Interracial Interactions at a Racially Diverse University

Charlene F. Apacible, Laura Schmidt, Marco Alvarez, & Gloria Perez

Under the Supervision of Gloria Cowan, Ph.D.

Department of Psychology

California State University, San Bernardino

Diversity is a major issue among colleges and universities.  A university may have a diverse student body in terms of the presence of a large number of students of varying ethnicities, races, and cultures.  However, the question of whether the diversity in numbers in reflected in diversity in interaction remains.  It is important to determine whether students of different backgrounds engage in interracial interactions, not only in the classroom but also in informal settings.  A harmonious relationship among races is a goal that is valued but has been difficult to attain.  Cook (1985) found that interracial contact under positive conditions, such as equal status and mutual interdependence, reduces stereotypes and prejudice, and promotes cross-racial respect and liking.  This study focused on the occurrence of interracial interaction of university students in informal settings at CSUSB.

It has been proposed that academic settings offer the opportunity for extended interracial interactions (Mack, Tucker, Archuleta, DeGroot, Hernandez, & Oh Cha, 1997).  Yet, colleges and universities continue to be the focal point of intercultural conflict (Ross, 1999).  A classic example frequently cited on campus as a “problem” is the tendency of ethnic minority groups, which are often a small percentage of the student body, to eat together in the dining facilities (Asante & Al-Dean, 1984).  Previous research has found that Caucasian and Hispanic students are the most comfortable in interacting with others out of their ethnic/racial group, whereas Asian students seem to be the least comfortable (Mack, et al., 1997).  Brigham (1993) found that African Americans typically endorse greater social distance and express more negative affect to those outside their racial group than do Caucasian.  Buttny (1999) also noted that despite the fact that colleges and universities in the United States are more diverse than ever before, there are reports of a “new segregation,” which is a climate of racial separateness.  It should be noted that most of the research on interracial interactions has been conducted in settings in which the majority of the students are non-Hispanic Caucasian, at the grade school levels, and primarily interactions of Blacks and Whites.

This study observed students in informal social settings at California State University, San Bernardino, a university that is rich in diversity.  CSUSB has a population of approximately 13,000 students, of which 45% are non-Hispanic Caucasians, 25% Hispanics, 9% African-Americans, 7% Asians, 1% American Indian, and 13% Other (1999-2000 CSUSB Viewbook).  Thus, non-Hispanic Caucasians are actually a minority at CSUSB when compared to other ethnic groups combined.  Three questions were posed: 1) Overall, is there a different in the percentage of interracial versus intraracial interactions? 2) Do different ethnic/racial groups vary in their extent of interracial versus intraracial interactions? 3) Do men and women vary in their extent of interracial versus intraracial interactions? 

Method

Participants

A total of 362 groups, consisting of 1268 individuals (219 Asians, 144 African Americans, 232 Hispanics, 598 Caucasians, and 75 Unknowns) were observed on the CSUSB campus (516 males and 695 females).  Only groups containing 3 or more individuals were included, so as to be able to identify whether the group was interracial or intraracial. (In a group of two students, if one student’s ethnicity cannot be identified, the interracial/intraracial characteristic of the group cannot be determined.) 

Measures and Procedures

            Prior to data collection, reliability of the four observers was assessed to determine the consistency among coders.  Two observers at a time independently observed the same group.  Of 39 groups with 137 participants, there was 100% agreement on gender, 95.6% on race/ethnicity, and 100% on number of individuals in the group. Following the reliability assessment, the four observers, individually, observed groups and noted the ethnicity and gender of each member of the group. A data sheet was constructed to indicate the group’s attributes (race and gender), location on the campus, and date and time of the interaction. If an observer wasn’t certain about the ethnicity of the participant, the observer put the individual into an “unknown” category.  The unknown category also included individuals of mixed ethnicities, and ethnicities other than Caucasian, African American, Asian, and Hispanic (such as Middle Eastern).  Observations were made from Mondays through Fridays at varying times of day. All public observations were anonymous. The four researchers observed interactions in different places in the university.  Of the groups observed, 35% congregated in the student union, 28% were observed in other places, such as classroom buildings, 27% were observed on various walkways, 8% in the Library, and 2% in the pub.

            Observations were completely unobtrusive.  Only public behavior was recorded, and the participants’ identities remained anonymous.  In addition, the observers exerted a special effort not to systematically bias the data by observing only certain groups.  Each group encountered was nonselectively recorded, with the exception that the group had to have at least three people in it. 

Results

            The Chi-Square statistical test was used to determine significant differences in the occurrence of interracial and intraracial groups.  Two separate types of analyses were conducted: group and individual. For the group analyses, the number of members of a given ethnicity in a group was not counted, only the presence or absence of members of the racial/ethnic groups. Thus, for the group analysis, the baseline was number of groups and not individuals. 

For the group-level analysis, an overall analysis of the data indicated that there was no difference between intraracial and interracial interactions, X² (N = 362) = .40. Of the 362 groups, 175 (48.3%) were interracial and 187 (51.7%) intraracial. Table 1 presents the group level interracial and intraracial interactions by ethnicity/race of participant. Among African Americans, Hispanics, and Caucasians, there were significantly larger percents of interracial interaction groups than intraracial interaction groups.  Among Asians, no difference between percent of inter- and intraracial groups was found.  Differences were found in comparing the percentage of interracial vs. intraracial interactions among the four ethnic groups, X² = 13.74, p < .01. African Americans interacted in interracial groups most frequently, followed by Hispanics, Caucasians, and, last, Asians.

______________________________________________________________________

Table 1

                     

Percent Interracial versus Intraracial Interactions by Race: Group Level Data

Racial/Ethnic Groups      N        Interracial           Intraracial             X²

Asians                               84            56.0%              44.0%              1.19

African-Americans             89                 77.5%              22.5%            26.98***

Hispanics                          121           72.7%              27.3%            25.00***

Caucasians                       232           59.1%                40.9%             7.60**

Note: N is the number of groups having at least one member of the racial/ethnic group present.

Table 2

Percent Interracial versus Intraracial Interactions by Race: Individual Data

Racial/Ethnic Groups      N        Interracial           Intraracial               X²

Asians                              219         38.4%                 61.6%               11.88***

African-Americans         144          61.1%                 38.9%                7.11**

Hispanics                          232          57.3%                 42.7%                4.98*

Caucasians                      598           47.0%                53.0%                1.09

Note.  N is the number of individuals.

_______________________________________________________________________

Table 3

Interracial and Intraracial Interactions by Race and Gender: Group Level Data

Racial/Ethnic Groups                       N        Interracial           Intraracial             X²

Asian Females                                  65          49.2%                50.8%                 .21

Asian Males                                       41          56.1%               43.9%                 .61

African American Females              47          66.0%               34.0%                4.79*

African American Males                  52          76.9%               23.1%             15.08***

Hispanic Females                             84          67. 9%              32.1%              10.71***

Hispanic Males                                63          69.8%               30.8%                9.92**

Caucasian Females                         174         53.4%               46.6%                  .83

Caucasian Males                             142         54.2%              45.8%                 1.01

Note.  N is the number of groups

*p < .05. **p < .01.  ***p < .001.

Discussion

            The findings of this study indicate a positive trend in the extent of interracial interactions in informal settings on the CSUSB campus.  First, there was no significant difference in interracial versus intraracial interactions overall, calculated from both the numbers of groups observed and the individuals within the groups.  Secondly, on the basis of the group level analysis, for three of the four ethnic groups—African Americans, Caucasians, and Hispanics, significantly more groups containing individuals of each of these ethnicities were interracial than intraracial.  And at the group level, Asians showed no preference for interracial or interracial groups.  At the individual level, the results varied somewhat.  Again, more African American and Hispanic individuals were found in interracial groups than in intraracial groups. However, at the individual level Caucasians were found equally in interracial and interracial groups.  Contrary to the group level, more Asians were found in interracial groups than in interracial groups.  Regarding gender, males and females equally reflected the tendency of their group as a whole, and no gender differences within the four ethnic groups were found.

The previous research has noted a trend toward informal separation of ethnic groups.  Why is this university different?  One possibility is that the richness of diversity on this campus has something to do with it: only a handful of universities do not have Caucasians as the majority group.  Different minority groups probably do not feel as threatened as when they are only a small part of the student body.  Although, for example, African Americans are a relatively small minority on the CSUSB campus, they, combined with other ethnic minorities, are the majority.  There may not be much of a need to self-segregate and defend one’s group from the obviously larger majority.  As universities and colleges become more diverse, people may learn to interact with those who have a different racial or ethnic background.

Moreover, the fact that CSUSB is primarily a commuter campus, in which most of the students do not live on campus, may have contributed to the findings.  CSUSB students may not polarize as much because they tend to spend less time with each other than in non-commuter universities.  Perhaps, the amount of time students spend time with each other contributes to the “new segregation.”  There were no observations made at the dormitories, residential dining facilities, and at fraternity and sorority houses.  Students may interact with each other differently in those areas because students in the dorms spend relatively more time together than the general student population. 

Another factor may be the social class similarity among CSUSB students. In some universities, student ethnicity is confounded with social class background.  Often, the more wealthy students are the Caucasian students, relative to African American and Hispanic students.  At CSUSB, the vast majority of students come from a working class background, regardless of ethnicity.  This similarity in social class may create similarities of experiences among students of different ethnicities and contribute to the lack of self-segregation, thus overriding ethnic and cultural differences.

Last, the significant extent of interracial interactions at CSUSB may be related to the students’ previous experiences.  San Bernardino and its surrounding areas may be more racially integrated than other communities.  Thus, the students who enter CSUSB may have come from environments in which they experienced diversity and had the opportunity to interact with students of ethnicities other than their own—in their schools and in their neighborhoods.

Despite some limitations in this study, such as the limited number of groups observed and the neglect of observations among students who live on campus, we can suggest that the CSUSB campus is showing levels of interracial interactions that promote tolerance and reduction of prejudice.  When students interact with each other at an informal level—at lunch, in hallways, and on walkways--we can assume that they are learning growth skills that involve increased tolerance for individuals from different cultures.  AS Ross (1999) suggested, ”there will be no lessening of intergroup conflicts if there is no lessening of stereotypes.”  As we continue to “lessen” stereotypes by cross-racial interactions, we are providing a model at CSUSB of a multicultural environment that goes beyond counting numbers of students on the campus as a whole or within academic courses or programs. Diversity that involves interaction and communication is more likely to promote interethnic acceptance.  In this sense, and not only in terms of numbers, CSUSB is demonstrating meaningful diversity on its campus.  

References

Asante, M. K., & Al-Dean, H S. (1984). Social interactions of black and white college students. Journal of Educational Research, 14, 507-516.

Brigham, J. C. (1993). College students’ racial attitudes. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 23, 1933-1697,

Buttny, R. (1999).  Discursive constructions of racial boundaries and self-

segregation on campus.  Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18, 247-269.

Cook, S. W. (1985).  Experimenting on social issues: The case of school

desegregation. American Psychologist, 40, 452-460.

CSUSB Viewbook, 1999-2000. San Bernardino, CA: CSUSB.

Mack, D. E., Tucker, T. W., Archuleta, R., DeGroot, G., & Oh Cha, S. (1997).

Interethnic relations on campus.  Can’t we all get along?  Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 25, 256-274.

Ross, K. A. (1999). Can diversity and community coexist in higher education?

The case of Heritage College. American Behavioral Scientist, 42, 1024-1040.

Percent Interracial versus Intraracial Interactions by Race: Group Level Data

Racial/Ethnic Groups      N        Interracial           Intraracial             X²

Asians                               84            56.0%              44.0%              1.19

African-Americans             89                 77.5%              22.5%            26.98***

Hispanics                          121           72.7%              27.3%            25.00***

Caucasians                       232           59.1%                40.9%             7.60**

Note: N is the number of groups having at least one member of the racial/ethnic group present.

Table 2

Interracial and Intraracial Interactions by Race and Gender

Racial/Ethnic Groups                       N        Interracial           Intraracial             X²

Asian Females                                  65          49.2%                50.8%                 .21

Asian Males                                       41          56.1%               43.9%                 .61

African American Females              47          66.0%               34.0%                4.79*

African American Males                  52          76.9%               23.1%             15.08***

Hispanic Females                             84          67. 9%              32.1%              10.71***

Hispanic Males                                63          69.8%               30.8%                9.92**

Caucasian Females                         174         53.4%               46.6%                  .83

Caucasian Males                             142         54.2%              45.8%                 1.01

Note.  N is the number of groups

*p < .05. **p < .01.  ***p < .001.

Interracial Interactions at a Racially Diverse University

Charlene F. Apacible, Laura Schmidt, Marco Alvarez,

& Gloria Perez

Under the Supervision of Gloria Cowan, Ph.D.

Reasons for conducting the study

1.   Importance of interracial interactions

     When contact helps:  Contact improves racial

     attitudes when

a.    prolonged, personal contact

b.   equal-status contact

c.    cooperative rather than competitive

d.   a shared threat or common enemy

e.    superordinate or common goals

f.     contact supported by local authorities and norms

g.    contact occurs at the person-to-person level

h.   contact is rewarding

2.   Characteristics of CSUSB

As reported in 1999-2000 CSUSB Viewbook, non-Hispanic Caucasians area minority (45% of student population).

3.   Constraints and goals of course

Questions raised:

1.      Overall, is there a difference in the percentage of interracial versus intraracial interactions among students at CSUSB?

2.      Do different ethnic/racial groups vary in their extent of interracial and intraracial interactions?

3.      Do men and women vary in their extent of interracial versus intraracial interactions?

Previous Research

1.   Most studies done in elementary and high schools show self-segregation and are often the focal point of intercultural conflict: climate of racial separateness

2.   Most studies done on campuses where majority non-Hispanic Caucasians

Sample

362 groups of students

    *84 Asian groups

    *89 African American groups

    *121 Hispanic groups

    *232 non-Hispanic Caucasian groups

1268 individuals

        *219 Asians

        *144 African Americans

        *232 Hispanics

        *598 non-Hispanic Caucasians

Participants observed unobtrusively  on campus: pub, hallways, walkways, library. Ethnic/racial groups observed were African Americans, non-Hispanic Caucasians, Hispanics, and Asians.  Students whose ethnic group could not be determined, were of mixed ethnic groups, and who were members of ethnic groups not designated for the study (e.g., Middle Easterners) were coded as unknown. 

Procedure

Student observers first coded a sample of 39 groups (137 participants) to determine the reliability of their observations.

Data sheet constructed to record members of groups of 3 or more students indicating race/ethnicity and gender of group members, setting, and date and time of interactions observed.  Observations were public and the participants’ identities were unknown. 

Results

Analyzed the percent of interracial groups and intraracial groups for each of the four ethnic/racial groups studied.  Also analyzed the individuals, rather than the groups, of each ethnic/racial group who were in interracial and intraracial groups.

Group-Level Analysis

1.   No difference between the number of intraracial and

    interracial interactions: 48.9% were interracial and

    51.7% were intraracial.  No difference for men or

    women separately.

2.   Among African Americans, Hispanics, and non-

    Hispanic Caucasians, larger number of interracial than

    intraracial groups

3.   Among Asians, no difference in number of interracial

    and intraracial groups

4.   Men and women of each ethnic group did not differ in

    the percent or number of groups that were interracial or

    intraracial

Individual-Level Analysis

1.   Overall, no difference between the number of

    individuals interacting in interracial versus interracial

    groups (49.2% interracial; 50.8% intraracial)

2.   African American and Hispanic individuals interacted

    interracially more than intraracially

3. Caucasians showed no difference

4. Asians interracited more intraracially than interracially

Conclusions

1.      CSUSB is diverse not only in the nature of its student body but also shows a positive trend in the extent of interracial interactions in informal settings on campus. 

2.      Why CSUSB but not on other campuses?

1.   Caucasians not majority group when other ethnic groups added together—perhaps, minority groups do not feel as threatened as when they are only a small part of the student body, less need to self-segregate

2.   CSUSB primarily a commuter campus.  CSUSB students may not polarize when they tend to spend less time with one another. 

3.   Social class similarity.  When students of diverse groups come from similar socio-economic backgrounds, they may have more in common than at other universities where minority group members are often less advantaged socioeconomically than Caucasian students.  This similiarity may override ethnic and cultural differences.

4.   Why is this important?

Interracial contact promotes tolerance and reduction of prejudice.  When students interact with each other at an informal level—at lunch, in hallways, and on walkways--we can assume that they are learning growth skills that involve increased tolerance for individuals from different cultures.  As stereotypes are reduced by cross-racial interactions, we are providing a model at CSUSB of a multicultural environment that goes beyond counting numbers of students on the campus as a whole or within academic courses or programs. Diversity that involves interaction and communication is more likely to promote interethnic acceptance.  In this sense, and not only in terms of numbers, CSUSB is demonstrating meaningful diversity on its campus and promoting tolerance.