FACTORS PREDICTIVE OF

BLACK STUDENTS’ COMMUNICATION WITH

THE ADMINISTRATION AND STUDENTS AT A

PREDOMINANTLY WHITE UNIVERSITY

WARREN WA Y-SON ~~rt~ Texas Stare University

A BSTRA CT. Black siudents’ i~te~~cti~n with a ~red~~inant~~ white ~n~~le~s~t~‘s ~d~~in~str~t~~rt~ f&ulr,*, and students appears IO be a central issue in current stu& of black student success in collrgp. Thi.s sfu& examined personality and situational factors predictive of bi ac . sr~~denrs’c~ummunicntion with such a university’s adminis- h tration, $xuit~, and students, The de~le~~p~?~e~t of an instrument describing envi- ronmental and sclciaf concerns qf black students demonstrated reasonnhle predictive va&ditx of ~~~~t~~~~c~ri~n with the ~d~~~~.~tr~t~~~~ and white students. Feelings about the social environment and tendencies ~~co~~~un~c~tio~ anxier.x* were among the strmtgest predictors qf black studems’ co??t~n~~ic~tio~.

Even though universities are desegrated, black students continue to have adjustment problems (Lee 1982, Maynard, 19X0) and express dissatisfaction with their overall experiences at predominantly white universities (Carnegie, 1977). Willie and McCord f 1972) investigated black student attitudes at four predominantly white universities and found that in general black students mistrusted white faculty and administrators more than they mistrusted white students. This finding was con~rmed later by Boyd (1974) in observing that black students presumed that white institutions recruited blacks only because they were required to by law, or simply to get federal monies.

The Willie and McCord (1972) and Boyd (1974) studies were considered to be the largest and most extensive studies in which black student attitudes toward campus life were examined. Willie and McCord (1972) suggested that if a university wanted to provide a positive educationai experience for black students they needed to have a sufficient number of black personnel. recruit black students in large numbers for social support, reserve financial aid for minoritjes. have black studies programs, enable black students to five with black students. and focus on causes of black separatism.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Dr. Warren Watson. Dept. of Management. North

Texas State Universitv. P.O. Box 13677, Denton. TX 76303-3677.

255

256 Warren Watson and Ina Siler

Boyd ( 1977). Carrington and Sedlack ( 1977) Copeland ( 1976) and Walker ( 1977), subsequently found that racism and ,‘or discrimination were the primary factors contributing to black student feelings of alienation and social isolation. In addition, Braddock (1978) found that black students tend to be more radical than white students and expressed high levels of pessim- ism about black-white relationships if they attended predominantly white universities.

in more recent studies, Baum and Lamb (1983) and Robertson (1980) found that black and white students at a predominantly white campus expressed very similar concerns about social life and general adjustment. The difference in concern come from the black stutients’ greater concern about academic difficulties. Also, Lee (1982) and Maynard (1980) provided information regarding programs for a more conducive learning atmosphere. Lee (1982) organized a black student support group. consisting of black students and three university counselors, which provided both educational and therapeutic benefits. Maynard (1980) discussed steps in creating a cli- mate conducive for mutual trust, openness, and motivation for learning through a system of needs planning and constant feedback to black students. More educational assistance, communication facilitation. and social support seem to be key variables in black student adjustment on a predominantly white campus.

While a number of previously described studies have examined black students’ dissatisfaction with predominantly white universities. little could be found that examined reports of social life. attitudes toward the university. and personality characteristics as predictors of black students’ communica- tion with administration. faculty, and white students. Walker (1977) ex- amined black students’ defimtions of their educational situation, social psy- chological transitions, the functions of black student culture on campus, and coping strategies at predominantly white colleges. The major focus was the coping strategies black students used to communicate with whites, although not necessarily successfully. Again, exploration of communication aspects seems to surface.

In addition to black students’ descriptions of the university environment. personality measures of relevant dimensions could give some insight to the adjustment difficulties described. That is, would personality dimensions such as communication anxiety, internal/external locus of control, and feelings toward authority add to significant situational aspects that affect black stu- dents’ communication with administration. faculty. and white students’?

McCroskey (1977, 1978) has argued that the extent of an individual’s communication anxiety may greatly inhibit communication with others. Rotter (1966) and Phares (1978) argue that internally oriented persons exhibit less defensive behavior towards others. while Rokeach (1968) and Ehrlich (1978) argue that dogmatic individuals display more negative atti- tudes towards others than do less dogmatic individuals. Thus. the addition

Black Students’ Communication 257

of these personality variables to black students’ descriptions of the white university environment could offer information for better understanding the adjustment and academic difficulties described.

The questions this research plans to examine are:

I. At a predominantly white campus, what primary issues will black students iden- tify regarding communication quality. social life, university personnel, white stu- dents. and the university in general?

2. To what extent will personality measures of communication anxiety, dogmatism, and locus of control, along with factors from black students’ reports about uni- versity life, predict black students’ communication with the administration. faculty. and white students?

METHOD

During the spring semester, 150 questionnaires were distributed to black male and female students at a large mid-western university. Of the 150 questionnaires, 84 were returned for data analysis. The sample was 84 sub- jects all of which were at least second-semester freshmen. Black students represented approximately 3 112% of the student population (650 students), and were surveyed through various social and pre-professional organizations and the Black Peoples Union, as well as college classes.

Measures

One section consisting of items derived from interviews with black students and university personnel focused on the general areas of social life on campus (18 items) and attitudes toward the university (18 items). included in these items were descriptions of black students’ communication with administra- tion, faculty, and white students.

The section consisting of standardized personality measures included: (a) dogmatism (Schulze, 1962)-a 13-item instrument designed to measure reports about dealing with authority, (b) locus of control (Rotter, 1960)-a I2-item instrument designed to measure reports of one’s control over personal success and achievement, and (c) communication anxiety (McCroskey, 1970)-a 20-item instrument designed to measure communication appre- hension with others.

The overall instrument employed a Likert-type scale in which the response alternatives included: strongly disagree, disagree, undecided, agree, and strongly agree.

25X Warren Warson and lna Siler

Procedure

The instrument was administered to subjects during the spring semester. Data were collected on different occasions because of the difficulty of find- ing black students in one location, All groups of subjects were told that the purpose of the survey was to examine black students’ reports of: (I) univer- sity social life. with specifics about the university itself; (2) communication toward the administration. faculty, and white students: and (3) life in general (obtained through the three personality measures). Several items on the instrument asked for reports regarding “students of a different ethnic back- ground.” but through oral explanation the authors stated they were con- cerned with reports about white students only in this case.

RESULTS

A principal components analysis with varimax rotation was performed on both the black students’ reports of social life and their reports about the university. The principal components analysis on the social life items resulted in five factors (eigenvalues > I .OO): the social environment, support from family and friends. peer environment. frequency and satisfaction of communication with white students, and social activities (see Table 1). Communality for the items on the social life items that significantly loaded (.60/ .40 purity index) ranged from .55 to .83 indicating moderate strength of the factor structure.

The principal components analysis on the attitudes toward the universit! items resulted in six factors (eigenvalues > 1.00): reports about advisors. reports about instructors. academic environment, frequency and satisfaction of communication with the administration. personal recognition. and fre- quency of communication with faculty (see Table 2). Communality for the attitudes toward the university items that significantly loaded (.60, .40 purit> index) ranged from .52 to .76 indicating moderate strength of the factor structure.

The I I factors described were used as summed item variables in subse- quent analyses. The summed item factors demonstrated moderate internal consistency {see Table 3). The personality measures of dogmatism and locus of control showed rather low coefficient alphas (.41 and .32. respectively).

In order to examine which variables were most predictive of black stu- dents’ comnlunication with administration. faculty. and white students, a step-wise multiple regression analysis was performed on each of the three communication factors with the comr~unication factor being the criterion variable and the other factors and personality tneasures being predictor variables (excluding the other two ~omrnun~~ati~~n variables as a predictor).

Black Students’ Communicarion 259

TABLE 1

Factors of Attitudes toward Social Life on Campus (N=84)

Factors x

I. (Social Environment) Recreational facilities Religious environment

Social environment I would encourage minority students to enroll here

Eigenvalue Percent of Variance

!I. (Family and friends) Family agrees with decision to attend

Support of my family Support of friends at home

Eigenvalue Percent of Variance

III. (Peer environment) Encouragement from fellow students Participation with students in social activities of my ethnic

background Participate with students of my ethnic background in

conversation

Eigenvalue Percent of Variance

IV. (Communication with students) Participation in conversations with students of a different

ethnic background Satisfaction with communication with students of a

different ethnic background

Eigenvalue Percent of Variance

V. (Social activities) Participation in social activities with students from a

different ethnic background Desire students from different ethnic backgrounds to

participate in social activities sponsored by my organization(s)

Eigenvalue Percent of Variance

3.39 3.32

3.29 2.77

4.27

25.1

1.98 1.61

2.13

2.31

13.6

2.56 2.21

1.99

1.60

9.4

2.40

2.50

1.52

a.9

2.51

2.72

1.12 6.6

260

TABLE 2

Factors of Attitudes toward the University (N-84)

Factors X

I. (Advisor)

Adequate guidance in selectrng courses

Advisor availability

Advisor Interest

Adequate assistance from advrsor

2.55

2 60

2 60

2 51

Ergenvalue

Percent of Variance

5 52

29 0

II. (instructor)

Instructor interest in personal development

Encouragement from instructors

Instructor discusses mrnonty topics frequently

Instructor berng comfortable with minorrty related topics

3.10

3 10

3.73

3 21

Ergenvalue

Percent of Variance

2 17

11.4

III. (Academic Environment)

Academic environment suited to my needs

Student development organizations sufficient for my needs

Academic environment is what I expected

2.74

3.26

3 17

Eigenvalue

Percent of Variance

1 68

a0

IV. (Communication admrnistration)

Frequency of communication with administration

Satisfaction of communication with administration

3 69 2.60

Etgenvalue

Percent of Varrance

1.58 a.3

V (Personal recognition)

Coursework related to my needs

Campus newspaper gives adequate minority coverage

Campus newspaper gives unbiased mrnonty coverage

2 46 4 05 3.70

Ergenvalue 1.21

Percent of Variance 6.4

VI. (Communrcatlon faculty)

Frequency of communication with faculty

Eigenvalue

Percent of Variance

2 99

1.02

54

TAB

LE

3

Mat

rix

of

Blv

aria

te

Co

rrel

atio

n

amo

ng

A

ttit

ud

es

tow

ard

S

oci

al L

ife

wlt

h A

ttit

ud

es

tow

ard

th

e U

niv

ersi

ty

wit

h C

om

mu

nic

atio

n

Ap

pre

hen

sio

n,

Do

gm

atis

m,

and

Lo

cus

of

Co

ntr

ol

Ad

viso

r

16

A4

‘

60”

-03 I5

31”

.03

I 04

14

01

WJ 38

” t.7

31

-Of

20”*

I

73t

-06

06

29’”

(

62)

26’”

30

” 28

” 32

” (

63)

.ofJ

15

-0

8 -3

0”

_ 36

” (9

1)

16

03

or

-06

19’“

’ -

03

141)

13

06

” 17

-

03

14

” 23

””

04

f 32

1

03

02

-04

05

05

as

. If

10

isrn

gre

lte

ml

262 Warren Warson and ha Siler

TABLE 4

Means, Standard Deviations, Betas, R, and I?? for the Variables Predlctlng Interpersonal Communication with Students of

Different Ethnic Backgrounds (x = 2.44, SD =.66)

N=84 Mean SD Beta f? Change ----

Communication apprehension 3 41 60 30 13

Social environment 3 19 .89 18 13

Peer environment 2.25 77 17 03

Dogmatism 2.98 .48 .16 03

Family and friends 1.97 78 19 .02

Academic environment 3.06 .82 .12 01

R 60

R-’ .36 -

The black students’ frequency and satisfaction of communication with

white students measure accounted for 36”; of the variance explained bb the

six-variable equation (see Table 4). The communication variable showed a

negati1.e correlation of black student communication with white students

and accounted for 13“; of the variance. The social environment measure

which included black students’ reports concerning recreational facilities.

religious needs. social needs. and the desire to encourage other blacks to

come to the university also accounted for 13yC, of the variance. These

Lariables were followed. in amount of variance explained, by peer support

(3”;). dogmatism (3c’i). support of Pamily and friends at home (2’;). and

attitudes tow,ards the academic environment ( ICi). Only the predictors which

were significant predictors (I, < .05) and w,hich explained at least If-i of the

variance of the equation were reported.

The equation predicting black students’ frequency and satisfaction of

communication with the administration resulted in a three variable solution

(see Table 5). The recognition of the personal needs factor which consisted

of relevance of coursework and adequacy of campus newspaper cot’erage

did account for 8Ct of the variance of the prediction. Reports about

academic advisors accounted for 3.57f) of the variance and were followed b)

black students’ reports of the social environment ( IYo). Only the predictors

which were significant predictors (I, < .05) and explained at least I(!; of the

Lariance of the equation were reported.

Black Students’ Communication 263

TABLE 5

Means, Standard Deviatlons, Betas, R, and R2 for the Variables Predicting Communication with the Adminlstratlon

(x = 3.64, SD =.65)

N=64 Mean SD Beta RZ Chanae

Recognition of personal needs 3.41 .79 .23 .08

Attitudes toward advisor 2.56 1.11 .20 .03

Social environment 3.19 .89 .I4 .Ol

R .35

RZ 12

The stepwise regression analysis predicting frequency of communication with the faculty resulted in no significant predictors @ < .05). Therefore, no results were reported.

DISCUSSION

The first research question dealt with black students’ reports of social life and university issues. To examine these two areas of concern. the authors constructed items from numerous interviews with black students, faculty, and administrators on campus. Analysis of social life items resulted in five factors. The social environment factor accounted for close to one-half of the variance explained for the social life items. The social environment factor consisted of black students’ reports of recreational facilities, the religious environment, the social facilities, and decisions to encourage other black students to enroll. Social adjustment on a predominantly white campus still is apparently a crucial issue needing support.

The second factor on social life issues described support from family and friends at home, while the third factor regarded participation and support with peers. Communication with white students was the fourth factor and participation with white students in social activities was the fifth factor. These are typical black student concerns of social life at a predominantly white university.

The black students’ reports of university issues resulted in six factors. The reports about the university advisor factor accounted for close to one-half of the variance explained for items regarding concern with the university. The advisor factor consisted of black students’ reports of guidance in selecting courses, advisor availability, and advisor interest, while items describing instructor interest and instructor discussion of minority topics made up the second factor describing university issues.

.?64 Wurren Watson and ha Situ

The third university issue factor described whether the overall academic

environment met student needs and how adequate student de\,elopment

organizations were. Factor four consisted of reports of black students’

communication frequency and satisfaction with the administration. The fifth

factor described personal needs regarding coursework offered and recogni-

tion by campus newspapers of minority issues. The final factor described

frequency of communication with the faculty.

Overall. the black students’ issues here similar to those described in pre-

vious research. An interesting finding, however. was the mention of campus

newspaper coverage. Along with concern over traditional uni\crsity issues

such as courses, advising. and student development. black students felt the!

received little recognition by the campus paper. Further exploration of this

result may be her-q’ worthwhile for the predominantly white campus.

The second research question involved using the results of the factor

analysis just discussed along with specified personality measures to demon-

strate variables predictive of black students’ communication with adminis-

tration. faculty, and white students. The first equation showed significant

variables predicting frequency and satisfaction of communication with white

students. The communication anxiety personality measure was the strongest

predictor of black students’ communication with white students. l-his find-

ing was a negativz correlation showing that higher scores on the anxiety

measure indicated less communication with white students. This result was

typical of effects of anxiety on individuals’ communicating with others.

However. the situational influence of pressure from being on a predomi-

nantlb, white campus could be an escalating factor.

An alternative for alIe\ iating anxiety problems could be increased use of

black support groups on campus (Lee, 1982). In the Lee study. these groups.

led by university counselors with black students as members. met once a

week over IO weeks. The shared perceptions and feelings provided educa-

tional and therapeutic benefits.

The second significant predictor of black students communication was the

social environment factor which consisted of items describing adequacy of

religious. recreational, and social facilities and the extent to which the!

would encourage other blacks to enroll at this universit),. The more positive

the students’ reports of the social facilities and encouraging other blacks to

enroll, the more communication with white students was indicated.

Other significant but much less powerful predictors of black students’

communication with white students were reports of peer environment. dog-

matism. family and friends. and academic environmen!. The peer en\i-

ronment items described participation with and support from other black

students on campus. Apparently the more social support from other black

students. the more communication with white students was indicated. ‘This

finding is another result to substantiate Lee’s (1982) argument for black

support groups on campus.

Black Sludenrs’ Communication 265

The positively correlated dogmatism measure was difficult to interpret in that dogmatism, which usually indicates defensiveness, should have shown a negative association with communication. Perhaps the very low internal consistency of this personality measure precluded any predictive validity. Reports of support from family and friends at home demonstrated a positive association with communication with white students. Again, the social sup- port, this time from home, possibly helped create more stability and eager- ness to communicate with whites.

The academic environment items described black students’ reports of the adequacy of the general academic environment in satisfying their needs and also the adequacy of student development organizations. These are also support functions and the more positive reports of these items indicate more communications with white students.

The strongest predictor in the equation predicting black students’ fre- quency and satisfaction of communication with the administration was their views of personal recognition which consisted of items describing adequacy of coursework for personal needs and the type of coverage given by the campus newspaper. The more positively black students reported these items regarding coursework and newspaper coverage, the more communication with the administration was indicated. The coursework item came as no surprise, but this factor contained two items regarding campus newspaper coverage of black student activities. The newspaper issue could be a key issue in further exploration of black student adjustment through campus recognition.

The second strongest predictor of black students’ frequency of communi- cation with the administration was reports about their university advisor which consisted of items describing the extent of advisor coursework guid- ance, availability, interest, and general assistance. The more positive these reports, the more communication with the administration. Apparently, advising was a university support function that enhanced communication with administration. The social environment factor previously described was also a significant but less powerful communication predictor. Personal recognition and reports of advisors appeared to be the strongest influence on black students’ communication with the administration.

The equation predicting black students’ frequency of communication with the faculty produced no significant predictors. Most of the variance of the measures was explained by the communication with white students and administration equations. Further refinement of items describing the faculty would make the faculty communication measure more specific.

Implications

Results of the social life and university instruments demonstrated rela- tively typical black student concerns at a predominantly white university.

,766 U’arren Warson and Ina Siler

This statement is not to lessen the importance of the issues presented but to reinforce that they remain concerns. An interesting finding came from analy- sis of reports about the univ,erity from which a personal recognition factor emerged. Two of its three items described black students’ views of campus newspaper coverage. This issue certainly should be included in future black student research and program development.

The “communication with white students” predictors suggested a look at black students’ communication anxiety (situational or trait?) and that views of the social environment be encouraged in future research and program development. T-he “communication with the administration” predictors revealed that the recognition of personal needs (especially campus news- paper coverage) and “attitudes toward the advisor” issues were quite impor- tant to black students.

Further refinement of the instrument or similar instruments could shovv greater predictive validity and greatly assist in guiding the development of black student support systems. The very low internal consistency validity of

the dogmatism and locus of control personality instruments precluded an>

valid interpretation for these measures. However. future use of personalit) measures to develop a profile to view along with interview issues could be worthwhile data for program development.

REFERENCES BAUM. M. C.. & LAMB. D. H. (1983). A comparison of the concerns presented by

black and white students to a university counseling center. Journal of College

Srudenr Personnel. 24. I27- I3 I. BOY D. W. M. ( 1974). LIesegregating America k c,olleges: A narionc,ide sur\‘eJ of’

h1ac.k students. New York: Praeger Publishers. BOYD. W. M. (1977). Black undergrads succeed in white colleges. Educ,arional

Record. 58. 309-3 IS. BRADDOCK. J. H. (1978). Radicalism and alienation among black college

students, The Negro Education Retierc,. 29. 4-2 I. CARNEGIE CORPORATION OF NEW YORK (1977). Annualreport ofcarnegie

Corprarion q/ Ne\z, York. New York: Carnegie Corporation. CARRI,NGTON. C. H., & SEDLACEK. W. E. (1977). Attitudes and characteristics

of black graduate students. Journal qf College Srudenr Personnel. 18, 467-470.

COPELAND. I.. L. (1976). An exploration of rhe causes of hia& artririon ut

pretiominarelv M,hite insrirurions c?f higher educ,arion. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 147-423)

ERLICH. H. .I. (1978). Dogmatism. In H. London&J. Exner (Eds.). Dimensionsof

persc1nalir.v. New York: John Wiley. LEE. C. C. (1982). Black support group: Outreach to the alienated black college

student. Journal of College Student Personnel. 23. 271-273.

MAYNARD. M. (1980). Can universities adapt to ethnic minority students’ needs’! Journal College Sludent Personnel. 21. 398-401,

MCCROSKEY. J. C. (1970). Measures of communication-bound anxiety. Speec,h

Monographs, 37. 260-277.

MCCR~SK~Y, J. C. (1977). Orai cornrnunic~t~o~ apprehension: A summary of recent theory and research. Human C~~~unj~ario~ Research, 4, 78-96.

~CCRDSK~~, J. 6. (1978). Validity of the PRCA as an index of oral communica- tion apprebensiou. Co~~~uni~utio~ ~a~#gra~~s, 45, 192-201.

PWARES, E. J. (1978). Locus of Control, In H. London &J. Exner (Eds.). Dimm- sions of personafiry. New York: John Wiley.

R~~~RTS~~, J. A. (1980). Black student satjsfaction in thedeep south. ~~~~rnu~~~

Collesp prudent Persa~nef. 21. 5 IO-5 13. RUKEACH, M. (1968). Befi&, attitudes, arzd values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ROTTER, J. B. (i966). Generalized expectancies for internal versusexternal control

of reinforcement. ~~.~~~o~o~~~~~ ~~~og~~~~s. 69, 379-399. SCHULZE, R. H. K. (1962). A shortened version of Rokeach dogmatism Scale.

~~~~~a/ of Fs.~l~~~fogi~af Studies, 13, 93-97. WALKER, S. (1977). Trans~t~~na~ experience of black students at a predominantly

white university (Doctoral dissertation, Washington ~njv~rsity, 1976). ~~sse~f~-

rim A~st~u~ts j~ter~arj~~af. 37, 7997A. (~Jniversity Microfilms No. 77-12, 478) WILLIE, C. V., & MCCQRD, A.S, (1972). Bfmk sfude~ts at &ire coffeges. Sew

York: Praeger Publishers.

L’interaction des Citudianta noirs vis-a-vis l’administration, les professeurs, et les itudiants d’une UniversitP princip&kment bianchs par&t Ptre une question centrale dans l’btude actuelle du succPs des irtudiants noirs au niveau universitaire. Certe i?tude a examin des facteurs de personnalitk et de situation indicateurs de la eo~unicsti~n entre les ktudiants noirs et ~~a~rni~l~strat~on, Les professeurs, et les dtudiants d’une universiek princ~pa~emens blanche. Ze d~ve~opp~ment d’un instrument qui dkcrivait les in&r&s environnementaux et sociaux des i?tudiants noirs a d&non& une valid& raisonnable indicatrice de ~o~unicat~on avec ~~adrn~nis~rs~ioll et wee les &tudiants blancs. Les attitudes envers l’~nv~ronnsm~nt social et les tendances vers l’anxiere’ dans la communication ant: kt6 parmi Les plus forts indicateurs de la communication chez les &tudiants noirs.

Las inreraeciones de estudiantes n&gros con la adm~nistrsci~n, proEesorado y den&s estudiantos parecen SW un terns central en estudios actuales (aceccs) del ixito de estudiantes en universidades. Este estudio examSlna factores predict$vos de ~~rsonal~dsd y situacionafes de comunicaci6n de estudiantes con la sdm~n~straci~n, profesorado y estudfantes en una universidad pr~domina~temen&e blanca. El desarrollo de un instrumento describiendo asuntos ambientales y sociales de estudiantes negros demons& valid& predictiva razonable de comunicacidn con la administracibn y estudiantes blancos. Sentimientas acerca de1 ambiente social y tendenelas de ansiocidad de comunicaci6n result&on entre 10s predictores n&s fuertes en la comunicacibn de estudiantes negros.