Running Head : EFFECTS OF RACIAL DIVERSITY Word count ( main text

An experiment varying the racial (Black/White) and opinion composition in small group discussions was conducted with college students (N=357) to test for effects on the perceived novelty of group members' contributions to discussion and on participants' integrative complexity. Results showed that the presence of racial and opinion minorities were both perceived as contributing to novelty. Positive effects on integrative complexity were found when the groups had opinion diversity, and an interaction effect was found such that participants who reported less racial diversity in their regular contacts benefited more in groups that contained racial diversity. Several other significant effects for racial diversity are reported. Findings are discussed in terms of social psychological theories of minority influence and social policy implications for affirmative action. They support claims about the importance of race in higher education, as well as the complexity of its interaction with contextual and individual factors. Effects of Racial Diversity on Complex Thinking in College Students Previous research has found that racially diverse educational environments are associated with positive intellectual and social outcomes for college students (Astin, 1993; Chang, 1999; Gurin, 1997; Smith & Associates, 1997). Racial diversity in the student body is linked to the likelihood that a student would interact with someone of a different race or ethnicity and engage in discussions of racial or ethnic issues. Frequent interaction across race and discussion of racial/ethnic issues positively predict student retention, overall satisfaction with college, intellectual self-concept, and social self-concept (Gurin, 1997; Smith & Associates, 1997). The existing evidence, however, is based largely on quasiexperimental or correlational designs using self-report data. No study to date has randomly assigned students to conditions of racial diversity and directly examined cognitive outcomes. The topic under investigation has implications for both theory and social policy. The study of cognitive responses to group dynamics is an important area in social psychology (Gruenfeld, 1995; Gruenfeld & Hollingshead, 1993; Levine & Resnick, 1993). The question of the empirical merits of race-conscious approaches to diversifying colleges and universities has also become prominent in recent years in the face of legal challenges to affirmative action policies (Chang, Witt, Jones, & Hakuta, in press). This paper aims to advance the scientific understanding of the role of race in higher education through a controlled, randomized experiment measuring the impact of racial diversity on the complexity of thinking in college students. Diversity and Complex Thinking Research in the areas of organizational behavior and group dynamics has generally shown that heterogeneity of group members typically yields better problem-solving than homogeneity of group members (Nemeth & Wachtler, 1983). Although homogeneity of group members increases solidarity and cohesiveness, these same positive effects may lead homogeneous groups to be ultimately less productive. Several important theoretical constructs undergird these observations. One of these is the notion that cohesiveness and solidarity, which can fuel increased productivity (Mullen & Cooper, 1994), are also the foundation for a phenomenon known as groupthink (Janis, 1972), a group process that results in poor decision-making. At the core of groupthink is the unanimity of opinion, which is created by the initial homogeneity of group membership. Another important theory is that of minority influence, referring to the situation in which a few members of the group hold opinions that are very different from those of the majority. Research shows that the presence of opinion minorities in groups leads to increased divergent thinking and perspective-taking ability (Nemeth, 1992). Experimental studies have found group interaction and the dynamics between the divergent perspectives of majority and minority opinion holders to enhance integrative complexity among majority members (Gruenfeld, Thomas-Hunt, & Kim, 1998). Homogeneous groups are not likely to produce minority opinions; on the other hand, heterogeneity of groups increases the likelihood of minority influence. A racially diverse group may also be characterized by a divergence in backgrounds, values, attitudes, and experiences that present individuals in the group with novel situations. Conversely, group members may erroneously presume differences in the attitudes, experiences, and opinions of students when in the presence of those who are ethnically different (White & Harkins, 1994) and then find an ethnically different group member to share their same opinion. For the outcomes of diversity, this study uses the construct of integrative complexity (IC). IC refers to cognitive styles that involve the differentiation and integration of multiple perspectives and dimensions (Suedfeld, Tetlock, & Streufert, 1992). Simple reasoning occurs when a person uses a single dimension (e.g., good-bad) to consider an issue; there is no differentiation. Individuals with low IC tend to utilize simple, rigid, often evaluative reasoning when interpreting events and making decisions. When there is differentiation, individuals recognize the existence of alternative perspectives, but see them as independent and unrelated. At the highest level of IC, there is recognition of the trade-offs among perspectives and solutions. IC has been used in a wide body of literature in social and personality psychology (Suedfeld et al., 1992). Significant to this study, it has also been found to be associated with higher grades among college students (Gruenfeld & Hollingshead, 1993). The focus on IC as an outcome variable is appropriate for this study of diversity in college environments. First, it addresses the development of critical thinking skills, perhaps the defining element of a collegiate education. And second, the study focuses on the effects of peer interaction, which is recognized as perhaps the most influential source of change in college (Astin, 1993; Feldman & Newcomb, 1969; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Method The basic design of the study was the random assignment of White college students to small-group discussions that were varied factorially with respect to two variables: group race composition and group opinion composition on a target social issue. The main outcome variable was the IC of students’ thinking about a target social issue. The experimental conditions were created through a research collaborator who acted as a participant in the discussion group. This collaborator was either Black or White, and followed a predetermined script that either agreed or disagreed with the opinions indicated by the White participants on a prior screening survey. The collaborator was blind to the purposes of the study. The study was conducted at three different selective research universities. Participants were recruited through campus flyers and e-mails. If they expressed interest, they were screened through a survey for their race, background characteristics, and their opinions on several social issues. Those who agreed with one side of one of two target social issues (child labor practices in developing countries or the death penalty) were asked to participate in a subsequent experimental session. Participants were blind to the purposes of the study and were debriefed subsequent to participation. A total of 357 White participants (138 men, 219 women; age M = 20.0, SD = 3.6) were assigned to same-sex experimental groups made up of three participants and one research collaborator. In each experimental session, a facilitator led the three participants and the collaborator into the laboratory and asked them to be seated around a small table. They were then given an issue prompt describing the same target social issue on which they had indicated their opinion on the screening survey. After reading the prompt, and before any discussion took place, participants were asked to indicate their agreement or disagreement with the issue as described in the prompt and to write a short essay describing their support for or opposition to the issue (the pre-discussion essay). They were given 15 minutes. Most of the participants (85 percent) indicated that they held the same position as they did on the screening survey. After completion of the first essay, participants were asked to discuss their opinions on the issue. The facilitator asked each member of the group to begin by orally stating his or her opinion. This was followed by an unstructured 15-minute discussion during which the collaborator followed his/her script designed to agree or disagree with the majority of the participants. Of the 357 participants, 111 were in groups in which the collaborator disagreed with everyone (i.e., extreme opinion minority condition) and 117 were in groups in which the collaborator agreed with everyone (i.e., extreme opinion majority condition). For 60 participants, the collaborator agreed with only 1 other group member and for the remaining 69 participants, the collaborator agreed with 2 of the other group members. Participants were then asked to write a second essay on the same topic (the postdiscussion essay), for which they were given 15 minutes. Participants were subsequently asked to complete a questionnaire in which they rated how much each member of their group, including the collaborator, made others think about the issue in different ways, introduced a novel perspective to the discussion, and was influential in the group. We averaged these three ratings of the collaborator (Cronbach's alpha of .90) to form an index of Perceived Novelty (scale range from 1 to 7). The essays were rated for IC (scale range from 1 to 7) by three independent judges who were blind to the purposes of the experiment. Procedures followed those