· web viewempowerment through difference: an individually administered difference-education...

Running head: DIFFERENCE-EDUCATION CLOSES ACHIEVEMENT GAP

Empowerment Through Difference: An Individually Administered Difference-Education

Intervention Closes the Social Class Achievement Gap

Sarah S. M. Townsend

Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California

Nicole M. Stephens

Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University

Stephanie Smallets

Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California

MarYam G. Hamedani

Center for Social Psychological Answers to Real-world Questions (SPARQ),

Stanford University

Author Note

The authors thank Mindy Truong for assistance with data collection and Mindy Truoug

and Brittany Torrez for assistance with manuscript preparation.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sarah Townsend, Marshall

School of Business, University of Southern California, 701 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles,

CA, 90089. E-mail: [email protected]

Word count = 9,920

1

DIFFERENCE-EDUCATION CLOSES ACHIEVEMENT GAP

Abstract

A growing body of work suggests that understanding how social differences matter is an

effective route toward reducing group disparities. However, research has only demonstrated this

benefit when people learned about difference in group settings. In the present work, we test

whether an individually-administered difference-education intervention can educate students

about how difference matters and improve the academic performance of first-generation students

(i.e., students whose parents do not have 4-year college degrees). Across two studies (N = 270),

first-year students read senior students’ and recent graduates’ stories about how they adjusted to

college. In the difference-education condition, stories linked students’ backgrounds to their

college experiences (i.e., challenges, strengths, and strategies). First, the individually

administered intervention effectively taught students the message about how and why difference

matters (Studies 1 and 2). Second, the intervention closed the social class achievement gap by

increasing first-generation students’ academic empowerment and, thereby, end-of-second-year

grades (Study 2).

Keywords: social class, intervention, difference-education, academic achievement

2


Empowerment Through Difference: An Individually Administered Difference-Education

Intervention Closes the Social Class Achievement Gap

Social differences (i.e., differences due to people’s backgrounds, identities, and social

group memberships) powerfully shape individuals’ experiences and outcomes in higher

education. For example, on college campuses across the U.S., gaps in academic performance

persist between disadvantaged students (e.g., those who are racial minorities or first-generation)

and their relatively advantaged counterparts (Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak, & Terenzini, 2004;

Sirin, 2005). Although it can be uncomfortable to acknowledge these social differences,

understanding how they matter is a critical skill in today’s global, multicultural society (Hurtado,

2007). In addition, a growing body of research across disciplines suggests that understanding

how people’s different backgrounds matter is also an effective route toward reducing group

disparities in education (e.g., Gurin, Nagda, & Zúñiga, 2013; Morrison, Robbins, & Rose, 2008).

Students who learn about difference (e.g., in ethnic studies courses) show increased academic

engagement and performance (Dee & Penner, 2016). However, these benefits have only been

demonstrated in group settings (e.g., Gurin et al., 2013; Stephens, Hamedani, & Destin, 2014).

This raises the possibility that group settings are a necessary precondition for reducing

achievement gaps by educating students about difference.

In the current research, we ask whether educating students about difference can also be

effective in improving disadvantaged students’ outcomes when the message is learned

individually. We suggest the answer is yes and propose a new, individually administered

difference-education intervention that gives students the message that their different backgrounds

matter for their experience in college—in terms of challenges, strengths, and strategies for

success. We theorize that it is not the group format, but instead the content of the message that

3


increases disadvantaged students’ feelings of fit and empowerment, and, ultimately, their

academic performance. We test these predictions in two studies focused on the experiences and

outcomes of first-generation college students (i.e., students whose parents do not have 4-year

college degrees). Study 1 tested whether students can learn the difference-education message in

an individually administered format. Study 2 replicated this finding at a different university and

examined whether the individually administered intervention improves first-generation students’

academic performance and, in particular, does so by increasing their social fit and academic

empowerment.

The Benefits of Teaching about Difference in Group Settings

Highlighting difference is often viewed as detrimental because of its potential to foster

intergroup conflict, as well as make people feel threatened, devalued, or excluded (e.g., Dovidio

& Gaertner, 2000; Steele, 2010). However, it is possible to educate students about how social

differences matter in college in a way that is not threatening, and can close achievement gaps

between groups. Indeed, education research on academic courses, such as courses in ethnic

studies or intergroup dialogue, demonstrates that learning about difference can be beneficial

when done in these group settings (e.g., Cabrera, Milem, Jaquette, & Marx, 2014; Dee & Penner,

2016; Gurin et al., 2013). For example, analyses using administrative data from the Tucson

Unified School District indicated that taking Mexican American Studies classes was positively

associated with both passing Arizona state standardized tests and graduating from high school

(Cabrera et al., 2014). In addition, students participating in intergroup dialogue courses showed

greater perspective-taking ability and intergroup empathy, and viewed diversity and

collaborative action as more valuable (Gurin et al., 2013; Gurin & Nagda, 2006).

4


Furthermore, social psychological intervention research examining difference-education

also demonstrates the benefits of learning about difference in group settings (Stephens,

Hamedani, & Destin, 2014; Stephens, Townsend, Hamedani, Destin, & Manzo, 2015).

Specifically, in the difference-education intervention, groups of 20 to 30 incoming students

listened to an eight-person panel of their peers share stories of how their social class

backgrounds can affect their college experiences. In this group format, both first-generation and

continuing-generation students learned the difference-education message about how their

backgrounds matter in college—in both good and bad ways—and retained this knowledge

through at least their second year in college (Stephens et al., 2015). Importantly, the group-

format difference-education intervention was effective in closing the achievement gap between

first-generation and continuing-generation students (i.e., students who have at least one parent

with a 4-year degree; Stephens, Hamedani, & Destin, 2014).

Are Group Settings Necessary to Benefit from Teaching about Difference?

The group setting of ethnic studies courses, intergroup dialogues, and the initial

difference-education intervention, where participants learned information about difference along

with other students who were physically present, may be essential to these programs’ success in

two ways. First, the in-person, group format may buffer participants from social identity threat.

Specifically, without the group format, a focus on difference (e.g., making social class salient)

may increase negative intergroup attitudes and, therefore, the experience of social identity threat

(e.g., Croizet & Claire, 1998; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). The group

settings used in previous research may provide a supportive social environment that fosters

feelings of social connection, which renders the information about difference less threatening,

and, therefore, enables participants to learn about difference.

5


Second, the in-person, group format may be essential to these programs’ effectiveness

because it fosters high levels of engagement and interest in the topic. Learning the material

individually, rather than in a group setting, may lead participants to attend less to the message

and be less likely to trust it (e.g., Lewin, 1952; Shteynberg, 2015). For example, work on shared

attention suggests that the experience of learning about difference alone may lead participants to

recruit fewer cognitive resources while processing the message than if they were with others

(e.g., Shteynberg, 2015; Shteynberg & Apfelbaum, 2013). Such shared attention is associated

with better memory and stronger motivation compared to individual attention. Likewise,

conveying the message about difference in a group setting may give participants the impression

that they are all “in this together,” and, thereby, lead to high levels of engagement with the

material (e.g., Carr & Walton, 2014). Thus, the group settings used in previous research, which

allow participants to respond to information about difference together with others, may increase

participants’ engagement with, and resulting ability to learn, this information.

Increasing Fit and Empowerment with Individual Difference-Education

Thus, by rendering the information about difference nonthreatening and engaging, the

group setting may be necessary for participants to learn the message about difference and,

therefore, benefit from it. However, we theorize that it is the content of this information (i.e., the

understanding of difference), rather than the intervention format, that is critical for producing

these programs’ positive effects (Stephens, Hamedani, & Townsend, 2017). We propose that

educating students about difference individually can be nonthreatening and can foster interest

and engagement, such that students are able to gain an understanding of difference and benefit

from this understanding. In the current research, we focus on difference-education interventions

and their benefits for first-generation college students.

6


First-generation students face background-specific obstacles that can undermine their

academic achievement and chances of graduating (Duncan & Murnane, 2011; Fiske & Markus,

2012). This gap in students’ outcomes is called the social class achievement gap. In addition to

financial or skill-based obstacles (Engle, 2007; Pascarella et al., 2004), first-generation students

also face psychological obstacles that often result from the disconnect between the working-class

cultural norms that are common among first-generation students and the largely middle- or

upper-class norms that they encounter in college (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990; Croizet & Millet,

2011; Goudeau & Croizet, 2017; Stephens, Markus, & Phillips, 2014). This mismatch means that

first-generation students rarely see themselves and their ways of being included in the college

context and, therefore, often have trouble feeling like they fit in (Stephens, Fryberg, Markus,

Johnson, & Covarrubias, 2012). The mismatch also frequently leaves first-generation students

relatively unfamiliar with the “rules of the game” that govern college life and, as a result, lacking

a sense of empowerment, or feeling of preparation, efficacy, and control over their academic

experience (Ostrove & Long, 2007; Reay, Crozier, & Clayton, 2009).

We theorize that an individually administered difference-education intervention can be

nonthreatening, as well as engaging, for students because it communicates that social differences

are contextual and can be an asset. Specifically, in difference-education interventions,

participants gain a contextual understanding of difference as they learn how students’

backgrounds shape their experiences in college (e.g., first-generation students often face the

background-specific obstacle of lacking their parents’ advice when selecting a college major).

This contextual understanding of difference should increase first-generation students’ sense of fit

and comfort on campus by normalizing the experience of difference (cf., Plaut, 2010; Plaut,

Garnett, Buffardi, & Sanchez-Burks, 2011). At the same time, participants gain an asset-based

7


understanding of difference as they learn how students’ backgrounds inform not only the

obstacles they are likely to face, but also the strengths and strategies they can use to succeed

(e.g., first-generation students can seek out professors for advice in choosing a major). This

asset-based understanding of difference should increase first-generations students’ empowerment

in college by communicating that difference is not only negative but can also be a strength

(Steele, 2010). We propose that, by improving first-generation students’ sense of social fit and

academic empowerment on campus, this understanding of difference will improve their

academic performance.

Current Research: An Individually Administered Difference-Education Intervention

In the present research, we examine the effectiveness of an individually administered

difference-education invention for closing the social class achievement gap. Theoretically, this

research advances understanding of how acknowledging difference can improve students’

experiences and outcomes beyond group settings. Practically, this research provides an easy-to-

scale difference-education intervention that requires less time and fewer resources than the initial

group intervention. In Study 1, we test whether the difference-education message—that social

differences are contextual and can be an asset—can be effectively communicated when presented

to individual students online, in a written format. We predict that both first-generation and

continuing-generation students will be able to learn the critical components of the difference-

education message. In Study 2, we test whether this new difference-education intervention closes

the social class achievement gap and examine the process through which it does so. We also seek

to generalize previous findings to a different, more socioeconomically diverse university. We

predict that the individually administered difference-education intervention will improve first-

generation students’ performance by providing a greater sense of fit and empowerment. Finally,

8


we examine additional psychological outcomes, predicting that the difference-education

intervention will yield benefits for first-generation students that indicate an improved college

experience.

Study 1

Study 1 examined whether an individually administered difference-education intervention

could teach students a contextual and asset-based understanding of difference. Specifically, we

tested whether the intervention could effectively communicate the key message that students’

backgrounds matter in college (i.e., confer challenges, strengths, and strategies for success). We

tested this directly, by examining whether students learned the message, and indirectly, by

examining whether the message improved first-generation students’ perceptions of their college

experience. We predicted that all students in the difference-education condition would

understand and be able to communicate the key message that students’ social class backgrounds

matter in college. We also predicted that first-generation students in the difference-education

condition would show improved perceptions of their college experience compared to the control

condition.

Participants

Across two consecutive academic years, we recruited 137 students in the final term of

their first year, attending a mid-sized private research university in the Midwestern United

States. We determined our sample size by inviting all first year, first-generation students to

participate, and a sample of first year, continuing-generation students. We conducted the study

during two academic years to recruit enough first-generation students. Given the small

population of first-generation students and our clear a priori hypothesis, our sample size accords

with current recommendations (e.g., Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn, 2011). We excluded 13

9


participants because they previously completed a similar study. Of the remaining 124

participants, 51 were first-generation students (i.e., neither parent had a 4-year college degree),

and 73 were continuing-generation students (i.e., at least one parent had a 4-year college degree).

Based on the primary effect in the group-format intervention (i.e., the improved GPAs of first-

generation students; d = .700), this study is somewhat underpowered (i.e., ~70%).

Using official university records, the majority of first-generation students (56.86%) were

low income (i.e., received Pell grants), compared with a minority of continuing-generation

students (17.81%), 2(1, N = 124)= 20.44, p < .001. To examine racial and ethnic differences

between first-generation and continuing-generation students, we created a dummy variable (0 =

disadvantaged, 1 = advantaged). Given the relationship between race and academic performance

in the United States (e.g., Kao, 1995; Steele, 2010), Whites and Asians or Asian Americans were

classified as academically advantaged, whereas African Americans, Latinos, and Native

Americans were classified as academically disadvantaged. First-generation students were more

likely to be from a disadvantaged racial or ethnic background (35.29%) than continuing-

generation students (17.81%), 2(1, N = 124)= 4.90, p = .027.

Procedure

Participants were recruited via email and provided a link to participate in the online

study. Participants read the materials and responded to the survey items in a location of their

choosing. The manipulation consisted of five short profiles of junior or senior students or recent

graduates. This format mimicked how participants in the group-format intervention listened to

panelists share their stories. Participants were randomly assigned to either the difference-

education (n = 71) or control (n = 53) condition. Across conditions, participants read stories from

the same demographically diverse students. Each profile displayed a picture of the student along

10


with his/her first name, class, graduation year, and personal story ostensibly written by the

individual. We based the stories on the information presented in the group-format intervention.

The stories were of comparable length across conditions. First-generation and continuing-

generation students were evenly distributed across conditions, 2(1, N = 124)= 0.20, p = .658.

The key difference between conditions was whether the stories provided a contextual,

asset-based understanding of difference by connecting students’ backgrounds to their college

experiences. In the difference-education condition, the contrast in first- and continuing-

generation students’ stories illuminated how their different social class backgrounds (e.g.,

parents’ educational attainment) shaped their college experiences in both bad (i.e., obstacles) and

good (i.e., strengths and strategies) ways. Illustrating the obstacles associated with his social

class background, one first-generation student said: “Since my parents didn’t go to college, they

didn’t feel they had room to tell me how to make my decisions . . . That definitely made things

hard because I would have liked a bit of input from my parents.” Then, illustrating the

background-specific strengths and strategies that could be leveraged to succeed, the student went

on to say: “It’s really about assessing what you have, making the best of the situation, and

moving forward from that instead of looking at what you could’ve done better up to that point.”

Similarly, one continuing-generation student’s story linked her background (i.e., that her parents

have graduate-level degrees and she attended a small private high school) to an obstacle: “. . . it

was definitely a big adjustment going into classes with 150, 300 people. It was hard to stand up

for myself and get the personal attention and help that I needed.” She then went on to describe a

strategy for success: “All it takes is a little ingenuity to email a professor whose class is closed . .

. And nine times out of ten they’ll say sure.”

11


In the control condition, students’ stories provided general information about students’

challenges in college, as well as strengths and strategies they can leverage to be successful.

However, this content was not connected to students’ social class backgrounds. Therefore,

participants did not gain a contextual, asset-based understanding of difference. For example, one

student described the following obstacle she faced: “One challenge for me in my first year was

learning how to study and figuring out how to be fully prepared by the time exams come at the

end of the quarter.” She then described the strengths and strategies she used to be successful,

saying that she “learned that the most helpful way to study for midterms and final exams was to

re-read material.” See the supplemental material for additional excerpts.

Measures

Difference-education message. To assess whether the individual format effectively

communicated the key difference-education message, participants responded to two open-ended

prompts: “Please list three ways in which the lessons shared in these stories could help you

navigate [university] in the future,” and “Based on the lessons conveyed in the stories, what are

the top three things you would like to share with future incoming students to help them navigate

their transition to [university]?” These items are conceptually identical to those used as a

manipulation check in the group-format intervention (Stephens, Hamedani, & Destin, 2014). To

encourage participants to internalize the message, they also answered the question “How does

your story relate to the stories you just read?” (Yeager & Walton, 2011).

Perceptions of college experiences. To assess whether the individually administered

intervention could improve first-generation students’ perceptions of their college experience, in

the same online survey, participants responded to four measures after reading the student stories.

12


Participants responded to all items using a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

See the supplemental material for a complete list of items in both studies.

Appreciation of difference. On five items, drawn from a measure of diversity

endorsement (Plaut et al., 2011), participants reported whether they perceived their university to

accept and appreciate students with different backgrounds (e.g., “There are different ways to be

successful at [university]”), = .76, M = 6.03, SD = 0.84.

Social fit. On six items (Walton & Cohen, 2007), participants reported whether they felt

that they belonged or fit in socially at their university (e.g., “I feel like I belong as a student at

[university]”), = .86, M = 5.11, SD = 1.25.

Comfort in interactions. On seven items we created, participants reported whether they

felt comfortable engaging in a variety of interpersonal behaviors in college (e.g., “I feel

comfortable sharing my opinions with other [university] students”), = .82, M = 5.26, SD =

1.01.

Value of working with others. On five items we created, participants reported whether

they perceived seeking help from others as valuable for being a successful student (e.g., “Getting

extra help outside of class is part of being a good student”), = .84, M = 6.09, SD = 0.80.

Demographics. We obtained the following demographic information from the university

registrar: gender, racial and ethnic background, high school grade point average (GPA), whether

they were receiving Pell grants (as a measure of household income), and generation status.1

Results

Difference-education message. Using the coding scheme from Stephens, Hamedani, &

Destin (2014), we assessed whether participants in the difference-education condition learned

1 Since the purpose of this study was to test whether students could learn the difference-education message online, we did not obtain students’ grades.

13


that students’ diverse backgrounds can shape their college experiences. Specifically, we coded

whether participants mentioned that people have backgrounds “like mine” and people’s different

backgrounds matter. Two coders, unaware of participants’ generation status and condition,

coded the data ( = .622–.838, Landis & Koch, 1977); coding disagreements were resolved

through consensus. Supporting our hypothesis, participants in the difference-education condition

more often mentioned that people have backgrounds like theirs and that people’s different

backgrounds matter than did participants in the control condition. See Table 1 for sample

responses, percentages of responses in each condition and coding category, and results of chi-

square analyses.2

Perceptions of college experiences. We performed a series of 2 (generation status: first-

generation vs. continuing-generation) 2 (condition: difference-education vs. control)

univariate analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) to examine the effects of generation status,

condition, and their interaction on participants’ perceptions of their college experience (See

Table 2). Given that students’ demographic characteristics and previous academic performance

are likely to influence their college experience, we controlled for race and ethnicity (0 =

disadvantaged, 1 = advantaged), gender (0 = male, 1 = female), high school GPA, and low-

income status (i.e., whether students received Pell grants; 0 = low income, 1 = not low income).

Following Lakens (2013), we report partial eta squared effect sizes with 90% confidence

intervals (CIs; in brackets) for analyses of covariance in both studies.

Contrary to our predictions, we found no significant interactive effects for participants’

perceptions of their university’s appreciation of difference, feelings of social fit, or belief that

2 We also assessed participants’ reactions to the stories (e.g., positivity) and examined whether these were affected by generation status, condition, or their interaction. When we found significant effects, we controlled for those reactions in follow-up analyses of perceptions of college experiences; doing so did not change the significance or direction of our results. See the supplemental material for more information.

14


working with others is valuable. However, consistent with our predictions, we found a significant

interaction for students’ anticipated comfort in interactions on campus, F(1, 116)= 7.49, p

= .007, p2= .061 [.009, .141], see Figure 1. Although first-generation students reported

significantly lower comfort than continuing-generation students in the control condition, F(1,

116)= 6.84, p = .010, p2= .056 [.007, .134], the two groups reported similar levels of comfort in

the difference-education condition, F(1, 116)= 1.12, p = .291, p2= .010 [0, .058]. Importantly,

this was due to an increase in comfort reported by first-generation students in the difference-

education compared to control condition, F(1, 116)= 10.37, p = .002, p2= .082 [.020, 169].

Continuing-generation students’ comfort did not differ by condition, F(1, 116)= 0.23, p = .634,

p2= .002 [0, .035].

Discussion

Supporting our theorizing, even when students read the difference-education message

individually, we found that they understood and could communicate the key message.

Specifically, compared to the control condition, participants in the difference-education

condition were more likely to mention that other students have backgrounds like theirs and that

students’ different backgrounds matter. We also found some support for our secondary

hypotheses that learning the difference-education message would improve first-generation

students’ perceptions of their college experiences. Although the difference-education compared

to control condition did not change participants’ perceptions that their university appreciates

difference, feelings of social fit, or beliefs that working with others is valuable, it did increase

first-generation students’ anticipated comfort in campus interactions.

Why did first-generation students’ expected comfort in interactions improve, while the

other perceptions remain unchanged? One potential reason may be the relative malleability of

15


these different constructs given that students completed the study after they had been on campus

for at least 6 months. We speculate that general understandings such as social fit, appreciation of

difference, and value of working with others may accumulate based on one’s experiences and,

therefore, be relatively resistant to change. In contrast, more specific perceptions of concrete

behavior, such as expected feelings of comfort in interactions (e.g., speaking in class), might

remain more malleable and open to change with new information.

Study 2

Building on Study 1, Study 2 had three goals. First, we examined whether our

individually administered difference-education intervention can close the social class

achievement gap by improving first-generation students’ grades. Given that interventions should

be most effective during the college transition (Wilson, 2011; Yeager & Walton, 2011; cf.

Walton & Cohen, 2007), we recruited students at the beginning of their first year, when they

were still learning about who they are in their new environment and adjusting to their new lives.

Second, we examined the process through which the intervention produces its benefits.

Specifically, we tested whether difference-education would increase first-generation students’

social fit and academic empowerment compared to the control condition, and whether these

changes would close the achievement gap. We also examined whether the difference-education

intervention would provide first-generation students with additional psychological benefits,

indicating an improved college experience.

Third, we tested the generalizability of our intervention to a more socioeconomically

diverse university than the one at which Study 1 and the previous difference-education study

were conducted. In this university setting, only 8% of first-year students were first-generation.

Given their small numbers, first-generation students in this context may have had little

16


understanding of how their different backgrounds matter for their college experiences and may

have been especially likely to benefit from learning the difference-education message. First-

generation students make up a larger proportion of the student body in Study 2’s university

setting (14.2% of first-year students). Therefore, they may have a better understanding of how

difference matters and the intervention could have less impact. Although this is possible, we

theorize that difference-education will benefit first-generation students because they are still in

the minority in this college setting, and are, therefore, likely to experience reduced fit and

empowerment compared to their peers. In Study 2, we anticipated that the difference-education

intervention would improve first-generation students’ grades in this new university context.

Participants

We recruited 133 participants from a large, private research university on the West coast

of the United States. All participants were in the first 5 to 9 weeks of their first year. Our sample

size was determined by recruiting all first-generation students and a targeted group of

continuing-generation students to participate in the “[university] Student Stories Project.” To

ensure that our results are due to generation status, rather than gender, race, or ethnicity, we

created the group of continuing-generation students to roughly match the gender and racial and

ethnic backgrounds of the first-generation students. Again, using the effect size from the group-

format intervention (i.e., for first-generation students’ improved GPA; d = .700), this study is

somewhat underpowered (i.e., ~71%).

Fifty-four participants were first-generation and 79 were continuing-generation. As

indicated by self-report, the majority of first-generation students (77.78%) were low income (i.e.,

received Pell grants), compared with a minority of continuing-generation students (17.95%),

2(1, N = 132)= 46.76, p < .001. One continuing-generation student did not report whether he

17


received a Pell grant. To maintain greater power, we included this participant in our analyses,

assigning him the modal response for continuing-generation students (i.e., not a Pell grant

recipient). As in Study 1, we created a dummy variable based on participants’ racial and ethnic

backgrounds (0 = disadvantaged, 1 = advantaged). First-generation students were not more likely

to be from disadvantaged backgrounds (44.44%) than continuing-generation students (45.57%),

2(1, N = 133)= 0.02, p = .898.

For GPA analyses, we also included a campus-wide control group of all other first-year

students. By obtaining students’ generation status from the university, we were able to compare

the end-of-year-two cumulative GPAs of study participants with those of (a) 295 first-generation

nonparticipants and (b) 2433 continuing-generation nonparticipants.

Procedure

Individually administered intervention and Time 1 survey. As in Study 1, participants

were recruited via email and completed the intervention materials online in a location of their

choosing. The intervention materials were nearly identical to Study 1. We made small alterations

so that the stories would accurately reflect the new university context (e.g., changed the names of

student groups). Participants were randomly assigned to either the difference-education (n = 68)

or control (n = 65) condition. First-generation and continuing-generation students were evenly

distributed across conditions, 2(1, N = 133)= 0.85, p = .357. Immediately following the

intervention (Time 1), participants completed a series of measures to assess whether they had

learned the key difference-education message and whether the intervention affected their

expectations for their college experiences, including preliminary measures of our potential

mediators: social fit and academic empowerment.

18


End of first year (Time 2) survey. We also conducted an end-of-first-year (Time 2)

follow-up survey for which participants were recruited via email. Again, participants completed

this survey online, which included measures of the potential mediators of social fit and academic

empowerment and various other measures assessing participants’ college experiences.

Academic performance at end of second year. We obtained participants’ official

cumulative GPAs at the end of their second year. Importantly, the GPAs of participants in the

control condition were statistically equivalent to the GPAs of the nonparticipants in our campus-

wide control group. This was true for first-generation students (control: M = 3.15, SD = 0.38,

campus-wide control: M = 3.17, SD = 0.53), F(1, 305)= 0.03, p = .862, p2< .000 [0, .004], and

continuing-generation students (control: M = 3.42, SD = 0.38, campus-wide control: M = 3.38,

SD = 0.42), F(1, 2344)= 0.32, p = .569 p2<.000 [0, .002].

Measures

Difference-education message (Time 1). Using the same open-ended questions as in

Study 1, we evaluated whether students learned the key difference-education message and also

gave participants the opportunity to internalize the message (Yeager & Walton, 2011). In

addition, we included a closed-ended measure on which participants reported how much the

stories mentioned students’ backgrounds on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very often).3

Mediators of academic performance (Times 1 and 2). We measured social fit and

academic empowerment on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). We

measured these at Time 1 to obtain preliminary evidence that the intervention affected students

as predicted, and at Time 2 to serve as mediators of academic performance.

3 As in Study 1, we measured participants’ reactions to the stories as well as their perceptions of their college experiences. On reactions to the stories, we found no significant effects of generation status, intervention condition, or their interaction. On several of the measures of perceptions of college experiences, we found significant or marginal generation status × condition interactions, which supported our theorizing. See the supplemental material for more information.

19


Social fit. On three items, participants reported whether they felt that they belonged or fit

in at their university, Time 1: = .78, M = 5.29, SD = 1.35, Time 2: = .85, M = 5.10, SD =

1.42. Two items were from Walton and Cohen (2007), see Study 1 for example item. We created

the final item, “I expect that I will have to become a different person to fit in at [university

name]” (reverse-coded).

Academic empowerment. On eight items, participants reported whether they felt

academically empowered, Time 1: = .84, M = 5.44, SD = 0.87, Time 2: = .89, M = 5.43, SD

= 1.07. Items measured feelings of perceived preparation (Stephens, Hamedani, & Destin, 2014),

academic efficacy (Midgley et al., 2000), and learner empowerment (adapted from Frymier,

Shulman, & Houser, 1996). An example item is “I can do things at [university name] in a way

that is right for me.” Our inclusion of learner empowerment expands on the measures used in the

group-format difference-education intervention (Stephens, Hamedani, & Destin, 2014). See the

supplemental material for a more detailed discussion and results comparison.

Improved college experiences (Time 2). To assess our intervention’s effects on

participants’ college experiences, we measured five constructs associated with psychological

toughness: (a) positive vs. negative affect over the previous 30 days, (b) resilience, (c)

psychological vulnerability, (d) experience of stress in college, and (d) well-being.

Positive versus negative affect. On 16 items, participants reported how much positive

(seven items, e.g., “engaged”) and negative affect (nine items, e.g., “anxious”) they experienced

over the past 30 days on a scale from 1 (very slightly) to 5 (extremely), = .87, M = 3.41, SD =

0.73 and = .88, M = 2.97, SD = 0.84, respectively. We modeled this measure after the

Psychological Distress Scale (Kessler et al., 2002). We subtracted participants’ scores on the

negative affect composite from the positive affect composite to create an overall affective

20


balance score, M = 0.45, SD = 1.30. Higher values indicate greater positive affect.

Resilience. On six items, participants reported their overall resilience (e.g., “I am able to

adapt to change”) on a scale from 1 (not true at all) to 5 (true nearly all the time), = .72, M =

3.83, SD = 0.59. We used two items from Duckworth and colleagues’ (2007) Grit Scale and four

items from the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (Connor & Davidson, 2003).

Psychological vulnerability. On four items developed by Wickrama and colleagues

(2013), participants reported their overall psychological vulnerability (e.g., “How often have you

found that you could not cope with all the things that you had to do?”) on a scale from 0 (never)

to 4 (very often), = .74, M = 1.10, SD = 0.77.

College stress. On nine items from the College Student Stress Scale (Feldt, 2008),

participants reported their experiences of stress while at college (e.g., “How often have you

questioned your ability to handle difficulties in your life?”) on a scale from 0 (never) to 4 (very

often), = .85, M = 2.10, SD = 0.85.

Well-being. On two items (Brim et al., 1996), participants reported their overall well-

being (e.g., “Overall, how satisfied are you with yourself?”) on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 4 (a

lot), r = .57, M = 3.08, SD = 0.68.

Demographics. On the Time 1 survey, participants reported the same demographics as in

Study 1. From the university, we obtained participants’ high school GPA, for use as a covariate,

and their cumulative GPA at the end of their second year.

Results

Difference-education message. We first examine our two measures of whether

participants learned the key difference-education message.

21


Open-ended measure. As in Study 1, we coded whether participants mentioned that

people have backgrounds “like mine” and people’s different backgrounds matter. Two coders,

unaware of participants’ generation status and condition, coded the data ( = .754-.939). One

coded 20% of responses and the second coded 100%, we report the data from the latter.

Consistent with Study 1 and our predictions, participants in the difference-education condition

were more likely to mention that people have backgrounds like theirs (23.53%) and that people’s

different backgrounds matter (32.35%) compared to the control condition (7.69%, 2(1, N =

133)= 6.27, p = .012, r = .22, 95% CI = [.049, .374] and 6.15%, 2(1, N = 133)= 14.50, p < .001,

r = .33, 95% CI = [.169, .474], respectively).

Closed-ended measure. To test the effectiveness of our manipulation, we conducted a

one-way ANOVA with condition serving as the independent variable. Consistent with our

predictions and participants’ open-ended responses, participants in the difference-education

condition reported that the stories mentioned students’ backgrounds (M = 5.03, SD = 1.16)

significantly more than participants in the control condition (M = 3.06, SD = 1.16; F(1, 131)=

95.96, p < .001, p2 = .423 [.314, .510]).

Academic performance. To examine academic performance, we performed a 2

(generation status) 2 (condition) univariate ANCOVA predicting cumulative GPA at the end

of students’ second year. We included our standard set of covariates (see Study 1). As shown in

Table 3, we found a significant main effect of condition, F(1, 115)= 7.75, p = .006, p2= .063

[.010, .145]. As predicted, this main effect was qualified by a significant interaction, F(1, 115)=

5.01, p = .027, p2= .042 [.002, .115]. Results showed a gap between first-generation and

continuing-generation students in the control condition, F(1, 115)= 3.43, p = .067, p2= .029

[0, .095]. However, in the difference-education condition, there was no longer a grade gap, F(1,

22


115)= 0.90, p = .346, p2= .008 [0, .054] (see Figure 2, which displays raw means to make

observed differences clear). Importantly, first-generation students in the difference-education

condition had higher GPAs than first-generation students in the control condition, F(1, 115)=

10.64, p = .001, p2= .085 [.021, .172], and in the campus-wide control, F(1, 2624)= 9.52, p

= .002, p2= .004 [0, .008]. In contrast, continuing-generation students in the difference-

education condition did not differ from those in the control condition, F(1, 115)= 0.19, p = .661,

p2= .002 [0, .034], nor from those in the campus-wide control group, F(1, 2624)= 1.56, p = .212,

p2= .001 [0, .003].4

Potential mediators. To examine our potential mediators, we performed a series of 2

(generation status) 2 (condition) univariate ANCOVAs for social fit and academic

empowerment (Times 1 and 2; see Table 3), using our standard set of covariates.

Fit and empowerment – Time 1. The univariate ANCOVAs predicting fit and

empowerment immediately following the intervention (Time 1) revealed no significant main

effects, but significant interactions for both fit, F(1, 125)= 3.91, p = .050, p2= .030 [0, .094] and

empowerment, F(1, 125)= 5.85, p = .017, p2= .045 [.004, .116] (see Figures 3a and 3b). Simple

effects tests showed no significant differences by generation status in either the control

condition, Ffit (1, 125)= 0.72, p = .399, p2= .006 [0, .047] and Fempowerment (1, 125)= 2.09, p

= .151, p2= .016 [0, .070], or the difference-education condition, Ffit (1, 125)= 2.56, p = .112,

p2= .020 [0, .077] and Fempowerment (1, 125)= 2.38, p = .125, p

2= .019 [0, .074]. Nonetheless,

among first-generation students, the difference-education condition, compared to control,

increased fit, F(1, 125)= 5.09, p = .026, p2= .039 [.002, .108], and empowerment (marginally),

4 For analyses using the campus control condition: (a) Pell eligibility was not included as a covariate because we did not have this information for the campus control, (b) campus control students whose races were unlisted or listed as “unknown,” “international,” or “two or more” were coded as “1” (i.e., advantaged), since this was the modal response, and (c) 28 campus control students, whose high school GPAs were missing, were not included.

23


F(1, 125)= 3.62, p = .060, p2= .028 [0, .091]. In contrast, among continuing-generation students,

neither fit nor empowerment differed by condition, Ffit(1, 125)= 0.14, p = .708, p2= .001

[0, .028] and Fempowerment(1, 125)= 2.23, p = .138, p2= .018 [0, .072].

Fit and empowerment – Time 2. The univariate ANCOVAs predicting fit and

empowerment at the end of students’ first year in school (Time 2) revealed no significant main

effects or interactive effects for fit, F(1, 95)= 2.08, p = .152, p2= .021 [0, .090]. However, there

was a significant interaction predicting empowerment, F(1, 95)= 7.12, p = .009, p2= .070

[.010, .162] (see Figure 4). Simple effects tests showed that, in the control condition, first-

generation students reported less empowerment, F(1, 95)= 6.03, p = .016, p2= .060 [.005, .149],

compared to continuing-generation students. In contrast, this social class difference was not

present in the difference-education condition, F(1, 95)= 0.52, p = .473, p2= .005 [0, .054].

Importantly, these changes are due to increased empowerment among first-generation students in

the difference-education compared to control condition, F(1, 95)= 5.81, p = .018, p2= .058

[.005, .146]. Among continuing-generation students, empowerment did not differ across

conditions, F(1, 95)= 1.68, p = .198, p2= .017 [0, .082].

Moderated meditation analyses. Next we examined whether the difference-education

intervention improved first-generation students’ academic performance by increasing their

academic empowerment at Time 2. Specifically, we conducted moderated mediation analyses

with participants’ empowerment as the mediator between intervention condition and academic

performance with generational status as the moderator of both the direct and indirect paths

(Hayes, 2013; PROCESS macro for SPSS 23, Model 8). We conducted the analysis with 20,000

bootstrap resamples, including our standard set of covariates. We did not examine Time 2 social

fit given the condition generation status interaction was not significant.

24


Results show a mediating role of academic empowerment, b = -0.1545, SEboot = .0745,

95% CI = [-0.3376, -0.0400]. As predicted, the indirect effect was significant among first-

generation students, b = .1051, SEboot = .0620, 95% CI = [0.0100, 0.2584], such that those in the

difference-education, compared to control, condition felt greater academic empowerment, which

led to higher academic performance. In contrast, the indirect effect was not significant among

continuing-generation students, b = -.0494, SEboot = .0314, 95% CI = [-0.1250, 0.0024].

Improved college experiences – Time 2. To examine our predictions regarding

improved college experiences, we conducted 2 (generation status) 2 (condition) MANCOVAs

with our standard set of covariates and the five outcomes associated with psychological

toughness. We found a marginal interaction, F(5, 91)= 2.11, p = .071, p2 = .104 [0, .167].5

Subsequently, we tested our directional predictions with univariate ANCOVAs, which showed

patterns consistent with our predictions on three measures: a marginal interaction for positive vs.

negative affect, F(1, 95)= 3.48, p = .065, p2= .035 [0, .113], a significant interaction for

resilience, F(1, 95)= 5.67, p = .019, p2= .056 [.005, .144], and a marginal interaction for

psychological vulnerability, F(1, 95)= 3.51, p = .064, p2= .036 [0, .114]. Below we report the

results of simple effects tests. Two measures, experience of stress in college and well-being,

showed nonsignificant interactions (see Table 4 for results of these ANCOVAs).6

Positive vs. negative affect. There were no significant differences by generation status in

the control condition, F(1, 95)= 0.03, p = .867, p2< .000 [0, .013]. Among participants in the

difference-education condition, first-generation students exhibited significantly higher positive

versus negative affect compared to continuing-generation students, F(1, 95)= 5.10, p = .026, p2=

5 We included five additional measures related to academic and social engagement, five additional measures related to social fit, and a measure of responses to common college scenarios. See the supplemental material for more information.6 Follow-up moderated mediation analyses suggest that these psychological benefits did not mediate students’ improved academic performance, see the supplemental material.

25


.051 [.003, .137]. Importantly, as predicted, the difference-education intervention increased first-

generation students’ positive versus negative affect compared to the control condition, F(1, 95)=

4.01, p = .048, p2= .041 [0, .121]. Continuing-generation students did not differ across

conditions, F(1, 95)= 0.28, p = .600, p2= .003 [0, .045].

Resilience. Among participants in the control condition, first-generation students

reported marginally less resilience, F(1, 95)= 3.48, p = .065, p2= .035 [0, .113], compared to

continuing-generation students. However, these differences were not present in our difference-

education intervention, F(1, 95)= 1.03, p = .313, p2= .011 [0, .068]. Importantly, these changes

are due to increased resilience among first-generation students in the difference-education

compared to control condition, F(1, 95)= 3.99, p = .049, p2= .040 [0, .121]. Continuing-

generation students did not differ across conditions, F(1, 95)= 1.80, p = .183, p2= .019 [0, .084].

Psychological vulnerability. Although the pattern matched our predictions, none of the

simple effects for psychological vulnerability approached significance, Fs < 2.29, ps > .133, p2s

< .024.

Discussion

Supporting our theorizing, the individually administered difference-education

intervention closed the social class achievement gap between first-generation and continuing-

generation students at the end of their second year in college. Although a social class GPA gap

was present in both the intervention control and campus-wide control, there was no gap in the

difference-education condition because first-generation students improved their academic

performance. Our moderated mediation analyses revealed that their improved GPA was

explained by an increase in their academic empowerment. Interestingly, our intervention

improved first-generation students’ feelings of social fit immediately following the intervention,

26


however, the size of this effect was reduced by the end of the first year in college (p2= .032 at

Time 1 vs. p2= .021 at Time 2). In contrast, the interaction effect on students’ academic

empowerment was greater at the end of students’ first year than immediately following the

intervention (p2= .043 at Time 1 vs. p

2= .069 at Time 2). Our results suggest that difference-

education improves grades primarily by increasing empowerment.

Beyond our key theoretical contribution of showing that educating students about

difference can be effective in an individual format, Study 2’s results also extend previous

research in two additional ways. First, we found evidence that difference-education improves

first-generation students’ college experiences by affording psychological benefits not previously

shown. Specifically, we found that difference-education intervention provided first-generation

students with increased psychological toughness (e.g., resilience and positive vs. negative affect),

which were not measured in the group-format intervention. Second, our results extend the

generalizability of difference-education interventions to other universities, providing initial

evidence that they may be effective at closing performance gaps in universities with larger

proportions of first-generation students.

General Discussion

I enjoyed [the stories] because I was able to connect to those that told about their heritage

playing a part in their school choice as well as the fact that college was not a reality for

some parents. Neither of my parents attended college . . . I take comfort in the normality

of the situation and I look forward to what is to come [emphasis added].

– First-generation student in the difference-education condition

As illustrated in the above quote, teaching students about difference individually can be

nonthreatening and empowering. Across both studies, students who read the difference-education

27


stories more often reported that other students have backgrounds like theirs and that students’

different backgrounds matter. In Study 2, providing students with the difference-education

message closed the social class achievement gap by increasing first-generation students’ sense of

academic empowerment. The intervention also carried additional psychological benefits for first-

generation students, extendign the outcomes potentially improved by difference-education to

include psychological toughness. Specifically, compared to the control condition, first-generation

students in the difference-education intervention reported greater positive relative to negative

affect and greater resilience, suggesting that difference-education can improve disadvantaged

students’ persistence in the face of challenges. This study also increases the generalizability of

the approach as it was conducted in a different university than the group-format intervention.

Theoretically, the present work makes two novel contributions to the literatures on

intergroup relations and social psychological interventions. First, it suggests that an individually

administered intervention that teaches students about social difference need not be threatening,

as proposed by some prominent social psychological theories (e.g., Turner et al., 1987). Indeed,

our findings indicate that the academic performance benefits of teaching disadvantaged students

about how their backgrounds matter do not rely on the in-person, group-settings used in previous

work on diversity courses, intergroup dialogues, or difference-education interventions. Instead,

this work suggests that the contextual, asset-based understanding of difference can be

empowering and improve students’ academic performance nearly two years later.

Second, our work demonstrates one key process though which difference-education

improves academic performance, i.e., by increasing disadvantaged students’ psychological

empowerment. This builds on the previous difference-education intervention, which found that

the group-format improved first-generation students’ grades by increasing their behavioral

28


empowerment (i.e., tendency to seek campus resources). Our findings offer new insight into the

psychological process underlying why first-generation students may have been more likely to

seek such resources (i.e., psychological empowerment may have increased their behavioral

empowerment).

We do not mean to suggest that any discussion of difference will be beneficial and

nonthreatening to college students. Rather, we theorize that it is critical to present the difference-

education message in a way that renders it nonthreatening and identity-safe. For example, we

theorize that it is important to showcase the stories of both disadvantaged and advantaged

students. In this way, disadvantaged students are not singled out and students’ differences are

portrayed as both normal and relevant to everyone (cf. Plaut et al., 2011).

Social psychological interventions have demonstrated that having individuals complete

relatively short reading and writing tasks can improve the long-term outcomes of disadvantaged

students and close performance gaps (Cohen & Sherman, 2014; Wilson, 2011; Yeager & Walton,

2011). Importantly, these interventions have been effective at scale (Yeager et al., 2016). By

demonstrating that it is possible for disadvantaged students to benefit from learning about

difference in an individual, rather than group, format, our results suggest that difference-

education has potential to be effective at scale, while at the same time, helping students develop

the critical skill of understanding how different backgrounds matter in today’s global,

multicultural society.

Limitations and Future Directions

Results of the current, individually administered intervention replicate the primary

finding from the previous test of difference-education—i.e., it closed the social class

achievement gap by improving first-generation students’ grades. In addition, the mechanism

29


through which the intervention had this effect was similar. Stephens, Hamedani, and Destin’s

(2014) study improved grades via a measure of behavioral empowerment, and we find evidence

that the intervention improved first-generation students’ grades through an increase in

psychological empowerment. These results converge to suggest that difference-education

improves grades through empowerment.

However, there are two key ways in which the findings differ. In particular, the group-

format difference-education intervention improved a wide range of psychological outcomes, and

did so for both continuing-generation and first-generation students. In contrast, the current study

finds fewer psychological benefits, and those that emerge only do so among first-generation

students (e.g., affect and resilience, also see the supplemental material for additional

information). There are a few reasons why this could have occurred. Fewer psychological

benefits might be a result of attrition and therefore reduced power in our one-year follow-up

survey. This conclusion is consistent with our results showing more psychological benefits

immediately following the intervention (i.e., Time 1; see the supplemental material for additional

information). As for the findings only among first-generation students, this could be a function of

the different university contexts and/or different formats in which the interventions were

delivered. Given that the two studies were conducted at different universities, it is possible that

differences in the university climates (e.g., university selectivity or culture) underlie the differing

results. Alternatively, the group experience in the first intervention study may have made the

information more helpful for continuing-generation students, relative to reading the information

individually and online.

Future research should also investigate the effectiveness of difference-education

interventions in an even broader range of higher education contexts with different climates. Such

30


research will reveal when both continuing-generation and first-generation students benefit from

difference-education. This work will also advance theory by further illuminating the process

through which difference-education benefits students. For example, will improvements in first-

generation students’ performance be mediated though increased empowerment when institutions

offer fewer of the resources from which empowered students might benefit? It will also be

important to examine less selective colleges and universities, as well as community colleges.

Testing the effectiveness of our intervention approach in such contexts is practically important

because the majority of first-generation students attend these types of institutions (Engle, 2007).

Finally, as is the case with other social psychological interventions, it remains unclear

which specific aspect(s) of our message drive the intervention’s effects. The difference-education

message conveys the contextual and asset-based understanding that students’ backgrounds matter

in college in both good and bad ways. Would the intervention be effective if it only contained

information about students’ strengths and strategies and did not mention obstacles? Future

research should examine which components of the message are necessary and sufficient for

producing the interventions benefits.

Conclusion

Universities bring together students from diverse backgrounds, but they often fail to fully

leverage the benefits of that diversity. One reason is that these institutions themselves are often

set up according to middle-class and European American ideas, values, and practices. As a result,

disadvantaged students, whose backgrounds diverge from this cultural standard, often experience

a lack of fit and empowerment, which can undermine their opportunity to succeed. The present

research suggests that individually educating disadvantaged students about how their different

backgrounds matter in college has potential to empower them and, thereby, improve their

31


performance. Ultimately, difference-education can enable colleges and universities to create

more inclusive and empowering environments, in which students from diverse backgrounds have

a greater opportunity to succeed.

32


References

Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture. London,

England: Sage.

Brim, O. G., Baltes, P. B., Bumpass, L. L., Cleary, P. D., Featherman, D. L., Hazzard, W. R.,

….Shweder, R. A. (1996). “National survey of midlife development in the United States

(MIDUS)” (Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research, Ann Arbor,

MI).

Cabrera, N. L., Milem, J. F., Jaquette, O., & Marx, R. W. (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

Carr, P. B., & Walton, G. M. (2014). Cues of working together fuel intrinsic motivation. Journal

of Experimental Social Psychology, 53, 169-184. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2014.03.015

Cohen, G. L., & Sherman, D. K. (2014). The psychology of change: Self-affirmation and social

psychological intervention. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 333-371.

doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115137

Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. T. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: The

Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety, 18(2), 76-82.

doi:10.1002/da.10113

Croizet, J. -C., & Claire, T. (1998). Extending the concept of stereotype threat to social class:

The intellectual underperformance of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(6), 588–594.

doi:10.1177/0146167298246003

33


Croizet, J. -C., & Millet, M. (2011). Social class and test performance: From stereotype threat to

symbolic violence and vice versa. In M. Inzlicht & T. Schmader (Eds.), Stereotype

threat: Theory, process, and application (pp. 188-201). New York, NY: Oxford

University Press.

Dee, T. S., & Penner, E. K. (2016). The causal effects of cultural relevance: Evidence from an

ethnic studies curriculum. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1), 127-166.

doi:10.3102/0002831216677002

Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2000). Aversive racism and selection decisions: 1989 and

1999. Psychological Science, 11(4), 315-319. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00262

Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and

passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087-

1101. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087

Duncan, G. J., & Murnane, R. J. (2011). Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and

children's life chances. New York, NY: Russell Sage.

Engle, J. (2007). Postsecondary access and success for first-generation college students.

American Academic, 3(1), 25-48.

Feldt, R. C. (2008). Development of a brief measure of college stress: The College Student

Stress Scale. Psychological Reports, 102(3), 855-860. doi:10.2466/pr0.102.3.855-860

Fiske, S. T., & Markus, H. R. (Eds.). (2012). Facing social class: How societal rank influences

interaction. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Frymier, A. B., Shulman, G. M., & Houser, M. (1996). The development of a learner

empowerment measure. Communication Education, 45(3), 181-199.

doi:10.1080/03634529609379048

34


Goudeau, S., & Croizet, J.-C. (2017). Hidden advantages and disadvantages of social class: How

classroom settings reproduce social inequality by staging unfair comparison.

Psychological Science, 28(2), 162-170. doi:10.1177/0956797616676600

Gurin, P., & Nagda, B. A. (2006). Getting to the what, how, and why of diversity on campus.

Educational Researcher, 35(1), 20-24. doi:10.3102/0013189X035001020

Gurin, P., Nagda, B. A., & Zúñiga, X. (2013). Dialogue across difference: Practice, theory, and

research on intergroup dialogue. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process

Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Hurtado, S. (2007). Linking diversity with the educational and civic missions of higher

education. The Review of Higher Education, 30(2), 185-196. doi:10.1353/rhe.2006.0070

Kao, G. (1995). Asian Americans as model minorities? A look at their academic

performance. American Journal of Education, 103(2), 121-159. doi:10.1086/444094

Kessler, R. C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L. J., Hiripi, E., Mroczek, D. K., Normand, S. L. T.,…

Zaslavsky, A. M. (2002). Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and

trends in nonspecific psychological distress. Psychological Medicine, 32(6), 959-976.

Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A

practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(863), 1-12.

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863

Lewin, K. (1952). Group decision and social change. In G. E. Swanson, T. M. Newcomb, & E.

L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (2nd ed., pp. 330– 344). New York, NY:

Henry Holt.

35


Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the

assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics, 33, 363-374.

doi:10.2307/2529786

Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L.,

Freeman, K. E.,…Urdan, T. (2000). Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive

Learning Scale. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Morrison, K. A., Robbins, H. H., & Rose, D. G. (2008). Operationalizing culturally relevant

pedagogy: A synthesis of classroom-based research. Equity & Excellence in

Education, 41(4), 433-452. doi:10.1080/10665680802400006

Ostrove, J. M., & Long, S. M. (2007). Social class and belonging: Implications for college

adjustment. The Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 363-389. doi:10.1353/rhe.2007.0028

Pascarella, E. T., Pierson, C. T., Wolniak, G. C., & Terenzini, P. T. (2004). First-generation

college students: Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes. Journal of

Higher Education, 75(3), 249-284.

Plaut, V. C. (2010). Diversity science: Why and how difference makes a difference.

Psychological Inquiry, 21(2), 77-99. doi:10.1080/10478401003676501

Plaut, V. C., Garnett, F. G., Buffardi, L. E., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2011). “What about me?”

Perceptions of exclusion and Whites' reactions to multiculturalism. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 337-353. doi:10.1037/a0022832

Reay, D., Crozier, G., & Clayton, J. (2009). ‘Strangers in paradise’? Working-class students in

elite universities. Sociology, 43(6), 1103-1121. doi:10.1177/0038038509345700

Shteynberg, G. (2015). Shared attention. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(5), 579-590.

doi:10.1177/1745691615589104

36


Shteynberg, G., & Apfelbaum, E. P. (2013). The power of shared experience: simultaneous

observation with similar others facilitates social learning. Social Psychological and

Personality Science, 4(6), 738-744. doi:10.1177/1948550613479807

Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed

flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant.

Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359-1366. doi:10.1177/0956797611417632

Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of

research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417-453.

doi:10.3102/00346543075003417

Steele, C. M. (2010). Whistling Vivaldi and other clues to how stereotypes affect us. New York,

NY: W.W. Norton & Company.

Stephens, N. M., Fryberg, S. A., Markus, H. R., Johnson, C. S., & Covarrubias, R. (2012).

Unseen disadvantage: How American universities' focus on independence undermines the

academic performance of first-generation college students. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 102(6), 1178-1197. doi:10.1037/a0027143

Stephens, N. M., Hamedani, M. G., & Destin, M. (2014). Closing the social-class achievement

gap: A difference-education intervention improves first-generation students’ academic

performance and all students’ college transition. Psychological Science, 25(4), 943-953.

doi:10.1177/0956797613518349

Stephens, N. M., Hamedani, M. G., & Townsend, S. S. (2017). Leveraging a pride perspective

on difference to foster student achievement and success. Manuscript submitted for

publication.

37


Stephens, N. M., Markus, H. R., & Phillips, L. T. (2014). Social class culture cycles: How three

gateway contexts shape selves and fuel inequality. Annual Review of Psychology, 65,

611-634. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115143

Stephens, N. M., Townsend, S. S., Hamedani, M. G., Destin, M., & Manzo, V. (2015). A

difference-education intervention equips first-generation college students to thrive in the

face of stressful college situations. Psychological Science, 26(10), 1556-1566.

doi:10.1177/0956797615593501

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S.D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering

the social group: A self-categorization theory. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and

achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 82-96.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.82

Wickrama, K. A., Ralston, P. A., O’Neal, C. W., Illich, J. Z., Harris, C. M., Coccia, C.,…

Lemacks, J. (2013). Linking life dissatisfaction to health behaviors of older African

Americans through psychological competency and vulnerability. Research on Aging,

35(5), 591-611. doi:10.1177/0164027512449473

Wilson, T. D. (2011). Redirect: The surprising new science of psychological change. New York,

NY: Little, Brown.

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

Yeager, D. S., Walton, G. M., Brady, S. T., Akcinar, E. N., Paunesku, D., Keane, L.,…Dweck,

C. S. (2016). Teaching a lay theory before college narrows achievement gaps at scale.

38


Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(24), E3341-E3348.

doi:10.1073/pnas.1524360113

39


Table 1Between-condition Comparison of the Percentage of Responses Coded Within Each Coding Category

Chi-Square Analysis

Sample Response

Difference-education condition

Control condition

2

r [95% CI]

Coding Category

People have backgrounds “like mine”

It’s important to understand the different scenarios and backgrounds people are coming from, and to realize that 1) you’re not the only one, and 2) people are not all like you either.

I should acknowledge that there are people coming from similar backgrounds as me and not feel embarrassed about my financial situation.

30.98 9.43 8.28**.26 [.086, .415]

People’s different backgrounds matter

Everyone comes from such a different background and has different motives for doing well.

It is okay to be a first-generation college student. You will just have to figure more things out on your own which can enhance the college experience.

39.44 3.77 21.04***.41 [.254, .548]

Note. N = 124. Effect size is Pearson’s r followed by 95% confidence interval (CI).** p < .01, *** p < .001.

40


Table 2Univariate Analyses of Covariance Results for Perceptions of College Experiences in Study 1

Dependent Variable

Comfort in Interactions

Appreciation of Difference

Social Fit

Value of Working

with OthersF F F F

CovariateHigh School GPA 0.56 0.28 0.02 0.08Race and Ethnicity 0.06 0.02 0.48 0.04Gender 2.51 0.66 4.58* 1.15Low-income Status 0.90 0.65 0.07 2.92+

Main and Interactive EffectCondition 4.55* 0.45 1.00 0.06Generation 1.47 0.001 1.18 0.01Condition Generation 7.49** 0.14 0.74 0.95

Note. Degrees of freedom (df) for all dependent variables = 1, 116. GPA = grade point average, race and ethnicity (0 = disadvantaged, 1 = advantaged), gender (0 = male, 1 = female), low-income status (0 = low income, 1 = not low income), condition (0 = control, 1 = difference-education) and generation (0 = first-generation, 1 = continuing-generation). + p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01.

41


Table 3 Univariate Analysis of Covariance Results for Grade Point Average (GPA) and Potential Mediators in Study 2

VariableAcademic

Performance Academic Performance Mediators

GPASocial Fit Time 1

Academic Empowerment

Time 1Social Fit Time 2

Academic Empowerment

Time 2F F F F F

CovariateHigh School GPA 18.52*** 1.01 1.01 0.27 0.17Race and Ethnicity 0.38 0.46 0.13 0.58 0.01Gender 0.12 0.11 1.28 0.32 1.65Low-income Status 1.88 3.90+ 0.72 1.91 0.24

Main and Interactive EffectCondition 7.75** 2.24 0.26 0.26 1.06Generation 0.36 0.23 0.003 0.04 1.49Condition Generation 5.01* 3.91* 5.85* 2.08 7.12**

Note. Degrees of freedom (df) for GPA = 1, 115, df for both Time 1 academic performance mediators = 1, 125, df for both Time 2 academic performance mediators = 1, 95. GPA = grade point average, race and ethnicity (0 = disadvantaged, 1 = advantaged), gender (0 = male, 1 = female), low-income status (0 = low income, 1 = not low income), condition (0 = control, 1 = difference-education) and generation (0 = first-generation, 1 = continuing-generation). + p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

42


Table 4Univariate Analysis of Covariance Results for Indicators of Improved College Experiences in Study 2 (Time 2)

Positive vs. Negative

Affect ResiliencePsychological Vulnerability

College Stress Well-being

F F F F FCovariate

High School GPA 0.002 0.82 0.18 0.82 3.26+

Race and Ethnicity 0.95 0.16 0.60 0.03 2.44Gender 3.41+ 0.39 0.13 4.39* 0.06Low-income Status 5.76* 0.78 0.73 2.47 1.70

Main and Interactive EffectCondition 1.46 0.46 0.20 0.58 0.09Generation 1.51 0.42 0.03 0.20 0.11Condition Generation 3.48+ 5.67* 3.51+

0.09 2.03

Note. Degrees of freedom (df) for all dependent variables = 1, 95. GPA = grade point average, race and ethnicity (0 = disadvantaged, 1 = advantaged), gender (0 = male, 1 = female), low-income status (0 = low income, 1 = not low income), condition (0 = control, 1 = difference-education) and generation (0 = first-generation, 1 = continuing-generation). + p < .10, * p < .05.

43


First-generation Continuing-generation3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

Control Difference-educationC

omfo

rt in

Inte

ract

ions

*

**

Figure 1. Mean comfort in interactions as a function of generation status and intervention condition (Study 1). Error bars show standard errors of the mean. ** p < .01, * p < .05

44


First-generation Continuing-generation2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4 Control Difference-educationA

cade

mic

Per

form

ance

(GP

A)

+

**

Figure 2. Mean cumulative grade point average (GPA) at the end of students’ second year as a function of generation status and intervention condition (Study 2). Error bars show standard errors of the mean. ** p < .01, + p < .10

45



3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

Control Difference-educationS

ocia

l Fit

**


3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

Control Difference-education

Aca

dem

ic E

mpo

wer

men

t

+

Figures 3a and 3b. Mean social fit and academic empowerment at Time 1 as a function of generation status and intervention condition (Study 2). Error bars show standard errors of the mean. ** p < .01, + p < .10

46



3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

Control Difference-educationA

cade

mic

Em

pow

erm

ent

*

*

Figure 4. Mean academic empowerment at Time 2 as a function of generation status and intervention condition (Study 2). Error bars show standard errors of the mean. * p < .05

47

· web viewempowerment through difference: an individually administered difference-education...

Documents