Download abstract - UW

The Impact of Awareness through Performance on Students’ Perceptions of Equity and Social
Justice Issues
Jill Hayes
Spring 2008
2
ABSTRACT
Awareness through Performance (ATP) is a production created by a group
of diverse University of Wisconsin La Crosse (UW-L) students for the campus
community that brings together both upbeat and serious scenes that encourage
audience members to acknowledge the dignity and worth of all people. This
study’s purpose was to test the efficacy of ATP as a diversity education tool. A
random sample of 1,000 UW-L undergraduate students was taken and a
quantitative survey was administered via email.
A total of 170 participants
completed the survey, an adequate number to represent UW-L’s undergraduate
population. The study examined survey participants’ beliefs about diversity and
social justice issues, namely racism, sexism, classism, ableism, and heterosexism,
and the relationship of those attitudes to whether or not they have attended ATP.
Participants were asked to rate their level of agreement in regard to each specific
demographic to the following statements: discrimination is a rare and isolated
situation; hard work leads to success; minority populations do not have the same
opportunities; and social justice issues are a serious problem. It was hypothesized
that respondents who attended ATP would have a better understanding of
diversity issues compared to those who have not attended ATP. Findings of the
study, using correlation and regression analyses, support this hypothesis, thereby
suggesting that ATP is an effective diversity education teaching/learning tool.
3
Hate crimes and incidents continue to be a common occurrence in today’s society (Cohen
2005). Diversity education has been shown to teach people the reality of such hateful behavior
(Kubal et al. 2003; Chiasson 2006). The purpose of this study is to test the effectiveness of
Awareness through Performance (ATP) as a diversity education tool. ATP is a University of
Wisconsin La Crosse (UW-L) initiative that utilizes the performance studies concept to promote
cross cultural awareness through exploration of social justice and social oppression in terms of
power, racism, sexism, ableism, ageism, classism, and heterosexism. It is hypothesized that
survey participants who attended ATP as audience members will have more accepting views in
regard to diversity issues compared to those who have not attended ATP. This research was
conducted by surveying a random population sample of UW-L undergraduate students.
The Need for Diversity Education
“Every year more than half a million college students are targets of bias-driven slurs or
physical assaults. Every day at least one hate crime occurs on a college campus. Every minute a
college student somewhere sees or hears racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise biased words or
images” Cohen (2005:1). As long as hate crimes and hate incidents exist, so too will the need for
diversity education.
In Platt’s (2002) research of multicultural education and its strengths and weaknesses,
Platt points out that over the last two decades, there has been an improvement in the prevalence
of diversity education. At the undergraduate level, there is often a one-course diversity
education requirement. This is the case at UW-L. While a variety of diversity education courses
are offered at UW-L, students must only complete one diversity education course to fulfill their
general education program requirements (University of Wisconsin La Crosse). Platt also notes
that while this one-course requirement is an improvement in diversity education, it is simply not
4
enough. Similarly, Ponterotto and Pedersen (1993) assert that in order to change an ethnocentric
mindset, more than a few hours or days of participation in an awareness program are needed.
Changing demographic and social factors, as Diaz (1994) points out, are also contributing
to a higher demand for diversity education. This growing demand comes from both an increase
in minority populations in the U.S. as well as a shift toward a global economy. Without
sufficient diversity education, the future workers of America will not have the proper skills and
knowledge to successfully function in an increasingly diverse and global system.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Discussion of the Benefits and Weaknesses of Diversity Education
Diversity speaker programs have been found to be an effective tool for diversity
education (Kubal et al. 2003; Chiasson 2006). The diversity speaker programs which Kubal
(2003) studied consisted of people sharing their own personal stories about diversity issues as a
means of educating one another, similar to the format of ATP. After participating in the
diversity speaker program, students “realized discrimination, fostered multicultural thinking, and
developed empathy” (Kubal et al. 2003). One participant in the study clearly stated that before
participating in the diversity speaker program, s/he did not believe much, if any, racism still
existed. The diversity education program taught the individual that, in fact, racism does still
exist (Kubal et al. 2003). Research by Malisa and Hartung (forthcoming) on the effectiveness of
ATP has also demonstrated the same learning outcomes.
While both studies did have significant results in regard to the effectiveness of each
diversity education program, both also had several limitations, including lack of follow-up
surveying to test long-term effects of programming as well as failure to test for previous
diversity education (Kubal et al 2003; Chiasson 2006).
5
As previously noted, one of the major weaknesses of diversity education is often its
short-term duration. While this is not a critique of diversity education in itself, it is a critique of
the current and most common methods of diversity education. While diversity course
requirements might be a step in the right direction, they cannot be expected to single-handedly
change the beliefs and attitudes that people have held for years (Platt 2002; Ponterotto and
Pedersen 1993).
Another argument against diversity education in general, is that it could lead to a
reduction of the teaching of traditional Western knowledge. The fear of such critics is that
multicultural and multi-perspective curriculum will take the place of traditional Western
teachings. Some critics of diversity and multicultural education also argue that it will “disunite”
the United States (Schlesinger 1991 and D’Souza 1992 as cited in Diaz 1994). But Diaz (1994)
presents the counter-argument that “the stability of American nationality cannot rest on a
monocultural knowledge base. We cannot trust unity to ignorance of diversity. Multicultural
education’s emphasis on including cultural and gender perspectives in a curriculum is a step
toward unity with sectors of American society that currently feel alienated” (p. 9).
Performance as Diversity Education
The ATP program is being used as a tool for diversity education. Because teaching
diversity education through performance is a unique and new approach, much research has yet to
be done on its effectiveness and learning outcomes. One program, Social Action Theater, uses a
very similar method as ATP. Both programs use theatrical acting to depict real-life social justice
issues. Past research by Ruemper (1996) shows that students think very highly of Social Action
Theater, stating that it is “meaningful, provocative, personally empowering, and fun”(p. 327).
6
Through performance studies, not only do audience members learn, but performers also
do through dialogue as scenes are developed (Pelias 1999). While performers learn through
hearing their peer performers’ stories and personal experiences, audience members learn through
the skits and scenes that are developed around those dialogues. However, each individual in the
audience will react differently to the exact same performance based on their individual
awareness level (Pelias 1999). This could pose as a challenge to finding common themes in the
learning outcomes of such performances.
Social Categorization and Naïve Theories as Bias
According to Krueger and DiDonato (2008), Social Categorization is “the partitioning of
humanity into discrete groups” and leads to “perceptions of group differences, favoritism, and
conflict” which “become serious issues” (p. 735). Anderson and Lindsay (1998) discuss these
misconceptions and potential consequences of such misconceptions in terms of naïve theories.
As they point out, the use of naïve theories, or knowledge structures with a causal or explanatory
component, can lead to distortions of how one perceives his/her social world. Naïve theories are
often first developed and learned through a combination of both direct experience and indirect
experience, such as the media. It is through this process that stereotypes are developed
(Anderson and Lindsay 1998).
Anderson and Lindsay (1998), describe the importance of education in countering such
negative or stereotyping naïve theories. In order to reduce bias and stereotypes, other theories
must be presented and made available. “This can be done through a ‘counter-explanation’
process in which the person imagines and explains how a different relation is (or might be) true”
(p.24). ATP does just that: it presents to the audience members a counter-explanation or other
possible theory, which contrasts their potentially biased view(s). This opens the door to not only
7
questioning their previously held biases, but also to accepting an attitude of unbiased awareness,
acceptance, and understanding.
Hypotheses
As previously noted, past research has shown diversity education to be an effective tool
in creating awareness of diversity issues (Kubal et al 2003; Chiasson 2006). It is hypothesized
that participants who have attended ATP as an audience member will have a better understanding
of diversity issues compared to those who have not seen ATP. If the research hypothesis is
supported, it would suggest that Awareness through Performance is an effective tool in
promoting understanding of equity and social justice issues.
Based on the findings of Chiasson (2006), it is hypothesized that women will be more
likely than men to hold accepting views regarding social justice. It is also hypothesized that
people’s perceptions regarding the “bootstrap myth” will not be affected by diversity education,
namely ATP. The set of questions that addresses the idea that “people who work hard,
regardless of their potential minority status, have an equal chance to become successful” targeted
participants’ belief or disbelief in the “bootstrap myth”: the commonly-held American value that
people, regardless of sex, class, race, ability, or sexual orientation need only work hard to
become successful (Smith and Stone 1989). According to Smith and Stone (1989), nearly all
U.S. Americans accept the ideology of individualism, the belief that “individuals are ultimately
responsible for their status in systems of social inequality” (p. 94). Because this is such a
commonly held belief in U.S. society, it is hypothesized that it will be the most difficult biased
perception to affect.
DATA AND METHODS
Unit of Analysis
8
The unit of analysis for this research is individuals who are current undergraduate
students enrolled at UW-L.
Sample
In this research, primary data was gathered by taking a random sample of UW-L
undergraduate students. Email surveys were sent to 1,000 students, who were chosen randomly
from a listing of the campus email directory, with 170 students completing the survey. The
participants who answered that they have attended an ATP production were compared to the
participants who have not attended an ATP production.
Data Sources
The section of the survey intended to test participants’ attitudes was modeled from the
Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale (CoBRAS) (Neville et al. 2000). The CoBRAS survey was
originally designed to study the effectiveness of a semester long diversity education class. In its
original use, the CoBRAS survey was administered as a pre-survey at the beginning of the course
and a post-survey at the end to test the effectiveness of the course in impacting students’
perceptions of racial issues.
For this research, the CoBRAS survey was expanded and used as a model to test the
participants’ attitudes regarding social justice issues. However, rather than administering a pre
and post-survey, students who responded that they have not attended ATP were used as a sort of
pre-survey group, being compared to students who responded that they have attended ATP, who
were used as the post-survey group.
Measures
The dependent variables in this study include questions regarding respondents’
perceptions and attitudes of equity and social justice issues. The principle independent variable
9
in this study is whether or not the participant attended an ATP production. Other independent
variables, designed to eliminate or reduce potential influence of extraneous variables, ask
participants what other forms of diversity education they have received as well as how closely
connected they are to a member of various minority groups.
Other independent variables target the respondents’ demographic characteristics and
include respondents’ gender, income, year in school, location of residence (on or off campus),
and whether or not the respondent is a first-generation college student. Table 1 presents a
complete list of the survey variables.
Statistical Analysis
Data was analyzed using SPSS. A quantitative analysis of the data using descriptive
statistics, Cronbach’s Alpha scale reliability analyses, correlation analyses, and regression
analyses, was conducted to test the research hypotheses.
Study Limitations
This study attempts to study the effectiveness of ATP as a diversity education tool. One
limitation of the study comes from comparing participants who have attended ATP to
participants who have not attended ATP. It is possible that students with more accepting
attitudes regarding diversity issues were more likely to be attracted to ATP, thereby not
necessarily being affected by the performance(s). Ideally, participants would be surveyed both
before and after attending ATP.
Another limitation of the study is in the use of the CoBRAS survey, which was originally
designed to test the effectiveness of lengthy and ongoing diversity education programs. While
the CoBRAS does target students’ perceptions of equity and social justice issues, thereby making
it appropriate for this research, previous research has not been administered using the CoBRAS
10
survey format for such a short diversity education program as ATP. Moreover, the CoBRAS
survey was originally designed to study perceptions of race alone. The survey was adapted and
expanded for use in this research. Previous research has not been done to test the effectiveness
of the expanded CoBRAS survey, thereby creating another potential study limitation.
FINDINGS
Descriptive Statistics
The vast majority of the survey respondents were white, U.S. citizens, heterosexual,
Christian, and able-bodied. There was a fairly equal representation of the different college of
majors as well as year in school and location of residence. There was also a range of different
levels of diversity education. Furthermore, while the majority of the survey respondents had not
attended ATP, over one-third responded that they had attended ATP. Results were fairly evenly
distributed in regard to respondents’ relationships with traditionally marginalized people.
The majority of the all respondents disagreed that instances of discrimination are rare
while the majority of respondents agreed that different types of discrimination are a problem and
that traditionally marginalized groups do not have the same opportunities. Attitudes were more
greatly divided regarding people of traditionally marginalized groups having an equal chance at
success if they worked hard. While these were the general trends, they varied in degree
depending on the particular group. For example, attitudes regarding heterosexism tended to be
more conservative than attitudes regarding other minority groups. Table 2 shows a complete list
of descriptive statistics.
Correlation Analyses
After running Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability tests, it was determined that grouping each
set of questions regarding students’ perceptions of equity and social justice issues was
11
appropriate. Each grouping of questions had a Cronbach’s Alpha score of at least .843, well
above the .7 score needed to reliably create an index. After running bivariate analyses, several
significant results were found that support the hypothesis that survey participants who have
attended ATP have a better understanding of diversity issues compared to those participants who
have not attended ATP. This supporting evidence suggests that ATP is indeed an effective
teaching/learning tool in promoting understanding of equity and social justice issues.
As shown in Table 3, a correlation was found between attendance of ATP and
participants’ attitudes regarding the idea that discrimination is a serious problem. Participants
who attended ATP were significantly more likely to agree with the idea that racism, sexism,
classism, ableism, and heterosexism are major problems. Attendants of ATP were also
significantly more likely to agree that people of traditionally marginalized groups do not have the
same opportunities as people of non-marginalized groups. Furthermore, survey participants who
attended ATP were significantly more likely to disagree with the belief that discrimination of
traditionally marginalized people is a rare and isolated situation. Because the survey format used
(CoBRAS) was originally designed for use in semester long, ongoing diversity education classes,
these significant findings are potentially even more remarkable in that ATP was able to affect
significant change in under two hours.
The set of questions targeting participants’ attitudes regarding the idea that people who
work hard, regardless of their status as a traditionally marginalized person, have an equal chance
to become successful, was the only set of questions addressing students’ perceptions of equity
and social justice issues which was not correlated to attendance of ATP. This lack of correlation
fails to support the hypothesis that survey participants who attended ATP have a better
12
understanding of equity and social justice issues. However, these findings do support the
hypothesis that this particular belief would be the least likely to be affected by ATP attendance.
While attendance of ATP was found to be significantly correlated to students’
perceptions of equity and social justice issues, other variables were also found to be correlated,
as shown in Table 3. Diversity education was one such variable which was also found to be
correlated to participants’ perceptions. Respondents who received or participated in more
diversity education were more likely to have a better understanding of social justice issues.
Gender was also significantly correlated in that women tended to have a better understanding of
equity and diversity issues than men, fitting with the hypothesis. People more closely connected
to a member of the LGBTQ community or a racial minority were also more likely to better
understand equity and social justice issues.
Regression Analyses
Table 4 presents the final regression estimates which provide a better understanding of
the association between students’ perceptions of equity and social justice issues and the
significant variables: attendance of ATP, other diversity education, gender, connection to a
member of the LGBTQ community, and connection to a racial minority. While holding other
significantly correlated variables constant, the regression analyses demonstrate that attendance of
ATP is still significantly associated to all dependent variables. While holding other significantly
correlated variables constant, the data demonstrates that students who attended ATP were more
likely to agree that social justice issues are a serious problem, disagree that hard work regardless
of minority status leads to success, agree that minority populations do not have the same
opportunities, and disagree that discrimination is rare and isolated. These findings further
support the hypothesis that attendance of ATP has a positive impact on students’ understanding
13
of diversity issues. The adjusted R2 for attendance of ATP, other diversity education, gender,
connection to a member of the LGBTQ community, and connection to a racial minority explain
eight percent of the variation in participants’ attitudes regarding the idea that social justice issues
are a serious problem, three percent of the variation in participants’ attitudes regarding hard work
leading to success, six percent of the variation in participants’ attitudes regarding the idea that
minority populations do not have the same opportunities as non-minority populations, and nine
percent of the variation in participants’ attitudes regarding the belief that discrimination is rare
and isolated.
While holding other significantly correlated variables constant, gender was not found to
be significantly associated to perceptions of social justice issues. These findings do not support
the hypothesis that women are more likely than men to have accepting views regarding social
justice issues.
Finally, while holding other significantly correlated variables constant, connection to a
member of the LGBTQ was found to be significantly associated to attitudes regarding the idea
that social justice issues are a serious problem. Participants who reported having a closer
relationship with a member of the LGBTQ community were more likely to believe that social
justice issues are a serious problem. These findings support the hypothesis that people with a
closer connection to a member of a minority group, namely the LGBTQ community, are more
likely to have an understanding of social justice issues.
DISCUSSION
The significant correlation found between attendance of ATP and students’ perceptions
of equity and social justice issues supports the hypothesis that participants who attended ATP as
an audience member have a better understanding of diversity issues compared to those who have
14
not attended ATP. The support of this hypothesis suggests that ATP may be an effective
diversity teaching/learning tool. While holding other correlated variables constant, a significant
correlation was found between attendance of ATP and students’ attitudes regarding the ideas that
social justice issues are a serious problem, hard work regardless of minority status leads to
success, minority populations do not have the same opportunities as non-minority populations,
and that discrimination is rare and isolated.
The idea that anyone who works hard, regardless of their demographic characteristics,
can become successful is a commonly held American value often referred to as “the bootstrap
myth” or “individualism” (Smith and Stone 1989). While it was hypothesized that this would be
the least likely attitude to be affected by ATP, the data reveals that survey participants who
attended ATP were indeed more likely than their peers who did not attend ATP to disagree with
the idea that hard work, regardless of minority status, leads to success.
The findings of this research are fitting with Anderson and Lindsay’s (1998) descriptions
of social categorization, naïve theories, and the need for diversity education to help break
misconceived or biased social categorizations. The correlation between attendance of ATP and
students’ perceptions of equity and social justice issues suggest that ATP may be an effective
diversity education tool that helps participants not only question their biases, but also offers them
new, more accepting models of thought.
CONCLUSION
For this study, a random sample of 1,000 UW La Crosse undergraduate students was
taken and a quantitative survey was administered via email. A total of 170 participants
completed the survey, an adequate number to represent UW-L’s undergraduate population.
15
Using SPSS, correlation and regression analyses were run comparing respondents’ perceptions of
equity and social justice issues who had attended ATP with those who had not.
A significant correlation was found between attendance of ATP and students’ perceptions
of equity and social justice issues. While this correlation suggests that ATP may be an effective
diversity education tool, it does not absolutely confirm it. It is possible that students with more
accepting attitudes regarding diversity issues were more likely to be attracted to ATP, thereby
not necessarily being affected by the performance(s). In order to more strongly confirm the
evidence that ATP is indeed an effective diversity education tool, further research is
recommended. Rather than comparing respondents who attended ATP with those who did not, a
pre and post-survey method would better target the direct attitudinal shift caused by attendance
of ATP.
The use of the CoBRAS survey in this research may have also been a contributing
weakness. The survey was originally designed as a pre and post-survey to test the effectiveness
of semester-long or ongoing diversity education classes and programs, thereby making the
survey format potentially inappropriate for testing the effectiveness of an hour an a half long
diversity education program. Conversely, because significant correlations were found, it may
further and more strongly support the results for this very reason.
In spite of potential weaknesses, the findings of this research do suggest that a correlation
between attendance of ATP and students’ perceptions of certain equity and social justice issues
does indeed exist. This supporting evidence that ATP is an effective diversity education tool
suggests that through education, a more inclusive, accepting climate is possible.
16
REFERENCES
Anderson, Craig A. and James J. Lindsay. 1998. “The Development, Perseverance, and Change
of Naïve Theories.” Social Cognition. 16(1):8-30.
Chiasson, Judy. 2006. Lifting the Veil of Heterosexism: Effecting Attitudinal Change toward
Sexual Minorities. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Philosophy, Claremont University,
California.
Cohen, Richard, ed. 2005. Ten Ways to Fight Hate: A Community Response Guide.
Montgomery, Alabama: Southern Poverty Law Center.
Diaz, Carlos F. 1994. “Dimensions of Multicultural Education.” National Forum. 74(1):9-11.
Krueger, Joachim I. and Theresa E. DiDonato. 2008. “Social Categorization and the Perception
of Groups and Group Differences.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 2(2):
733-750.
Kubal, Timothy, Deanna Meyler, Rosalie Torres Stone, and Teelyn T. Mauney. 2003.
“Teaching Diversity Education and Learning Outcomes: Bringing Lived
Experience
into the Classroom.” Teaching Sociology. 31(4):441-455.
Malisa, Mark and Beth A. Hartung. Forthcoming. “Evaluation of Awareness through
Performance’s Impact on Students’ Awareness.” Unpublished research.
Neville, Helen A. et al. 2000. “Construction of Initial Validation of the Color-Blind Racial
Attitudes Scale (CoBRAS).” Journal of Counseling Psychology. 47(1):59-70.
Pelias, R.J. 1999. “A Definition of Performance Studies: The Interpretation of Aesthetic Texts.”
Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt.
Platt, Tony. 2002. “Desegregating Multiculturalism: Problems in the Theory and
Pedagogy of Diversity Education.” Social Justice. 29(4):41-46.
17
Ponterotto, Joseph G. and Paul B. Pedersen. 1993. Preventing Prejudice: A Guide for
Counselors and Educators. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Ruemper, Wendy. 1996. “Models for Change; Antiracist Education for Universities and
Colleges.” The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology. 33(3):317-335.
Smith, Kevin B. and Lorene H. Stone. 1989. “Rags, Riches and Bootstraps: Beliefs and Causes
of Wealth and Poverty.” The Sociological Quarterly. 30(1):93-107.
University of Wisconsin La Crosse. 2002. “General Education Program.” Retrieved April 24,
2008 (http://www.uwlax.edu/records/05-07/degree_requirements.htm).
18
TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1: Definitions of Variables
Students' Perceptions of Equity and Social Justice
This variable is an index 22 questions:
a. "People who work hard, no matter what race they are, have an equal chance to become successful."
b. "People who work hard, no matter what class they belong to, have an equal chance to become successful."
c. "People who work hard, no matter what gender they are, have an equal chance to become successful."
d. "People who work hard, no matter what disabilities they might have, have an equal chance to become successful."
e. "People who work hard, no matter what sexual orientation they are, have an equal chance to become successful."
f. "Racism is a major problem in the U.S."
g. "Classism is a major problem in the U.S."
h. "Sexism is a major problem in the U.S."
i. "Ableism is a major problem in the U.S."
j. "Heterosexism is a major problem in the U.S."
k. "Racial and ethnic minorities do not have the same opportunities as white people in the U.S."
l. "Lower class people do not have the same opportunities as upper class people in the U.S."
m. "Women do not have the same opportunities as men in the U.S."
n. "People with disabilities do not have the same opportunities as people with no disabilities in the U.S."
o. "Homosexuals do not have the same opportunities as heterosexuals in the U.S."
p. "White people in the U.S. are discriminated against because of the color of their skin."
q. "White people in the U.S. have certain advantages because of the color of their skin."
r. "Discrimination based on race and ethnicity in the U.S. is a rare and isolated situation."
s. "Discrimination based on class in the U.S. is a rare and isolated situation."
t. "Discrimination based on gender in the U.S. is a rare and isolated situation."
u. "Discrimination based on disability in the U.S. is a rare and isolated situation."
v. "Discrimination based on sexual orientation in the U.S. is a rare and isolated situation."
Index responses range from 1 through 6. 1=Strongly Disagree; 6=Strongly Agree
Diversity Education
Attended Awareness through Performance: 1=Yes; 2=No
Reason Attended: 1=Class Assignment; 2=Sounded Interesting; 3=Friend in Show; 4=Required as
R.A.; 5=Encouraged by R.A.; 6=Other
ATP Performer: 1=Yes; 2=No
Other Diversity Education: 1=EFN Class; 2=ERS Class; 3=Study Abroad Experience; 4=Tutoring
Program; 5=Member of Diversity Org Coalition; 6=Member of Diversity Org/Club; 6=Other
Demographics
Gender: 1=Male; 2=Female
College of Major: 1=College of Liberal Studies; 2=College of Science and Health; 3=College of
Business; 4=Unsure; 5=Undecided
White or Non-White: 1=White; 2=Non-White
Member of LGBTQ Community: 1=Yes; 2=No
Family's Yearly Income: 1=Below $29,999; 2=$30,000-39,999; 3=$40,000-49,999; 4=$50,00059,999; 5=$60,000-69,999; 6=$70,000-79,999; 7=$80,000-89,999; 8=$90,000-99,999; 9=$100,000149,999; 10=$150,000-199,999; 11=$200,000-249,999; 12=$250,000 and Above; 13=Unsure
Environment Growing Up: 1=Farm/Ranch; 2=Rural, Non-Farm; 3=Small Town; 4=Suburban; 5=
Urban; 6=International; 7=Combination; 8=Other
Disability: 1=Yes; 2=No
19
U.S. Citizen: 1=Yes; 2=No
Religious/Spiritual Beliefs: 1=Christian; 2=Jewish; 3=Muslim; 4=Agnostic; 5=Atheist; 6=Other
Location of Residence: 1=On Campus; 2=Off Campus
Year in School: 1=First Year; 2=Sophomore; 3=Junior; 4=Senior; 5=5th Year + Senior
First Generation College Student: 1=Yes; 2=No; 3=Unsure
Closest Connection to Racial Minority: 1=As a Relative; 2=As a Friend or Roommate; 3=As a
Neighbor; 4=As a Co-Worker or Classmate; 5= As a Fellow UW-L Student; 6=Unsure
Closest Connection to LGBTQ Community: 1=As a Relative; 2=As a Friend or Roommate; 3=As a
Neighbor; 4=As a Co-Worker or Classmate; 5= As a Fellow UW-L Student; 6=Unsure
Closest Connection to Person with Disability: 1=As a Relative; 2=As a Friend or Roommate; 3=As a
Neighbor; 4=As a Co-Worker or Classmate; 5= As a Fellow UW-L Student; 6=Unsure
20
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics
Characteristic
Social Justice Issues Are a Serious Problem Index
Strongly Disagree To All
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Strongly Agree to All
Work Hard, Equal Chance at Success Index
Strongly Disagree to All
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Frequency
N
Valid %/
Mean
1
1
2
3
1
1
2
3
7
5
10
9
16
17
25
13
24
9
4
3
3
8
0.6
0.6
1.2
1.8
0.6
0.6
1.2
1.8
4.2
3
6
5.4
9.6
10.2
15
7.8
14.4
5.4
2.4
1.8
1.8
4.8
2
1
1
3
12
4
10
11
8
19
8
2
10
11
8
3
4
7
6
1.2
0.6
0.6
1.8
7.1
2.4
5.9
6.5
4.7
11.2
4.7
1.2
5.9
6.5
4.7
1.8
2.4
4.1
3.6
21
25
26
27
28
29
Stongly Agree to All
4
4
4
4
3
20
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
1.8
11.8
People Do Not Have Same Opportunities Index
Strongly Disagree to All
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Strongly Agree to All
1
2
2
3
3
2
2
4
2
5
3
5
11
16
16
9
17
18
26
9
6
1
3
3
0.6
1.2
1.2
1.8
1.8
1.2
1.2
2.4
1.2
3
1.8
3
6.5
9.5
9.5
5.3
10.1
10.7
15.4
5.3
3.6
0.3
1.8
1.8
Discrimination Is Rare Index
Strongly Disagree to All
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
11
4
11
7
10
35
13
17
11
8
18
4
3
2
6.7
2.4
6.7
4.3
6.1
21.3
7.9
10.4
6.7
4.9
11
2.4
1.8
1.2
22
19
20
21
22
23
24
3
1
2
1
2
1
1.8
0.6
1.2
0.6
1.2
0.6
Attended ATP
Yes
No
58
110
34.5
65.5
Total Divesity Education
None
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
54
66
31
15
3
1
31.8
38.8
18.2
8.8
1.8
0.6
Gender
Male
Female
53
117
31.2
68.8
Family's Yearly Income
Below $29,999
$30,000-39,999
$40,000-49,999
$50,000-59,999
$60,000-69,999
$70,000-79,999
$80,000-89,999
$90,000-99,999
36
10
13
9
10
17
14
10
30.3
8.4
10.9
7.6
8.4
14.3
11.8
8.4
Location of Residence
On Campus
Off Campus
60
110
35.3
64.7
Year in School
First year
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
5th year + senior
35
38
49
36
12
20.6
22.4
28.8
21.2
7.1
First Generation College Student
Yes
No
50
117
29.4
68.8
23
Closest Connection to Racial Minority
Relative
Close Friend or Roommate
Neighbor
Co-worker or Classmate
Fellow Student at UW-L
33
81
3
30
17
19.4
47.6
1.8
17.6
10
Closest Connection to Member of LGBTQ Community
Relative
Close Friend or Roommate
Neighbor
Co-worker or Classmate
Fellow Student at UW-L
24
55
7
33
25
14.1
32.4
4.1
19.4
14.7
Closest Connection to Person with a Disability
Relative
Close Friend or Roommate
Neighbor
Co-worker or Classmate
Fellow Student at UW-L
48
41
18
30
14
28.2
24.1
10.6
17.6
8.2
24
Table 3: Correlations
Major
Problem
Index
Attendance of ATP
Total Diversity
Education
Gender
Connection to LGBTQ
Connection to
Disability
Connection to Race
Family's Income
Live On or Off
Campus
Year in School
First Generation
College
Pearson
Correlation
Pearson
Correlation
Pearson
Correlation
Pearson
Correlation
Pearson
Correlation
Pearson
Correlation
Pearson
Correlation
Pearson
Correlation
Pearson
Correlation
Pearson
Correlation
Same
Work Hard Opportunity Discrimination
Index
Index
Rare Index
-0.20(**)
0.11
-0.21(**)
0.19(*)
0.18(*)
-0.16(*)
0.14
-0.18(*)
0.20(**)
0.09
0.08
-0.22(**)
-0.18(*)
0.01
-0.14
0.17(*)
0.00
-0.11
0.02
-0.00
0.01
0.12
-0.01
0.2(*)
-0.02
-0.06
-0.11
0.08
-0.08
-0.03
-0.06
0.07
-0.14
-0.09
-0.09
0.08
-0.03
-0.04
-0.04
0.04
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
25
Table 4: Regressions
Social Justice Issues are Serious Problem
Beta
Significance
Attendance of ATP
-0.18
0.04
Total Diversity Education
0.13
0.14
Gender
0.15
0.08
Connection to LGBTQ
-0.16
0.05
Connection to Racial Minority
0.10
0.22
Adjusted R²
0.08
Hard Work Leads to Success
Beta
Significance
Attendance of ATP
0.20
0.02
Total Diversity Education
-0.10
0.24
Gender
0.06
0.49
Connection to LGBTQ
0.00
0.99
Connection to Racial Minority
0.07
0.41
Adjusted R²
0.03
Minority Populations do NOT Have Same
Opportunities
Beta
Significance
Attendance of ATP
-0.26
0.00
Total Diversity Education
0.03
0.74
Gender
0.02
0.99
Connection to LGBTQ
-0.13
0.13
Connection to Racial Minority
0.04
0.68
Adjusted R²
0.06
Discrimination is a Rare and Isolated Situation
Beta
Significance
Attendance of ATP
0.21
0.01
Total Diversity Education
-0.01
0.32
Gender
-0.12
0.10
Connection to LGBTQ
0.13
0.14
Connection to Racial Minority
0.14
0.11
Adjusted R²
0.09