 = Rural (Small Town/Village)
2 = Suburban (Medium City)
3 = Urban (Large Metropolitan City)
Q40. Which of the following best describes the education obtained by your most highly
educated parent?
1 = Some High School
2 = Completed High School
3 = Some College
4 = Completed College
5 = Graduate/Professional School Beyond College
Q41. Which of the following best describe your current class level?
1 = Freshman (0 – 30 credits)
2 = Sophomore (30 – 60 credits)
3 = Junior (60 – 90 credits)
4 = Senior (90 or More credits)
Q42. What is your current undergraduate major?
1 = Accounting
2 = Finance
3 = Marketing
4 = Supply Chain Management
5 = Human Resource Management
6 = General Management
7 = Hospitality Business
8 = Non-Business Major/Other
Q43. What is your current college cumulative grade point average? (Self-Reported – 4.0
scale)
Thank you for taking time to participate in this study. You have now been entered into the
drawing to win one of the following prizes: 10 $10 iTunes gift cards. Winners will be notified
once all data has been collected. I know that your time is valuable and I greatly appreciate
yours. So thank you again for taking time out of your busy schedule to complete this survey.

139

APPENDIX G
Inter-Item Correlation Matrix & Scale Statistics for Instrument

Table 12
Inter-Item Correlation - Dependent Variable (Students Racial Perception)
Q1
Q2
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10
Q11
Q12
Q13
Q14

Q1
1.00
.282
.312
.139
.503
.475
.177
.374
.188
.453
.299
.330
.299

Q2
1.00
.125
.383
.379
.382
.277
.371
.192
.243
.216
.369
.176

Q4
1.00
.132
.389
.371
.205
.290
.358
.386
.304
.264
.443

Q5
1.00
.235
.229
.200
.207
.202
.082
.148
.285
.135

Q6
1.00
.641
.270
.545
.298
.464
.367
.458
.421

Q7
1.00
.316
.522
.303
.375
.370
.452
.382

Q8
1.00
.230
.269
.173
.186
.282
.236

Q9
1.00
.163
.349
.308
.554
.317

Q10
1.00
.189
.253
.246
.329

Q11
1.00
.350
.263
.350

Q12 Q13 Q14
1.00
.243 1.00
.303 .320 1.00

Table 13
Inter-Item Correlation – Independent Variable (Opportunity for Contact)
Q15
Q16
Q17
Q18
Q19
Q20
Q21
Q22
Q23
Q24
Q25

Q15
1.00
.746
.210
.391
.607
.419
.399
.409
.455
.407
.432

Q16
1.00
.277
.427
.648
.511
.472
.478
.479
.453
.478

Q17
1.00
.159
.331
.324
.216
.229
.201
.264
.276

Q18
1.00
.318
.371
.713
.515
.630
.424
.462

Q19
1.00
.679
.398
.469
.417
.529
.550

Q20
1.00
.412
.492
.420
.548
.653

140

Q21
1.00
.597
.705
.502
.517

Q22
1.00
.574
.478
.554

Q23
1.00
.516
.523

Q24
1.00
.557

Q25
1.00

Table 14
Inter-Item Correlation – Independent Variable (Frequency of Contact)
Q26
Q27
Q28
Q29
Q30
Q31
Q32
Q33
Q34

Q26
1.00
.215
.221
.197
.228
.267
.204
.305
.592

Q27
1.00
.303
.331
.506
.198
.265
.460
.167

Q28
1.00
.246
.418
.255
.264
.316
.213

Q29
1.00
.384
.264
.221
.365
.206

Q30
1.00
.324
.318
.572
.233

Q31
1.00
.195
.317
.264

Q32
1.00
.355
.219

Table 15
Scale Statistics – Dependent Variable (Students Racial Perception)
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
52.01 42.564
6.524
13

Table 16
Scale Statistics – Independent Variable (Opportunity for Contact)
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
25.91 56.897
7.543
11

Table 17
Scale Statistics – Independent Variable (Frequency of Contact)
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
25.61 44.179
6.647
9

141

Q33
1.00
.333

Q34
1.00

REFERENCES

142

REFERENCES
Aiken, L. R. (1985). Psychological Testing and Assessment (5th Ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Allen, W. R., Epps, E. G., Guillory, E. A., Suh, S. A., Bonous-Hammarth, M., and Stassen, M. L.
A. (2002). In W. Smith, P. G. Altbach, & K. Lomotey (Eds.), The racial crisis in
American higher education: Continuing challenges for the twenty-first century, (Rev. Ed.,
23-41). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Allport, G. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Almanac of Higher Education (2008). The Chronicle of Higher Education. 55(1).
Altbach, P. G., & Lomotey, K. (1991). The racial crisis in American higher
education. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Altbach, P. G., Lomotey, K., & Rivers, S. (2002). Race in Higher Education: The continuing
crisis. In W. Smith, P. G. Altbach, & K. Lomotey (Eds.), The racial crisis in American
higher education: Continuing challenges for the twenty-first century, (Rev. Ed., 23-41).
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Altschiller, D. (2005). Hate Crimes: A reference handbook. (2nd ed.). ABC-CLIO’s
Contemporary World Issues Series.
American Psychological Association (1999). How Affirmative Action Benefits America.
Washington, DC: Author.
Amir, Y. (1976). The role of intergroup contact in change of prejudice and ethnic relations. In
Katz, P.A. (Ed.), Toward the Elimination of Racism, Pergamon Press, New York, 245308.
Anderson, C., Keltner, D., & John, O. P. (2003). Emotional convergence between people over
time. Journal of Personality and Social Psycology, 84, 1054-1068.
Anderson, J. (2002). Race, meritocracy, and the American academy during the immediate postworld war ii era. In C.S. Turner, a. l. antonio, M. Garcia, B.V. Laden, A. Nora, & C.L.
Presley (Eds.), Racial and ethnic diversity in higher education (2nd Ed., 3-17). Boston,
MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.
antonio, a. l. (1998). The Impact of Friendship Groups in a Multicultural University. Doctoral
dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles. Retrieved December, 10, 2010
from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
antonio, a. l. (2001a). The role of interracial interaction in the development of leadership skills
and cultural knowledge and understanding. Research in Higher Education, 42 (5), 593617. Retrieved August 31, 2010 from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40196444.
143

antonio, a. l. (2001b). Diversity and the influence of friendship groups in college. In C.S.
Turner, a. l. antonio, M. Garcia, B. V. Laden, A. Nora, & C. L. Presley (Eds.), Racial and
ethnic diversity in higher education (2nd Ed., 359-375). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom
Publishing.
Antony, J. (1993, November). Can we all get along? How college impacts students’ sense of
promoting racial understanding. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for
the Study of Higher Education, Pittsbugh, PA.
Association of American Colleges and Universities (1995). American pluralism and the college
curriculum: Higher education in a diverse democracy. Washington, DC: Association of
American Colleges and Universities.
Association of American Colleges and Universities (2002). Greater expectations: A new vision
for learning as a nation goes to college. Washington, DC: Association of American
Colleges and Universities.
Astin, A. W. (1993a). What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisited. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1993b). Diversity and multiculturalism on campus: How are students affected?
Change, 25 (2), 44-49.
Astin, A. W. (1998). The changing American college student: Thirty-year trends, 1966-1996.
Review of Higher Education, 21, 115-136.
Astin, A. W. and Sax, L. J. (1998). How undergraduates are affected by service participation.
Journal of College student Development 39 (3), 251-263.
Astin, A. W., Sal, L. J., & Avalos, J. (1999). Long-term effects of volunteerism during the
undergraduate years. The Review of Higher Education, 22 (2), 187-202.
Astone, B., & Nunez-Wormack, E. (1990). Pursuing diversity: Recruiting college minority
students. Washington, DC: George Washington University, School of Education and
Human Development.
Babbie, E. (1990). Survey research methods (2nd Ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Bachman, J. G., O’Malley, P. M., Johnston, L.D., Rodger, W.I., Schulenberg, J. F., Lim, J., &
Wadsworth, F. N. (1996). Changes in drug use during ages 18-32. In Monitoring the
Future Occasional Paper Series. Paper 39.
Baez, B. (2000). Diversity and its contradictions. In C. S. Turner, a. l. antonio, M. Garcia,
B. V. Laden, A. Nora, & C. L. Presley (Eds.), Racial and ethnic diversity in higher
education (2nd Ed., 383-388). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.

144

Banks, J. A. (2001). Cultural diversity and education: Foundations, curriculum, and teaching
(4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Baumann, J. & Bason, J. (2004). Survey Research. In N. Duke & M. Mallette (Eds.), Literacy
research methodologies (287-307). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Belgarde, W. L. (1992). The history of American Indian community colleges. In C. S. Turner,
a. l. antonio, M. Garcia, B. V. Laden, A. Nora, & C. L. Presley (Eds.), Racial and ethnic
diversity in higher education (2nd Ed., 18-27). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.
Bernstein, A. R., & Eaton, J. S. (1994). The transfer function: Building curricular roadways
across and among higher education institutions. In M. J. Justiz, R. Wilson, and L. G.
Bjork (Eds.) Minorities in Higher Education. Pheonix: ACE/Oryx.
Bikson, T. K., & Law, S. A. (1994). Global preparedness and human resources. Santa Monica,
CA: RAND.
Bloom, A. (1987). The closing of the American mind. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Bolinger, L. (2001, October 2). Bolinger known for affirmative action defense. The Michigan
Daily. Retrieved February 11, 2012 from http://www.michigandaily.com/content/
bollinger-known-affirmative-action-defense.
Boisjoly, J. Duncan, G. J., Kremer, M., Levy, D. M., & Eccles, J. (2006). Empathy or antipathy?
The impact of diversity. American Economic Review, 96, 1890-1905.
Bowen, W. G., & Bok, D. (1998). The shape of the river: Long-term consequences of
considering race in college and university admissions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Bowman, N. A., & Brandenberger, J. W. (2012). Experiencing the unexpected: Toward a model
of college diversity experience and attitude change. The Review of Higher Education,
35(2), 179-205.
Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. (1998).
Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for America’s research universities.
Stoney Brook, NY: State University of New York.
Brazzell, J. C. (1992). Bricks without straw: Missionary-sponsored Black higher education in
the post-emancipation era. In C. S. Turner, a. l. antonio, M. Garcia, B. V. Laden, A. Nora,
& C. L. Presley (Eds.), Racial and ethnic diversity in higher education (2nd Ed., 28-41).
Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.
Brehm, C. J. (1998). Stereotypes, tolerance, and the classroom. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston. (ERIC Reproduction
Document ED 426927)
145

Brooks, D. (1975). Race and Labour in London Transport. London: Oxford University Press.
Burns, C. (2012). The costly business of discrimination: The economic costs of discrimination
and the financial benefits of gay and transgender equality in the workplace. Center for
American Progress (March 2012). Retrieved April 19, 2013 from http://www.
americanprogress.org/wpcontent/uploads/issues/2012/03/pdf/lgbt_biz_discrimination.pdf.
Buttner, H. E., Lowe, K. B., & Billings-Harris, L. (2006). The influence of organizational
diversity orientation and leaders attitude on diversity activities. Journal of Managerial
Issues, 17(3), 356-371.
Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., Crissman, J. L., Terenzini, P. T., Bernal, E. M., & Pascarella, E. T.
(2002). Collaborative learning: Its impact on college students’ development and diversity.
Journal of College Student Development, 43 (1), 20-34.
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/Cultural Studies, 16, 387-409.
Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella, E. T., & Hagedorn, L. S. (1999). Campus
racial climate and the adjustment of students to college: A comparison between white
students and African-American students. Journal of Higher Education, 70, 134-160.
Carnevale, A., & Fry, R. (2000). Crossing the great divide: Can we achieve equality when
generation Y goes to college? Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Carr-Ruffino, N. (2005). Making Diversity Work. Upper Sadle River, NJ: Pearson Education,
Inc.
Case, D. (2005). Fraternity/Sorority Bias-Related Incidents. Retrieved February 23, 2013 from
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fraternalnews/message/2038.
CensusScope (2000). Non-Hispanic White Population: 2000 Census Data. Retrieved February
21, 2013 from http://www.censusscope.org/us/map_nhwhite.html.
Chacko, H. E. (1991). Can you pick out the accountant? Students’ interest and career choices.
Journal of Education for Business, 66, 151-154.
Chang, M. J. (1996). Racial diversity in higher education: Does a racially mixed student
population affect educational outcomes? Doctoral dissertation, University of California,
Los Angeles.
Chang, M. J. (1999). Does racial diversity matter?: The educational impact of a racially diverse
undergraduate population. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 377-395.

146

Chang, M. J. (2001). The positive educational effects of racial diversity on campus. (ERIC
Reproduction Document ED 456198)
Chang, M. J. (2002). Preservation or transformation: Where’s the real educational discourse on
diversity? Review of Higher Education, 25, 125-140.
Chang, M. J., Astin, A. W., & Kim, D. (2004). Cross-racial interaction among undergraduates:
Some causes and consequences. Research in Higher Education, 45(5), 527-551.
Chang, M. J., Denson, N., Saenz, V., & Misa, K. (2006). The educational benefits of sustaining
cross-racial interaction among undergraduates. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(3),
430-455.
Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education and Identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chau, G. (2004). Despite Efforts, Self-Segregation Persists at College. The Dartmouth (May 19).
Retrieved April 17, 2013 from http://thedartmouth.com/2004/05/19/news/despite
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Contreras, C. (2007). Organizational structure and culture: Promising practices that lead to
cultural and intellectual diversity. ProQuest Dissertation and Theses. (UMI No.
3261466).
Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. (2000) A meta-analysis of response rates in web or
Internet-based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 821-836.
Couper, M. P., Blair, J. & Triplett T. (1999) A comparison of mail and e-mail for a survey of
employees in federal statistical agencies. Journal of Official Statistics, 15, 39-56.
Cowan, G. (2005). Interracial interactions at racially diverse university campuses. The Journal
of Social Psychology, 145(1), 49-63.
Cox, T. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research, and practice. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Cox, T. & Blake, S. (1991). Managing cultural diversity: Implications for organizational
competitiveness. Academy of Management Executive, 5(3), 45-56.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
D’Souza, D. (1991). Illiberal education: The politics of race and sex on campus. New York:
Free Press.

147

Dalton, J. C. (Ed.). (1991). Racism on campus: Confronting racial bias through peer
interventions. San Francisco: Jossey-Baas.
Datta, C. J., & Singh, B. R. (1994). Small scale study of the effects of cross-ethnic tutoring on
inter-ethnic relationships. British Educational Research Journal 20, 407-427.
Denson, N. (2009). Do curricular and cocurricular diversity activities influence racial bias? A
meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 79 (2), 805-838.
Denson, N. & Chang, M. T. (2009). Racial diversity matters: The impact of diversity-related
student engagement and institutional context. American Educational Research Journal
46(2), 322-353.
DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and application. Newbury Park, NJ: Sage.
Duke, N. K., & Mallette, M. H. (Eds.) (2004). Literacy Research Methodologies. London, UK &
New York: Guilford Publications.
Duncan, G. J., Boisjoly, J., Levy, D. M., Kremer, M., & Eccles, J. (2003). Empathy or
Antipathy? The Consequences of Racially and Socially Diverse Peers on Attitudes and
Behaviors (Report No. JCPR-WP-326). Chicago, Il: Joint Center for Poverty Research.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED472566)
Ellison, C., & Powers, D. (1994). The contact hypothesis and racial attitudes among black
Americans. Social Science Quarterly 75, 385-400.
Engberg, M. E. (2004). Improving intergroup relations in higher education: A critical
examination of the influences of educational interventions on racial bias. Review of
Educational Research 74 (4), 473-524.
Engberg, M. E. (2007). Educating the workforce for the 21st century: A cross-disciplinary
analysis of the impact of the undergraduate experience on students’ development of a
pluralistic orientation. Research in Higher Education, 48 (3), 283-316.
Engberg, M. E., & Hurtado, S. (2011). Developing pluralistic skills and dispositions in college:
Examining racial/ethnic group differences. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(4), 416443.
Farrell, W. C., Jr., & Jones, C. K. (1988). Recent racial incidents in higher education: A
preliminary perspective. Urban Review, 20, 211-233.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (n.d.). Uniform Crime Reports. Retrieved October 21, 2010,
from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr
Federal Bureau of Investigation (2010). Uniform Crime Reports. Retrieved October 21, 2010,
from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr
148

Feldman, K. A., & Newcomb, T. M. (1969). The impact of college on students. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass
Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of
Consumer Research, 20, 303-315.
Fishman, J. A., & Galguera, T. (2003). Introduction to Test Construction in the Social and
Behavioral Sciences. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Forbes, H. D. (1997). Ethnic conflict: Commerce, culture, and contract hypothesis. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Ford, W. S. (1973). Interracial public housing in a border city. American Journal of Sociology,
78:426-444.
Ford, W. S. (1986). Favorable intergroup contact may not reduce prejudice: inconclusive journal
evidence 1960-1984. Sociology Society Research, 70, 256-258.
Forman, T. A., & Ebert, K. L. (2004). Interracial Contact and Racial Attitudes: A Comparative
Study of Asian, Black, Latino, and White Youth. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the American Sociological Association, Hilton San Francisco & Renaissance Park 55
Hotel, San Francisco, CA, Online 2012-06-25 from http://citation.allacademic.com/meta
/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/1/0/7/3/p110736_index.html
Forman, T., & Rodriguez, M. (2003). Intergroup contact and Latinos’ racial attitudes:
Revisiting the contact hypothesis. Paper presented at the 58th Annual Meeting of the
American Association of Public Opinion Research, Nashville, TN May 15-18.
Fowler, F. J. (2002). Survey research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.
Frankenberg, E., Lee, C., & Orfield, G. (2003). A Multiracial Society with Segregated Schools:
Are We Losing the Dream. The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University. Available at:
http://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/reseg03/AreWeLosingtheDream.pdf.
Fry, R. (2010). Minorities and the Recession-Era College Enrollment Boom. Pew Research
Social & Demographic Trends. Retrieved April 13, 2013, from http://www.
pewsocialtrends.org/2010/06/16/minorities-and-the-recession-era-college-enrollmentboom/
Gilliard, M. D. (1996). Racial Climate and Institutional Support Factors Affecting Success in
Predominately White Institutions: An Examination of African-American and White
Student Experiences. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Michigan. Retrieved October,
14, 2011 from Proquest Dissertation and Theses.

149

Gellin, A. (2003). The effect of undergraduate students involvement on critical thinking: A metaanalysis of the literature 1991-2000. Journal of College Student Development, 44 (6),
pp.746-762. Retrieved February 2, 2013, from http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/csd/summary
/v044/44.6gellin.html
Globetti, E. C., Globetti, G., Brown, C.L., & Smith, R. E. (1993). Social Interaction and
Multiculturalism. NASPA Journal, 30, 209-218.
Gratz, et al., V. Bollinger, et al., No. 02-516. (2003). Brief filed for amicus curiae leading
American businesses in support of respondents. Retrieved May 13, 2012, from
http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/admissions/legal/amicus.html.
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003a).
Grutter, et al. v. Bollinger, et al., No. 02-241 (2003b). Brief filed for amicus curiae leading
American businesses in support of respondents. Retrieved May 13, 2012, from
http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/admissions/legal/amicus.html.
Gurin, P. (1999). Expert Report. Gratz et al., v. Bollinger, et al. No. 97-75321 (E.D. Mich.);
Grutter, et al. v. Bollinger, et al. No. 97-75928 (E.D. Mich.). Equity & Excellence in
Education 32(2): 36-62.
Gurin, P., Dey, E., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and
impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 330-366.
Gurin, P., Nagda, B. A., & Lopez, G. E. (2004). The benefits in education for democratic
citizenship. Journal of Social Issues, 60 (1), 17-34.
Gurin, P., Peng, T., Lopez, G. E., & Nagda, B. A. (1999). Context, identity, and intergroup
relations. In D. Prentice & D. Miller (Eds.), Cultural Divides: Understanding and
Overcoming Group Conflict, 133-170. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Henderson-King, D., & Kaleta, A. (2000). Learning about social diversity: The undergraduate
experience and intergroup tolerance. Journal of Higher Education, 71(2), 142-164.
Henk, W. A. & McKenna M. C., (2004). Developing affective instrumentation for use in literacy
research. In N. Duke & M. Mallette (Eds.) Literacy Research Methodologies. New York,
NY: The Guilford Press.
Hinrichs, P. (2009). The effects of affirmative action bans on college enrollment, educational
attainment, and the demographic composition of universities. Washington, DC:
Georgetown Public Policy Institute.
Hively, R. (1990). The Lurking Evil: Racial and ethnic conflict on the college campus.
Washington, DC: American Association of State Colleges and Universities.

150

Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work
environments, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Holtz, R. (2010). Best and most popular college majors. Retrieved February 4, 2012, from
http://collegestats.org/articles/2010/01/which-college-majors-pay-the-most-25-excellentstudies-and-rankings/.
Hu. S., & Kuh, G.D. (2003). Diversity experiences and college student learning and personal
development. Journal of College Student Development, 44 (3), 320-334.
Huffman, T. E. (1991). The Experiences, perceptions, and consequences of campus racism
among northern plains Indians. Journal of American Indian Education, 30 (2), 25-34.
Hugstad, P. (1997). Marketing the marketing major. Journal of Marketing Education, 19, 4-13.
Humphreys, D. (2000). The value of campus diversity: The emerging research picture. Diversity
Digest, 4(3), 1-32.
Hurtado, S. (1992). The campus racial climate: Contexts of conflict. Journal of Higher
Education, 63, pp. 539-569.
Hurtado, S. (2001). Linking diversity and educational purpose: How diversity affects the
classroom environment and student development. In G. Orfield (Ed.), Diversity
Challenged: Evidence on the Impact of Affirmative Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Education Publishing Group.
Hurtado, S. (2003). Preparing college students for a diverse democracy: Final report to the U.S.
Department of Educaiton, OERI, Field Initiated Studies Program. Ann Arbor, MI: Center
for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education.
Hurtado, S. (2005). The next generation of diversity and intergroup relations research. Journal of
Social Issues, 61(3), 595-610.
Hurtado, S., Carter, D. F., & Spuler, A. (1996). Latino student transition to college: Assessing
difficulties and factors in successful college adjustment. Research in Higher Education,
37, 135-157.
Hurtado, S., Dey, E. L., and Trevino, J. G. (1994). Exclusion or self-segregation? Interactions
across racial/ethnic groups on college campuses. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Hurtado, S., Engberg, M. E., and Ponjuan, L. (2003). The Impact of the College experience on
Students’ Learning for a Diverse Democracy. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the Association of the Study of Higher Education, Portland, OR.

151

Hurtado, S., Meader, E. W., Ziskin, M., Kamimura, M., and Greene, S. (2002). Intergroup
Relations: Views from Different Racial/Ethnic Groups. Paper presented at the
Association for Institutional Research Forum. Toronto, Ontario.
Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pedersen, A., & Allen, W. (1999). Enacting diverse learning
environments: Improving the climate for racial/ethnic diversity in higher education.
ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 26.
Inkelas, K. K. (2000). Demystifying the model minority: The influences and the college
experience on Asian Pacific American undergraduates’ racial attitudes. Center for the
Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education, School of Education, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor. (UMI No. 9977180)
Inkelas, K. K. (2004). Does participation in ethnic cocurricular activities facilitate a sense of
ethnic awareness and understanding?: A study of Asian Pacific American
undergraduates. Journal of College Student Development, 45 (3), 285-302.
Jackman, M. R., & Crane, M. (1986). Some of my best friends are black….: Interracial
friendship and Whites’ racial climate attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 459-486.
Jackman, J., & Muha. J. (1984). Education and intergroup attitudes: Moral enlightenment,
superficial democratic commitment, or ideological refinement? American Sociological
Review, 49(6), 751-769.
Jayakumar, U. M. (2008). Can higher education meet the needs of an increasingly diverse
society and global marketplace?: Campus diversity and cross-cultural workforce
competencies. Harvard Educational Review, 78(4), 615-651.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Maruyama, G. (1983). Interdependence and interpersonal
attraction among heterogeneous and homogeneous individuals: A theoretical formulation
and a meta-analysis of the research. Review of Educational Research, 53(1), 5-54.
Keller, G. (2001). The new demographics of higher education. The Review of Higher
Education, 24, 219-236.
Kuh, G. (1993). In their own words: What students learn outside the classroom. American
Educational Research Journal, 30, 277-304.
Levin, B. (2002). From slavery to hate crime laws: The emergence of race and status-based
protection in American criminal law. Journal of Social Issues, 58 (2).
Levin, S., van Laar, C., & 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.

152

Levine, A., & Cureton, J. S. (1998). When hope and fear collide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Li, Anne (2012). Self-Segregation Alive and Well on the OU Campus: Is Campus as Diverse as
Advertised? The Athens News (February 12). Retrieved April 17, 2013 from http://www.
athensnews.com/ohio/article-36073-self-segregation-alive-and-well-on-the oucampus.
html
Loo, C. M., & Rolison, G. (1986). Alienation of ethnic minority students at a predominately
white university. Journal of Higher Education 57, 58-77.
Lopez, G. E. (1993). The effects of group contact and curriculum on White, Asian American
and African American students’ attitudes. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(07),
3900B. (UMI No. 9332125).
Lopez, G. E. (2004). Interethnic contact, curriculum, and attitudes in the first year of college>
Journal of Social Issues, 60, pp. 75-94.
Lou, J., & Jamieson-Drake, D. (2009). A retrospective assessment of the educational benefits of
interaction across racial boundaries. Journal of College Student Development, 50(1), 6786.
Markey, P. M., & Kurtz, J. E. (2006). Increasing acquaintanceship and complementarity of
behavioral styles and personality traits among college roommates. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 32, pp. 907-916.
Mayhew, M. J., and Engberg, M. E. (2010). Diversity and moral reasoning: How negative
diverse peer interactions affect the development of moral reasoning in undergraduate
students. The Journal of Higher Education, 81 (4), 459-488.
McEwen, M. K. (2005). The nature and uses of theory. In M. E. Wilson & L. E. Wolf-Wendel
(Eds.), ASHE Reader on college student development theory. Boston, MA: Pearson
Custom Publishing.
McPherson, B. (1999). Correlating students’ personality types with their rating topics covered in
business communication classes. Business Communication Quarterly, 62: 46-53.
Medin, C., Roy, S. & Ann, T. (1999) World Wide Web versus mail surveys: A comparison and
report. Paper presentation at ANZMAC99 Conference, Marketing in the Third
Millennium, Sydney, Australia.
Milem, J. F. (1994). College, students, and racial understanding. Thought and Action, 9 (2), 5192.

153

Milem, J. F., and Hakuta, K. (2000). The benefits of racial and ethnic diversity in higher
education. In C. S. Turner, a. l. antonio, M. Garcia, B. V. Laden, A. Nora, & C. L.
Presley (Eds.), Racial and ethnic diversity in higher education (2nd Ed., 389-410).
Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.
Milem, J. F., & Umbach, P. D. (2003). The influence of pre-college factors on students’
predispositions regarding diversity activities in college. Journal of College Students
Development, 44 (5), 61 1-624.
Milem, J. F., Umbach, P. D., and Liang, C. T. H. (2004). Exploring the perpetuation hypothesis:
The role of colleges and universities in desegregating society. Journal of College Student
Development, 45 (6), 688-700.
Miller, M. J., & Miller, T. A. (2005). Theoretical application of Holland’s theory of individuals
decision-making styles: Implications for career counselors. Journal of Employment
Counseling, 42, 20-28.
Minatoya, L. Y., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1983). Assessing differential needs among university
freshmen: A comparison among racial/ethnic subgroups. Journal of Non-White Concerns
in Personnel and Guidance, 11, 126-132.
Moreno, J. F. (1999). The Elusive quest for equality: 150 years of Chicano/Chicana education.
In C. S. Turner, a. l. antonio, M. Garcia, B. V. Laden, A. Nora, & C. L. Presley (Eds.),
Racial and ethnic diversity in higher education (2nd Ed., 65-72). Boston, MA: Pearson
Custom Publishing.
Nagda, B. A., & Zuniga, X. (2003). Fostering meaningful racial engagement through intergroup
dialogues. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6 (1), 115-132.
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. (1997). Returning to our
roots: The student experience. Washington, DC: Author.
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (2005). Policy Alert: Income of U.S.
workforce projected to decline if education doesn’t improve. Retrieved on December 12,
2011, from www.higheredinfo.org/raceethnicity/
National Center for Educational Statistics (2007). Status and Trends in the Education of Racial
and Ethnic Minorities. Retrieved October 2, 2007 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/
minoritytrends/index.asp.
National Center for Educational Statistics (2010). Status and Trends in the Education of Racial
and Ethnic Minorities. Retrieved February 18, 2013 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/
2010015/tables/table_24_2.asp.

154

Nelson Laird, T. F. (2005). College students’ experiences with diversity and their effects on
academic self-confidence, social agency, and disposition toward critical thinking.
Research in Higher Education, 46 (4), 365-387.
Neville, H., & Furlong, M. (1994). The impact of participation in a cultural awareness program
on the racial attitudes of first-year college students. Journal of College Student
Development, 35, 371-377.
Noel, M. N., Michael, C., & Levals, M. G. (2003). The relationship of personality traits and self
monitoring behavior to choice of business major. Journal of Education for Business, 78,
153-157.
Nora, A., & Cabrera, A. F. (1996). The role of perceptions of prejudice and discrimination on the
adjustment of minority students to college. Journal of Higher Education, 67(2), 119-148.
Ogunjimi, A. (2010). Companies with diversity programs. Retrieved on May 13, 2012, from
http://www.ehow.com/info_7737080_companies-diversity-programs.html#ixzz1unhI0ip
Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (2006). Racial transformation and the changing nature of segregation.
Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
Orfield, G., & Whitla, D. (2001). Diversity and legal education: Student experiences in leading
law schools. In Orfield, G. (Ed.), Diversity Challenged: Evidence on the Impact of
Affirmative Action. Cambridge, MA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED456197)
O’Sullivan, E. & Rassel, G. R. (1999). Research methods for public administrators (3rd ed.).
New York, NY: Addison Wsley Longman, Inc.
Owens, L. (2002). Introduction to survey research design. Retrieved December 10, 2010, from
University of Illinois at Chicago Web site: http://www.srl.uic.edu/seminars/Intro/
introsrm.pdf
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. (1998). Studying college students in the 21st century:
Meeting new challenges. Review of Higher Education, 21, 151-165.
Pascarella, E. T., Edison, M., Nora, A., Hagedorn, L.S., & Terenzini, P. T. (1996). Influences on
students’ openness to diversity and challenge in the first year of college. The Journal of
Higher Education, 67 (2), 174-195.
Pascarella, E. T., Palmer, B., Moye, M., & Pierson, C. T. (2001). Do diversity experiences
influence the development of critical thinking? Journal of College Student Development
42: 257-271.

155

Peterson, M. W., & Spencer, M. G. (1990). Understanding academic culture and climate. In
Assessing Academic Climates and Cultures. In W. G. Tierney (Ed.), New Directions for
Institutional Research, 68. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65-85.
Research Library Core.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A Meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90, 751-783.
Pew Research Center (2012). Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved June 25, 2012 from
http://www.people-press.org/methodology/frequently-asked-questions/.
Phelps, R. E., Altschul, D. B., Wisenbaker, J. M., Day, J. F., Cooper, D., & Potter, C. G. (1998).
Roommate satisfaction and ethnic identity in mixed-race and White university roommate
dyads. Journal of College Student Development, 39, 194-203.
Pike, G. R. (2002). The differential effects of on-an off-campus living arrangements on students’
openness to diversity. NASPA Journal, 39 (4), 283-299.
Pike, G.R. & Kuh, G.D. (2006). Relationships among structural diversity, informal peer
interactions and perceptions of the campus environment. The Review of Higher
Education, 29 (4), 425-450.
Pincus, F. L., & Ehrlich, H. J. (1988). The new university conference: A study of former
members of an organization of academic radicals. Critical Sociology, 15, 145-47.
Potok, M. (2012, Spring). The year in hate & extremism. Southern Poverty Law Center
Intelligence Report, 145, 39-58.
Reardon, S. F., & Yun, J. T. (2002). Private school racial enrollments and segregation.
Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
Rothman, S., Lipset, S. M., & Nevitte, N. (2003). Does enrollment diversity improve university
education? International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 15 (1), 8-26.
Rudenstine, N. (1996). Why a diverse student body is so important. Chronicle of Higher
Education, 42(32), B1-B2.
Salomon, M. F., & Schork, J. M. (2003). Turn diversity to your advantage. Research
Technology Management, 46 (4), 37-44.
Sax, L. J., & Arredondo, M. (1999). Student attitudes towards affirmative action in college
admissions. Research in Higher Education, 40 (4), 439-459.

156

Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in small groups: recent methods and effects on
achievement attitudes and ethnic relations. Review of Educational Research, 50, 241-271.
Sigleman, L. & Welch, S. (1993). The contact hypothesis revisited: Black-White interaction and
positive racial attitudes. Social Forces. 71(3), 81-795.
Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50, 315-340.
Smedley, B. D., Myers, H. F., and Harrell, S. P. (1993). Minority status stresses and the college
adjustment of ethnic minority freshmen. Journal of Higher Education, 64 (4), 435-452.
Smith, D. G., and Associates. (1997). Diversity works: The emerging picture of ho students
benefit. Washington, DC: Association of American College and Universities.
Smith, T. B., Constantine, M. G., Dunn, T. W., Dinehart, J. M., and Montoya, J. A. (2006).
Multicultural education in the mental health professions: A meta-analytic review. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 53 (1), 132-145.
Sollors, W., Titcomb, C., & Underwood, T.A. (1993). Blacks at Harvard: A documentary
history of African-American experience at Harvard and Radcliff. New York: New York
University Press.
Solomon, David J. (2001). Conducting web-based surveys. Practical Assessment, Research &
Evaluation, 7(19). Retrieved January 15, 2010 from http://PAREonline.net/
getvn.asp?v=7&n=19
Solmon, L. C., Solmon, M. S., and Schiff, T. W. (2002). In W. Smith, P. G. Altbach, & K.
Lomotey (Eds.), The racial crisis in American higher education: Continuing challenges
for the twenty-first century, (Rev. Ed., 23-41). Albany: State University of New York
Press.
Southern Poverty Law Center (2005, Winter). Report: FBI hate crime statistics vastly
understate problem. Retrieved October 22, 2010 from http://www.splcenter.org/
get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2005/winter/hate-crime
Sowell, T. (1989). Affirmative action: a world-wide disaster. Commentary, 88 (6), 21-41.
Springer, L., Palmer, B., Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella, E. T., & Nora, A. (1996). Attitudes toward
campus diversity: participation in a racial or cultural awareness workshop. Review of
Higher Education, 20, 53-68.
Surge in campus hate crimes challenges notion of a post-racial America. (2010, April 9).
Boulder Weekly. Retrieved October 23, 2010, http://www.boulderweekly.com/
article-2254-surge-in-campus-hate-crimes-challenges-notion-of-a-post-racialamerica.html

157

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th Ed).
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Tatum, B. D. (1999). Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? And
other conversations about race. New York: Basic Books.
Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella, E. T., & Blimling, G. S. (1996). Students’ out-of-class experiences
and their influences on cognitive development: A literature review. Journal of College
Student Development, 37, 149-162.
Terrell, M. C., Rudy, D. E., & Cheatham, H. E. (1993). The role of external funding for cultural
diversity programming. New Directions for Student Service, 63, 75-84.
The Chronicle (2013). Self-Segregation. Editorial Board (January 28). Retrieved April 17, 2013
from http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2013/01/28/self-segregation.
Tierney, W. G. (1987). Facts and constructs: Defining reality in higher education organizations.
Review of High Education, 11 (1), 61-73.
Tierney, W. G. (1993). Building communities of difference: Higher education in the twenty-first
century. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.).
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Tropp, L. R. (2007). Perceived discrimination and interracial contact: Predicting interracial
closeness among black and white Americans. Social Psychology Quarterly 70 (1), 70-81.
Umbach, P. D., & Kuh, G. D. (2006). Student experiences with diversity at liberal arts
colleges: another claim for distinctiveness. Journal of Higher Education 77 (1), 169-92.
ERIC. Web. 3 June 2012.
United States Census Bureau (2006). Nation’s population one-third minority. Retrieved October
16, 2011, from http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/population/cb0672.html
United States Department of Justice Community Relations Service (2003). Responding to hate
crimes and bias-motivated incidents on college/university campuses. Retrieved April 25,
2012, from http://www.justice.gov/crs/pubs/university92003.htm
United States Department of Labor (2001). Futurework: Trends and Challenges for work in the
21st century. Retrieved June 2, 2005, from http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/
herman/reports/futurework/execsum.htm

158

Van Der Werf, M. & Sabatier, G. (2009). The College of 2020: Students. Chronicle Research
Services. Retrieved April 6, 2012, from http://www.washington.edu/faculty/facsen
/issues/college_2020.pdf
Van Laar, C., Levin, S., Sinclair, S., & Sidanius, J. (2005). The effect of university roommate
contact on ethnic attitudes and behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41,
329-345.
Villapando, O. (2002). The impact of diversity and multiculturalism on all students: Findings
from a National Study. NASPA Journal, 40 (1), 124-144.
Vogelgesang, L. (2001). The impact of college on the development of civic values: How do race
and gender matter? Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association,
Seattle, WA. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED451791)
Weinberg, M. (1977). A chance to learn: A history of race and education in the United States.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Welch, S., & Sigelman, L. (2000). Getting to know you? Latino-Anglo social contact. Social
Science Quarterly. 81 (1), 67-83.
Wessler, S., Moss, M. (2001, Oct.). Hate crimes on campus: The problem and efforts to
confront it. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Bureau of Justice Assistance. ISBN/GPO#: 0717-N-01.
Whitt, E. J., Edison, M. I., Pascarella, E. T., Terenzini, P. T., & Nora, A. (2001). Influences on
student’s openness to diversity and challenge in the second and third year of college. The
Journal of Higher Education: 72 (2), 172-204.
Wong, V. (2011, July 29). Workplace discrimination charges at record high. Bloomberg
Businessweek. Retrieved April, 9, 2011 from: http://www.businessweek.com/printer/
lifestyle/workplace-discrimination-charges-at-record-high-07292011.html.
Wood, T. E., & Sherman, M. J. (2001). Is campus racial diversity correlated with educational
benefits? In Race and higher education: Why Justice Powell’s diversity rationale for
racial preferences in higher education must be rejected (Part IV). Retrieved October 23,
2008, from http://www.nas.org.
Wood, P., & Sonleitner, N. (1996). The effect of childhood interracial contact on adult antiblack
prejudice. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20 (1), 1-17.
Yeakley, A. M. (1998). The nature of prejudice change: positive and negative change processes
arising from intergroup contact experiences. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59
(10), 3970A. (UMI No. 9910030).

159

Young, C. F. (1995, April 12). Chancellor Young addresses students. Daily Bruin. Retrieved
February 11, 2012, from http://www.dailybruin.com/index.php/article/1995/04/
chancellor-young-addresses-stu
Zuniga, X., & Nagda, B. A. (1993). Dialogue groups: An innovative approach to multicultural
learning. In D. Schoem, L. Frankel, X. Zuniga, & E. Lewis (Eds.), Multicultural teaching
in the university (pp. 233-248). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Zuniga, X., Nagda, B. A., & Sevig, T. D. (2002). Intergroup dialogues: An educational model for
cultivating engagement across differences. Equity & Excellence in Education, 35(1), 717.

160