COUNSELING CENTER

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND

COLLEGE PARK, MARYLAND

PESSIMISM IN THE ACADEMY: SOCIAL CLIMATE CHANGES ON A UNIVERSITY CAMPUS OVER A FIFTEEN-YEAR PERIOD

Marie L. Miville and William E. Sedlacek

Research Report #14-91

Data were collected in cooperation with the Orientation office and were analyzed using facilities at the Computer Science Center, both at the University of Maryland, College Park.

COUNSELING CENTER

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND

COLLEGE PARK, MARYLAND

PESSIMISM IN THE ACADEMY: SOCIAL CLIMATE CHANGES

ON A UNIVERSITY CAMPUS OVER A FIFTEEN-YEAR PERIOD

Marie L. Miville and William E. Sedlacek

Research Report # 14-91

Social climate was assessed in 1975 and again in 1990 by asking a total of 680 entering UMCP students to rate a series of items according to what they believed most college students feel. Items were made up of people perceived to hold certain attitudes, such as a bigot or a Black nationalist. It was found that students in 1990 perceived many of these items more negatively than students in 1975, even when these perceptions were contradictory. That is, 1990 students tended to perceive both racists and liberals more negatively than entering students in 1975.

Implications surrounding this main finding focus on the potential confusion and ambivalence entering students feel toward themselves, other students, and the University itself. Perceiving an overwhelmingly negative climate may have a similarly negative effect on student adjustment and development. It is suggested that ambivalence may result from students not knowing what behavior is expected or appropriate, and orientation programs emphasizing tolerance and interaction may be devised addressing these issues.

The relationship between attitude and behavior is intricate and complex; a variety of methods have revealed it to often be paradoxical and counterintuitive (Fishbein & Azjen, 1975). That is, expressed attitudes sometimes do not match behaviors that are emitted (Berscheid, 1985). With respect to attitudes of tolerance toward diversity, for example, Miville, Molla, and Sedlacek (in press) found that freshmen tended to express positive attitudes, yet remain socially distant from persons of different cultural backgrounds.

Some factors. have been identified as important determinants of the relationship between attitude and behavior. The social climate in which a person lives has been identified as one possible factor; it has been defined as "the context in which people operate ...[and is determined] by the socially agreed upon norms of what constitutes acceptable behavior" (Martinez & Sedlacek, 1983, p. 254). Assessing social climate facilitates an understanding of the relationship between attitudes and behavior because it places this relationship in a broader situational context.

For example, the finding by Miville, Molla, and Sedlacek (in press) that first year students tend to hold somewhat positive attitudes toward international students, yet remain at a social distance, is more comprehensible if social climate is considered. It is possible that the climate promotes positive attitudes toward all people, but no norm for social interaction among people from different backgrounds yet exists, or is still

1

influenced by older or more traditional norms promoting separate social networks.

Examining the social climate is one method of assessing what attitudes are perceived as being collectively held in a particular environment, such as a college campus. It enables student affairs practitioners to see the campus through the eyes of a student, allowing for more accurate predictions and interpretations of prevailing beliefs (Martinez & Sedlacek, 1983). Also, assessing the social climate of a campus assists student affairs professionals in identifying what changes in perceived student attitudes have occurred over a period of time. University programs, for example, during summer orientation, that are aimed at familiarizing students with the campus may then be modified to reflect these changes.

One way of assessing the social climate of a particular community, such as a college campus, is to ask students what their perceptions are of the prevailing attitudes on that campus. Changes in these prevailing attitudes may also be assessed by using this same method over a period of time at the same campus,

thus reducing errors associated with measuring two different populations (Martinez and Sedlacek, 1983). The current study used this method of assessing social climate and changes within

that climate over a fifteen year period.

Method

In 1975, 478 students at a large public eastern university, were administered a questionnaire containing demographic and

2

social climate items. Students were entering freshmen attending a summer orientation program; the data was collected from random samples throughout the summer. The same questionnaire was similarly administered in 1990 to 202 students also attending freshman orientation at the same university. More than 90$ of all entering freshmen attended orientation, and all freshmen attending the data collection sessions completed the questionnaire.

Social climate was assessed by asking students to rate on a 5-point scale (1 = Strongly Positive) what they thought "most college students" felt toward a series of people who held particular beliefs. The thirty items were derived from current concerns, racial issues, and beliefs based on the work of Rokeach, Smith, and Evans (1960). Data were analyzed using MANOVA, by year, at the .05 level.

Results

Table 1 contains the means, standard deviations, and tests of significance for all items by year.

Responses within years. Students in 1975 gave the following five most positive ratings: someone who favors coed dorms, is for premarital sex, a liberal, a person who smokes pot, and somone who is for gradual desegregation. The five items rated most favorably by 1990 students were: someone who is for coed dorms, someone who is for premarital sex, a liberal, a person favoring gradual desegregation, and a Black nationalist. But for one item, both lists are identical both in content and in ranking.

3

Items rated most negatively by 1975 students were a thief, a vicious person, a corrupt person, a bigot, and a racist. The five most negatively rated items in 1990 included: a thief, a bigot, a homosexual, someone on hard drugs, and a racist. Thus, items for the least endorsed lists are less similar than the most endorsed lists, with 1990 students regarding homosexuals and people on drugs much more negatively than 1975 students.

Differences between years. Generally, entering students in 1990 tended to rate most items, even those which seem disparate and contradictory to each other, more negatively than students in 1975. For example, items such as a bigot, someone who believes Blacks should live only in certain areas, and a sexist received more negative ratings in 1990 than in 1975. Items such as a communist and a liberal also received more negative-ratings in 1990 than in 1975.

1990 ratings of items dealing with social issues yielded a more complex picture of current campus climate.

Someone favoring gradual desegregation, segregated dorms, or against a women's studies program was rated more negatively in 1990, yet someone who feels protest is never justified was rated more positively. Personal/sexual items also yielded a similarly complex view of 1990 students. These students rated homosexuals more negatively than students in 1975, yet rated someone in favor of coed residence halls or premarital sex more positively.

Items with the least amount of difference, and thus involving the least of amount of change over the time period

4

included: someone who believes in fundamental differences between races, an immoral person, and an alcoholic. These items received moderately negative ratings. Interestingly, while attitudes toward people using illegal drugs, such as marijuana, became more negative in 1990, ratings of alcoholics remained unchanged.

Discussion

The trend toward political conservatism first noted by Martinez and Sedlacek (1983) in 1981 students seems to have strengthened in the last decade. This may be seen in the increasingly negative ratings of items such as communist, liberal, and an amoral person. Items demonstrating the areas of greatest change between the two time periods also support this finding; persons using hard drugs or smoking pot, for example, were viewed much more negatively in 1990 than in 1975.

The few items receiving a more positive rating in 1990, such as a person who believes protest is never justified and a selfish person, suggest that students in 1990 seem to be increasingly less focused on social issues, and are instead more concerned with personal issues, particularly those that deal with promoting or advancing oneself. These themes seem to be in line with the increasingly conservative climate that is perceived on university campuses by students.

Yet, paradoxically, increased negativity was found in other items as well, such as bigot, sexist, and someone who is for segregated residence halls or believes Blacks should only live in certain areas; items that could be labeled politically liberal.

5

A number of reasons may be proposed for these findings. Students may be reflecting a socially desirable stance; that is, they may be responding to these particular items as they feel they should respond. But, given that this study is focusing on how students perceive the campus climate, rather than how they actually feel toward these items themselves, a second explanation is possible. The findings on the whole seem to suggest that incoming students are perceiving a social climate that is prohibitive on many levels, being made up of seemingly contradictory and mostly negative attitudes. In effect, students seem to expect a more negative climate today than they did fifteen years ago, and are less. optimistic as they enter college. Not only are communists and liberals to be feared or disliked, so too are bigots and racists.

Such a climate may have a debilitative effect on student adjustment and development, especially as confusion arises within an individual as to what may be considered "acceptable" behaviors or beliefs. Attempting to adapt to an environment that is negative toward many persons and groups may lead to problems for a new person in a system attempting to deal with identity issues and social acceptance. And if students are feeling confused about what is acceptable behavior, they may be less likely to make significant connections with various groups on campus since they are unsure what norms will be followed in a particular group; on campus connections have been shown to be related to subsequent retention (Tracey and Sedlacek, 1984).

6

Negativity, especially if it is internalized, may also lead to increased intolerance toward people from diverse backgrounds. Ambivalence has already been observed in freshmen attitudes toward others from diverse backgrounds; that is, entering students may express positive attitudes but refrain from subsequent interaction (Miville, Molla, and Sedlacek, in press). The current data suggest that such ambivalence may result from students not knowing what behavior is expected or appropriate. Without norms to guide students toward tolerance and interaction, the current problems of prejudice, and sometimes violence, at universities will likely continue. This is an issue of deep concern to universities who are admitting greater numbers of students from racially and ethnically different backgrounds (Sedlacek, 1987), and who must subsequently deal with retention of all students. Orientation programs emphasizing tolerance and interaction could thus be devised that specifically address these issues.

Even though 1990 students generally perceived more negativity that 1975 students, items selected as most positive or most negative were similar for both groups. This may indicate the constancy of certain developmental issues, such as those dealing with sexuality. For example, attitudes toward coed residence halls and premarital sex were very positive in both 1975 and 1990, indicating that universities may want to initiate or continue programs dealing with health issues of birth control and AIDS. These attitudes may also express a continuing

7

developmental process of becoming a part of society, or campus life, and its social networks. Programs enabling students to make these initial connections could assist a student's satisfactory adjustment to the university.

In the most recent sample, positive attitudes did not extend to homosexuals, leading back to the trend of political conservativism and negativity on university campuses. This finding also indicates the need to devise programming aimed not only at encouraging tolerance among different races and ethnicities, but among persons of differing lifestyles. With the increase of AIDS on campus, programming aimed at demythologizing sub-cultures affected by the disease may be of great value to universities.

As Martinez and Sedlacek (1983) suggested, student affairs professionals must be cautious in devising programs based on assumptions of what student beliefs and values are. Some of these attitudes, particularly those that are political in nature, seem to be modifiable over time. Others, especially those dealing with developmental issues such as sexuality, seem to remain fairly constant over time. Empirically discovering these attitudes and their relations may help provide an effective basis on which programming decisions may subsequently be made by student affairs professionals.

8

References

Berscheid, E. (1985). Interpersonal attraction. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.). The handbook of social

psychology. (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 413-484). New York: Random House.

Fishbein, M., & Azjen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and

research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Martinez, A. C., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1983). Changes in the social climate of a college campus over a decade.

College and University, 5$, 254-259.

Miville, M. L., Molla, B., & Sedlacek, W. E. (in press). Attitudes of tolerance for diversity among college

students. Journal of the Freshman Year Experience.

Sedlacek, W. E. (1987). Black students on White campuses: Twenty years of research. Journal of College

Student Personnel, 28, 484-495.

Tracey, T. J., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1984). Noncognitive variables in predicting academic success by race.

Measurement an Evaluation in Guidance, 16, 171-178.

9

Table 1: Means, Standard Deviations, and Tests of Significance for Social Climate Items By Year
	1975		1990
Item	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
1. Athiest	3.22	0.82	3.34	0.69
2.Bigot	4.13*	0.81	4.33	0.73
3. Someone on hard drugs	3.8*	0.84	4.26	0.74
4. Communist	3.9*	0.85	4.2	0.72
5. Against Black studies	3.81	0.86	4	0.82
6. For premarital sex	2.22*	0.86	2.02	0.88
7. Racist	4.13	0.85	4.25	0.83
8. Corrupt person	4.19	0.8	4.09	0.76
9. Liberal	2.31*	0.85	2.71	0.75
10. Cheats on tests	3.65	0.82	3.73	0.76
11. Believe Blacks only should live in certain areas	4.09*	0.9	4.25	0.83
12.Politically apathtic	3.37	0.76	3.27	0.61
13. Amoral person	3.26*	0.85	3.53	0.84
14. Against interracial fraternities/sororities	3.88	0.81	4.01	0.8
15. Thief	4.49*	0.74	4.59	0.7
16. Believes fundamental differences between races	3.68	0.93	3.67	0.94
17. Homosexual	3.96*	0.83	4.3	0.75
18. Smokes pot	2.64*	0.93	3.25	0.8
19. Sexist	3.49*	0.88	3.79	0.73
20. For gradual desegregation	2.97*	0.87	3.21	1.14
21. For coed dorms	2.02*	0.89	1.76	0.82
22. Immoral person	3.61	0.84	3.68	0.72
23. Against busing	3.12*	0.91	3.38	0.74
24. Feels protest is never justified	3.82*	0.84	3.49	0.69
25. Vicious person	4.2	0.87	4.18	0.77
26. For segregated dorms	3.77*	0.96	4.14	0.89
27. Against women's studies	3.87	0.78	4.05	0.75
28. Black nationalist	3.47*	0.85	3.21	0.81
29.Alcoholic	3.74	0.81	3.67	0.68
30. Selfish person	4.08*	0.75	3.83	0.76

* Significant at p < .05 using MANOVA

1 = Strongly positive feelings, 5 = Strongly negative feelings

11