FOSTERING MARGINALIZED YOUTHSÕ ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT AND CRITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS THROUGH A VALUES-AFFIRMATION INTERVENTION  By Luke Jared Rapa                A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of  Educational Psychology and Educational Technology Ð Doctor of Philosophy  2016ABSTRACT  FOSTERING MARGINALIZED YOUTHSÕ ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT AND CRITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS THROUGH A VALUES-AFFIRMATION INTERVENTION  By Luke Jared Rapa Significant scholarly attention has recently been directed to the use of social-psychological interventionsÑdesigned to influence the way students perceive themselves within schoolÑto bolster academic performance and close persistent racial-ethnic achievement gaps. While these brief, carefully designed interventions benefit targeted participants, they do very little to change the contexts that threaten their development. Through this dissertation, I explore how an adapted social-psychological intervention may enhance academic achievement while also shaping participantsÕ capacity to change their contexts, via the development of critical consciousness (CC). This project integrates social psychology and CC literatures to examine if a values-affirmation social-psychological intervention can raise studentsÕ academic achievement while also fostering CC simultaneously. Two overarching research questions guide this project: Research Question 1: Can a CC values-affirmation intervention bolster studentsÕ academic performance? and Research Question 2: Can a CC values-affirmation intervention also increase studentsÕ CC, as measured by their levels of critical reflection, critical motivation, and/or critical action? Participants in this field experiment included 53 ninth and tenth grade students from public charter high schools in the Midwestern United States (Mage = 14.97). Participants were randomly assigned to one of two study conditions at the individual student level, the no-affirmation condition and the affirmation condition. The results of this study show promise in the use of a CC-oriented values-affirmation intervention to enhance studentsÕ academic performance and foster CC simultaneously. Specifically, trend-level evidence suggested the intervention may have bolstered academic performance and raised levels of CC, or critical motivation in particular. The moderate effect sizes for GPA (d = .54) and for critical motivation (d = .56) outcomes suggested that the intervention was associated with increased academic performance and CC, though the non-normal distributions of these outcome variables suggested additional evidence was needed to substantiate this interpretation. Distributional differences in GPA and critical motivation, tested via independent samples Mann-Whitney U tests, were significant, which confirmed that the intervention may indeed have some positive effects in terms of raising participantsÕ academic performance and level of CC.  Differences in critical reflection: perceived inequality, critical reflection: egalitarianism, and critical action: sociopolitical participation were non-significant, providing no evidence of intervention effects on these components of CC; however, these analyses may have been underpowered due to the small analytic sample used in the study. Ultimately, this field experiment holds implications for the fostering of CC, generally believed to be a slow and time-intensive process and suggests that it may be possible to utilize a values-affirmation intervention to bolster academic achievement and raise CC simultaneously.  Keywords: academic achievement, critical consciousness, intervention, stereotype threat, values affirmation                                               Copyright by LUKE JARED RAPA 2016    v                     In Memory of Robert Keith Rapa who taught me, by example, much of what it means to be a father, a husband, and a scholar       vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  I am extremely grateful to my scholarly community at Michigan State University for providing the mentorship, support, and training that have led me to where I am today. To my colleagues in CEPSE, and to those in EPET, in particular, I will be ever grateful for the years I spent with you. I owe much of my success to you, as a result of the generative, productive, and collaborative nature of the space we shared in Erickson Hall.  To Ben, thank you for being a model of what an emerging scholar should be. Since we started our program, I have always been just about a half step behind you. I am grateful that I could always look to you as an example of what I should be doing to establish myself as a researcher and a scholar. I am sure I will be able to keep looking to you for this in the future. To Matt, first my advisor and mentor and now my colleague and friend, your unwavering belief in me and my work have been invaluable to me during the past five years. You have never relented in your support for, confidence in, or commitment to me, and you have gone above-and-beyond, time and time again, to support my development as a scholar. You have been a trusted advisor, a strong mentor, and a great collaborator. I am so fortunate to have had the opportunity to work with you and learn from you during my time as a doctoral student, and I look forward to our continued work together in the months and years ahead. To Cary, I am grateful for your mentorship and support as well, especially during the past year and a half. I have learned much from youÑthrough your teaching, your leadership, your scholarship, and your questions. Thank you for being direct and honest, for asking the hard questions, and for expecting nothing less than excellence. I can only hope that my future students will think as highly of me as I do of you.     vii To Dorinda, thank you for being such an insightful and caring teacher and mentor. Your commitment to me, an emerging scholar interested in the study of race and education, has been profound, and I have benefitted from your kindness since our very first meeting four years ago. I have learned much from you and I am grateful for your constant support. To Jason, I am grateful for your service to me as a member of my dissertation committee. Your thoughtful, probing questions and your suggestions for careful thinking and analysis have improved my work greatly. I am deeply indebted to the administrators, parents, and students who supported and participated in this study. Without you, this project would not have been possible. To the many others who supported me in this work, directly and indirectly, I am grateful. To David and Angela, Nick and Amy, and J. and Brooke, I am so appreciative of the encouragement, confidence, support, and friendship you have provided along the way. David, please donÕt think that just because this project is done that I wonÕt be asking you to review my posters in the futureÑyouÕre on the hook for this in perpetuity. And as for the rest of you, IÕll definitely let you know if any more tires get in my way. To Jonah and Adelyn, my beautiful children, I am grateful for your patience, your love, and your smiles. You are the greatest blessings that your mother and I could imagine. The time spent with you in the midst of this project was restorative, and your presence helped keep me firmly grounded in reality and mindful of what really matters. Finally, to you Sarah, I owe not less than everything. You have supported me in countless ways while on this long journey, and you have sacrificed immeasurably in order to allow me to pursue my dreams. I realize this has not been easy. As I consider the milestone being crossed, I can only say that the accomplishment is one we share. It is, in fact, an accomplishment that would not be so fulfilling except that you are by my side. Thank you.  viii TABLE OF CONTENTS  LIST OF TABLES xi LIST OF FIGURES xii  CHAPTER ONE 1 Introduction 1 Theoretical Framework 3 Summary  9  CHAPTER TWO 11 Self-affirmation, Stereotype Threat, and Critical Consciousness: A Review of the Literature 11 Self-Affirmation, Stereotype Threat, and Critical Consciousness 11  Self-affirmation 11  Stereotype Threat 11   Stereotype Threat as a Chronic Threat 13   Mitigating Stereotype Threat through a Values-Affirmation Intervention 14  Critical Consciousness (CC) 16   Defining CC  16   Relations between CC and Adaptive Outcomes 17   Measuring CC  18   Fostering CC  19   CC as a Component of Identity 21 Values-Affirmation as a Means to Foster Academic Achievement and CC 22  Using CC-related Values to Foster Academic Achievement through Values   Affirmation  22  Using a Values-Affirmation Intervention to Foster CC 23 The Current Study  24  Research Questions  24  Study Hypotheses  25  CHAPTER THREE 26 Method 26 Pilot Test of the CC Values-Affirmation Intervention Materials  26  Research Design  26  Participants  27  Measures  27   Condition 1: Critical consciousness no affirmation condition 27   Condition 2: Critical consciousness affirmation condition 28  Study Procedures  28  Data Analysis and Results of the Pilot Test  29 Full-Scale Study: The CC Values-Affirmation Intervention   31  Research Design  31   ix   Condition 1: Critical consciousness no affirmation condition 31   Condition 2: Critical consciousness affirmation condition 32   Participants  33  Measures  34   Post-intervention grade point average 35   Post-intervention scores on the CCS 35    Critical Reflection: Perceived Inequality 35    Critical Reflection: Egalitarianism 36    Critical Action: Sociopolitical Participation 36    Critical Motivation 37  Study Procedures  38  Data Collection: Intervention Activities  39  Data Collection: Critical Consciousness Scale  39  Data Analysis   40  CHAPTER FOUR 41 Results and Discussion 41 Results of the Full-Scale CC Values-Affirmation Intervention  41  Effectiveness of Randomization Procedures   41 Research Question 1: Can a CC values-affirmation intervention bolster studentsÕ academic performance? 43   43   Grade Point Average 43 Sensitivity Analyses for the Difference in Post-intervention GPA 44 Research Question 2: Can a CC values-affirmation intervention also increase studentsÕ CC, as measured by their levels of critical reflection, critical motivation, and/or critical action?    46 Critical Reflection: Perceived Inequality 47 Critical Reflection: Egalitarianism 47 Critical Action: Sociopolitical Participation 48 Critical Motivation 48  Normality Assumptions for Outcome Variables     49 Discussion  51  CHAPTER FIVE 60 Summary and Conclusion 60 Implications  60 Limitations 65 Directions for Future Research  70 Conclusion  72  APPENDICES 74  APPENDIX A: Pilot Test Cognitive Interview Questions 75  APPENDIX B: Field Test ÒForm AÓ  76  APPENDIX C: Field Test ÒForm BÓ  81  APPENDIX D: Full-Scale Study Intervention Materials 86  APPENDIX E: Critical Consciousness Scale  89   x  APPENDIX F: Preliminary Subgroup Analysis 94  REFERENCES 95    xi LIST OF TABLES  Table 1 33 Demographic Overview of Recruitment Sites Table 2 34 Overview of Participants in Analytic Sample Table 3 36 CCS Items Measuring Critical Reflection: Perceived Inequality Table 4 36 CCS Items Measuring Critical Reflection: Egalitarianism Table 5 37 CCS Items Measuring Critical Action: Sociopolitical Participation Table 6 37 Survey Items Measuring Critical Motivation Table 7 42 Participants by Condition and Ethnic-racial Identity Status Table 8 43 Descriptive Statistics: Second Semester Grade Point Average Table 9 44 Required Effect Size Given Sample Size of Analytic Sample  Table 10 47 Descriptive Statistics: Composite Critical Consciousness Outcome Variables Table 11 50 Independent Samples Mann-Whitney U Tests: Second Semester Grade Point Average and Critical Motivation  Table 12 Preliminary Subgroup Analysis by Outcome Variable, ERI Group, and Condition 94     xii LIST OF FIGURES  Figure 1. Overview of data collection activities by time point. 33  Figure 2. Post-intervention mean grade point average by condition and treatment status. 53    1 CHAPTER ONE Introduction Significant scholarly attention has recently been directed to the use of social-psychological interventionsÑactivities designed to influence studentsÕ self-construals within schoolÑto bolster academic performance and close persistent racial-ethnic achievement gaps. These achievement gaps, once on the decline, have been widening (Lee, 2002) and are now similar to those of 20 to 30 years ago (Boykin & Noguera, 2011). This is a complex and multifaceted social problem, with far-reaching consequences for both individuals and American society as a whole (McKown, 2013). Through a series of field experiments, brief and carefully designed social-psychological interventions have been shown to support academic achievement and significantly reduce achievement gaps (Yeager & Walton, 2011), garnering a significant amount of scholarly, policy, and public attention. For example, G. L. Cohen, Garcia, Apfel, and Master (2006) found that one form of social-psychological intervention, a brief values-affirmation writing exercise, buffered against the effects of stereotype-based identity threats and led to improved academic performance by African American students in seventh grade, reducing the racial achievement gap by 40 percent. A stereotype-based identity threat may be, for example, the fear that poor performance will confirm a negative stereotype about oneÕs self or group or the fear that one may be evaluated or judged poorly as a result of such a stereotype (Steele, Spencer, & Aronson, 2002). A series of supplemental writing exercises sustained these effects for two years (G. L. Cohen, Garcia, Purdie-Vaughns, Apfel, & Brzustoski, 2009). Similarly, a social-psychological intervention used a reflective 1-hour writing exercise targeting studentsÕ sense of belonging as they transitioned to college, and this intervention reduced by half the achievement gap between   2 Black and White students (Walton & Cohen, 2011). These studies reflect one major thrust of social-psychological interventions used in schoolsÑtargeting the effects of stereotype and other social identity threats through self-affirmation or exercises targeting studentsÕ belonging and attributions (Yeager & Walton, 2011). Self-affirmation interventions, in particular, have the potential to buffer against social identity threats because they alter individualÕs self-construal, reorienting self-perception and enhancing the self-resources needed to cope with threat. The results of social psychological interventions suggest great promise, in that such interventions have been shown to buffer the effects of identity threats, mitigating hazards to studentsÕ identity and bolstering their performance and sense of belonging within the school environment. However, although these interventions have clear benefitsÑnamely, enhanced academic performance for targeted participants and reductions in racial-ethnic achievement gapsÑthey do not implicitly change the contexts in which participants are situated.1 Fostering critical consciousness (CC) is an important way to help marginalized studentsÑthose experiencing social identity threats in schoolÑnavigate their social conditions and contend with the structural constraints faced in schoolÑand perhaps elsewhere. CC represents peopleÕs critical analysis of their social conditions and the action they take to change inequities within their contexts (Freire, 1973; Watts, Diemer, & Voight, 2011). Moreover, CC operates as an ÒantidoteÓ to structural oppression, fostering agency and empowerment to improve social conditions, eradicate oppression and marginalization, and transform inequitable social environments (Watts, Griffith, & Abdul-Adil, 1999).                                                 1 In social sciences research, the word ÔcontextÕ has a range of meanings and can include different environments salient to youthsÕ development. My use, here and throughout, refers specifically to adolescentsÕ home, neighborhood, and school contexts. 2 Notably, a few other scales designed to measure CC emerged simultaneously with the CCS (Baker & Brookins, 2014; McWhirter & McWhirter, 2015; Thomas et al., 2014). See Diemer et al., 2015 for a review. 3 Although following study participants longitudinally was not a part of this dissertation project (as a result of   3 Through this project, I aim to explore how a social-psychological intervention may enhance academic achievement while also shaping participantsÕ capacity to change their contexts, via the development of CC. Specifically, I examine if a Ôvalues-affirmationÕ social-psychological intervention can be used to raise marginalized studentsÕ academic achievement and foster CC simultaneously. Theoretical Framework Stereotype threat represents the concern that an individual feels when he or she perceives it is possible to confirm a negative stereotype about oneÕs group (Steele & Aronson, 1995). Stereotype threat interferes with the academic performance of African American, Latino/a, and other stereotyped individuals (e.g., women in STEM courses or areas of study), reducing achievement on specific academic tasks or standardized tests (Walton & Spencer, 2009) and potentially leading to reduced motivation, disengagement, or disidentification from the academic domain (Steele et al., 2002). Stereotype threat inhibits performance by raising concerns about how one might be perceived or casting doubts about oneÕs ability, enhancing stress and anxiety, potentially interfering with working memory and problem solving, and increasing cognitive load (Carr & Steele, 2009). In school, identity threats encountered as a result of negative stereotypes can become chronic, when situational manifestations of stereotype threat recur regularly and where the evaluative pressures of school are constant (G. L. Cohen et al., 2009; Cook, Purdie-Vaughns, Garcia, & Cohen, 2012; Hanselman, Bruch, Gamoran, & Borman, 2014). Chronic identity threats, in turn, can lead to perceptions that one does not belong in school (G. L. Cohen & Garcia, 2008) as well as promote increased sensitivity to teacher bias and heightened awareness of threat in general (Cook et al., 2012; Yeager et al., 2013).   4 Chronic threat environments affect studentsÕ identities, both by threatening their perceived self-worth and by raising awareness of the potential devaluation of oneÕs group identity (Garcia & Cohen, 2012). Values-affirmation interventions that tap into studentsÕ identities and help adjust their subjective self-construals within a threatening environment have the potential to mitigate both situational and chronic threats, in that they provide immediate resources to cope with threat while also setting in motion recursive processes that promote enhanced self-perception and performance over time (G. L. Cohen et al., 2009). In their recent review of the field, Yeager and Walton (2011) catalogued two major types of social-psychological interventions used in educational settings: those targeting studentsÕ attributions for academic challenges and those targeting the effects of stereotype threat. Interventions addressing the former have shown that studentsÕ attributions for failure in school can be adjusted, so that beliefs about poor performance are credited to temporary rather than permanent causes, for example by engendering growth mindsets and promoting incremental views rather than entity views of intelligence (Dweck, 2006; Yeager et al., 2016; Yeager & Walton, 2011). Interventions addressing the latter, those undertaken to buffer against stereotype threat, have been shown to mitigate the effects of threats to studentsÕ identity and sense of belonging in school.  Values-affirmation interventions are an example of this latter kind of social-psychological intervention, and values affirmation represents an often-used strategy within the field (McQueen & Klein, 2006; Yeager & Walton, 2011). Grounded in self-affirmation theory (Steele, 1988), interventions of this type are framed by the notion that people in threatening environments seek to maintain a sense of self by engaging an ego-protective system that keeps oneÕs self-integrity intact. Self-integrity, according to SteeleÕs self-affirmation theory, means the maintenance of a   5 strong and positive sense of self, one that is Òadaptively and morally adequateÓ or Òcompetent, good, coherent, unitary, stable, capable of free choice, [and] capable of controlling important outcomesÓ (p. 262). In school, when identity threats are present, students may become distracted by worry that their academic performance will confirm negative stereotypes about their intellectual performance or that of their racial-ethnic group (Shapiro & Neuberg, 2007; Steele & Aronson, 1995; Taylor & Walton, 2011). This can lead to decreased academic performance and set in motion vicious cycles that lead to lower levels of learning and engagement and eventual disidentification from school. Psychologically, values-affirmation interventions are effective because they can initiate processes that stop vicious, recursive cycles that reinforce negative performance trajectories and promote more virtuous ones (G. L. Cohen et al., 2009). As Yeager and Walton (2011) have noted, ÒIt is by affecting self-reinforcing recursive processes that psychological interventions can cause lasting improvements in motivation and achievement even when the original treatment message has faded in silenceÓ (p. 275). These processes afford intervention participants greater resources to cope with threat, provide an opportunity to adjust their perspective about the danger of threat (e.g., recognize, consciously or unconsciously, that self-worth is derived from identity markers other than the one under threat), or even help them recognize and acknowledge threat, facing it head-on but without depleting individualsÕ sense of self-integrity or well-being (Sherman & Hartson, 2011; Shnabel, Purdie-Vaughns, Cook, Garcia, & Cohen, 2013). Ultimately, through values-affirmation, oneÕs sense of self can be influenced so it is less contingent upon environmental cues but rather is more independent of them (Cook et al., 2012). For youth in school, this not only has the potential to increase academic performance within their immediate context, but also to initiate or Òkick startÓ processes that contribute to increased   6 achievement outcomes over time (G. L. Cohen et al., 2009; Yeager & Walton, 2011).  Usually, values-affirmation interventions do not directly address identity features that are stereotyped, instead targeting disconnected (if not benign or generic) aspects of identity in order to buffer adverse impacts of identity threats (Sherman et al., 2009; Steele, 1988). Typical values-affirmation interventions entail a control condition in which non-treated participants reflect on a list of values and then report about why some of those values might be important to someone else. The treatment condition generally calls for treated participants to reflect on the same list of values, but then asks them to report on why a few of the values are important to them, as individuals (McQueen & Klein, 2006). The exercise is self-affirming for those in the treatment condition because it allows respondents the opportunity to identify an aspect of their identity that is central to them and their self-perception. Reflecting on why that value is important to them and who they are bolsters their self-integrity and sense-of-self, and thus releases them from the evaluative pressure of perceived threats. In these interventions, the values identified by the affirmed participants are unrelated to, or direct attention away from, the identity under threat; this is based on the theoretical premiseÑand empirical evidenceÑthat self-affirmation in one domain or component of identity effectively enhances oneÕs ability to deal with threats experienced in other domains (G. L. Cohen et al., 2006; Sherman & Cohen, 2006; Steele, 1988).  An open question is whether interventions that directly challenge domains being stereotyped or marginalized may be equally effective (McQueen & Klein, 2006). Some individuals may benefit from more direct self-affirmation in response to the identity threats that manifest within their immediate context. In this way, the specific content of values-affirmation interventionsÑthat is, what they draw attention to and what they do not draw attention toÑmay play a role in an interventionÕs effectiveness (see Shnabel et al., 2013 for related discussion). Yet   7 values-affirmation interventions have generally targeted identity-neutral characteristics instead of targeting the identity characteristics that are under threat. A values-affirmation intervention targeting CC-related values provides an opportunity to examine this explicitly. Moreover, the potential for a values-affirmation intervention to foster achievement and CC simultaneously stems from SteeleÕs (1988) proposition that individuals under threat need to preserve their self-integrity and feel Òcapable of controlling important outcomesÓ (p. 262). Theoretically, CC is a means by which people come to recognize inequities within their social context and develop agency to influence important outcomes (Diemer, Rapa, Park, & Perry, in press). CC has been associated with a host of adaptive outcomes for adolescents, including academic achievement and engagement (Carter Andrews, 2008; O'Connor, 1997; Ramos-Zayas, 2003), career development (Diemer & Blustein, 2006; Diemer et al., 2010), occupational attainment (Diemer, 2009), healthier sexual decision-making (Campbell & MacPhail, 2002) and mental health (Zimmerman, Ram™rez-Valles, & Maton, 1999), and civic engagement (Diemer & Li, 2011; Diemer & Rapa, 2016). In short, CC equips marginalized youth to negotiate structural constraints and develop the capacity to succeed in educational, occupational, and social contexts. Two aspects of CC have been conceptualized as critical reflection and critical action (Prilleltensky, 2012; Watts et al., 2011), where critical reflection represents the analysis of structural inequalities (e.g., constraints on educational and occupational opportunity due to racial-ethnic, gendered, and socioeconomic inequalities) and critical action represents individual or collective action taken to redress perceived inequalities. Instrument validation provides construct validity evidence for this conception of CC (Diemer, Rapa, Park, et al., in press; McWhirter & McWhirter, 2015). Scholars have also argued that critical motivation (sometimes   8 called Òpolitical efficacyÓ) may be another distinct component of CC (Watts et al., 2011, p. 45), representing an individualÕs perceived ability and commitment to confront societal inequalities and produce sociopolitical change. Critical motivation is hypothesized to be an intermediate step between critical reflection and critical action (Watts et al., 2011), with the relationship between critical action and critical reflection being reciprocal (Freire, 2000). Critical reflection gives rise to critical action, and critical action, in turn, gives rise to enhanced critical reflection.  While CC has been associated with adaptive educational and occupational outcomes, most empirical CC research has focused on exploring its contextual antecedents or consequences rather than testing how it develops. Emergent research has highlighted approaches typically used to foster CC (Watts & Hipolito-Delgado, 2015), yet we still have much to learn about how to promote CC (Godfrey & Grayman, 2014). Moreover, there has been virtually no experimental research on its development (for an exception, see Chronister & McWhirter, 2006). Social-psychological interventions adjust subjective self-construals within threatening environments (Yeager & Walton, 2011), and CC plays a role in engendering feelings of agency in the face of structural constraints. Self-reflection on CC-related values should provide marginalized youthÑthose subject to chronic social identity threats within the school environmentÑwith the opportunity to affirm salient aspects of their identity while also allowing them the opportunity to critically reflect on their social conditions, promoting agency and compelling them toward action to redress societal inequities. That is, a CC-oriented values-affirmation intervention should not only accomplish the goal of self-affirmation, and thereby contribute to gains in academic achievement and reductions to the racial achievement gap, but should also contribute to the development of CC at the same time.    9 Summary  This dissertation explores how an adapted social-psychological intervention might enhance academic achievement while also shaping participantsÕ capacity to change their contexts, via the development of CC. Two overarching research questions guide this project: Research Question 1: Can a CC values-affirmation intervention bolster studentsÕ academic performance? and Research Question 2: Can a CC values-affirmation intervention also increase studentsÕ CC, as measured by their levels of critical reflection, critical motivation, and/or critical action? These questions are addressed through analyses of post-intervention group differences across two study conditions, a control group and a treatment group.  In Chapter 2, I review the literatures that undergird the theoretical foundation of this project, including self-affirmation, stereotype threat, and CC. In Chapter 3, I describe the methods used in this study, from initial pilot test to the full-scale values-affirmation intervention. Details are provided about the studyÕs research design, participants, procedures, and data analyses. Results of the pilot study, which was conducted to validate the intervention materials that were designed for use in the full-scale study, are presented as well.  In Chapter 4, I present the results of the full-scale CC values-affirmation intervention study. Specifically, I provide an overview of the statistical analyses used to address the studyÕs two research questions and then delineate the results of those analyses in light of those research questions. I conclude Chapter 4 with a discussion of the results of the CC values-affirmation intervention. In Chapter 5, I assess the implications of the CC values-affirmation intervention and enumerate the limitations of this research project. I conclude by outlining a few steps necessary for me to extend this research and offering a few suggestions for other researchers interested in   10 adapting social-psychological interventions to test whether and how academic achievement and CC might be developed simultaneously through values-affirmation. I conclude by suggesting that this field experiment holds implications for fostering of CC, which has generally been thought to have a slow and time-intensive growth process and argue that, through this intervention, it may be possible to utilize a values-affirmation intervention to bolster academic achievement and raise CC simultaneously.     11 CHAPTER TWO Self-Affirmation, Stereotype Threat, and Critical Consciousness: A Review of the Literature Self-Affirmation, Stereotype Threat, and Critical Consciousness Self-affirmation Self-affirmation theory (Steele, 1988) is the foundation of values-affirmation intervention research. According to self-affirmation theory, when individuals encounter psychologically threatening situations or find themselves within threatening environments, an ego-protective system is activated in order to Òaffirm an overall self-concept of worth after it has been threatenedÓ (p. 266). Self-affirmation theory posits that threats in one domain can be compensated for by affirmation of the self in other domains; in this way, the system that works to preserve self-integrity is flexible and dynamic (Sherman & Cohen, 2006).  Self-affirmation theory maintains that oneÕs self-integrity can be reinforced via reflection on qualities or values that are believed to represent the self or are otherwise important. ÒThose qualities that are central to how people see themselves are potential domains of self-affirmationÓ (Sherman & Cohen, 2006, p. 189). The reflection on qualities or values that represent the self, or are important to how one sees himself or herself, bolsters oneÕs sense of self in the face of situational or environmental threats.  Stereotype Threat One type of situational or environmental threat is referred to as Òstereotype threat.Ó Stereotype threat relates to an individualÕs perception that he or she may confirm a negative stereotype about oneÕs self or oneÕs group.  According to Steele et al. (2002), stereotype threat can be defined as follows:   12 When a negative stereotype about a group that one is part of becomes personally relevant, usually as an interpretation of oneÕs behavior or an experience one is having, stereotype threat is the resulting sense that one can then be judged or treated in terms of the stereotype or that one might do something that would inadvertently confirm it. (p. 389) Stereotype threat is generally considered to be situational, in that it arises as a result of the interaction between an individualÕs environment and context-embedded cues suggesting that a negative stereotype may be relevant. In other words, the threat an individual feels within his or her environment is linked to the importance or meaning or importance of the domain as well as oneÕs identification with the domain to which the stereotype applies (Steele et al., 2002). For example, seminal research exploring stereotype threat showed that test performance of African American students was lower than their White counterparts only when the test was purported to be diagnostic of ability but not when the same test was presented as non-diagnostic (Steele & Aronson, 1995). Similar findings about the effects of stereotype threat have emerged when tested with Latino university students, with middle school students, and with women in mathematics fields (Steele et al., 2002). Finally, similar results emerged when testing the effects of stereotype threat for White males in the field of mathematics, when compared to their Asian counterparts (Aronson et al., 1999). A vast body of research indicates that stereotype threat inhibits academic performance and achievement. There are various mechanisms by which performance may be inhibited. For example, stereotype threat raises stress and anxiety levels, interferes with working memory and problem solving skills, and increases cognitive load (Carr & Steele, 2009). Stereotype threat also prompts negative emotion regulation and promotes a focus on prevention with regard to the   13 negative stereotype, whereby the stereotyped individual dedicates cognitive and emotional resources toward trying to avoid the confirmation of the negative stereotype (Taylor & Walton, 2011; Walton & Spencer, 2009). Psychological reactions to stereotype threat often play out as quick, short-term responses by those who are experiencing the threat. Domain avoidance, self-handicapping, working to disprove the relevance of the stereotype, and disengagement are all short-term reactions to stereotype threat (Steele et al., 2002). Stereotype Threat as a Chronic Threat. While stereotype threat is generally considered to be a situational threat that affects studentsÕ performance within a particular academic context, at a specific point in time, stereotype threat can function as a chronic threat as wellÑi.e., as part of an environment where exposure and evaluation occur continually and over an extended period of time. For example, Cook et al. (2012) argued that stereotype threat in school can recur to create a Òchronically stressful environmentÓ where Òcritical feedback, low grades, and real or perceived slightsÓ are experienced continually (p. 1). When stereotype threat becomes chronic and is experienced continually within a domain, it has the potential to lead to psychological defenses that are chronic as well. Disidentification is one such response. When one disengages from a domain, it is possible that he or she still identifies with that domain (e.g., ÒI am disengaged from my math studies, but I still see myself as a Ômath personÕÓ). When responding through disidentification, on the other hand, one distances his or her views of self from performance within that domain (e.g., Òproficiency in mathematics is not important to me, and I no longer see myself as a Ômath personÕÓ) and maintains this separation over the longer-term (Steele et al., 2002). According to stereotype threat theory, stereotype threat only operates when a domain being stereotyped is personally relevant to the   14 stereotyped person; therefore, disidentification from the domain where threat occurs is one way to mitigate the effects of stereotype threat. Initial shorter-term responses to stereotype threat can ultimately lead to chronic defenses when exposure itself is more chronic in nature. For example, some students who experience persistent stereotype threat in schools, such as African American or Latino/a youth, may disidentify with school or the academic domain in order to preserve their sense of self and remove the adverse impacts of stereotype threat (Steele et al., 2002).  Mitigating Stereotype Threat through a Values-Affirmation Intervention. Social-psychological interventions have been used effectively to buffer against the effects of acute or chronic stereotype threat. More specifically, social-psychological values-affirmation interventions have been used effectively to mitigate the effects of stereotype threat within educational settings (Yeager & Walton, 2011). In their landmark study, G. L. Cohen et al. (2006) found that a brief 20-minute values-affirmation intervention improved targeted 7th grade studentsÕ grade point averages by 0.30 grade points, reducing the achievement gap between Black and White students by approximately 40% in just one semester.  In this intervention, students in the treatment condition were provided a prompt asking them to identify values that were personally meaningful and describe a time when these values were important to them. Students in the control condition were provided a similar prompt asking them to identify values that were not meaningful to them, but which may be important to someone else, and describe a time when those values might be important to someone else. In a follow-up study, G. L. Cohen et al. (2009) found these effects to persist over the course of two years, with a grade point average increase of 0.24 grade points for African American students. The intervention was particularly effective for lower-performing African American students, who had an average grade point average increase of 0.41 grade points at the   15 conclusion of the two-year follow up study. Values-affirmation interventions are effective at buffering against the effects of stereotype threat as a result of three inter-related processes (Sherman & Hartson, 2011). First, self-affirmation enhances self-resources that one has available to cope with the perceived threat. Second, with enhanced self-resources available, one can view perceived threat within a broader context or from a broader perspectiveÑthat is, those threatened become less worried about the effects of the threat on their self-image. In this way, their level of ÒconstrualÓ of the threat shifts, and the threat is situated within a broader context. Seeing threat within this broader context enables the individual experiencing threat to decouple the experience of threat within a given context or domain from their self-evaluation, thereby reducing the threatÕs potential to negatively impact the individual experiencing threat. Sherman and Cohen (2006) put it this way: ÒWhen self-affirmed, individuals feel as though the task of proving their worth, both to themselves and others, is Ôsettled.Õ As a consequence, they can focus on other salient demands in the situation beyond ego protectionÓ (p. 189). To illustrate, a student who engages in self-affirmation by reflecting on creativity or independence as a salient aspect of his or her identity becomes less concerned about anotherÕs evaluation of him or her based on demonstrated performance of a certain level on an academic task or test (i.e., strong performance on a math exam). Instead, that student has an affirmed sense-of-self due to his or her self-reflection on being a creative personÑand performance on the math exam becomes less relevant to his or her self-worth. In brief, self-affirmation enhances self-resources so threatened individuals can cope with threat, equips those under threat with a broader context in which threat can be situated, and provides the opportunity to decouple self-evaluationÑor oneÕs self-integrity (Steele, 1988)Ñfrom the context or domain where the threat is experienced.   16 Self-affirmation has not only been shown to be effective at mitigating the effects of stereotype threat in the short term, but its effects have also been shown to persist over time. People who are insulated against identity threats neither feel situational anxiety in stereotyped domains, nor do they feel the need to disidentify from school to protect themselves (Steele et al., 2002). Self-affirmation has appreciable effects over time because it arrests negative performance trajectories and promotes more positive ones (G. L. Cohen et al., 2009), and because it shifts threatened individuals construal of poor performance (Sherman & Hartson, 2011). Critical Consciousness (CC) Defining CC. CC represents peopleÕs critical analysis of their social conditions and the action they take to change perceived inequities (Freire, 1973; Watts et al., 2011). Paulo Freire (2000) initially defined CC as Òlearning to perceive social, political, and economic contradictions, and to take action against the oppressive elements of realityÓ (p. 35). He conceptualized CC as a way to help marginalized Brazilian peasants develop literacy skills while also developing the capacity to think critically about inequitable social conditions and take action to change them.  Two aspects of CC have been conceptualized as critical reflection and critical action (Prilleltensky, 2012; Watts et al., 2011). Critical reflection represents the analysis of structural inequality in the form of racial-ethnic, gendered, and socioeconomic constraints on educational and occupational opportunity, while critical action represents action taken, individually or collectively, to redress perceived inequalities. Recent scholarship has validated these as components of CC (Diemer, Rapa, Park, et al., in press; McWhirter & McWhirter, 2015). Critical motivation is a theorized but unverified third component of CC, presumably operating as an intermediary between critical reflection and critical action. That is, critical motivation   17 represents the agency to act to address perceived inequality, growing out of critical reflection and leading to critical action (Watts et al., 2011). Marginalization takes various forms, and the intersectionality that results from having various social identity markers may mean that people hold more (or less) marginalized or privileged identity statuses within and across different domains (Diemer, Rapa, Voight, & McWhirter, in press). That is, people may have different levels of CC relative to the distinct kinds of marginalization and social inequality that they experience. While CC may manifest differently for different individuals, it may thus be relevant for White youth and along with youth of color, depending on their manifold social identity statuses and the degree to which they experience marginalization across various domains. Moreover, for those individuals with more privileged identity statuses, it may be that CC does not develop relative to their own marginalization or oppression, per se, but rather develops in terms of the marginalization and oppression of others (Diemer, Rapa, Voight, et al., in press). Relations between CC and Adaptive Outcomes. CC has been associated with a number of adaptive outcomes for marginalized adolescents, including academic achievement and engagement (Carter Andrews, 2008; O'Connor, 1997; Ramos-Zayas, 2003), connection to career expectations (Diemer et al., 2010) and attainment (Diemer, 2009), healthier sexual decision-making (Campbell & MacPhail, 2002) and greater mental health (Zimmerman et al., 1999), and enhanced political participation (Diemer & Li, 2011; Diemer & Rapa, 2016).  Additional empirical work is needed to further establish the relationship between CC and academic outcomes. It remains unclear, for example, how critical reflection and critical action work together (or individually) to shape positive academic outcomes. Critical reflection may be more important in the development of academic engagement and motivation by providing   18 students with the capacity or agency to navigate perceived structural barriers that constrain academic success. On the other hand, high levels of critical actionÑwhich includes participation in social and political actionÑmay engender the agency that leads marginalized young people to feel agentic within academic contexts or domains (Diemer, Rapa, Park, et al., in press). While CC has been associated with a number of adaptive and desirable outcomes, and while much empirical work has focused on exploring its contextual antecedents and consequences, we still have a lot to learn about how to foster CC (Godfrey & Grayman, 2014). There has also been very limited experimental work done that would allow for causal interpretations about the development of CC (for an exception, see Chronister & McWhirter, 2006).  Measuring CC. Until recently, no scale had been developed with the explicit purpose of measuring CC (Diemer, McWhirter, Ozer, & Rapa, 2015). Instead, researchers interested in quantitative measurement of CC relied upon indirect measures and repurposed scales to assess an individualÕs CC. The Critical Consciousness Scale (CCS; Diemer, Rapa, Park, et al., in press) was developed to address this critical gap in the literature, in order to advance and bring together scholarship that has historically utilized proxy measures and disparate forms of representation for CC.2 The CCS was developed and validated with predominantly poor and working class African American youth attending urban high schools. The CCS, a 22-item scale, comprises three internally consistent subscales that were determined to correspond with CCÕs two canonical components of critical reflection and critical action. Specifically, two subscales were established for critical reflection and one subscale was established for critical action. The first subscale for                                                 2 Notably, a few other scales designed to measure CC emerged simultaneously with the CCS (Baker & Brookins, 2014; McWhirter & McWhirter, 2015; Thomas et al., 2014). See Diemer et al., 2015 for a review.   19 critical reflection, critical reflection: perceived inequality, includes eight items related to an individualÕs critical awareness and/or analysis of societal inequalities, including race-, gender-, and/or class-based disparities in access to high-quality education and rewarding work. The second subscale for critical reflection, critical reflection: egalitarianism, includes five items related to an individualÕs endorsement of equitable social position among societal groups. The single subscale for critical action, critical action: sociopolitical participation, includes nine items and relates to an individualÕs participation in civic or political action in order to effect change. The CCS measures engagement in specific forms of civic or political action, such as participation in a civil rights group, political party or club, protesting or demonstrating, contacting public officials, or working on a political campaign. The CCS captures participation in these civic or political actions by asking respondents to indicate the frequency of their participation, not just participation alone.  Fostering CC. CC interventions have typically utilized five techniques to foster CC, including: (1) focusing on shared values, (2) fostering awareness of sociopolitical circumstances, (3) encouraging critical questioning, (4) fostering collective identity, and (5) taking sociopolitical action (Watts & Hipolito-Delgado, 2015). These techniques rely on collaborative small-group dialogue, with facilitators guiding participants in discussion that enables them to connect personal experiences of marginalization to larger social structures and issues. Efforts to develop CC are time- and labor-intensive, and they are focused on promoting critical reflection, engendering agency, prompting action, and fostering a collective identityÑoften based on demographic or other social identitiesÑamong participants.  For example, FreireÕs (1973) initial attempts to foster CC entailed Brazilian peasantsÕ participation in culture circles as a means to develop capacity to Òread the wordÓ as well as Òread   20 the world.Ó These culture circles were focused on raising participantsÕ awareness of sociocultural and sociopolitical marginalization and oppression. FreireÕs culture circles would meet for an extended series of meetings, with participants engaging in a collaborative and dialogic process to analyze everyday situations or objects (e.g., renderings of an indigenous hunter with a bow and arrow) in order to identify and build understanding about social, cultural, and political issues affecting them. More recent interventions to foster CC have supplemented FreireÕs approach by engaging youth in (a) pedagogical activities focused on critically analyzing race-, class-, and gender-based inequities or (b) youth-led participatory action research (yPAR) activities. For instance, Duncan-Andrade and MorrellÕs (2008) year-long CC intervention provided urban students with opportunities to examine contemporary issues of power and oppression, within the context of studentsÕ English class. In order to accomplish this, course reading lists were expanded beyond traditional texts (e.g., Beowulf and Hamlet) to include the study of popular films, books, and hip-hop music as a way to examine dominant narratives, normative cultural perspectives, and inequities relevant to studentsÕ lives (e.g., academic achievement in urban public school contexts). Participation in these activities provided students with numerous opportunities to reflect on societal inequities, build agency to navigate the constraints they faced in their school and communities, and also gave them a platform to work to redress such inequities and constraints. Another such intervention, the now-banned Mexican American Studies program implemented by the Tucson Unified School District, engaged students in critiques of traditional curricula in which experiences of students of color were absent. The MAS explicitly included an examination of U.S. colonial history and legacy, and its curriculum created dialogic spaces for   21 students and teachers to confront experiences with racism and other forms of marginalization within their school, linking these experiences to societal and institutional racism and exclusion through discussion and yPAR (Cabrera, Milem, Jaquette, & Marx, 2014). These interventionsÑboth FreireÕs initial culture circles and more contemporary approaches using critical pedagogy and/or yPARÑare time- and labor-intensive ways to promote CC development. As such, CC is typically thought to be slow to develop and difficult to foster.  CC as a Component of Identity. Adolescence is well known to be a time of identity development, with identity formation being a primary developmental task during this period. As part of the process of identity formation, youth establish values and beliefs that will govern their lives and their interactions with others in the world (Erikson, 1968). For adolescents who are marginalized, this extends to ethnic-racial attitudes and self-appraisals, ethnic-racial classification and identification, and awareness of group-based stereotype or stigmatization (Garc™a Coll et al., 1996; McKown, 2013; Phinney, 1990; Quintana, 1998). CC, which helps adolescents situate their self-appraisals in light of the context of societal oppression, can be thought of as a central component of marginalized youthsÕ identity and sense-of-self (Quintana & Segura-Herrera, 2003). In more specific terms, both core components of CCÑcritical reflection and critical actionÑhave been linked to identity development and identity expression in adolescents. For example, critical reflection has been tied to how one sees himself or herself in relation to others in the world, both those within and outside of oneÕs social group (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), as well as in relation to societal inequities and social problems (Martinez, Penaloza, & Valenzuela, 2012). Critical action, on the other hand, has been linked to oneÕs personal identity in terms of social responsibility and civic engagement (Crocetti, Jahromi, & Meeus, 2012) as well as oneÕs   22 social identity as part of group that is disadvantaged or marginalized (van Zomeren, Postmes, & Spears, 2008). CC can be thought of as a part of oneÕs identity, insofar as critical reflection and critical action each shape and are shaped by how one relates to and interacts with the people and social structures within oneÕs context. Values Affirmation as a Means to Foster Academic Achievement and CC A CC-related values-affirmation intervention is theorized to have effects both in terms of enhancing academic performanceÑlike the standard values-affirmation intervention doesÑand in terms of fostering the CC of marginalized youth. As noted above, self-affirmation in any domainÑvia reflection on qualities or values that are important to an individual or are believed to represent the selfÑbolsters oneÕs sense of self in the face of situational or environmental threats. Similarly, reflection on CC-related valuesÑor, manifestations of values that are related to CCÕs critical reflection, critical motivation, or critical action componentsÑshould provide marginalized youth with the opportunity to critically reflect on inequitable social conditions, promoting agency and compelling them toward action to redress such inequities. Using CC-related Values to Foster Academic Achievement through Values Affirmation Most values affirmation interventions have used one of two values lists (McQueen & Klein, 2006), one established by Allport, Vernon, and Lindzey (1960) or by Harber (1995). However some self-affirmation interventions have used varied values lists to suit the particular needs of the research at hand. For example, Schimel, Arndt, Banko, and Cook (2004) focused on valued self-definitions related to professions or occupations  (e.g., artist, athlete, musician, lawyer, student, etc.). Reed and Aspinwall (1998) focused on various kindness behaviors, with their intervention asking participants to describe events where those kindness behaviors were exhibited. G. L. Cohen et al. (2006) utilized an adapted version of HarberÕs scale (1995) and   23 included a list of eleven values: athletic ability, being good at art, creativity, independence, living in the moment, membership in a social group, music, politics, relationships with friends or family, religious values, and sense of humor.  Focusing on values relevant to CC should promote the opportunity for individuals to self-affirm just as the more traditional values-affirmation does. That is, reflection on CC-related values should promote self-affirmation in the same way as reflection on other values salient to oneÕs identity. This is especially the case given (a) the opportunity to self-select the values and reflect on those that are personally meaningful and (b) the established links between CC and identity (Quintana & Segura-Herrera, 2003). As with the standard values-affirmation interventions (G. L. Cohen et al., 2006; G. L. Cohen et al., 2009), the self-affirmation promoted through reflection on CC-related values will presumably enhance self-resources so threatened individuals can cope with threat, will equip those under threat with a broader context in which threat can be situated, and will provides the opportunity to decouple self-evaluation from their school environment where the threat is experienced. Using a Values-Affirmation Intervention to Foster CC Self-reflection on CC-related values should provide marginalized youth not only with the opportunity to affirm salient aspects of their identity, but it should also allow them the opportunity to critically reflect on their social conditions. This critical reflection, a central component of CC theory (Freire, 1973, 2000), is the process by which individuals come Òto see critically the way they exist in the world with which and in which they find themselvesÓ (Freire, 2000, p. 83). According to FreireÕs initial conception of CC, critical reflection leads to critical action and critical action, in turn, leads to further critical reflection (Freire, 1973). The two exist and operate reciprocally, mutually informing each other and spurring on enhanced CC over time.   24 A CC values-affirmation intervention should contribute to the development of CC by allowing students with the opportunity to reflect on CC-related values that individuals find personally meaningful, thinking about times when those values have been meaningful to them and giving them the chance to project into the future about how they might have the opportunity to exhibit such values in the near-term. The Current Study This project draws on social psychology and CC literatures to examine if a values-affirmation intervention, focused on CC-related values, can be used to raise studentsÕ academic achievement and to foster studentsÕ CC simultaneously. The study represents a first attempt at conducting a field experiment to test if an altered values-affirmation intervention can affect both academic and CC-related outcomes. Following the design and procedures established by G. L. Cohen et al. (2006), participants were randomly assigned to one of two study conditions (Gerber & Green, 2012), the no affirmation CC condition and the CC affirmation condition, each described in greater detail in Chapter 3. Research Questions This studyÕs primary goal was to test if a CC-oriented values-affirmation intervention could engender increased academic performance while also fostering CC, raising studentsÕ levels of critical reflection, critical motivation, and/or critical action at the same time. The project was driven by two overarching research questions: 1. Can a CC values-affirmation intervention bolster studentsÕ academic performance? 2. Can a CC values-affirmation intervention also increase studentsÕ CC, as measured by their levels of critical reflection, critical motivation, and/or critical action?    25 Study Hypotheses I hypothesized that the CC values-affirmation intervention would bolster studentsÕ academic performance in the same way that a traditional values-affirmation intervention has been shown to do. That is, participants within the CC treatment condition were expected to have increased academic performance as compared to the control condition. Similarly, I hypothesized that the CC values-affirmation intervention would increase studentsÕ CC. Grounded in recent innovations in the measurement of CC (Diemer, Rapa, Park, et al., in press), studentsÕ levels of critical reflection, critical motivation, and critical action were to be examined separately as opposed to holistically. I expected the CC values-affirmation intervention to increase studentsÕ critical reflection and critical motivation. Changes in critical action were expected to emerge more slowly. That is, differences in critical action were not hypothesized to appear during the duration of this study. However, given the reciprocal relationship between critical reflection and critical action (Freire, 2000), I did expect differences in critical action to emerge over a more extended period of time.3                                                 3 Although following study participants longitudinally was not a part of this dissertation project (as a result of practical limitations related to project completion timelines), I intended to follow participants over time. This subsequent, or continuing project would aim to see if and how the CC-related intervention led to differences in critical action (and other outcomes) over time, as well as how enduring any identified effects on GPA and the other CC components might be.   26 CHAPTER THREE Method This study was designed to examine if a CC-oriented values-affirmation intervention might bolster academic performance and simultaneously foster CC, raising studentsÕ levels of critical reflection, critical motivation, and/or critical action. After the initial development of intervention materials, adapted from the landmark study conducted by G. L. Cohen et al. (2006), an initial pilot test was conducted. After this pilot test was completed, the full-scale implementation of the values-affirmation intervention was carried out. In this chapter, I first provide an overview of the pilot studyÕs research design, participants, procedures, and data analysis plan, along with the results of the pilot study, which was conducted to validate the intervention materials to be used in the subsequent full-scale study. I then provide an overview of the full-scale values-affirmation intervention, discussing its research design, participants, procedures, and my data analysis plan. Pilot Test of the CC Values-Affirmation Intervention Materials Research Design A pilot test was conducted in June 2015 in order to test intervention procedures and finalize designs for the full-scale studyÕs control and treatment conditions. Pilot test participants completed one of the two intervention exercises corresponding with the studyÕs no affirmation and affirmation conditions, described in further detail below. After completing the intervention materials, participants engaged in a modified cognitive interview process (Desimone & LeFloch, 2004) in order to confirm their understanding of what the intervention exercises were asking them to do, how they interpreted key terms and ideas within the exercise, and what their thought process was while completing the exercise (see Appendix A).    27 Participants Study participants were recruited from a public charter high school in the Midwestern United States. In the spring of the 2014-2015 school year, hard copy consent forms were distributed via school distribution to the primary parent or guardian of all ninth grade students enrolled in the school (n = 167). Consent was provided for ten students (approximately 6%). After consent was provided, I worked with the school administrator to schedule a time, date, and location for the pilot test. In the end, six consented students were in attendance and able to participate in the pilot test on the date it was scheduled to take place. No administrative data was collected from the school for pilot test participants, as the purpose of the pilot test was solely to ensure the interpretability of the studyÕs intervention materials. Measures The pilot test was intended to validate the interpretability of the intervention materials. Students who received the Condition 1 no affirmation activities examined Field Test ÒForm AÓ (Appendix B) while students who received the Condition 2 affirmation activities examined Field Test ÒForm BÓ (Appendix C). Condition 1: Critical consciousness no affirmation condition. In this ÒcontrolÓ condition, participants examined and identified three values that were least important to them, choosing from a list of eleven values, or age-appropriate manifestations of values, relating to the components of CC (Diemer, Rapa, Park, et al., in press; Watts et al., 2011). For example, values were related to racial, gender or social class equality, group equality, or participation in political discussions or activities. Consistent with the administration procedures for a standard no-affirmation condition (cf. G. L. Cohen et al., 2006), participants then wrote about a time when their three selected least   28 important values might be important to someone else. To reinforce the manipulation, students were also asked to identify the top two reasons why the values they selected might be important to someone else (cf. G. L. Cohen et al., 2006), as well as indicate their level of agreement with statements like ÒThese values have influenced some peopleÕs livesÓ and ÒThese values are an important part of who some people are.Ó Condition 2: Critical consciousness affirmation condition. In this ÒtreatmentÓ condition, participants examined and identified three values that were most important to them, choosing from the same list of eleven values relating to the components of CC. Following the administration procedures for the standard-affirmation condition (cf. G. L. Cohen et al., 2006), participants were then asked to write about a time when their three selected most important values were important to them. To reinforce the manipulation students were also asked to reflect on what opportunities they might have to exhibit these values at their school, in their neighborhood, or in their communities during their current school year, as well as indicate their level of agreement with statements like ÒThese values have influenced my lifeÓ and ÒThese values are an important part of who I am.Ó Study Procedures One school site was selected to participate in the pilot test. Once the list of consented students was finalized, I coordinated with the administrator of the school to identify a convenient time, date, and location within the school for the pilot test to take place. In preparation for the pilot test, and in advance of participantsÕ completion of the study activities, students were pre-assigned, through random assignment, to complete either ÒForm AÓ or ÒForm BÓ activities (see Appendices B and C, respectively). Specifically, consented students were organized alphabetically by last name and sequentially assigned a number, 1-10. Those numbers were then   29 processed through a random sequence generator in order to provide a sort-order for assignment to ÒForm AÓ and ÒForm BÓ. The first number appearing in the sort-order, as provided by the random sequence generator, was assigned ÒForm AÓ while the second was assigned ÒForm BÓ. Assignments to ÒForm AÓ or ÒForm BÓ rotated, in turn, until all consented students were pre-assigned to a set of study activities. Prior to beginning the pilot test activities, the purpose of the study was introduced and an overview of study activities was provided. Then the consented students were given the opportunity to review and sign an assent form. As an incentive for agreeing to participate in the pilot test, participants were reminded that they could win, through another random drawing, one of five $20.00 gift cards to Amazon.com. No consented students who were present when the study was introduced declined to participate in the pilot test.  Pursuant to the design of the pilot test, participants first completed their pre-assigned activities and were then invited to engage in a modified cognitive interview (see Appendix A). As introduced above, the purpose of the cognitive interview was to confirm participantsÕ understanding of what the intervention exercises were asking them to do, how they interpreted key terms and ideas within the exercise, and what their thought process was while completing the exercise. Data Analysis and Results of the Pilot Test Given the purpose of the pilot study and its related cognitive interview, analysis of pilot test data was limited to assessing participantsÕ verbal responses to the cognitive interview prompts. Because the procedures used in this study were intended to conform to the procedures used for standard values-affirmation intervention studies (G. L. Cohen et al., 2006), the analyses were not intended to result in changes to the study procedures, sequence of activities, or format   30 of the intervention materials. Instead, I was looking for potential areas of concern with respect to participantsÕ ability to understand the contents of the CC-oriented values list. The cognitive interviews conducted during the pilot test suggested that the intervention activities were understood by and clear to pilot test participants.  In short, the pilot test confirmed that participants understood the tasks included in the CC-oriented values list and also that they could interpret the list of CC-related values included in the intervention. The same values list appeared in both ÒForm AÓ and ÒForm BÓ (see Appendices B and C, respectively). Participant responses to the questions posed during the cognitive interview (see Appendix A) suggested participantsÕ understanding of values as something important to them as individuals, something important to do, something that they would stand up for, or how things are supposed to be.  Additionally, during the cognitive interview, those who completed the ÒForm AÓ activities (i.e., the no affirmation condition) reported that it was clear that the prompts provided asked them to focus on values that were least important to them and also that they were to identify reasons why these values may be important to someone else. Similarly, during the cognitive interview, those who completed the ÒForm BÓ activities (i.e., the affirmation condition) reported that it was clear that the prompts provided asked them to focus on values that were most important to them and also that they were to identify reasons why these values were important to themselves as opposed to why they would be important to someone else. Procedurally, participants expressed impressions that Part 3 of the activitiesÑlisting the reasons why the identified values as least important might be meaningful to someone else (those completing ÒForm AÓ) or why the identified values were meaningful to them (those completing ÒForm BÓ)Ñfelt duplicative of the activities in the preceding parts, Part 1 and Part 2. This suggested the effectiveness of the intended Òmanipulation checkÓ as a reinforcement of the two   31 respective study conditions. Given this confirmation and the intent to conform to the procedures used for standard values-affirmation intervention studies (e.g., G. L. Cohen et al., 2006), no changes were made to the study activities prior to the implementation of the full-scale values affirmation intervention. Full-scale Study: The CC Values-Affirmation Intervention Research Design As initially conceived, the full-scale study was designed to include four study conditions. The first two study conditions were intended to replicate the values affirmation studies conducted by Cohen and colleagues (e.g., G. L. Cohen et al., 2006; G. L. Cohen et al., 2009). Due to sample size constraints that emerged during the final stages of preparing to implement the study, including the loss of one sizable participating school at the launch of the study, the study conditions were reduced to include only the two CC-oriented conditions. These study conditions are detailed below (see also Appendix D). Condition 1: Critical consciousness no affirmation condition. In this ÒcontrolÓ condition, participants examined and identified three values that were least important to them, choosing from a list of eleven values, or age-appropriate manifestations of values, relating to the components of CC (Diemer, Rapa, Park, et al., in press; Watts et al., 2011). For example, values were related to racial, gender or social class equality, group equality, or participation in political discussions or activities. Consistent with the administration procedures for a standard no-affirmation condition (cf. G. L. Cohen et al., 2006), participants then wrote about a time when their three selected least important values might be important to someone else. To reinforce the manipulation, students were also asked to identify the top two reasons why the values they selected might be important   32 to someone else (cf. G. L. Cohen et al., 2006), as well as indicate their level of agreement with statements like ÒThese values have influenced some peopleÕs livesÓ and ÒThese values are an important part of who some people are.Ó Condition 2: Critical consciousness affirmation condition. In this ÒtreatmentÓ condition, participants examined and identified three values that were most important to them, choosing from the same list of eleven values relating to the components of CC. Following the administration procedures for the standard-affirmation condition (cf. G. L. Cohen et al., 2006), participants were then asked to write about a time when their three selected most important values were important to them. To reinforce the manipulation students were also asked to reflect on what opportunities they might have to exhibit these values at their school, in their neighborhood, or in their communities during their current school year, as well as indicate their level of agreement with statements like ÒThese values have influenced my lifeÓ and ÒThese values are an important part of who I am.Ó Data collection activities for the study were designed to take place over three time points, as depicted in Figure 1. At the outset of the 2015-2016 school year, Time Point 1, administrative data for consented students was provided to the researcher for use in study preparation and for the organization of randomization procedures. Subsequent to the provision of administrative data for all consented students, study participants were to be assigned one of the two conditions at the outset of the studyÕs intervention activities. These intervention activities took place in Fall 2015, Time Point 2. Finally, the subsequent gathering of administrative data took place in early 2016, Time Point 3, including the collection of both academic performance data and the CCS (for additional information about this academic performance data and the CCS, see also the Measures section below).    33 Data Collection Time Point Data Collection Activities August 2015 October 2015 January 2016 Time Point 1 Collection of pre-intervention administrative data from school sites       Time Point 2 Administration of CC values-affirmation intervention activities       Time Point 3 Administration of CCS; collection of post-intervention administrative data from school sites       Figure 1. Overview of data collection activities by time point.   Participants Study participants were recruited from a group of five public charter high schools in the Midwestern United States. Demographic data for the recruitment sites is provided in Table 1.  Table 1 Demographic Overview of Recruitment Sites  Free or Reduced Price Lunch Students of Color White Total  % n % n % n n School 1 28% 114 61% 251 39% 162 413 School 2 20% 59 52% 172 48% 157 329 School 3 52% 308 68% 399 33% 192 591 School 4 60% 174 64% 183 37% 105 288 School 5 44% 198 50% 224 50% 223 447 Total 41% 853 59% 1,229 41% 839 2,068  At the beginning of the 2015-2016 school year, electronic consent forms were distributed by email to the primary parent/guardian of all ninth and tenth grade students in each of the five school sites. Of the 1,453 ninth and tenth grade students enrolled across the study sites at the time of distribution, approximately 95% (n =1,376) parents had valid email addresses. The response rate was approximately 28% (n = 383), with consent provided for nearly 76% (n = 290) of the 383 received responses. Of the consented students, 84 student responses were received at Time Point 2, while 92 student responses were received at Time Point 3. Because of my interest in examining the interventionÕs effectiveness at bolstering academic performance and CC   34 simultaneously, students who did not complete both the intervention activities (Time Point 2) and the CCS (Time Point 3) were excluded from the studyÕs final analytic sample. The final analytic sample for the full-scale study included 53 ninth and tenth grade students from the group of five public charter high schools situated in the Midwestern United States. This approximates an 18% response rate overall for consented students. ParticipantsÕ demographic information, which was derived from school administrative records, is presented in Table 2.  Table 2 Overview of Participants in Analytic Sample School # Participating Students Mean Age # 9th Grade # Female # Students of Color # Free or Reduced Price Lunch School 1 7 14.79 4 4 4 2 School 2 18 14.69 12 13 7 3 School 3 21 15.37 6 12 11 8 School 4 3 14.72 1 1 1 0 School 5 4 14.69 3 1 0 1 Total 53  14.97 26 31 23 14  Twenty-three participants in the analytic sample identified as students of color. Of these 23 students, nine identified as African American or Black, five identified as Asian, four identified as Latino/a, and five identified as multiracial.  Based on administrative data provided by the selection sites, 14 of the 53 students in the analytic sample qualified for free or reduced price lunch. Of those 14, three identified as African American or Black, four identified as multiracial, and seven identified as White.  Measures  To test intervention effectiveness, two categories of outcome variables were used: (1) post-intervention grade point average and (2) post-intervention scores on the CCS. Each set of measures is detailed below.   35 Post-intervention grade point average. Post-intervention grade point average was used to measure the effectiveness of the intervention in terms of enhancing academic performance. In accord with previous values-affirmation intervention research (e.g., G. L. Cohen et al., 2006), academic outcome data was collected at the end of the semester in which the intervention occurred (i.e., in this case, the end of the Fall 2015 semester).  Post-intervention scores on the CCS. The CCS (Diemer, Rapa, Park, et al., in press) was used to measure each studentÕs level of CC. The validated CCS includes items that measure critical reflection and critical action. Critical reflection comprises two sub-components, critical reflection: perceived inequality and critical reflection: egalitarianism. Critical action comprises just one component, described by CCS authors as critical action: sociopolitical participation. Additional items used during the development of the CCS were utilized in order to measure critical motivation, which is posited as a third distinct component of CC (Watts et al., 2011). The scales for these CC sub-components are described below. The instrument itself can be found in the original source publication (Diemer, Rapa, Park, et al., in press) as well as in Appendix E. As with post-intervention outcome data for academic performance, outcome data on the CCS was collected at the end of the Fall 2015 semester. Each component of CC was examined as a distinct outcome variable, given the recommendations of the CCS authors to consider the sub-components of CC as distinct and to avoid calculating a summary score on the CCS. Critical Reflection: Perceived Inequality. The scale for critical reflection: perceived inequality consisted of eight items that measure each respondentÕs analysis of socioeconomic, ethnic-racial, and gendered constraints on educational and occupational opportunity (see Table 3). Items were answered on a 1Ð6 Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). Internal consistency for the items was good, with a CronbachÕs alpha of .95 and a mean inter-  36 item correlation of .72.  Table 3 CCS Items Measuring Critical Reflection: Perceived Inequality  Critical Reflection: Perceived Inequality (! = .95) 1.   Certain racial or ethnic groups have fewer chances to get a good high school education 2.   Poor children have fewer chances to get a good high school education 3.   Certain racial or ethnic groups have fewer chances to get good jobs 4.   Women have fewer chances to get good jobs 5.   Poor people have fewer chances to get good jobs 6.   Certain racial or ethnic groups have fewer chances to get ahead 7.   Women have fewer chances to get ahead 8.   Poor people have fewer chances to get ahead  Critical Reflection: Egalitarianism. The scale for critical reflection: egalitarianism entailed five items measuring each respondentÕs endorsement of societal equality, or all groups of people being treated as equals in society (see Table 4). Items were answered on a 1Ð6 Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). Internal consistency for these items was acceptable, particularly given the low number of items, with a CronbachÕs alpha of .76 and a mean inter-item correlation of .41.  Table 4 CCS Items Measuring Critical Reflection: Egalitarianism  Critical Reflection: Egalitarianism (! = .76) 1.   It is a good thing that certain groups are at the top and other groups are at the bottoma 2.   It would be good if groups could be equal 3.   Group equality should be our ideal 4.   All groups should be given an equal chance in life 5.   We would have fewer problems if we treated people more equally Note. aIndicates a reverse-coded item.  Critical Action: Sociopolitical Participation. The scale for critical action: sociopolitical participation had nine items that measured each respondentÕs participation in social and political activities to change perceived inequalities (see Table 5). Items were answered on a 1Ð5 Likert-type scale (1 = Never did this, 5 = At least once a week). Internal consistency for these items was   37 lower than that of the other CC subcomponents, with a CronbachÕs alpha of .68. The mean inter-item correlation for the nine items of the scale was .30.  Table 5 CCS Items Measuring Critical Action: Sociopolitical Participation  Critical Action: Sociopolitical Participation (! = .68) 1.   Participated in a civil rights group or organization 2.   Participated in a political party, club, or organization 3.   Wrote a letter to a school, community, newspaper, or publication about a social or political issue 4.   Contacted a public official by phone, mail, or email to tell him or her how you felt about a social or political issue 5.   Joined in a protest march, political demonstration, or political meeting 6.   Worked on a political campaign 7.   Participated in a discussion about a social or political issue 8.   Signed an email or written petition about a social or political issue 9.   Participated in a human rights, gay rights, or womenÕs rights organization or group  Critical Motivation. The scale for critical motivation had ten items that measured each respondentÕs motivation to change perceived inequalities as well as their efficacy beliefs about whether changing such inequalities is actually possible (see Table 6).  Table 6 Survey Items Measuring Critical Motivation  Critical Motivation (! = .77) 1.   It is important for young people to speak out when an injustice has occurred 2.   Young people have an important role to play in making the world a better place 3.   It is important for young people to know what is going on in the world 4.   Political issues are not relevant to people who are not old enough to votea 5.   It is important to be an active and informed citizen 6.   It is important to correct social and economic inequality 7.   It is important to confront someone who says something that you think is racist or prejudiced  8.   It is my responsibility to get involved and make things better for society  9.   People like me should participate in the political activity and decision making of our country 10. It does not matter whether I participate in local organizations or political activity because so many other people are involveda Note. aIndicates a reverse-coded item. Critical motivation is theorized to act as a mediator between critical reflection and critical action   38 (Watts et al., 2011). Items were answered on a 1Ð6 Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). Internal consistency for these items was acceptable, with a CronbachÕs alpha of .77 and a mean inter-item correlation of .27.  Study Procedures Consistent with the typical procedure for values-affirmation interventions (e.g., G. L. Cohen et al., 2006), participants were randomly assigned to one of two study conditions at the individual student level. Assignments to condition were made in the fall of the 2015-2016 school year, using the computerized survey software Qualtrics to carry out block random assignment (Gerber & Green, 2012). Blocking was done based on participantsÕ racial-ethnic identity status, with White students placed in one block and students of color placed in another block. Block random assignment to study conditions was enacted during studentsÕ entry into the study, during the initial launch of the intervention activities (described in further detail below). This method of random assignment was intended to ensure that an approximately equal number of students from different racial-ethnic identity groups were assigned to each of the studyÕs two conditions.4 The nature of this study required that this intervention be carried out as ÒstealthilyÓ as possible, as heightened awareness by participants of the intent of affirmation interventions has been purported to negatively influence their impact. The covert nature of the self-affirmation processes is one likely cause of its positive effects (Sherman & Cohen, 2006; Sherman et al., 2009; Sherman et al., 2013; Yeager & Walton, 2011). As such, administrative staff and teachers were blind to studentsÕ participation in the intervention. Administrative staff, teachers, and students themselves were blind to study condition and the studyÕs research hypotheses.                                                  4 The plans initially developed for data analysis included more extensive sub-group analysis using hierarchical regression or ANOVA/ANCOVA. The limited sample size finally obtained for this study precluded such analyses.   39 Data Collection: Intervention Activities All consented students were sent an email inviting them to participate in a brief online reflective writing exercise. Each student received an individualized request, sent via the online survey platform Qualtrics. Upon entry into the survey application, students were randomly assigned to complete the control or treatment activities. The individualized protocols led each student through their respectively assigned intervention exercise (see Appendix D). Following procedures similar to those established by G. L. Cohen et al. (2006), students were assured that the activities would give them an opportunity to be thinking about and writing some answers to Òa few questions about your ideas, your beliefs, and your life.Ó Students were assured that there were Òno right or wrong answersÓ and that they were sharing their responses because I was Òjust interested in hearing what you think.Ó However, contrary to the G. L. Cohen et al. (2006) study, this intervention was presented as an online activity to be completed on studentsÕ own time. That is, it was not presented to students as a typical class assignment occurring within the course of their regular school day. In this regard, the presentation of these intervention activities more closely mirrored other social-psychological interventions that have been implemented in educational contexts in recent yearsÑonline and decontextualized from a specific course or content area (Brady et al., 2016). Students received targeted directions for completing the exercise online as they progressed through the intervention activities. Data Collection: Critical Consciousness Scale Using the same procedures employed during the intervention activities (i.e., Time Point 2), all consented students were sent an email inviting them to participate in a brief online survey (i.e., the CCS, at Time Point 3). Students received directions for completing the survey online as they progressed through the survey. Students were assured that there were Òno right or wrong   40 answersÓ and that they were sharing their responses because I was Òjust interested in hearing what you think.Ó The contents of the survey are presented in Appendix E. Data Analysis Data analyses were designed to address the studyÕs two primary research questions, which focused on examining the effectiveness of the CC-oriented values-affirmation intervention in promoting participantsÕ academic performance and CC: 1. Can a CC values-affirmation intervention bolster studentsÕ academic performance? 2. Can a CC values-affirmation intervention also increase studentsÕ CC, as measured by their levels of critical reflection, critical motivation, and/or critical action? In order to assess intervention effectiveness, analyses were designed to test mean differences between treatment and control groups for each of the studyÕs outcome variables, including post-intervention GPA and post-intervention levels of CC in terms of each of its component partsÑi.e., critical reflection: perceived inequality, critical reflection: egalitarianism, critical action: sociopolitical participation, and critical motivation. Post hoc sensitivity analyses, discussed when appropriate below, were carried out as needed in order to further test or examine mean differences between the control and treatment groups in terms of the outcomes of interest.    41 CHAPTER FOUR Results and Discussion This project sought to test the effectiveness of a CC-oriented values-affirmation intervention, inquiring if such an intervention might bolster academic performance and increase levels of CC for participants in the treatment condition simultaneously. Two primary research questions drove this inquiry: Research Question 1: Can a CC values-affirmation intervention bolster studentsÕ academic performance? and Research Question 2: Can a CC values-affirmation intervention also increase studentsÕ CC, as measured by their levels of critical reflection, critical motivation, and/or critical action? The results presented in this chapter are based on analyses of outcome data for study participants. Specifically, second semester grade point average is the outcome data examined to address Research Question 1, while survey responses collected through the administration of the CCS is the outcome data examined to address Research Question 2. In this chapter, I present the results of the CC values-affirmation intervention as framed by the studyÕs two research questions. Results of the Full-Scale CC Values-Affirmation Intervention Analyses for the full-scale CC values-affirmation intervention study comprised independent samples t-tests, which were used to assess mean differences between the control (n = 28) and treatment (n = 25) groups for each of the outcome variables. An alpha level of ! = .05 was used as the a priori significance level for all analyses. After demonstrating the success of the randomization procedures used to assign participants to study conditions, results are presented in relation to the studyÕs research questions and their respective outcome variables. Effectiveness of Randomization Procedures Block random assignment (Gerber & Green, 2012) was completed using computerized   42 survey software, Qualtrics, in order to assign participants to study conditions. Blocking was based on participantsÕ racial-ethnic identity status. Students of color were placed in one block and White students placed in another block, with randomization to control or treatment condition completed within each block. The assignment of participants to study conditions was carried out at the start of studentsÕ entry into the study, during the first of the two data collection activities, in Fall 2015. As detailed in Table 7, randomization procedures appeared to be successful, with an approximately equal number of students of color in each of the study conditions, i.e., the treatment and control groups. As such, the assignment of participants to condition was appropriately balanced. Table 7 Participants by Condition and Ethnic-racial Identity Status  Student of Color White Student Total Control Group 12 16 28 Treatment Group 11 14 25 Total 23 30 53  There were no observed differences between treatment and control groups on baseline, pre-intervention measures of academic performance (Time Period 1). That is, academic performance was statistically equal between groups at the start of the intervention. No significant difference in performance on the Northwest Evaluation Association Measures of Academic Progress5 (NWEA MAP) in reading was found between the control group (M = 235.22, SD = 16.57, N = 27) and the treatment group (M = 241.83, SD = 13.77, N = 24), t(49) =  Ð1.54, p =  .13, two tailed. Nor was there any difference found in baseline NWEA MAP mathematics scores between the control group (M = 246.93, SD = 15.59 N = 26) and treatment group (M = 254.08, SD = 18.89, N = 25), t(49) = Ð1.48, p = .15, two tailed. Finally, no pre-intervention differences were found between                                                 5 See www.nwea.org. The NWEA MAP is a nationally normed, computer adaptive interim assessment used to measure academic proficiency levels and track academic growth.   43 treatment and control groups in school-based academic performance in the semesterÕs first quarter.6 Research Question 1: Can a CC values-affirmation intervention bolster studentsÕ academic performance? Grade Point Average. Descriptive statistics for second semester Grade Point Average (GPA) are displayed in Table 8. Examining post-intervention GPA, no significant differences were found between the treatment and control group. However, mean differences in GPA approached significance, with the control groupÕs GPA (M = 3.33, SD = 0.63, N = 28) appearing to be lower than that of the treatment group (M = 3.64, SD = 0.51, N = 25), t(51) = Ð1.96, p = .06, two tailed. CohenÕs effect size value (d = .54) for this analysis was above the conventional level of a medium effect, d = .50 (J. Cohen, 1988), suggesting moderate practical significance in terms of a difference in GPA between the treatment and control groups. That is, those who participated in the intervention appeared to have a meaningfully higher GPA as a result of their assignment to the interventionÕs treatment group. Table 8 Descriptive Statistics: Second Semester Grade Point Average  Control Treatment Total  M SD M SD M SD GPA 3.33 0.63 3.64 0.51 3.47 0.59  Given the size of the studyÕs analytic sample, the effect size necessary to detect significant effects was large, following J. CohenÕs (1988) classification of d = .80 as a large effect. A post-hoc power analysis of sensitivity, conducted in G*Power 3.1, demonstrates this necessary effect and is reported in Table 9.                                                 6 StudentsÕ school-based first quarter academic performance was determined by creating a composite, GPA-like score based on performance in the core four classes of reading, mathematics, science, and social studies. However, this first quarter score was composed of grades collected both pre-and post-intervention during each schoolÕs first marking period. Contrarily, the NWEA MAP tests were administered prior to the start of the intervention. For this reason, NWEA MAP scores were determined to represent a better baseline academic performance measure.   44 Table 9 Required Effect Size Given Sample Size of Analytic Sample t-tests Ð Means: Difference between two independent means (two groups) Analysis: Sensitivity: Compute required effects Input Tails     Two  ! error probability     0.05  Power (1- " error probability)    0.8  Sample size group 1    28  Sample size group 2    25 Output Noncentrality parameter #    2.86  Critical t    2.01  Df    51  Effect size d    0.79  With an alpha of .05, the studyÕs analytic sample size (n = 53), and the observed effect size of d = .54, the power of this analysis testing differences in GPA was 0.49. While the difference in GPA between the control and treatment groups did not reach the level of statistical significance, given the brief duration of the treatment, the observed difference in GPA is rather substantial. This difference equates to just over one half a standard deviation in post-intervention GPA, meaning that approximately 71% of the treatment group would have higher GPAs than the mean of the control group (J. Cohen, 1988). This medium effect is noteworthy, especially in light of the brief nature of the intervention.   Sensitivity Analyses for the Difference in Post-intervention GPA. As noted above, the analytic sample for this study was restricted to those participants who completed both the intervention activities and the CCS, at Time Points 2 and 3 respectively. Time Point 3 administrative data was available, however, for 31 additional students who completed the intervention at Time Point 2 but failed to complete the CCS at Time Point 3. To carry out post hoc sensitivity analyses, I examined the post-intervention GPA for all who completed the intervention, including those who failed to complete the CCS at Time Point 3 even though they participated in the intervention at Time Point 2.   45 First, in examining post-intervention GPA for all 84 participants who completed the intervention at Time Point 2, regardless of whether or not they completed the CCS, no significant differences were found between the treatment and control group. The control groupÕs GPA (M = 3.22, SD = 0.69, N = 40) was slightly lower than that of the treatment group (M = 3.24, SD = 0.77, N = 44), t(82) = Ð0.15, p = .88, two tailed. This difference was not statistically significant. Moreover, CohenÕs effect size value (d = .03) for this analysis was below the conventional level of a small effect, d = .20 (J. Cohen, 1988), which suggests no practical significance in terms of a difference in GPA between the treatment and control groups based on participation in the intervention alone. This raises the possibility that there may be something essential to completing the CCSÑor something endogenous to those who completed the study activities at both Time Points 2 and 3Ñthat may account for the observed treatment effect in academic performance.7  Examining post-intervention GPA for just the 31 intervention participants who completed the intervention but who did not also complete the CCS, again no significant differences were found between the treatment and control groups. In this case, the control groupÕs GPA (M = 2.96, SD = 0.80, N = 12) was actually higher than that of the treatment group (M = 2.72, SD = 0.74, N = 19), t(29) = 0.85, p = .40, two tailed. Yet, like the previous analysis, this difference was not statistically significant. CohenÕs effect size value (d = .31) for this analysis was above the conventional level of a small effect, d = .20 (J. Cohen, 1988), which suggests some practical significance in terms of a difference in GPA between the treatment and control groups. Those who participated in the intervention only and did not also complete the CCS appeared to have a moderately higher GPA as a result of their assignment to the interventionÕs control group. Again, this suggests that it may be completion of the CCS that may account for the observed treatment effect in academic performance in the analytic sample. For example, those who completed the                                                 7 See also the discussion section below, which addresses this question of endogeneity.   46 intervention at Time Point 2 and the CCS at Time Point 3 may be more conscientious, or different in some other way, from those who completed the intervention at Time Point 2 but did not complete the CCS at Time Point 3. While initial analyses suggested that there were non-significant difference in baseline academic performance across groups, one final sensitivity analysis was completed to examine the potential influence of pre-intervention academic performance on the observed difference in post-intervention GPA for participating studentsÑthat is, for the 53 students in the studyÕs analytic sample. This analysis was conducted to determine if treatment effects would persist when controlling for pre-intervention academic performance. To assess the influence of pre-intervention academic performance on the observed effects, an ANCOVA analysis was conducted to test for group differences between the control and the treatment groups in terms of post-intervention GPA, controlling for pre-intervention academic performance on the NWEA MAP tests. The results of this analysis suggested that there was no effect of condition when controlling for pre-intervention NWEA MAP performance in reading, F(1, 48) = 1.49, p = 0.23, or in math, F(1, 48) = 0.58, p = 0.45. That is, when accounting for baseline academic performance on NWEA MAP, the effects of intervention condition, control versus treatment, were null. That is, there was not a statistically significant difference in post-intervention GPA between the two groups, after accounting for pre-intervention levels of academic performance. This suggests that baseline academic performance likely plays an important role in the interventionsÕ effectiveness, a point to which I return in the discussion below.  Research Question 2: Can a CC values-affirmation intervention also increase studentsÕ CC, as measured by their levels of critical reflection, critical motivation, and/or critical action? Each component of CC was examined as a distinct outcome variable, given the   47 recommendations of the CCS authors to account for the sub-components of CC as distinct and to avoid calculating a summary score on the CCS (Diemer, Rapa, Park, et al., in press). Composite variables were created for each CC-related outcome variable by summing the scalesÕ respective items for each construct. Specifically, composite variables were created for critical reflection: perceived inequality, critical reflection: egalitarianism, and critical action: sociopolitical participation. Though not validated as part of the original CCS, a composite variable was also created for critical motivation using items from the initial CCS instrument development. Descriptive statistics for these composite CC-related variables are provided in Table 10. Table 10 Descriptive Statistics: Composite Critical Consciousness Outcome Variables  Control Treatment Total  M SD M SD M SD CR: PI 21.16 10.92 21.57 12.24 21.38 11.53 CR: E 26.91 4.00 26.32 4.39 26.61 4.16 CA: SPP 13.05 4.20 12.83 2.46 12.93 3.32 CM 49.00 6.10 52.55 6.51 50.95 6.50 Note. CR: PI = critical reflection: perceived inequality; CR: E = critical reflection: egalitarianism; CA: SPP = critical action: sociopolitical participation; CM = critical motivation.   Critical Reflection: Perceived Inequality. For critical reflection: perceived inequality, no differences emerged as a result of the intervention. That is, the control groupÕs level of critical reflection: perceived inequality (M = 21.16, SD =10.92, N = 19) was found to be equal to that of the treatment group (M = 21.57, SD = 12.24, N =23), t(40) = Ð0.11, p = .911, two tailed. CohenÕs effect size value (d = .04) for this analysis fell below the conventional level of a small effect, d =.20 (J. Cohen, 1988), suggesting no practical difference between the treatment and control group in terms of perceived inequality. Critical Reflection: Egalitarianism. Similarly, no mean differences were found for critical reflection: egalitarianism between the control (M = 26.91, SD = 4.00, N = 21) and the   48 treatment group (M = 26.32, SD = 4.39, N = 22), t(41) = 0.46, p = .65, two tailed.8 That is, while the treatment group had a slightly lower mean than the control group, this difference was not statistically significant. CohenÕs effect size value (d = .14) for this analysis fell below the conventional level of a small effect, d = .20 (J. Cohen, 1988), suggesting no practical difference between the treatment and control group in terms of egalitarianism. Critical Action: Sociopolitical Participation. As expected, no mean differences were found for critical action: sociopolitical participation.9 That is, levels of critical action: sociopolitical participation were equal between the control (M = 13.05, SD = 4.20, N = 19) and treatment group (M = 12.83, SD = 2.46, N = 23), t(40), 0.21, p = .84, two tailed.10 CohenÕs effect size value (d = .06) for this analysis fell below the conventional level of a small effect, d = .20 (J. Cohen, 1988), suggesting no practical difference between treatment and control group in terms of sociopolitical participation. Critical Motivation. Levels of critical motivation were equal across groups as well. The control groupÕs critical motivation (M = 49.00, SD = 6.10, N = 18) was statistically equal to the treatment groupÕs (M = 52.55, SD = 6.51, N = 22), although the mean difference approached significance, t(38) = Ð1.76, p = .09, two tailed. CohenÕs effect size value (d =.56) for this analysis was above the conventional level of a medium effect, d = .50 (J. Cohen, 1988), suggesting moderate practical significance in terms of differences in critical motivation between the treatment and control groups. As discussed above, given the size of the studyÕs sample, the effect size necessary to                                                 8 One potential outlier was removed from the treatment group during this analysis. A test of mean differences in critical reflection: egalitarianism remained non-significant when this influential case was included. 9 Recall that differences in critical action were not expected to emerge during this study, due to its brief duration. 10 As with the analysis for critical reflection: egalitarianism, one potential outlier was removed from the treatment group in this analysis. A test of mean differences in critical action: sociopolitical participation remained non-significant when this influential case was included.   49 detect significant effects was large, following J. CohenÕs (1988) classification of d = .80 as a large effect (see Table 9). With an alpha of .05, the sample size (n = 40; recall that not all participants completed the CCS at Time Point 3), and the observed effect size of d = .56, the power of this analysis testing differences in critical motivation was 0.40. While the difference in critical motivation between the control and treatment groups only approached statistical significance, given the brief duration of the treatment this observed difference is rather substantial. The difference equates to just over one half a standard deviation in post-intervention critical motivation, meaning that, again, approximately 71% of the treatment group would have higher level of critical motivation than the mean of the control group (J. Cohen, 1988). As with GPA, the medium effect observed here is noteworthy, especially in light of the brief nature of the intervention. Normality Assumptions for Outcome Variables Normality assumptions for outcome variables critical reflection: egalitarianism, critical action: sociopolitical participation, critical motivation, and grade point average were violated, with levels of skewness and/or kurtosis too great to ensure the reliability of the independent samples t-test results. This is not surprising given the small sample size. As a result of the non-normal distribution of these outcome variables, bootstrapping was employed to provide robust estimates of the standard errors and confidence intervals for estimated parameters. Bootstrapping procedures for critical motivation moved the estimate of a mean difference between the treatment and control group closer toward the significant level, t(38) = Ð1.76, p = .08, 95% CI [Ð7.21, 0.19]. Similarly, bootstrapping procedures for GPA moved the estimate of a mean difference between treatment and control group to the significant level, t(51) = Ð1.96, p = .05, 95% CI [Ð0.60, 0.01]. Bootstrapping procedures for the other noted outcome variables (i.e.,   50 critical reflection: egalitarianism and critical action: sociopolitical participation) did not substantively change their results. In addition to the utilization of bootstrapping techniques to provide robust estimates of the standard errors and confidence intervals for estimated parameters, nonparametric analyses were used to provide additional testing of group differences for the critical motivation and GPA outcome variables (Siebert & Siebert, forthcoming, 2016). Specifically, independent samples Mann-Whitney U tests were carried out in order to examine if the distributions for these two outcome variables were found to be equal across the control and treatment groups. The Mann-Whitney U test is used in place of an independent samples t-test when sample sizes are small and when underlying normality assumptions do not hold for outcome variables (Hinkle, Wiersma, & Jurs, 2003).11 Significant values were found for both respective independent samples Mann-Whitney U tests. This suggests that the population distributions for each outcome variable, GPA and critical motivation, were in fact different for the treatment and control groups (see Table 11).  Table 11 Independent Samples Mann-Whitney U Tests: Second Semester Grade Point Average and Critical Motivation  Group N Sum of Ranks U p GPA Control 28 642.00 236.00 .04  Treatment 25 789.00   Critical Motivation Control 18 276.50 105.50 .01  Treatment 22 543.50    Significant values for these two independent samples Mann-Whitney U tests reinforce the trend-level evidence that the participation in the interventionÕs treatment group was associated with                                                 11 The Mann-Whitney U testÕs hypothesis is that the population distributions of the two groups, control and treatment in this case, are the same for the specified outcome variable. A statistically significant U value suggests rejection of the null hypothesis that the two population distributions are equal.   51 higher levels of critical motivation and an increased GPA.12 Discussion The results of the CC values-affirmation intervention suggest promise in the use of a brief, CC-oriented values-affirmation intervention to enhance studentsÕ academic performance. At the outset of the study, I hypothesized that the CC values-affirmation intervention would bolster studentsÕ academic performance in the same way that a traditional values-affirmation intervention has been shown to do. In other words, participants in the CC treatment condition were expected to have increased academic performance as compared to participants in the control condition. Answering Research Question 1: Can a CC values-affirmation intervention bolster studentsÕ academic performance?, initial independent sample t-test results showed that there were differences in GPA that approached significance between the control and the treatment groups for the analytic sample. Further, when bootstrapping procedures were employed, as a means to extend the initial analysis by providing robust standard error and confidence interval estimates, a significant mean difference in second semester GPA was found between the control group and the treatment group. Specifically, the observed mean difference between the control and treatment groups in second semester GPA was Ð0.31, t(51) = Ð1.96, p = .05, 95% CI [Ð0.60, 0.01]. Because t-tests can be unreliable with small sample sizes, nonparametric testing was used to examine if the distributions of the control and treatment groups were equal in terms of GPA. This nonparametric testing suggested that the two population distributions were not equal, with the treatment groupÕs GPA being significantly different fromÑand higher thanÑthe control                                                 12 I also conducted a Mann-Whitney U test to examine differences in the GPA of the 31 students who completed the intervention but not the CCS. That test was insignificant, suggesting the likelihood that the two population distributions for GPA were equalÑi.e., that there was no difference between the two groups.   52 groupÕs GPA. Taken together, the collection of evidence suggests that the intervention had a positive effect in terms of bolstering the academic performance of students in the treatment condition. Yet, these results should be interpreted with caution. Post-hoc sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine these results further, and these analyses suggested that there might be some interaction between participantsÕ engagement in the intervention at Time Point 2 and its subsequent activities (i.e., the Time Point 3 administration of the CCS) and the effects on academic performance (see Figure 2). Specifically, respondents who completed the CCS in addition to the intervention activities and were in the treatment condition had a second semester GPA that was 0.31 points higher than those in the control condition (d = .54). As noted previously, this difference approached significance using an independent samples t-test (p = .06) and actually reached significance when using bootstrapping procedures (p = .05). Further, nonparametric testing of group differences confirmed that the population distributions of the two groups were likely to be distinct (p = .04). Contrarily, though, respondents who did not also complete the CCS after the intervention and were in the treatment condition had a second semester GPA that was 0.24 points lower than those in the control condition. This difference was not statistically significant (p = .40), and it remained insignificant even when employing bootstrapping procedures (p = .42). Nonparametric testing of group differences was also insignificant (p = .48). However, the effect size for the observed difference was between a small and medium effect (d = .31), suggesting that there was some practical difference between the control and the treatment group in terms of post-intervention GPA for those who completed only the intervention yet did not also complete the CCS.   53  Figure 2. Post-intervention mean grade point average by condition and treatment status.  There are at least a few reasons why this may be the case. First, it is possible, if not likely, that students who completed both the intervention and the CCS had unobserved (i.e., endogenous) characteristics or attributes that made them particularly sensitive to the effects of the intervention. Additional post-hoc analysis of pre-intervention NWEA MAP performance was carried out to explore this possible explanation. Differences in baseline NWEA MAP scores were tested for those completing the intervention only versus those who completed the intervention and also completed the CCS. Significant differences were found between groupsÑintervention only versus intervention plus the CCSÑin both baseline NWEA MAP reading scores [t(78) = Ð2.65, p = .01] as well as NWEA MAP math scores [t(78) = Ð3.90, p < .001), with higher mean scores observed in reading and math for those who completed the intervention and the CCS. This indicates that those who completed both the intervention and the CCS had higher academic performance at the outset of the study than those who completed the intervention only. Because these participants self-selected to complete optional study activities at both time points (see Figure 1), it is feasible that the participants in this studyÕs analytic sample 2.96 2.72 3.33 3.64 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Control Treatment Post-intervention Mean Grade Point Average by Condition and Treatment Status Intervention Only Intervention + CCS   54 were already high-performing students, with an especially high degree of engagement with school and school-related activities, or that they were particularly conscientious. This high engagement or conscientiousness may have engendered greater attentiveness to the intervention and greater investment in the self-affirmation task, making them more susceptible, in turn, to the effects of the intervention on GPA. This is a possibility, especially as compared to the values-affirmation conducted by G. L. Cohen et al. (2006). Students in this study completed all intervention and survey activities online, at their discretion and on their own free time. On the other hand, students in the original G. L. Cohen et al. (2006) study completed all intervention activities in-seat, within the context of the classroom and under the guise of regular classroom activities. The online, de-contextualized nature of the intervention activities used in this study does not implicitly support this explanation and yet, while this approach is not wholly unique (see, for example, Brady et al., 2016), there may be something peculiar about this sample that makes this explanation plausible. Another interpretation might be that there was something about the completion of both components of the study activitiesÑi.e., the intervention and the CCSÑthat made the intervention effective only when completed in combination. However, given the close proximity of Time Point 3 and the collection of the administrative data that included second semester GPAÑboth of which occurred in January 2016Ñthis explanation is not very likely. These results might also be an artifact of the sample itself. For the analytic sample, the difference in GPA between the control and the treatment group approached significance when conducting the independent samples t-tests, and it actually reached significance when utilizing bootstrapping techniques. Despite the significant difference and the medium effect size, it is possible that the results observed here may not stand with a different, larger sample. That is, the   55 results reported here might somehow be reflective of spurious findings. Similarly, for the sample examined in the sensitivity analysis (i.e., the 31 participants who completed the intervention but not the CCS), the difference between the control and the treatment group was insignificant, both when conducting normal independent samples t-tests and when utilizing bootstrapping techniques. These observed results also might not stand with a different, larger sample. However, given the confirmation of the reported results when using additional nonparametric testingÑfor both the analytic sample and the sample used during sensitivity analysisÑthe explanation that these results are just an artifact of the sample or due to sampling error is also not very likely. As noted previously, this study was modeled on the values-affirmation conducted by G. L. Cohen et al. (2006). The differences in GPA between the treatment and control groups for the studyÕs analytic sampleÑthose participants who completed both the intervention activities and the CCSÑare comparable to that landmark study. While G. L. Cohen et al. (2006) do not provide sufficient information to calculate a precise effect size for their intervention (i.e., Ms and SDs for GPA for their control and treatment groups were not included), the difference in GPA observed across conditions in this studyÑ0.31 grade pointsÑis parallel the reported GPA differences of 0.26 and 0.34 grade points in their Study 1 and Study 2, respectively.13 Given the GPA Ms and SDs reported for this studyÕs analytic sample, the observed difference between the control and the treatment group translates to just over half a standard deviation in academic performance. Statistically speaking, such a standard deviation is generally equated to a ÒmediumÓ effect (J. Cohen, 1988). Given the brief duration of the treatment, this difference in GPA is rather substantial. Regardless of the mechanism, there is promise that the intervention had some positive effects on academic performance. The study by G. L. Cohen et al. (2006) showed that their values-affirmation intervention                                                 13 These GPA differences were reported for treated African American students specifically.   56 was most effective with students of color, and specifically with those who were the lowest performing. It may be that this adapted, CC-oriented values-affirmation intervention was only effective with the students who were high performing at the outset. It may also be that this adapted intervention was differentially effective with students of color as compared to White participants. Due to the logistical constraints with my partner schools and the loss of one substantially sized school at the outset of this study, the final analytic sample was rather smallÑso small that it precluded more extensive analysis and exploration of potential subgroup differences in post-intervention GPA and the other outcome variables.14 While there is substantive evidence suggesting that this intervention was effective at bolstering the academic performance of those in the treatment condition, questions do remain about for whom and under what conditions this intervention has positive effects. These questions of moderating effects are fruitful directions for future research. Study results also suggest promise in the use of a CC-oriented values-affirmation intervention to enhance studentsÕ levels of CC simultaneous to bolstering their academic performance. At the outset of the study, I hypothesized that this CC values-affirmation intervention would increase studentsÕ levels of CC, as measured by the CCS and in terms of CCÕs three component parts: critical reflection, critical motivation, and critical action. In particular, I expected the intervention to increase studentsÕ critical reflection and critical motivation. Changes in critical action were expected to emerge more slowly, so differences were not expected to emerge by the time CC-related outcome data was collected.  Answering Research Question 2: Can a CC values-affirmation intervention also increase studentsÕ CC, as measured by their levels of critical reflection, critical motivation, and/or critical action?, independent samples t-tests were performed to test differences in the treatment                                                 14 See Appendix F, however, for a very preliminary subgroup analysis.   57 and control group membersÕ CC, based on levels of CC as measured by the CCS. Contrary to study hypotheses, significant differences in critical reflection: perceived inequality and critical reflection: egalitarianism did not emerge as a result of the intervention. While the analyses conducted here may have been underpowered due to the small size of the analytic sample (n = 53), there were no significant mean differences observed between the control group and the treatment group in either of the critical reflection subcomponents of CC. It appears that the self-affirmation exercise reflecting on CC-related values did not influence adolescentsÕ critical reflection: perceived inequality. It is possible that the reflection on values that are manifestations of equality only serves to solidify the equality-related beliefs that young people already hold (or, perchance, do not hold) as opposed to being a generative force in raising perceived inequality. Emergent sociological literature demonstrates that adolescentsÕ perceptions of inequality develop as a result of their exposure to inequality, which ultimately is a function of the places and spaces that youth inhabit and traverse as part of their daily lives (Shedd, 2015). It may be that mere individual reflection on equality-related values is not sufficient to prompt greater levels of perceptions of inequality. Alternatively, it may be that perceptions of inequality are best bolstered by engaging in reflection with others, wrestling with the realities of inequality alongside those who have a shared social identity and are part of a collective struggle about the nature of inequitable social conditions (S⁄nchez Carmen et al., 2015). For critical reflection: egalitarianism, the treatment group had a slightly lower, yet insignificant mean difference than the control group (p = .65). However, CohenÕs effect size value for this difference (d = .14) approached a small effect, d = .20 (J. Cohen, 1988). While an effect size below a small effect suggests very minimal, if any practical difference between the   58 treatment and control group in terms of egalitarianism, it is possible that the intervention had a very slight negative effect on participantsÕ egalitarian beliefs. It may be that thinking about values related to equality, egalitarianism, and sociopolitical participation caused participants to be disillusioned about group equality. Alternatively, it may simply be that these results reflect variability due to sampling error. Subsequent trials of this intervention might help substantiate or tease out what is contributing to this observed effect. Finally, there was no mean difference between the control and treatment group in terms of critical action: sociopolitical participation. This finding was expected, however, since changes in critical action were anticipated to emerge more slowly than changes in critical reflection and critical motivation (and, more substantively, after the data collection process for this study was concluded). That is, differences were not expected to be observed during the duration of the study. While outside the scope of this dissertation project, I do hope to follow participants over time to see if changes in critical action emerge over a longer period of time than was possible to include in this study. As reported in the Results section of this chapter, when bootstrapping procedures were employed during independent samples t-test analyses, a mean difference approaching significance was found between the control group and the treatment group in terms of critical motivation. The mean difference in critical motivation between the control and treatment groups was Ð3.55, 95% CI [Ð7.21, 0.19]. That is, the treatment groupÕs critical motivation was 3.55 points higher than that of the control group. Nonparametric testing reinforced this trend-level evidence suggesting that the intervention was associated with higher levels of critical motivation. Taken together, the collection of evidence suggests that the intervention had a positive effect in raising treatment condition participantsÕ level of critical motivation.   59 Overall, trend-level evidence suggests the intervention may indeed have bolstered academic performance and raised levels of CC, affecting critical motivation in particular. The medium effect sizes for GPA (d = .54) and for critical motivation (d = .56) suggest that the intervention is associated with increased academic performance and elevated levels of CC. Distributional differences in GPA and critical motivation, tested via independent samples Mann-Whitney U tests, were significant, reinforcing the interpretation that the intervention had a positive effect, raising participantsÕ academic performance and CC simultaneously. Given the non-significant differences in critical reflection: perceived inequality, critical reflection: egalitarianism, and critical action: sociopolitical participation, there is not evidence to suggest that the intervention had positive effects on these components of CC.15 Of course, again, it is a possibility that this study was underpowered to detect significant differences in the critical reflection and critical action components of CC, should they actually have emerged as a result of participation in the interventionÕs treatment condition. As noted previously, in order to detect significant effects, given the final analytic sample sizes of the control (n = 28) and the treatment (n = 25) groups, effect sizes would have needed to be large, d = .80 (J. Cohen, 1988) in order for such differences to emerge.                                                15 Relatedly, independent samples Mann-Whitney U tests confirmed that there were no significant distributional differences in these outcome variables as well.   60 CHAPTER FIVE Summary and Conclusion This project drew from social psychology and CC literatures to test if a CC-oriented values-affirmation intervention could be used to raise studentsÕ academic achievement and to foster studentsÕ CC simultaneously. As reported in Chapter 4, trend-level evidence shows promise that the intervention may have positive effects on studentsÕ academic performance and levels of CC. Specifically, the medium effect sizes for GPA (d = .54) and for critical motivation (d = .56) suggest that the intervention is, in fact, likely associated with increased academic performance and elevated levels of CC. In this chapter, I aim to examine the implications of the CC-oriented values-affirmation intervention, considering points relevant to both the researcher and the practitioner communities. I also present some limitations of the study. Finally, I conclude by offering some next steps for this research and future directions for those interested in the use of an adapted values-affirmation intervention to support the development of CC. Implications In short, this study suggests promise in the use of an adapted, CC-oriented social psychological values-affirmation intervention to bolster studentsÕ academic performance. Participants in the analytic sample who participated in the treatment condition had a second semester GPA that was 0.31 points higher than those in the control condition (d = .54). Despite the small sample size (n = 53), this difference approached the level of significance using an independent samples t-test (p = .06) and reached significance when using bootstrapping procedures (p = .05). Because these tests can be unreliable with small sample sizes and when normality assumptions are violated, nonparametric testing was conducted in order to substantiate   61 these findings. Notably, nonparametric testing confirmed that the population distributions of the two groups were likely to be distinct (p = .04). In terms of effects on academic performance, this intervention had comparable effects to the values-affirmation studies carried out by G. L. Cohen et al. (2006), on which this study was based. As theorized, it seems plausible that providing students with an opportunity to self-affirm through reflection on CC-related values has the same function (or operates via the same mechanism) as self-affirmation through reflection other values salient to oneÕs identity. As with the standard values-affirmation interventions (G. L. Cohen et al., 2006; G. L. Cohen et al., 2009), the self-affirmation promoted through reflection on CC-related values presumably enhanced participantsÕ self-resources, potentially allowing them to move beyond whatever salient social identity threats may have been operating in their school contextÑthus leading to enhanced academic performance.16 The collection of evidence provided here suggests that this intervention was effective at bolstering the academic performance of those in the treatment condition. In the same way, this study also suggests promise in the use of an adapted, CC-oriented social psychological values-affirmation intervention to bolster studentsÕ level of CCÑwhich was previously thought to be slow to develop, stubborn, and subject to time- and labor-intensive processes. Specifically, when bootstrapping procedures were employed during independent samples t-test analyses, a mean difference approaching significance (p = .08) was found between the control group and the treatment group in terms of critical motivation. Specifically, the treatment groupÕs critical motivation was 3.55 points higher than that of the control group (d = .56). Notably, nonparametric testing reinforced the trend-level evidence suggesting that the                                                 16 Recall that my initial study design called for the use of more extensive data analyses, e.g., hierarchical regression and/or ANOVA/ANCOVA, in order to test for group differences in study outcome variables. A larger, more robust sample size would have enabled such extensive analyses and more explicit examination of how the intervention might have differential effects for students of color. As noted elsewhere, such analyses will be the focus of subsequent trials of this intervention. For a preliminary exploration of effects by subgroup, see Appendix F.   62 intervention was associated with higher levels of critical motivation. Overall, the collection of evidence suggests that the intervention had a positive effect in raising treatment condition participantsÕ level of CC, with particular effects on critical motivation. Self-reflection on CC-related values provided participants with the opportunity to critically assess inequitable social conditions (Freire, 1973, 2000) and apparently prompted the development of motivation to redress such inequities. While the critical reflection and critical action components of CC were not affected by the intervention, increasing critical motivation may be a means to initiate the development of CC by enhancing an individualÕs agency and motivation to confront societal inequalities and produce sociopolitical change. Critical motivation is hypothesized to be a linkage between the reciprocal processes of critical reflection and critical action (Watts et al., 2011), so increasing critical motivation alone should not be considered unexciting or underwhelming. To be sure, there is potential that this intervention also had positive effects on critical reflection: perceived inequality and critical action: sociopolitical participation, but that these effects were too small to detect given the studyÕs current analytic sample size. Despite the ever-increasing popularity of using social psychological interventions to enhance targeted participantsÕ academic performance, broad questions still exist about for whom and under what conditions social psychological interventionsÑincluding this oneÑactually promote positive effects. For example, one recent large-scale attempt to replicate the landmark intervention by G. L. Cohen et al. (2006) demonstrated only limited success, failing to replicate findings that the values-affirmation intervention increased academic performance for students of color (Dee, 2015). While DeeÕs replication study showed some positive effects for students in supportive classroom environments, in particular, the varied findings do prompt further questions   63 about why, when, and for whom such interventions are successful. This adapted, CC-oriented values-affirmation study is no exception. Future work in this area will need to continue to examine the psychological mechanisms affected by values affirmation as well as continue to explore who accrues benefits from the self-affirmation, specifically, and why. At the very same time, other studies are emerging that demonstrate the success of large scale-up interventionsÑas opposed to smaller-scale interventionsÑto shape studentsÕ self-construal and attributions within the school context (e.g., Yeager et al., 2016). These emergent studies are demonstrating that social-psychological interventions can be effective at census or population levels as opposed to just with random samples and/or using random assignment. While this dissertation project employed random assignment of participants to study conditions, a larger sample size and a larger-scale implementation of the project would provide greater confidence in the results obtained here, if indeed replicated. Future trials of this adapted, CC-oriented intervention should strive for increased sample size so that more extensive sub-group analyses can be conducted, with greater power. The constraints of this study should leave us cautiously optimistic about the results reported here. That is, there is promise in this intervention to raise academic performance and CCÑwhich is very excitingÑbut further research is needed to substantiate, verify, and extend the results of this study. One of the premises of this dissertation project was that current social-psychological interventions have been shown to be useful for targeted participants, in that they have demonstrably positive outcomes for targeted participantsÑbut that they are not implicitly useful in changing the context in which targeted students were situated. That is, while the interventions may have material psychological and academic benefits for the targeted participants, the threatening contexts in which students are situated are not necessarily changed by the   64 intervention. This study did not test changes to studentsÕ contexts, but its goal was to enhance academic performance while also changing participantsÕ capacity to change their contexts, through the development of CC. This goal was lofty and yet, given the results, it was at least partially attained. Importantly, other studies are emerging that are using innovative analyses to demonstrate the potential for psychological interventions to promote positive effects on the environment (Powers et al., in press). Research focused on the use of psychological interventions to enhance youthsÕ contexts should continue. Practically, this study provides new evidence about the effectiveness of a CC values-affirmation intervention to bolster studentsÕ academic achievement. In a sense, this strengthens existing ties between CC and academic performance. Additionally, practitioners have new evidence about the possibility of supporting or enhancing CC development through brief in-class exercises. Because CC has been often thought of as very slow to develop, this study represents a significant innovation in how to foster a key dimension of positive youth development. The approach utilized here may be used to initiate the process of CC development in existing interventions or perhaps may supplement the important work of more established but time-intensive CC interventionsÑyet it should not replace them (Watts & Hipolito-Delgado, 2015). Further work in this area, using this intervention, could further inform the way teachers work to support youth development alongside their work to support academic achievement. The scholarly significance of this work is manifold. This study explored if a CC values-affirmation intervention could be used to foster both academic performance as well as CC. It was the first experimental exploration of whether or not CC could be developed via social-psychological intervention. Through this study, researchers have new evidenceÑalbeit preliminaryÑthat self-affirmation focused on CC-oriented values can be effective. This study   65 also provides insights into how brief interventions might be structured to bolster studentsÕ academic achievement while raising their agency to address structural constraints and enhancing their capacity to change oppressive contexts at the same time. Limitations Broadly, this intervention was modeled after the values-affirmation intervention used by G. L. Cohen et al. (2006) to explore if self-affirmation might help mitigate the effects of stereotype threat for students suffering from such identity threats in school. The original intervention was presented to students as a typical class assignment and occurred within the course of a regular school day. Due to logistical constraints and administrative considerations relevant to the implementation of this study, students completed this studyÕs intervention and survey exercises on the computer outside of their regular classrooms. For this reason, the exact conditions and context of administration are unknown. As a result, environmental factors may have had some unintended consequences or had undue influence on the study results. Additionally, while it was intended that students complete their intervention exercises and the subsequent CCS independently, because the activities were sent to students via email, there can be no guarantee that students completed them without interaction with classmates. In this sense, interference or ÒspilloverÓ (Gerber & Green, 2012) between the control condition and the treatment condition was possible, and this too could have had some unintended consequences or undue influence on the study results.  Logistically, due to administrator turnover, the primary data collection site identified for this study withdrew support during the very week that data collection was to begin. This withdrawal from the study resulted in a significant reduction in sample size. Conservatively, approximately 350 students would have participated in the study de facto, had the school not   66 withdrawn as a result of the school administratorÕs departure the week prior to school starting in Fall 2015. This site would have offered in-seat administration of the intervention and CCS, within the context of an ongoing educational program at the school. The withdrawal of this site as the project was getting underway was a significant loss to this study. While that loss does not negate the promising findings reported here, the significance of this study and the claims that can be made as a result of the analyses presented are no doubt tempered or constrained by the very small sample size, as well as the inability to conduct the extensive sub-group analyses that were initially planned. Randomized controlled trials have been lauded as the Ògold standardÓ of research for many years. As noted throughout, this study used random assignment to conditions for all participants in this study. However, in reality, a limited number of parents across the five school sites actually provided consent for their child(ren) to participateÑand only a subset of those consented students actually chose to complete the activities associated with the intervention and the CCS. This is not a problem unique to this study, but it is an issue that has bearing on the results that were obtained. That is, while we can still make some cautiously optimistic claims about the interventionÕs impact on studentsÕ academic performance and CC, we cannot forget that selection bias may be informing these results. This problem bespeaks the need to move toward a census administration of this intervention, with a much larger sample size and more widespread implementation, in order to extend these analyses and our interpretation of the results. The non-normal sampling distribution for a number of the studyÕs outcome variables is another limitation of the study. When bootstrapping procedures were employed, a significant mean difference in second semester GPA was found, and a difference that approached   67 significance was found in critical motivation. Nonparametric testing confirmed these differences and reinforced the interpretation of such results. In the end, despite efforts to ensure a fairly large sample for this study, this studyÕs analytic sample size was quite small. This small sample size informed the analyses conducted here and thus had an effect on the results obtained. This limitation, along with the others discussed here, necessitates further study in order to substantiate the statistically significant and practical differences observed in both the GPA and critical motivation outcomes. Beyond these, there are at least four other limitations worth noting. First, this study was conducted with a sample of ninth and tenth grade students from a select number of charter high schools in the Midwestern United States. This period of adolescence is a poignant time for identity development and formation, including the development of ethnic-racial attitudes and self-appraisals, ethnic-racial classification and identification, and awareness of group-based stereotype, stigmatization, and group differences (Garc™a Coll et al., 1996; McKown, 2013; Phinney, 1990; Quintana, 1998). The fact that this intervention was administered during this developmental periodÑwhen CC may be burgeoning for marginalized youth, as they learn to situate their self-appraisals in light of the context of societal oppression (Quintana & Segura-Herrera, 2003)Ñmay shape, in some ways, the observed effects on youthsÕ CC development. Administration of the intervention at an earlier time, for example, when perceptions of inequality and egalitarian beliefs are less developed, could lead to stronger effects in terms of the development of those aspects of CCÑthough youth may not be developmentally ready to adopt such critical orientations during earlier stages of their ontogenesis. Similarly, administration of the intervention at a later timeÑe.g., during later adolescence or early adulthood, when identity formation is more completeÑcould result in null effects on any dimension of CC, critical   68 motivation included. The developmental trajectory of the adolescents in this study no doubt shaped the outcomes observed here. Future studies should consider this trajectory in order to continue to tease out how CC develops and operates over time, within adolescents of varying ages and across developmental periods.  Second, the recruitment sites were charter high schools as opposed to traditional district public schools, parochial schools, or private schools. It is not known how the results might differ for a sample drawn from a different population of students, e.g., ninth and tenth graders attending a typical urban district public school in the same geographic locations as the charter high schools that participated in this study. Charter schools may not represent normative contextual or familial influences on adolescentsÕ academic performance or their development of awareness of and agency to change societal inequities. Charter schools may also have differential effects on studentsÕ academic achievement in the face of an intervention such as this, depending on the pedagogical approaches, teaching methodologies, or instructional foci they hold (see, for example, Seider et al., in press). Future intervention work should consider how this intervention may operate differently across varied school contextsÑtraditional public and charter public, as well as various private or parochial contextsÑin order to examine how these contexts may shape the impacts on and experiences of study participants. Third, this research (and other values-affirmation intervention research) hinges upon assumptions about the various social identity threats that individuals may encounterÑfor example, stereotype threat in schoolÑbased on various socio-demographic identity markers. Notably, it is not clear or fully known what perceived social identity threats were salient or relevant for the participants in this study. At the outset of this project, the adolescents who were expected to participate were much more ethnic-racially diverse than the final analytic sample   69 ended up being. While the participating students were drawn from schools with large populations of lower-income families, and while the overall student populations at the recruitment sites were composed predominantly of students of color, the final analytic sample included a greater proportion of White students than initially anticipated. For this reason, we do not really know the degree to which social identity threats were manifesting within these schools, or for these participants in particular. Moreover, because there is some variability in the ethnic-racial and socioeconomic demographics of the recruitment sites, the presumed social identity threats relevant to participating students may have played out in different ways for students across the various schools from which the participants were drawn. The significance of this cannot be overstated. The ethnic-racial and socioeconomic composition of a school shapes the way that youth experience the school context, along with their understanding of inequalities that operate within that context (Shedd, 2015).  Finally, the use of the academic performance measure of GPA may be limiting in terms of detecting treatment effects, as it may be a measure that lacks the sensitivity needed to detect such effects. Specifically, this measure is subject to range restrictions at the upper end of the GPA scale as a result of grade inflation (for a helpful discussion, see Yeager et al., 2016). This measure has also been shown to have systematic bias that results in the underestimation of the intellectual ability of students subject to social identity threats (Walton & Spencer, 2009). Intervention participants who were higher achievers at the start of the intervention may not have experienced demonstrable impacts on academic performance if their GPAs were already high and could not climb higher still. In addition to this, it may be that these participants, who were higher performing at the start, were most engaged in school and its activities, and therefore were most influenced by the intervention. Supplemental analysis focused on post-intervention scores   70 from the norm-referenced NWEA MAP assessments that were used to measure baseline performance could be useful in enhancing our understanding of how and for whom this intervention was actually effective. Future research should account for this potential lack of sensitivity of GPA by including other academic outcome performance measures when possible. Directions for Future Research While logistical and implementation-related constraints hampered the data collection for this study, there are a number of next steps that I have planned to extend the initial analyses presented here. Some of these next steps draw on the data already collected, while others represent continued data collection efforts. There are at least three directions I will take to extend this project.  First, I intend to re-run the experiment with additional schools and students. Data from this first trial will be pooled with data from the subsequent trials in order to generate greater sample size and increase power. This will allow for more extensive analyses of group differences, including subgroup differences, in terms of academic performance and CC. A few promising opportunities are being explored for subsequent administrations of this experiment. Second, I am exploring possibilities and outlets to validate the measure of critical motivation used in this study. The data from this data collection may be pooled with data previously collected as well as data that will be collected subsequent to this implementation, in order to have a sufficient response set to validate the critical motivation scale (see Diemer, Rapa, Park, et al., in press). Third, it may be possible to conduct a mixed-methods study to examine the narrative responses provided by intervention participants. There is some evidence suggesting that what students write about during values-affirmation interventions actually moderates the effects of the   71 interventions themselves (Shnabel et al., 2013). Exploring the narrative responses of those who participated in this study may provide some additional insights into the effectiveness of this CC-oriented values-affirmation intervention. Moreover, because questions persist about for whom, precisely, this intervention had effects, and because there are signs that some endogenous characteristics of those who participated may have contributed to the observed effects, there may be additional utility in examining these narrative responses. For example, an analysis of the top three values selected by White students and by students of color might reveal new insights into how the focus on certain values moderates the effectiveness of the intervention or might help us come to understand better for whom and under what conditions an intervention such as this one can have positive effects on academic performance and CC. In addition to these research activities, I also intend to examine the relations between CC and academic achievement over time. As an ancillary project to this one, provided my relationships with the study sites for this dissertation project are maintained, I hope to track academic achievement longitudinally with the full sample of approximately 84 students who completed the initial intervention and also the 92 students who completed the CCS measure. Academic performance data (including GPA and NWEA MAP scores) will be gathered longitudinally, over the course of participantsÕ high school years, in order to examine relations between the intervention, CC, academic performance, and perhaps even degree attainment. As noted throughout this section, there are a number of things that researchers interested in this line of research should attend to as they take up this work. Specially, researchers should continue to examine the psychological mechanisms affected by values affirmation as well as continue to explore who accrues benefits from self-affirmation, specifically, and why. Those implementing this intervention in the future should strive to administer the intervention to a   72 larger sample size in order to provide greater confidence in the results obtained here, as well as to enable more extensive sub-group analyses to be conducted. Such research is needed to substantiate further the result of this study. This study provides preliminary evidence that a social psychological intervention can be successful at elevating youthsÕ level of CC, and research focused on the use of psychological interventions to enhancing youthsÕ context should continue. Likewise, future research in this area should examine the way teachers work to support youth development alongside their academic achievement. Finally, this project was focused solely on measuring CC as a characteristic of the individuals who participated in the intervention. As mentioned previously, and as noted in recent scholarship (S⁄nchez Carmen et al., 2015), researchers need to continue to examine how CC is a characteristic of both individuals and communities, an individual or collective attribute. Future intervention research might even be extended to consider how both individual and collective levels of CC might be raised through brief values-affirmation activities focused on CC. Conclusion The results of this study suggest promise in the use of a CC-oriented values-affirmation intervention to enhance studentsÕ academic performance and foster CC simultaneously. Specifically, trend-level evidence suggests the intervention may have bolstered academic performance and raised levels of CC, or critical motivation in particular. The moderate effect sizes for GPA (d = .54) and for critical motivation (d = .56) outcomes suggest that the intervention is associated with increased academic performance and CC, though the non-normal distributions of these outcome variables suggested additional evidence was needed to substantiate this interpretation. Distributional differences in GPA and critical motivation, tested via independent samples Mann-Whitney U tests, were significant, which confirmed that the   73 intervention may indeed have had some positive effects in terms of raising participantsÕ academic performance and level of CC.  Differences in critical reflection: perceived inequality, critical reflection: egalitarianism, and critical action: sociopolitical participation were non-significant, providing no evidence of intervention effects on these components of CC; however, these analyses may have been underpowered due to the small analytic sample used in the study. Ultimately, this field experiment holds implications for the fostering of CC, generally believed to be a slow and time-intensive process and suggests that it may be possible to utilize a values-affirmation intervention to bolster academic achievement and raise CC simultaneously.    74                        APPENDICES     75 APPENDIX A Pilot Test Cognitive Interview Questions The following questions were used to guide an interview with pilot test participants after the completion of the intervention exercises.  For the pilot test participants who took the critical consciousness no affirmation condition exercise (i.e., the control condition): ¥ Part 1 o Can you explain what part 1 of the exercise asked you to do? o What do you think is meant by the term values? o What was your thought process while completing part 1? o Was anything unclear about what you were asked to do for part 1? o Was anything unclear about what the values listed in part 1? ¥ Part 2 o Can you explain what part 2 of the exercise asked you to do? o What was your thought process while completing part 2? o Was anything unclear about what you were asked to do for part 2? ¥ Part 3 o Can you explain what part 3 of the exercise asked you to do? o What was your thought process while completing part 3? o Was anything unclear about what you were asked to do for part 3?  For pilot test participants who took the critical consciousness values affirmation treatment exercise (i.e., the treatment condition): ¥ Part 1 o Can you explain what part 1 of the exercise asked you to do? o What do you think is meant by the term values? o What was your thought process while completing part 1? o Was anything unclear about what you were asked to do for part 1? o Was anything unclear about what the values listed in part 1? ¥ Part 2 o Can you explain what part 2 of the exercise asked you to do? o What was your thought process while completing part 2? o Was anything unclear about what you were asked to do for part 2? ¥ Part 3 o Can you explain what part 3 of the exercise asked you to do? o What was your thought process while completing part 3? o Was anything unclear about what you were asked to do for part 3?      76 APPENDIX B  Field Test ÒForm AÓ   Field test ÒForm AÓ reflected the contents of the no affirmation condition and examined by students during the field test in April 2015. The document provided to field test participants as ÒForm AÓ begins on the next page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¥ B?/)4235!+?!61/3C!o B#%/#3/!<!43#6!27!0/)7/(!#$!0$/)0/(!+38)2$-*!./>)+7/!#8!127D1/$!$)>/!o <!)%!0/)7/(!#$!0$/)0/(!+38)2$-*!./>)+7/!#8!%*!$)>/!o B#%/#3/!%)4/7!)!7/E270!>#%%/30!).#+0!52$-7!o B#%/#3/!<!43#6!27!0/)7/(!#$!0$/)0/(!+38)2$-*!(+/!0#!7/E27%!o <!)%!0/)7/(!#$!0$/)0/(!+38)2$-*!./>)+7/!#8!%*!7/E!o B#%/#3/!<!43#6!27!0/)7/(!#$!0$/)0/(!+38)2$-*!./>)+7/!#8!01/2$!7#>2)-!>-)77!F8#$!/E)%?-/:!-2@235!23!?#@/$0*!#$!./235!$2>1G!o <!)%!0/)7/(!#$!0$/)0/(!+38)2$-*!./>)+7/!#8!%*!7#>2)-!>-)77!¥ H)4235!7+$/!)--!70+(/307!23!%*!7>1##-!)$/!0$/)0/(!8)2$-*:!3#!%)00/$!01/2$!$)>/:!7/E:!#$!7#>2)-!>-)77!!¥ ')-4235!).#+0!2%?#$0)30!7#>2)-!#$!?#-202>)-!277+/7!6201!%*!8$2/3(7:!0/)>1/$7:!#$!8)%2-*!¥ I$#0/70235!#$!(/%#370$)0235!).#+0!)3!2%?#$0)30!7#>2)-!#$!?#-202>)-!277+/!¥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ield Test ÒForm BÓ  Field test ÒForm BÓ reflected the contents of the affirmation condition and examined by students during the field test in April 2015. The document provided to field test participants as ÒForm BÓ begins on the next page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¥ B?/)4235!+?!61/3C!o B#%/#3/!<!43#6!27!0/)7/(!#$!0$/)0/(!+38)2$-*!./>)+7/!#8!127D1/$!$)>/!o <!)%!0/)7/(!#$!0$/)0/(!+38)2$-*!./>)+7/!#8!%*!$)>/!o B#%/#3/!%)4/7!)!7/E270!>#%%/30!).#+0!52$-7!o B#%/#3/!<!43#6!27!0/)7/(!#$!0$/)0/(!+38)2$-*!(+/!0#!7/E27%!o <!)%!0/)7/(!#$!0$/)0/(!+38)2$-*!./>)+7/!#8!%*!7/E!o B#%/#3/!<!43#6!27!0/)7/(!#$!0$/)0/(!+38)2$-*!./>)+7/!#8!01/2$!7#>2)-!>-)77!F8#$!/E)%?-/:!-2@235!23!?#@/$0*!#$!./235!$2>1G!o <!)%!0/)7/(!#$!0$/)0/(!+38)2$-*!./>)+7/!#8!%*!7#>2)-!>-)77!¥ H)4235!7+$/!)--!70+(/307!23!%*!7>1##-!)$/!0$/)0/(!8)2$-*:!3#!%)00/$!01/2$!$)>/:!7/E:!#$!7#>2)-!>-)77!!¥ ')-4235!).#+0!2%?#$0)30!7#>2)-!#$!?#-202>)-!277+/7!6201!%*!8$2/3(7:!0/)>1/$7:!#$!8)%2-*!¥ I$#0/70235!#$!(/%#370$)0235!).#+0!)3!2%?#$0)30!7#>2)-!#$!?#-202>)-!277+/!¥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ull-Scale Study Intervention Materials The following intervention materials were used in this study. For ease of review, the intervention content is compiled below although formatting was adjusted during implementation, in order to facilitate online administration.  Critical Consciousness No Affirmation Condition  (Condition 1: Control) Page 1 Today youÕll be thinking about and writing some answers to a few questions about your ideas, your beliefs, and your life. There are no right or wrong answers. IÕm just interested in hearing what you think. If youÕre not comfortable answering any of the questions that are asked or participating in this activity, you may choose to submit blank responses. This will not be graded, so there will be no penalty if you decide not to participate.  Below is a list of eleven values that some people have identified as important to who they are. First, read the entire list of values and think carefully about each one. Second, IÕd like you to select the three values that are least important to you. Although several of the values on the list may not be important to you, be sure to only select the three values that you would consider to be the least important to you. ¥ Speaking up when: o Someone I know is teased or treated unfairly because of his/her race o I am teased or treated unfairly because of my race o Someone makes a sexist comment about girls o Someone I know is teased or treated unfairly due to sexism o I am teased or treated unfairly because of my sex o Someone I know is teased or treated unfairly because of their social class (for example, living in poverty or being rich) o I am teased or treated unfairly because of my social class ¥ Making sure all students in my school are treated fairly, no matter their race, sex, or social class  ¥ Talking about important social or political issues with my friends, teachers, or family ¥ Protesting or demonstrating about an important social or political issue ¥ Supporting important social or political issues like human rights, gay rights, or womenÕs rights  Page 2  Next, look at the three values you picked as least important to you. Think about times when these values might be important to someone else. Then, in a few sentences, describe why these values might be important to someone else.   Focus on your thoughts and feelings, and donÕt worry about spelling, grammar, or how well your response is written. IÕm just interested in your ideas and about why the three values you identified as least important to you might be important to someone else.   87  Page 3  List the top two reasons why someone else would view the values you chose as important. Remember, there are no right or wrong answers and I am just interested in hearing what you think.  Indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about the values you identified. (strongly disagree, disagree, slightly disagree, slightly agree, agree, strongly agree) 5. These values have influenced some peopleÕs lives. 6. Some people try to live up to these values. 7. These values are an important part of who some people are. 8. Some people care about these values.    Critical Consciousness Affirmation Condition (Condition 2: Treatment)  Page 1 Today youÕll be thinking about and writing some answers to a few questions about your ideas, your beliefs, and your life. There are no right or wrong answers. IÕm just interested in hearing what you think. If youÕre not comfortable answering any of the questions that are asked or participating in this activity, you may choose to submit blank responses. This will not be graded, so there will be no penalty if you decide not to participate.  Below is a list of eleven values that some people have identified as important to who they are. First, read the entire list of values and think carefully about each one. Second, IÕd like you to select the three values that are most important to you. Although several of the values on the list may be important to you, be sure to only select the three values that you would consider to be the most important to you. ¥ Speaking up when: o Someone I know is teased or treated unfairly because of his/her race o I am teased or treated unfairly because of my race o Someone makes a sexist comment about girls o Someone I know is teased or treated unfairly due to sexism o I am teased or treated unfairly because of my sex o Someone I know is teased or treated unfairly because of their social class (for example, living in poverty or being rich) o I am teased or treated unfairly because of my social class ¥ Making sure all students in my school are treated fairly, no matter their race, sex, or social class  ¥ Talking about important social or political issues with my friends, teachers, or family ¥ Protesting or demonstrating about an important social or political issue ¥ Supporting important social or political issues like human rights, gay rights, or womenÕs rights    88 Page 2  Next, look at the three values you picked as most important to you. Think about times when these values were important to you. Then, in a few sentences, describe why these values you selected are important to you.   Focus on your thoughts and feelings, and donÕt worry about spelling, grammar, or how well your response is written. IÕm just interested in your ideas and about why you selected as most important to you the three values that you did.  Page 3  List the top two reasons why you selected the three values that you chose as most important. Briefly reflect on what opportunities you might have to live out these values at school, in your neighborhood, or in your community during this school year.  Indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about the values you identified. (strongly disagree, disagree, slightly disagree, slightly agree, agree, strongly agree) 5. These values have influenced my life. 6. In general, I try to live up to these values. 7. These values are an important part of who I am. I care about these values.      89 APPENDIX E Critical Consciousness Scale The Critical Consciousness Scale begins on the next page. Items 1-22 correspond with the original scale developed by Diemer et al. (in press), measuring Critical Reflection: Perceived Inequality, Critical Reflection: Egalitarianism and Critical Action: Sociopolitical Participation. Items 23-32 were collated from the authorsÕ initial items and were designed to measure Critical Motivation.   90 Name:       Date:        Please respond to the following statements by circling how much you agree or disagree with each statement. For each statement, choose ÒStrongly Disagree,Ó ÒMostly Disagree,Ó ÒSlightly Disagree,Ó ÒSlightly Agree,Ó ÒMostly Agree,Ó or ÒStrongly Agree.Ó  Strongly Disagree  Mostly Disagree Slightly Disagree Slightly Agree Mostly Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6  1. Certain racial or ethnic groups have fewer chances to get a good high school education  1 2 3 4 5 6  2. Poor children have fewer chances to get a good high school education   1 2 3 4 5 6  3. Certain racial or ethnic groups have fewer chances to get good jobs  1 2 3 4 5 6  4. Women have fewer chances to get good jobs  1 2 3 4 5 6  5. Poor people have fewer chances to get good jobs  1 2 3 4 5 6  6. Certain racial or ethnic groups have fewer chances to get ahead  1 2 3 4 5 6  7. Women have fewer chances to get ahead  1 2 3 4 5 6  8. Poor people have fewer chances to get ahead  1 2 3 4 5 6  9. It is a good thing that certain groups are at the top and other groups are at the bottom  1 2 3 4 5 6      91 Strongly Disagree  Mostly Disagree Slightly Disagree Slightly Agree Mostly Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6  10. It would be good if groups could be equal  1 2 3 4 5 6  11. Group equality should be our ideal  1 2 3 4 5 6  12. All groups should be given an equal chance in life  1 2 3 4 5 6  13. We would have fewer problems if we treated people more equally  1 2 3 4 5 6   Please respond to the following statements by circling how often you were involved in each activity in the last year. For each statement, choose ÒNever did this,Ó ÒOnce or twice last year,Ó ÒOnce every few months,Ó ÒAt least once a month,Ó or ÒAt least once a week.Ó  Never did this Once or twice last year Once every few months At least once a month At least once a week 1 2 3 4 5  14. Participated in a civil rights group or organization  1 2 3 4 5  15. Participated in a political party, club, or organization  1 2 3 4 5  16. Wrote a letter to a school or community newspaper or publication about a social or political issue  1 2 3 4 5  17. Contacted a public official by phone, mail, or email to tell him/her how you felt about a particular social or political issue  1 2 3 4 5     92 Never did this Once or twice last year Once every few months At least once a month At least once a week 1 2 3 4 5  18. Joined in a protest march, political demonstration, or political meeting  1 2 3 4 5  19. Worked on a political campaign  1 2 3 4 5  20. Participated in a discussion about a social or political issue  1 2 3 4 5  21. Signed an email or written petition about a social or political issue  1 2 3 4 5  22. Participated in a human rights, gay rights, or womenÕs rights organization or group  1 2 3 4 5   Please respond to the following statements by circling how much you agree or disagree with each statement. For each statement, choose ÒStrongly Disagree,Ó ÒMostly Disagree,Ó ÒSlightly Disagree,Ó ÒSlightly Agree,Ó ÒMostly Agree,Ó or ÒStrongly Agree.Ó  Strongly Disagree  Mostly Disagree Slightly Disagree Slightly Agree Mostly Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6  23. It is important for young people to speak out when an injustice has occurred  1 2 3 4 5 6  24. Young people have an important role to play in making the world a better place   1 2 3 4 5 6  25. It is important for young people to know what is going on in the world   1 2 3 4 5 6  26. Political issues are not relevant to people who are not old enough to vote   1 2 3 4 5 6   93 27. It is important to be an active and informed citizen   1 2 3 4 5 6  28. It is important to correct social and economic inequality  1 2 3 4 5 6  29. It is important to confront someone who says something that you think is racist or prejudiced   1 2 3 4 5 6  30. It is my responsibility to get involved and make things better for society  1 2 3 4 5 6 31. People like me should participate in the political activity and decision making of our country   1 2 3 4 5 6  32. It does not matter whether I participate in local organizations or political activity because so many other people are involved  1 2 3 4 5 6       94 APPENDIX F Preliminary Subgroup Analysis Table 12 Preliminary Subgroup Analysis by Outcome Variable, ERI Group, and Condition Outcome Variable ERI Condition n M SD t df p GPA SOC C 12 3.46 .60 Ð0.82 21 .42 Tr 11 3.68 .69 White C 16 3.23 .65 Ð2.05* 28 .05 Tr 14 3.60 .32 CR: PI SOC C 10 21.90 11.59 Ð0.46 18 .65 Tr 10 24.60 14.63 White C 9 20.33 10.76 0.25 20 .81 Tr 13 19.23 10.04 CR: E SOC C 10 27.30 3.30 0.53 18 .60 Tr 10 26.50 3.47 White C 12 25.33 6.13 Ð0.36 22 .72 Tr 12 26.17 5.19 CA: SPP SOC C 9 15.44 8.03 0.86 18 .40 Tr 11 13.27 2.28 White C 11 13.09 4.81 0.42 21 .68 Tr 12 12.42 2.64 CM SOC C 7 51.57 3.78 0.35 16 .73 Tr 11 50.36 8.50 White C 11 47.36 6.86 Ð3.35** 20 .003 Tr 11 54.72 2.49 Note. ERI = ethnic-racial identity; SOC = student of color; C = control group; Tr = treatment group; GPA = grade point average; CR: PI = critical reflection: perceived inequality; CR: E = critical reflection: egalitarianism; CA: SPP = critical action: sociopolitical participation; CM = critical motivation. Data may include outliers and violate normality assumptions. *p = .05, **p < .01.      95                         REFERENCES     96 REFERENCES  Allport, G. W., Vernon, P. E., & Lindzey, G. (1960). Study of values (3rd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Aronson, J., Lustina, M. J., Good, C., Keough, K., Steele, C. M., & Brown, J. (1999). When white men can't do math: Necessary and sufficient factors in stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 29-46. doi:10.1006/jesp.1998.1371 Baker, A. M., & Brookins, C. C. (2014). Toward the development of a measure of sociopolitical consciousness: Listening to the voices of Salvadorian youth. Journal of Community Psychology, 42(8), 1015-1032. doi:10.1002/jcop.21668 Boykin, A. W., & Noguera, P. (2011). Creating the opportunity to learn: Moving from research to practice to close the achievement gap. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Brady, S. T., Reeves, S. L., Garcia, J., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Cook, J. E., Taborsky-Barba, S., . . . Cohen, G. L. (2016). The psychology of the affirmed learner: Spontaneous self-affirmation in the face of stress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(3), 353-373. doi:10.1037/edu0000091 Cabrera, N. L., Milem, J. F., Jaquette, O., & Marx, R. (2014). Missing the (student achievement) forest for all the (political) trees: Empiricism and the Mexican American Studies controversy in Tucson. American Educational Research Journal, 51(6), 1084-1118. doi:10.3102/0002831214553705 Campbell, C., & MacPhail, C. (2002). Peer education, gender and the development of critical consciousness: Participatory HIV prevention by South African youth. Social Science & Medicine, 55, 331-345.  Carr, P. B., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Stereotype threat and inflexible perseverance in problem solving. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 853-859.  Carter Andrews, D. J. (2008). Achievement as resistance: The development of a critical race achievement ideology among Black achievers. Harvard Educational Review, 78(3), 466-497.  Chronister, K. M., & McWhirter, E. H. (2006). An experimental examination of two career interventions for battered women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(2), 151-164. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.53.2.151   97 Cohen, G. L., & Garcia, J. (2008). Identity, belonging, and achievement: A model, interventions, implications. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(6), 365-369. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00607.x Cohen, G. L., Garcia, J., Apfel, N., & Master, A. (2006). Reducing the racial achievement gap: A social-psychological intervention. Science, 313, 1307-1310. doi:10.1126/science.1128317 Cohen, G. L., Garcia, J., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Apfel, N., & Brzustoski, P. (2009). Recursive processes in self-affirmation: Intervening to close the minority achievement gap. Science, 324, 400-403.  Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Psychology Press. Cook, J. E., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Garcia, J., & Cohen, G. L. (2012). Chronic threat and contingent belonging: Protective benefits of values affirmation on identity development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 479-496. doi:10.1037/a0026312 Crocetti, E., Jahromi, P., & Meeus, W. (2012). Identity and civic engagement in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 521-532. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.08.003 Dee, T. S. (2015). Social identity and achievement gaps: Evidence from an affirmation intervention. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 8(2), 149-168. doi:10.1080/19345747.2014.906009 Desimone, L. M., & LeFloch, K. C. (2004). Are we asking the right questions? Using cognitive interviews to improve surveys in education research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 1-22.  Diemer, M. A. (2009). Pathways to occupational attainment among poor youth of color. The Counseling Psychologist, 37(1), 6-35. doi:10.1177/0011000007309858 Diemer, M. A., & Blustein, D. L. (2006). Critical consciousness and career development among urban youth. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 220-232. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2005.07.001 Diemer, M. A., & Li, C.-H. (2011). Critical consciousness development and political participation among marginalized youth. Child Development, 82(6), 1815-1833. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01650.x Diemer, M. A., McWhirter, E., Ozer, E. J., & Rapa, L. J. (2015). Advances in the conceptualization and measurement of critical consciousness. Urban Review, 47(5), 809-823. doi:10.1007/s11256-015-0336-7   98 Diemer, M. A., & Rapa, L. J. (2016). Unraveling the complexity of critical consciousness, political efficacy, and political action among marginalized adolesecents. Child Development, 87(1), 221-238. doi:10.1111/cdev.12446 Diemer, M. A., Rapa, L. J., Park, C. J., & Perry, J. C. (in press). Development and validation of the Critical Consciousness Scale. Youth & Society, 1-23. doi:10.1177/0044118X14538289 Diemer, M. A., Rapa, L. J., Voight, A., & McWhirter, E. (in press). Critical consciousness: A developmental approach to addressing marginalization and oppression. Child Development Perspectives.  Diemer, M. A., Wang, Q., Moore, T., Gregory, S. R., Hatcher, K. M., & Voight, A. (2010). Sociopolitical development, work salience, and vocational expectations among low socioeconomic status African American, Latin American, and Asian American youth. Developmental Psychology, 46(3), 619-635. doi:10.1037/a0017049 Duncan-Andrade, J. M. R., & Morrell, E. (2008). The art of critical pedagogy: Possibilities for moving from theory to practice in urban schools. New York: Peter Lang. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset. New York: Random House. Erikson, E. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton. Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. New York, NY: Continuum. Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. Garc™a Coll, C., Lamberty, G., Jenkins, R., McAdoo, H. P., Crnic, K., Wasik, B. H., & V⁄zquez Garc™a, H. (1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. Child Development, 67(5), 1891-1914.  Garcia, J., & Cohen, G. L. (2012). A social psychological approach to educational intervention. In E. Shafir (Ed.), The Behavioral Foundations of Public Policy (pp. 329-347). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2012). Field experiments: Design, analysis, and interpretation. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Godfrey, E. B., & Grayman, J. K. (2014). Teaching citizens: The role of open classroom climate in fostering critical consciousness among youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(11), 1801-1817. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-0084-5   99 Hanselman, P., Bruch, S. K., Gamoran, A., & Borman, G. D. (2014). Threat in context: School moderation of the impact of social identity threat on racial/ethnic achievement gaps. Sociology of Education, 87(2), 106-124. doi:10.1177/0038040714525970 Harber, K. (1995). Sources of validation scale. Unpublished scale.   Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (2003). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. Lee, J. (2002). Racial and ethnic achievement gap trends: Reversing the progress toward equity? Educational Researcher, 31(1), 3-12. doi:10.3102/0013189X031001003 Martinez, M. L., Penaloza, P., & Valenzuela, C. (2012). Civic commitment in young activists: Emergent processes in the development of personal and collective identity. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 474-484. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.11.006 McKown, C. (2013). Social Equity Theory and racial-ethnic achievement gaps. Child Development, 84(4), 1120-1136. doi:10.1111/cdev.12033 McQueen, A., & Klein, W. M. P. (2006). Experimental manipulations of self-affirmation: A systemic review. Self and Identity, 5, 289-354. doi:10.1080/15298860600805325 McWhirter, E. H., & McWhirter, B. T. (2015). Critical consciousness and vocational development among Latina/o high school youth: Initial development and testing of a measure. Journal of Career Assessment, 1-16. doi:10.1177/1069072715599535  O'Connor, C. (1997). Dispositions toward (collective) struggle and educational resilience in the inner city: A case analysis of six African-American high school students. American Educational Research Journal, 34(4), 593-629.  Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 499-514.  Powers, J. T., Cook, J. E., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Garcia, J., Apfel, N., & Cohen, G. L. (in press). Changing environments by changing individuals: The emergent effects of psychological intervention. Psychological Science. doi:10.1177/0956797615614591 Prilleltensky, I. (2012). Wellness as fairness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 49(1/2), 1-21. doi:10.1007/s10464-011-9448-8 Quintana, S. M. (1998). Children's developmental understanding of ethnicity and race. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 7, 27-45.    100 Quintana, S. M., & Segura-Herrera, T. A. (2003). Developmental transformations of self and identity in the context of oppression. Self and Identity, 2, 269-285. doi:10.1080/15298860390232840 Ramos-Zayas, A. Y. (2003). National performances: The politics of race, class, and space in Puerto Rican Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Reed, M. B., & Aspinwall, L. G. (1998). Self-affirmation reduces biased processing of health-risk information. Motivation and Emotion, 22, 99-132.  S⁄nchez Carmen, S. A., Dom™nguez, M., Green, A. C., Mendoza, E., Fine, M., Neville, H. A., & Gutierrez, K. D. (2015). Revisiting the collective in critical consciousness: Diverse sociopolitical wisdoms and ontological healing in sociopolitical development. The Urban Review, 47(5), 824-846. doi:10.1007/s11256-015-0338-5 Schimel, J., Arndt, J., Banko, K. M., & Cook, A. (2004). Not all self-affirmations were created equal: The cognitive and social benefit of affirming the intrinsic (vs. extrinsic) self. Social Cognition, 22, 75-99.  Seider, S., Graves, D., Clark, S., Soutter, M., El-Amin, A., Tamerat, J., . . . Sklarwitz, S. (in press). Preparing adolescents attending progressive and no excuses urban charter high schools to analyze, navigate, and challenge race and class inequality. Teachers College Record.  Shapiro, J. R., & Neuberg, S. L. (2007). From stereotype threat to stereotype threats: Implications of a multi-threat framework for causes, moderators, mediators, consequences, and interventions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2), 107-130. doi:10.1177/1088868306294790 Shedd, C. (2015). Unequal city: Race, schools, and perceptions of injustice. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Sherman, D. K., & Cohen, G. L. (2006). The psychology of self-defense: Self-affirmation Theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 183-242. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38004-5 Sherman, D. K., Cohen, G. L., Nelson, L. D., Nussbaum, A. D., Bunyan, D. P., & Garcia, J. (2009). Affirmed yet unaware: Exploring the role of self-awareness in the process of self-affirmation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(5), 745-764. doi:10.1037/a0015451   101 Sherman, D. K., & Hartson, K. A. (2011). Reconciling self-protection with self-improvement: Self-affirmation theory. In M. D. Alicke & C. Sedikides (Eds.), Handbook of self-enhancement and self-protection (pp. 128-151). New York: The Guilford Press. Sherman, D. K., Hartson, K. A., Binning, K. R., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Garcia, J., Taborsky-Barba, S., . . . Cohen, G. L. (2013). Deflecting the trajectory and changing the narrative: How self-affirmation affects academic performance and motivation under identity threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(4), 591-618. doi:10.1037/a0031495 Shnabel, N., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Cook, J. E., Garcia, J., & Cohen, G. L. (2013). Demystifying values-affirmation interventions: Writing about social belonging is a key to buffering against identity threat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(5), 663-676. doi:10.1177/0146167213480816 Siebert, C. F., & Siebert, D. C. (forthcoming, 2016). Data analysis with small samples and non-normal data: Nonparametrics and other strategies. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 261-302.  Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797-811.  Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Aronson, J. (2002). Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 379-440.  Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of inter-group conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Taylor, V. J., & Walton, G. M. (2011). Stereotype threat undermines academic learning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(8), 1055-1067. doi:10.1177/0146167211406506 Thomas, A. J., Barrie, R., Brunner, J., Clawson, A., Hewitt, A., Jeremie-Brink, G., & Rowe-Johnson, M. (2014). Assessing critical consciousness in youth and young adults. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24(3), 485-496. doi:10.1111/jora.12132 van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 504-535. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504   102 Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2011). A brief social-belonging intervention improves academic and health outcomes of minority students. Science, 331, 1447-1451. doi:10.1126/science.1198364 Walton, G. M., & Spencer, S. J. (2009). Latent ability: Grades and test scores systematically underestimate the intellectual ability of negatively stereotyped students. Psychological Science, 20(9), 1132-1139. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02417.x Watts, R. J., Diemer, M. A., & Voight, A. M. (2011). Critical consciousness: Current status and future directions. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 134, 43-57. doi:10.1002/cd.310 Watts, R. J., Griffith, D. M., & Abdul-Adil, J. (1999). Sociopolitical development as an antidote for oppressionÑtheory and action. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27(2), 255-271.  Watts, R. J., & Hipolito-Delgado, C. P. (2015). Thinking ourselves to liberation?: Advancing sociopolitical action in critical consciousness. The Urban Review, 47(5), 847-867. doi:10.1007/s11256-015-0341-x Yeager, D. S., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Garcia, J., Apfel, N., Brzustoski, P., Master, A., . . . Cohen, G. L. (2013). Breaking the cycle of mistrust: Wise interventions to provide critical feedback across the racial divide. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1-21. doi:10.1037/a0033906 Yeager, D. S., Romero, C., Paunesku, D., Schneider, B., Hinojosa, C., Lee, H. Y., . . . Dweck, C. S. (2016). Using design thinking to improve psychological interventions: The case of the growth mindset during the trasition to high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(3), 374-391. doi:10.1037/edu0000098 Yeager, D. S., & Walton, G. M. (2011). Social-psychological interventions in education: They're not magic. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 267-301. doi:10.3102/0034654311405999 Zimmerman, M. A., Ram™rez-Valles, J., & Maton, K. I. (1999). Resilience among urban African American male adolescents: A study of the protective effects of sociopolitical control on their mental health. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27(6), 733-751.