1 Leveraging a Pride Perspective on Difference to Foster Student Achievement and Success Nicole M. Stephens Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University MarYam G. Hamedani Center for Social Psychological Answers to Real-world Questions (SPARQ), Stanford University Sarah S. M. Townsend Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California
58
Embed
Leveraging a Pride Perspective on Difference to Foster Student Achievement and Success€¦ · · 2017-04-19Leveraging a Pride Perspective on Difference to Foster Student Achievement
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
Leveraging a Pride Perspective on Difference to Foster Student Achievement and Success
Nicole M. Stephens
Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University
MarYam G. Hamedani
Center for Social Psychological Answers to Real-world Questions (SPARQ),
Stanford University
Sarah S. M. Townsend
Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California
2
Abstract This article presents a new way to help disadvantaged students succeed in higher education:
pride interventions. Pride interventions teach students a contextual and asset-based
understanding of social difference, leveraging the idea that people’s different backgrounds are an
important source of identity, meaning, and motivation. We propose that pride interventions have
two key benefits: improving disadvantaged students’ academic performance and increasing all
students’ understandings of difference. We begin by describing “pride” vs. “prejudice”
perspectives on social difference, and discuss how these perspectives suggest different ways to
intervene. Second, we review scholarship from education, cultural psychology, and
organizational behavior, which documents that acknowledging or including people’s diverse
backgrounds in their schools and workplaces can improve performance. Third, we use our recent
research on difference-education as an example to illustrate how pride interventions can improve
students’ academic and social outcomes over time. Specifically, we theorize that pride
interventions benefit disadvantaged students (e.g., first-generation students) by providing a
contextual and asset-based understanding of difference that increases their sense of fit and
empowerment in college. Finally, we outline additional benefits of pride interventions, and
describe strategies that researchers and educators can employ to effectively educate students
about social difference in today’s diverse and divided world.
Word Count: 200
3
Leveraging a Pride Perspective on Difference to Foster Student Achievement and Success
The culture of American higher education, especially at elite colleges and universities,
reflects and promotes assumptions about what it means to be “smart,” “educated,” and
“successful.” These assumptions are not neutral, but are instead powerfully shaped by White,
middle-to-upper class beliefs, norms, and values (e.g., Fryberg, Covarrubias, & Burack, 2013;
Quaye & Harper, 2014). As a result, students of color, as well as students from low-income or
working-class backgrounds, often feel excluded in these educational settings, which can lead
them to question whether they fit or belong in college (e.g., Covarrubias & Fryberg, 2015;
Ostrove & Long, 2007; Walton & Cohen, 2007). Students from low-income or working-class
backgrounds can also be unfamiliar with the “rules of the game” needed to succeed in higher
education, which can undermine their sense of empowerment and efficacy (e.g., Housel &
Harvey, 2010; Ostrove & Long, 2007; Reay, Crozier, & Clayton, 2009). Taken together,
participating in these kinds of mainstream college environments can systematically disadvantage
underrepresented students,1 and contribute to the persistent achievement gap between these
students and their advantaged peers (Astin & Oseguera, 2004; Bowen, Kurzweil, & Tobin, 2005;
work alongside disparities in resources and pre-college preparation to fuel the achievement gap.
In recent years, college student activists have organized to spotlight these kinds of
disparate educational experiences and the unequal outcomes they can produce (Wong, 2015;
Wong & Green, 2016). On campuses across the nation, these activists have joined together to
bring attention to numerous ways that institutions of higher education can marginalize students,
as well as produce and maintain disparities in students’ social experiences, academic
1 By the term underrepresented, we refer to students who are underrepresented in higher education—for example, students who are first-generation, low income, and/or racial or ethnic minorities.
4
performance, and access to opportunities. Student activists have proposed several strategies that
they hope will mitigate these inequities and increase inclusion on their campuses. One proposed
strategy is for schools to implement new programs designed to educate students, faculty, and
staff about the ways in which people’s different backgrounds and social group memberships can
shape their experiences in college and in life, including how they understand themselves, relate
to others, and experience the world (cf., Libresco, 2015). For example, student activists at
Princeton demanded cultural competency training for staff and faculty at the university, as well
as mandatory classes on “the history of marginalized peoples” for students. As these Princeton
activists wrote in their list of demands, “Learning about marginalized groups, their cultures, and
structures of privilege is just as important as any science or quantitative reasoning course.”
Student activists’ demands tap into the larger public conversation about what it means to
be an equal, inclusive, and just society today, especially as the U.S. population becomes more
diverse and grapples with what this diversity means. Today’s multicultural and interconnected
world requires the skills to both understand and navigate across various forms of social
difference, such as those due to race or ethnicity, social class, religion, gender, nation of origin,
and sexuality.2 In fact, educators at leading schools, colleges, and universities across the country
increasingly identify this capacity as critical to a 21st-century education (Binkley et al., 2012;
educate students about difference and inequality would not only help to address student activists’
2 The term social difference refers to the systematic variation in people’s experiences, opportunities, or outcomes that can emerge from different prior experiences in particular contexts over time (Adams, Biernat, Branscombe, Crandall, & Wrightsman, 2008; Bruner, 1990; Markus, 2008; Omi & Winant, 1986). These differences, however, are rarely seen as neutral and are often associated with particular systems of hierarchy and oppression (Markus, 2008; Markus & Moya, 2010).
5
concerns, but also provide a way to begin building the crucial understanding and multicultural
skills that are needed in today’s diverse and divided world.3
Can we take advantage of this timely opportunity to educate students about social
difference and inequality while, at the same time, leveraging these insights to help mitigate
persistent disparities in students’ college experiences and academic performance? Bringing
together insights from successful social psychological interventions and literatures in education,
cultural psychology, and organizational behavior, we propose that interventions that
communicate a pride perspective on social difference have the potential to accomplish both of
these important goals. Teaching students a pride perspective on difference means helping them
understand, first, how and why social differences matter, and, second, that social differences can
be a source of identity, meaning, and motivation. We theorize that this perspective can benefit
students from diverse backgrounds, enable them to feel like they fit in college, and empower
them with the know-how and skills that they need to succeed.
In this article, we begin by describing “pride” vs. “prejudice” perspectives on social
difference, and discuss how these perspectives inform different ways to intervene to help
disadvantaged students succeed in school. We then review evidence supporting the efficacy of
pride interventions, and use our recent research on difference-education as an example to
illustrate our theory of how pride interventions can improve students’ academic and social
outcomes over time (cf. Stephens, Hamedani, & Destin, 2014; Stephens, Townsend, Hamedani,
additional benefits—beyond improving the academic performance of disadvantaged students—
3 Like all social psychological interventions, educating students about difference on its own is not a panacea. Sustained changes to individuals’ experiences and outcomes require not only changing individuals, but also changing the institutions that would support and sustain these individual-level changes over time (e.g., changes to policy or practice).
6
that a pride intervention can produce for all students, and describe strategies that a pride
intervention can employ to effectively educate students about difference.
Social Psychology: Ambivalence about Difference
What can social psychology tell us about the promises and pitfalls of educating students
about difference? The field provides us with two divergent answers to this question: that calling
attention to differences between social groups can either serve as a source of pride or as a source
of prejudice.
As Markus (2008) argues in her article, “Pride, Prejudice, and Ambivalence: Toward a
Unified Theory of Race and Ethnicity,” social psychology’s first and most common answer is
that calling attention to social difference is a source of prejudice. From this perspective, focusing
on differences between people or social groups is largely viewed as a situational threat.
Differences are seen as negative or divisive because, when they are acknowledged or become
salient, they have the potential to result in stereotyping, bias, and discrimination. As she
explains, this common view of difference derives from the field’s historic desire to distinguish
itself from personality and clinical psychology by locating people’s differences in external and
malleable social situations, rather than internal, stable, or “essential” traits or characteristics. This
prejudice view of difference is also grounded in social psychology’s commitment to
understanding the basic processes by which the immediate situation fuels biased cognition,
emotion, and behavior, rather than the ways in which those processes might be culture-specific,
or function differently for particular social groups. The prejudice literature includes work on
intergroup relations, implicit bias, social categorization, and social identity threat. This literature
tends to view attending to difference as detrimental because of its potential to foster intergroup
conflict, as well as to make people feel threatened, devalued, or excluded (e.g., Brewer & Miller,
7
1984; Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000; Steele, 2010; for discussion see Gurin & Nagda, 2006; Gurin,
Nagda, & Zúñiga, 2013).
The second and less common answer is that calling attention to social difference is not
only a source of bias and discrimination, but can also be a source of pride. From a pride
perspective, recognizing differences between people or social groups has the potential to be
positive or affirming because these differences are also a source of self or identity,4 meaning, and
motivation. As Markus (2008) describes, from a pride perspective, social differences are
contextual: they derive from people’s ongoing participation and repeated experiences in
particular sociocultural contexts5 over time. Since these contexts are diverse in cultural beliefs,
values, and practices, as well as material conditions and resources, so too are the people who
inhabit them. In other words, people’s ongoing participation in different social contexts (e.g.,
contexts that differ by race, ethnicity, or social class) produces different lived experiences,
which, in turn, shape the type of self that one is likely to become and how that self thinks, feels,
and acts in the world. These differences can be experienced or perceived positively or negatively
depending on the status, power dynamics, or valuations associated with a given background or
social group membership (Markus, 2008; Markus & Moya, 2010). While the pride perspective
certainly recognizes that social differences can be a source of prejudice, it also acknowledges
that we should not overlook the ways in which they can also function as a source of pride.
4 By the term self, we refer to the “me” at center of experience that continually develops through ongoing engagement in particular sociocultural contexts (Markus, 2008; Markus & Kitayama, 2010). The self can have and use multiple identities that shape how the individual makes sense of experience and responds to the environment. These identities can be personal, collective, social, or organizational. When we use the terms self or identity in this article, we utilize the terms that the researchers have used in the work that we reference. 5 The term sociocultural context refers to a socially and historically constructed environment that contains a set of culture-specific ideas, practices, and institutions (Markus & Hamedani, 2007; Stephens, Markus, & Fryberg, 2012).
8
The pride literature includes work on cultural models of self; the sociocultural shaping of
thought, feeling, and action; and identity-based motivation (e.g., Markus & Kitayama, 1991,
Markus & Kitayama, 2010; Mesquita & Frijda, 1992; Oyserman, Fryberg, & Yoder, 2007). This
literature tends to view attending to and acknowledging difference as worthwhile because of its
potential to serve as a source of meaning, motivation, and engagement; affirm or empower the
self; and foster group-based identity and solidarity. Research on culture and the self, for
example, reveals that coming from a working-class background need not be experienced as a
disadvantage in high status workplace environments, but can instead serve as an asset or
strength. For example, in an interview study with Masters in Business Administration students,
one student from a working-class background stated: “There’s a lot of pride that you take in
being self-made to a certain degree, not having people open those doors for you, having to
recognize opportunities and seize them when the time came. And it teaches you a certain level of
work ethic and appreciation because it wasn’t just something that you fell into, you had to work
hard for it, so, you want to make the most of those opportunities” (Dittmann, Stephens, &
Townsend, 2017). While coming from a working-class background in college-educated
workplaces is often associated with needing to confront and overcome background-specific6
challenges (e.g., having limited cultural capital to succeed compared to middle- or upper-class
peers; Rivera, 2012; Rivera, 2015), it can also serve as an asset or strength—a source of pride
and motivation.
Pride and Prejudice Perspectives on Difference Lead to Different Ways to Intervene
Both the pride and prejudice perspectives on social difference are informative and useful,
yet offer different ways to explain educational disparities between groups, as well as suggest
6 The term background-specific refers to content (e.g., obstacles, strengths, or strategies) that is especially relevant to students from particular backgrounds.
9
different ways to intervene to reduce these disparities. Keeping the pride and prejudice
perspectives in mind, consider how they might explain the underperformance of first-generation
or working-class7 college students—i.e., students who have neither parent with a four-year
degree—in higher education. Viewing social difference through a prejudice perspective, for
example, might lead you to focus on the features or cues in the immediate situation that could be
threatening and hold students back. For example, the stereotype threat literature demonstrates
that making social class differences salient in performance situations can activate negative
stereotypes about working-class students’ intellectual abilities, increase their levels of stress and
anxiety, and undermine their academic engagement, identification, and performance (Croizet &
Since the prejudice perspective views difference as a source of situational threat,
interventions grounded in this perspective seek to buffer or protect students from negative
experiences that can result from social difference. Specifically, these interventions tend to focus
on protecting students from the threat of social difference by changing how students construe
their experiences of social identity threat. For example, “belongingness” interventions change
how students construe their particular experiences of adversity so that they interpret it as a
common experience that is shared with other students (e.g., Walton & Cohen, 2007; Yeager et
al., 2016). Similarly, “affirmation” interventions seek to buffer students from social identity
threat by affirming students’ personal values and thereby broadening how they construe their
experiences of adversity (e.g., Cohen, Garcia, Apfel, & Master, 2006; Sherman et al., 2013). A
7 Given that parental educational attainment is widely regarded as a proxy for students’ social class backgrounds (e.g., Sirin, 2005; Snibbe & Markus, 2005; Stephens, Markus, & Townsend, 2007), throughout this article, we refer to first-generation students as working-class or as from working-class backgrounds.
10
number of popular and successful social psychological interventions that seek to reduce
educational disparities are informed by this prejudice perspective (cf. Brady, Reeves, et al., 2016;
Cohen & Sherman, 2014; Kinias & Sim, in press; Miyake et al., 2010; Sherman et al., 2013;
Walton & Cohen, 2007).
On the other hand, viewing social difference through a pride perspective would involve
explaining the underperformance of first-generation students in a different way. The pride
perspective would take into account not only cues in the immediate situation that could hold
students back, but also how first-generation students’ different experiences in previous
sociocultural contexts and culture-specific selves might cause them to experience a culture clash
with the middle-to-upper class culture of higher education. For example, the literature on cultural
models of self demonstrates that many mainstream educational settings exclude or devalue
working-class students’ culture-specific selves and ways of being, and that acknowledging or
including these students’ different perspectives or experiences can significantly improve their
designed to leverage the pride perspective to help disadvantaged students succeed academically
have not been tried until recently. Since the pride perspective views social difference as a
potential source of identity, meaning, and motivation, interventions guided by this perspective
would seek to leverage the positive and empowering benefits of difference by acknowledging its
significance in students’ lives. A pride intervention would teach students a new way of
11
understanding8 their own and others’ social differences—both their experiences of feeling
different from others in college and actually encountering different experiences as they engage in
college environments. This understanding can help students learn how their different
backgrounds can shape their experiences and that feeling different from others can also be
positive and serve as an asset or strength.
We theorize that teaching students the pride perspective should enable them to gain an
understanding of social difference that is both contextual and asset-based. That is, students
would learn: (1) that people’s social differences are often contextual (i.e., shaped by their
backgrounds or previous participation in diverse sociocultural contexts), and that (2) social
differences can be assets (i.e., experienced as assets or strengths, not only as challenges, deficits,
or obstacles to overcome). Understanding that difference is contextual and can be an asset should
normalize students’ social differences and help them understand what they need to do to be
successful, thereby increasing their sense of fit and comfort in college. For example, when first-
generation students confront background-specific obstacles in college (e.g., feeling uncertain
about the best way to select a major), this understanding can help them see that these challenges
may be due to their backgrounds (e.g., not having college-educated parents), rather than because
they do not belong or have what it takes to succeed in college. This understanding can also help
students see that their backgrounds have afforded them with strengths or assets to overcome
challenges (e.g., being the kind of person that does not give up), and that someone “like them”
can draw on these assets to succeed (e.g., seeking out additional mentorship from professors). As
8 This approach builds on the core methodological strategy of existing successful social psychological interventions: providing people with a new mindset or lay theory to change how they understand their experience and behavior (Wilson, 2011; Yeager et al., 2016). Lay theories are “fundamental assumptions about the self and social world that guide how individuals perceive, construe, and understand their experiences” (Molden & Dweck, 2006, p. 193).
12
a result, first-generation students can feel empowered, rather than threatened, both because they
understand the source of their challenges as well as know what they can do to overcome them.
We propose that pride interventions can accomplish the important goal of fostering
academic success for disadvantaged students, while, at the same time, educating all students
about how and why their differences matter. To support this claim, we first provide an overview
of previous research from education, cultural psychology, and organizational behavior, which
documents that acknowledging or including people’s diverse backgrounds in their schools and
workplaces can produce positive performance-related outcomes. Then, we draw on an example
of a pride intervention that we designed—difference-education—to illustrate our theory of how
pride interventions can produce important academic and social benefits for students.
Evidence to Support the Efficacy of Pride Interventions
To explore whether a pride approach to intervention can accomplish the dual goals of
improving disadvantaged students’ academic performance in college, while also educating
students about social differences, we reviewed several literatures in education, cultural
psychology, and organizational behavior. Together these literatures provide robust evidence that
including students’ or employees’ different backgrounds and experiences in their schools and
workplaces can improve their engagement, motivation, and performance.
Theory and research in education suggests that engaging students’ differences is one key
pathway to foster their success. This research shows that incorporating students’ diverse
backgrounds and experiences into teaching and learning is critical to providing them with an
inclusive and equitable environment in which they can thrive academically. These literatures
include research in multicultural education (Au, 2009; Banks, 2007; Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003;
Wacquant, 1992; Stephens, Markus, & Phillips, 2014), many first-generation students feel
different from other students and question whether they fit in and have what it takes to succeed
(cf. Stephens, Brannon, Markus, & Nelson, 2015; Stephens, Fryberg, et al., 2012). By providing
students with a contextual and asset-based understanding of difference, this difference-education
intervention should therefore help first-generation students to overcome the two key
psychological obstacles that they face in higher education: a lack of fit and empowerment.
9 We focused on first-generation students because researchers as well policymakers and practitioners have increasingly acknowledged the impact of students’ social class backgrounds on their outcomes in college, and have asked for solutions to improve their opportunity to succeed (cf., Goudeau & Croizet, 2017; Lott, 2002). Moreover, we focus on first-generation rather than low-income students because we are not only interested in the effects of lacking resources (e.g., income or wealth), but also the effects of not having the types of middle-class cultural capital that come from having parents who have obtained four-year college degrees.
17
We use the term fit to refer to a sense of being welcomed, recognized, and included
within the college community (Shnabel, Purdie-Vaughns, Cook, Garcia, & Cohen, 2013; Walton
& Cohen, 2007, 2011). Illustrating what it is like to experience a lack of fit, a first-generation
student from Vanderbilt recounted, “Never before had I truly felt such an extreme sense of
estrangement and alienation… I quickly realized that although I may look the part, my cultural
and socio-economic backgrounds were vastly different from those of my predominantly white,
affluent peers. I wanted to leave” (Riggs, 2014, para. 2). We use the term empowerment to refer
to both: (1) the psychological experience of preparedness, efficacy, ownership, and control over
one’s experience (cf., Gurin et al., 2013) and (2) the understanding of and willingness to enact
the strategies needed to make the most of one’s experience. Describing the lack of empowerment
she felt upon entering college, one first-generation student from Cornell said, “I had no road map
for what I was supposed to do once I made it to campus… Aside from a check-in with my
financial aid officer…I was mostly keeping to myself to hide the fact that I was a very special
kind of lost” (Capó Crucet, 2015, para. 15).
To experimentally investigate whether the difference-education intervention could
improve first-generation college students’ social and academic outcomes by improving their
sense of fit and empowerment, we recruited first-year students at an elite university at the
beginning of the academic year. To assess the benefits of this approach in a rigorous way, we
randomly assigned half of the participants to attend a difference-education intervention and the
other half to attend a control intervention. In both conditions, incoming students attended a panel
in which more senior students told personal stories about how they adjusted to and found success
in college. Both sets of stories were comparable in valence, length, and appeal. The incoming
18
students and panelists included both first-generation and continuing-generation students (i.e.,
students who have at least one parent with a 4-year degree).
In the difference-education intervention, panelists’ stories provided a contextual and
asset-based understanding of social difference. To provide a contextual understanding, students’
stories linked their social class backgrounds to the different kinds of experiences that they had in
college. In particular, the stories revealed how students’ backgrounds helped shape: (1) the
challenges or obstacles that they were likely to confront, as well as (2) the strengths and
strategies that they leveraged to be successful. To convey an asset-based understanding of social
difference, the stories also revealed how students’ diverse backgrounds can be an asset or
strength, not only a source of difficulty or challenge.10 Importantly, this contextual and asset-
based understanding of social difference was communicated by not only linking each of the
panelist’s personal stories to their particular social class backgrounds, but also more holistically,
by showcasing the systematic variation in panelists’ stories throughout the panel.
For instance, to highlight the different kinds of challenges or obstacles that students from
different social class backgrounds frequently confront, panelists were asked, “Can you provide
an example of an obstacle that you faced when you came to [university name] and how you
resolved it?” One first-generation panelist responded, “Because my parents didn’t go to college,
they weren’t always able to provide me the advice I needed, so it was sometimes hard to figure
out which classes to take and what I wanted to do in the future.” This first-generation story
conveys a contextual understanding of difference by linking the student’s previous social class
context (i.e., not having college-educated parents) to an obstacle he faced in college (i.e., not
10 To convey a realistic and balanced understanding of social difference, we did not provide a wholly positive representation of how students’ backgrounds can affect their college experiences. We contend that focusing on strengths alone would be unrealistic, or even counterproductive for students. We plan to test this idea in future research.
19
knowing which classes to take). In contrast, after previously mentioning her parents’ graduate-
level degrees, one continuing-generation panelist responded, “I went to a small private school,
and it was great college prep. We got lots of one-on-one attention, so it was a big adjustment
going into classes with 300 people.” As in the first-generation story, the continuing-generation
story links the student’s social class background (i.e., having highly educated parents) to a
college obstacle (i.e., having less attention and support in college than in high school).
To further communicate a contextual understanding of difference, as well as highlight
how students’ backgrounds can serve as valuable assets, difference-education also helped
students see that their diverse social class backgrounds can positively inform the strategies and
strengths that they use to succeed in college. To provide examples of their strategies and
strengths, first- and continuing-generation student panelists discussed how they worked to
address and overcome the particular challenges that they confronted. For instance, after the first-
generation student in the example above described the difficult experience of not being able to
get specific advice about college and careers from his parents, he stated “there are other people
who can provide that advice, and I learned that I needed to rely on my adviser more than other
students.” In contrast, after the continuing-generation student in the example above described the
challenge of being overwhelmed in large classes, she explained “I felt less overwhelmed when I
took the time to get to know other students in the class.”
In addition to learning concrete strategies, students also heard the panelists describe their
background-specific strengths. For instance, to highlight their backgrounds as a source of
strength or as an asset, panelists were asked, “What experiences that you had prior to [university
name] prepared you to excel in ways that you wouldn’t have anticipated at the time?” After
describing her social class background, one first-generation panelist responded, “I’ve been
20
through a lot in my life, and am sure that I’m not alone in that experience, but that defines
everything about me. It gave me perspective that made [university name] a lot easier to tackle.
Midterms and papers seem hard, and they are, but at the same time they just seem like another
drop in the bucket, and I love that perspective.” This first-generation story links the student’s
social class background (i.e., overcoming adversity due to coming from a family without college
education) to a strength (i.e., having a broad perspective) that could serve as a source of identity,
meaning, and motivation.
Likewise, after describing her parents as having obtained college degrees, one
continuing-generation panelist responded, “My choice to attend [university name] really was
supported by everyone in my family. There was no sort of imposition by my parents, “you need
to go to the University of Texas”, or anything like that. It was like, ‘wherever you want to go
we’ll fully support you in any way that we really can,’ and so they were very open with it.” As in
the first-generation story, the continuing-generation story links the student’s social class
background (i.e., having college-educated parents) to a strength (i.e., having parents that are
open and supportive) that could serve as a source of identity, meaning, and motivation.11
Students in the control intervention, in contrast, were exposed to similar stories, but these
stories did not communicate a contextual and asset-based understanding of difference. That is,
the panelists’ stories did not include background-specific information about how their social
class backgrounds shaped their college experiences. Using the same panelists and format,
students also told personal stories about their experiences in college—in particular, the
challenging obstacles that they faced, and the strengths and strategies that they leveraged to be
11 Unlike first-generation students, continuing-generation students do not tend to experience concerns about whether their backgrounds could be a deficiency in college. While they may still benefit from this asset-based understanding of difference, it might help them in a different way than first-generation students. We discuss this later in the paper.
21
successful. For example, panelists were asked, “What do you do to be successful in your
classes?” One panelist first told her story12 about an obstacle she faced in college (e.g., the
coursework was difficult) and then suggested a strategy for success, “Go to class, and pay
attention. If you don’t understand something or have a hard time with the material, meet with
your teaching assistant or professor during office hours.” As in the difference-education
condition, participants in the control condition learned about panelists’ different experiences in
college, including the challenges they faced (e.g., a student found coursework to be difficult),
and the strengths and strategies that they learned to be successful (e.g., a student found it helpful
to meet with a professor). Notably, across both conditions, participants learned the same types of
strategies for success, such as seeking help from peers and professors. The key difference
between the conditions was that students in the control condition did not learn how their own and
others’ backgrounds could inform their experiences in college (i.e., their obstacles, strengths, or
strategies for success).
Difference-education Teaches Students About Difference and Closes the Achievement Gap
Outcomes of difference-education. To examine whether a pride intervention can
accomplish the dual goals of educating students about how difference matters, while also
reducing achievement gaps between groups, we provide an overview of the social and academic
outcomes of difference-education. To identify these outcomes, in an initial study, we followed
intervention participants throughout their first two years of college, conducting a series of
12 Across conditions, the stories were as similar as possible. That is, both sets of stories included the same panelists, format, and strategies for success. They were also comparable in valence, length, and appeal. Yet, the stories could not be identical. If the stories were identical across both conditions (e.g., if the control condition contained the story of a student being embarrassed about relying on financial aid), then the participants in the control condition would have been able to infer the panelists’ social class backgrounds, and thus, they would have gained the same message about how students’ backgrounds matter.
22
surveys and an in-person laboratory study (Stephens, Hamedani, et al., 2014; Stephens,
Townsend, et al., 2015).
First, suggesting that the difference-education intervention effectively educated students
about difference (i.e., provided the contextual and asset-based understanding of difference), a
survey administered soon after the intervention revealed that intervention participants reported
that they learned how their different backgrounds matter in college. Further, suggesting that
students retained the contextual and asset-based understanding of social difference, and gained
some multicultural skills associated with that understanding, follow-up surveys one and two
years later showed that participants had greater appreciation for difference, higher levels of
perspective-taking, and an increased comfort and willingness to discuss their backgrounds with a
peer (Stephens, Hamedani, et al., 2014; Stephens, Townsend, et al., 2015).
Second, an analysis of students’ official first-year grades revealed that the difference-
education intervention effectively reduced the social class achievement gap: first-generation
students in the difference-education condition earned higher end-of-year grades than their
counterparts in the control condition (Stephens, Hamedani, et al., 2014). This improvement in
grades was explained by an increase in first-generation students’ empowerment—in this case,
operationalized as an increased tendency to engage in the behaviors needed to be successful at
their university (e.g., seeking campus resources; Stephens, Hamedani, et al., 2014). In a
replication study, we tested the difference-education intervention using different methods (i.e.,
the same intervention content was administered individually and online) at another university,
and found the same grades benefits for first-generation students (Townsend et al., 2017). Like
the first study, the improvement in grades was explained by empowerment—in this case,
operationalized as a greater sense of efficacy, preparedness, and control (Townsend et al., 2017).
23
Beyond the academic benefits, in the initial study of difference-education (Stephens,
Hamedani, et al., 2014), we also found that the difference-education intervention helped all
students—both first-generation and continuing-generation—to experience a higher quality
college transition, as well as academic and social experience, compared to the control condition.
In particular, they showed higher levels of academic identification, perceived academic
preparation, psychological wellbeing, and social fit, as well as reduced stress and anxiety. In
addition, at the end of their second year in college, difference-education again produced benefits
for both first- and continuing-generation students. In a follow up study, difference-education
participants showed greater willingness to talk about their backgrounds with a peer, displayed
higher levels of comfort in the face of academic stressors (i.e., based on their physiology), and
described feeling more academically prepared for college than control participants (Stephens,
Townsend, et al., 2015). Together these results provide the first evidence that a pride intervention
can accomplish the dual goals of educating students about difference, while, at the same time,
reducing the social class achievement gap.
How a contextual and asset-based understanding increases fit and empowerment among
first-generation students. Next, drawing on difference-education as an example of a pride
intervention, we describe the processes by which a pride intervention can improve first-
generation students’ academic and social outcomes over time. Specifically, we theorize that a
pride intervention provides a contextual and asset-based understanding of social difference that
can help to increase first-generation students’ sense of social fit and empowerment in college.
First, by showing students that difference is contextual, a pride intervention should serve
to communicate that difference is a normal and expected part of the college experience, thereby
increasing first-generation students’ comfort and fit (cf., Plaut, 2010). More specifically, when
24
first-generation students feel different from other students or face different challenges (e.g.,
feeling uncertain about the best way to select a major), this contextual understanding can help
them see that these different experiences are likely due to their backgrounds (e.g., not having
college-educated parents), rather than because they do not belong or have what it takes to
succeed in college. Supporting this claim, as described above, difference-education interventions
have been shown to increase first-generation students’ sense of social fit with the college
environment13 (Stephens, Hamedani, et al., 2014; Townsend et al., 2017). For example, after
participating in our difference-education intervention, a first-generation student described her
newfound sense of fit, recounting “I am a first-generation college student so it’s nice to know
that not everyone comes from a highly educated, upper middle class family. I feel like I’m an
outsider here, but the panel made it clear that’s not exactly how it is and you can be successful no
matter what background you come from.”
Second, by showing students how difference can be an asset, a pride intervention should
serve to communicate that students from different backgrounds can leverage their background-
specific strengths and strategies to find their own path to success in college, thereby increasing
first-generation students’ sense of empowerment (cf., Gurin et al., 2013). Specifically, when
first-generation students confront background-specific challenges, they can feel empowered,
rather than threatened, both because they understand the source of their challenges as well as
know what they can do to overcome them. Supporting this claim, as described above, difference-
education interventions are effective at improving students’ long term academic outcomes, in
13 As noted in the results section above, Stephens, Hamedani, et al., 2014 showed that difference-education increased social fit for both first- and continuing-generation students. In contrast, Townsend et al., 2017 found that difference-education improved social fit just for first-generation students. We return to this issue later when we discuss how the intervention can produce benefits for both disadvantaged and advantaged students.
25
part, because they empower students with the concrete, behavioral strategies and also the
psychological entitlement that they need to take advantage of the resources available to them
(Stephens, Hamedani, et al., 2014; see also Townsend et al., 2017). After participating in our
difference-education intervention, one first-generation student described gaining a sense of
empowerment, stating, “I found that the panelists who came from backgrounds similar to mine
and […] who had parents that didn’t attend a university ran into many of the similar dilemmas
and obstacles in their lives. And I found this information that I received very helpful because I
realized that there are students here that have faced and overcome similar obstacles to me and it
just gives me a sense of encouragement that I can also overcome those obstacles.” Another
student added, “It might give me some insight when I actually go through those obstacles to see
what they did or maybe try out what they did and see if it works for me.”
Pride Interventions Can Benefit All Students
The results from difference-education show that a pride intervention can, in fact,
accomplish the dual goals of reducing the social class achievement gap while also educating
students about difference. However, given that pride interventions reduce achievement gaps by
providing all students with a new understanding of social difference (i.e., an understanding of
difference that is contextual and asset-based), they should provide an additional set of benefits
that go beyond improving disadvantaged students’ academic performance in college.
Specifically, we propose that educating students about social difference has potential to ease all
students’ transitions to college and also equip them with the multicultural skills that they need to
thrive both while in college and beyond. While the claim that pride interventions can help all
students is novel in the literature on social psychological interventions and academic
achievement, it is supported by our research on difference-education, as well as the literature on
26
multicultural education, intergroup dialogues, and work on the benefits of diversity courses. As
education scholar Geneva Gay (1997) describes:
Multicultural education is intended for all students and deals with issues that affect
everyone. In other words, its [beneficiaries] are both the privileged and oppressed; the
European American majority as well as the many minority groups of color; the valiant
and the vanquished; men and women. (Gay, 1997, p. 5)
Consistent with Geneva Gay’s suggestion, we argue that, by educating all students about
the significance of social difference, pride interventions have the potential to benefit everyone.
First, by providing a contextual and asset-based understanding of difference, a pride intervention
has the potential to improve all students’ experiences as they transition to college. For example,
if a continuing-generation student were to face challenges due to her background (e.g., being
accustomed to having a lot of support from parents and then feeling lost in college),
understanding that difference is contextual and can be an asset could help that student see that
her different experiences are a normal and expected part of the college experience due to her
particular background. Such an understanding could foster a greater sense of ease and comfort
for this student, and, in turn, improve her ability to effectively adjust to college. As noted above,
difference-education did indeed improve the overall quality of the college transition (e.g.,
increased academic preparation, psychological wellbeing, and social fit) for both first-generation
and continuing-generation students. In contrast, most existing interventions that improve the
academic outcomes of disadvantaged students do not produce significant intervention benefits
for advantaged students (e.g., Cohen et al., 2006; Sherman et al., 2013; Walton & Cohen, 2007).
27
Second, by providing a contextual and asset-based understanding of social difference,
pride interventions have potential to not only improve the college transition for everyone, but
also help all students to better understand each other’s differences and equip them with the
multicultural skills to better navigate across those differences (cf. Banks, 2007; Gay, 1997; Gurin
et al., 2013; Noddings, 2005; Zúñiga et al., 2012). As noted above, difference-education did
indeed improve both first- and continuing-generation students’ understanding of and behavioral
responses to social difference in ways that suggest they gained multicultural skills (e.g.,
increased appreciation of difference, perspective-taking, and willingness to talk about their
backgrounds). In contrast, existing interventions that improve the academic outcomes of
disadvantaged students do not typically provide these types of multicultural skills (cf. Yeager &
Walton, 2011).14
Along the same lines, building on work on the benefits of intergroup dialogues and
diversity courses, we theorize, but have not yet tested, the hypothesis that pride interventions
should improve intergroup relations, increase community or civic engagement, decrease
students’ need to cover or hide their identities, and enable students to feel like they can be their
full, authentic selves (cf. Bowman, 2011; Cole et al., 2011; Ford & Malaney, 2012; Gurin et al.,
2013; Krings, Austic, Gutiérrez, & Dirksen, 2015; Nelson Laird, 2005; Yoshino, 2007). We also
theorize that providing a contextual and asset-based understanding has the potential to render the
larger institutional culture more open to and accepting of students from different backgrounds.
Strategies to Effectively Educate Students about Difference
Drawing on the example of difference-education, we have demonstrated that pride
interventions can accomplish the dual goals of fostering academic achievement for
14 While existing academic interventions do not document these types of multicultural benefits, it is possible that they do have other effects that have not yet been documented.
28
disadvantaged students, while also educating students about social difference. Yet, if
opportunities to learn about social difference are not delivered in the “right” way, as the
prejudice perspective has long acknowledged, students could experience them as threatening and
these efforts could instead undermine students’ performance (Bowman, 2010; Croizet & Claire,
1998; Milem, Chang, & Antonio, 2005). Given the challenges that come with discussing social
difference, an important question remains: what are some strategies that researchers or
practitioners can employ in a pride intervention in order to educate students about difference in a
way that is empowering, rather than threatening? Below we briefly describe these strategies, the
literatures that support why taking these steps is important, and how we would suggest
implementing these strategies in a pride intervention, using difference-education as an example.
Avoid stereotyping. When discussing social difference, research suggests that it is critical
to avoid stereotyping or making assumptions about people based on their social group
memberships. Instead, it is important to recognize the intersection of multiple identities that is
unique to each person (cf. Ashmore, Deaux, & McLaughlin-Volpe, 2004; Cole, 2009; Crenshaw,
1989, 1991; Gurin et al., 2013; Markus & Conner, 2013; Rosenthal, 2016; Shelton & Sellers,
2000). A large body of research on stereotyping and prejudice suggests that students will feel
threatened, and that their performance will be undermined, when others make broad
generalizations about who they are, or what skills or abilities they have, due to their social group