Current Issues in Education > Volume 6, 2003 > Number 13

Citation Information

Smith, R. S. (2003, July 31). Coping constructively with interethnic conflict: A pilot study of the "Dealing with Differences" program. Current Issues in Education [On-line], 6(13). Available: http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume6/number13/

Coping Constructively with Interethnic Conflict: A Pilot Study of the "Dealing with Differences" Program.

R. Scott Smith
Utica College of Syracuse University

Abstract

This is a pilot study of a program for improving intergroup relations at an urban high school. The program's premise is that much violence in high school settings seems related to exclusion of "others", which follows a predictable route from stereotyping to prejudice to discriminatory behaviors. Participants in the 2000 program were interviewed, and the Phenomenological Sense of Community Scale (PSOC) was given to a sample of non-participants one and ten months after the program. The program helped increase participants' motivation to make their school environment more inclusive, as well as their comfort level in interacting with diverse others.

Table of Contents

• Introduction
• Impetus for Intervention
• Theoretical Background for the Program
• Application of Prejudice Reduction Theory to Program Design and Implementation
• Situational Constraints on Research
• Hypotheses
• Method
• Participants
• Apparatus
• Design
• Structure of Program
• Procedure
• Results
• Phenomenological Sense of Community Scale (PSOC)
• Experience of exclusion
• Experience of program
• Applying what you've learned
• Discussion
• Limitations of this Pilot Study
• Conclusion
• Appendix A: Participant Interview
• Appendix B: Sense Of Community Scale
• References

Introduction

This project evaluates the effectiveness of an ongoing training program for developing nonviolent and more inclusive intergroup relations at an urban high school where twenty-one different languages and ethnic groups are represented among the approximately 1600 students enrolled. Conflicts between members of two ethnic groups had escalated to violence at school and in the community in 1998, and these incidents formed the impetus for the "Dealing with Differences" program.

The aims of this project were threefold: (1) to understand if the theoretical principles used in designing the program were seen by participants as important to their experience of the program; (2) how participants perceived the program's effects on them; and (3) if the participants' efforts after these experiences had any kind of effect on the rest of the school. The primary aim of the program, though, was to provide an effective prejudice reduction intervention aimed at a broad cross-section of invited participants. Those invited were seen by staff at the school as being socially influential (particularly in their ethnic communities), and were hoped to be a catalyst for more harmonious intergroup relations. Ultimately, the idea was to provide an experience that amplified participants motivation to encourage less prejudiced interactions among their peers and help them explore ways of doing so.

Impetus for Intervention

The context of this conflict was friction between a more established immigrant group (Puerto Ricans) and a group of more recent immigrants (Bosnians) over perceived disrespect and economic competition. This interpretation arose from discussions with two community leaders from each ethnic group, three students from each ethnic group who were invited to participate in the program, and the principal and staff members who participated in the program. One staff participant indicated that "...what was happening was a lot of Bosnians had things they received as support from their family, items that other students didn't have, like cars. That became an issue for a while where students from the Hispanic culture feel rejected (sic) by Bosnian students having all these things, and I think some of this had to do with not quite being able to understand the difference in other culture's support of each other. And one of the things that we learned is a difference is that in America, this is mine and that is yours, and in their culture, the parents and elders will go without to see to it that the younger generation has things, and then they share those with their cousins."

The initial problems seemed to be individual-level conflicts that quickly expanded to involve several friends and relatives from both groups. At the outer level of involvement (friends and relatives), the rhetoric that was reported revolved around negative characterizations of the other ethnic group, and, by extension, any individual members of those groups.

While the fighting was short-lived thanks to the efforts of school and community leaders, there were concerns that it would lead to a protracted and entrenched series of conflicts. Given the variety of ethnic groups at this school, the administration also was concerned that alliances and coalitions might be formed that could enlarge the scope of intergroup conflict and establish undesirable norms. The needs of the high school were ultimately identified as being damage control in terms of keeping the peace (and possibly healing the rifts by fostering reconciliation), and preventing the spread of intergroup conflict on any other fronts.

The root of this problem was seen as negative stereotypes and prejudices each group had about the other that created an intergroup conflict; this perception was based on the aforementioned discussions among school and community leaders. Therefore, prejudice-reduction approaches seemed a logical point of entry.

Theoretical Background for the Program

In surveying the literature on methods of prejudice reduction from the fields of social psychology and education, six major approaches were noted: exploiting the discrepancy between non-prejudiced attitudes and prejudiced behaviors (Devine, 1989; Devine, Plant, & Buswell, 2000; Devine & Vasquez, 1998); the Common Ingroup Identity Model (Dovidio, Kawakami, & Gaertner, 2000; Gaertner, Mann, Dovidio, Murrell, & Pomare, 1990); cross-cutting multiple social categories (Brewer, 2000); building empathy and emotional responsiveness to outgroups (Aboud & Levy, 2000; Bridgeman, 1981); designing cooperative tasks (Aronson, Stephan, Sikes, Blaney, & Snapp, 1978; Bridgeman, 1981); and stereotype modification (Stephan & Stephan, 1984; Stephan, 1999). Each of these approaches has empirical documentation of its effectiveness in reducing prejudice and promoting more harmonious intergroup relations. But, most are designed at the level of elucidating the relationships among variables in prejudice reduction (exceptions would be Aronson, Stephan, Sikes, Blaney, & Snapp, 1978; and Bridgeman, 1981). When approached to implement a prejudice reduction program by the high school, the author's primary concern was to craft an intervention that was not only research-based, but also made use of these scientific principles in an efficient and pragmatic way.

For example, "Dealing with Differences" focuses on a somewhat different approach to weakening associative links between groups and traits than those noted by Stephan (1999). While the aim of overcoming confirmation bias is similar, this program emphasizes drawing attention to the process of stereotyping and introducing constructive doubt about the validity of any stereotype. This method appears less cumbersome to implement effectively than many other means of weakening links to negative traits, e.g., considering traits opposite to those expected (Lord, Lepper, & Preston, 1984; cited in Stephan, 1999); arranging for a number of "typical" members of an outgroup to engage in non-stereotypical behavior (Mackie, Allison, Worth, & Asuncion, 1992; Rothbart & Lewis, 1988; Swann & Ely, 1984; Weber & Crocker, 1983; all cited in Stephan, 1999); and actively considering alternative response options (Langer, Bashner, & Chanowitz, 1985; cited in Stephan, 1999).

The program also works on shifting attention from any particular group to the superordinate category of their school community (cf. Gaertner et al., 1990) and fits under Aboud & Levy's (2000) classifications of anti-racist education and using role-playing to develop empathy and emotional involvement. In the context of anti-racist programs, discussion is noted as a central aspect of Aboud & Levy's (2000) design, which appears to draw from Piaget's cognitive development theory and Devine's (1989; see also Devine & Vasquez, 1998) attitude-behavior discrepancy theory. Anti-racist education programs appear to work better than multicultural education programs, which can be more passive (Aboud & Levy, 2000).

This literature review encompassed research conducted in the 1990s for the most part, and particularly focused on theory-based methods of prejudice-reduction (research on Gordon Allport's Contact Hypothesis hasn't been mentioned directly, though it informs all of the above-referenced works; for an evaluation of the status of this seminal hypothesis see Pettigrew & Tropp, 2000). "Dealing With Differences" partakes of aspects of each of these approaches, focusing primarily on experiential consideration of the concepts of the automaticity of stereotyping and exclusion. Experiencing these ideas in the context of group discussion and problem solving was intended to expand on the effects of cognitive restructuring and empathy building by developing superordinate goals shared across subgroups and increasing motivation to act in a non-prejudiced manner.

This training ("Dealing with Differences") is designed to address the impact of conflict generated by exclusion based on any pretext. There is ample experiential, empirical, and theoretical evidence that while the specific details of any given "ism" (e.g., racism, sexism, classism, religious intolerance, homophobia) may differ, the internal logic and the emotional and behavioral consequences of each are largely the same (Habbel & R. S. Smith, 1993; Jones, 1997; but see Sidanius, Levin, Rabinowitz, & Federico, 1999 for a different view).

Application of Prejudice Reduction Theory to Program Design and Implementation

Essentially, the process of social categorization, or stereotyping, seems to lead to prejudice, exclusion, and discrimination in consistent ways that are independent of whatever perceived difference forms the basis of that stereotype (Aronson, 1999; Devine, 1989; Dovidio et al., 2000; Jones, 1997; Opotow, 1990). Because exclusion and discrimination have a tendency to escalate in intensity, violence can all too often be the end result (Opotow, 1990; Sidanius et al., 1999; K. K. Smith, 1982). Further, we need to recognize that while the process of stereotyping is an inevitable by-product of human information processing, what one does in response to awareness of stereotyping can be influenced in positive ways (Aboud & Levy, 2000; Devine, 1989; Devine et al., 2000; Habbel & R. S. Smith, 1993; R. S. Smith & Habbel, 1996a).

Although the social-cognitive processes reviewed so far function at the individual level of analysis, what's ultimately desired from most prejudice reduction initiatives is to eventually generate change at the community or organizational level of analysis (at minimum). In order to do this, the behavior of individuals within a social setting must change in ways that not only reflect modification of these aforementioned social-cognitive processes, but also reflect efforts to modify the norms for including diverse others in the community or organization they are a part of.

Given the current state of knowledge about these processes, at least eight factors seem to be essential to the development of communities that are more inclusive:

1. Knowledge of the automatic nature of cognitive processes related to social categorization (Brewer, 2000; Devine, 1989; Dovidio et al., 2000; Frey & Gaertner, 1986; Tajfel & Turner, 1986),
2. Knowledge of how these cognitive processes set up affective reactions to others (Devine & Vasquez, 1998; Dovidio et al., 2000; Snyder, 1984; Word, Zanna, & Cooper, 1974),
3. Knowledge of how these reactions motivate excluding individuals on the basis of how they are categorized (Jones, 1997; Sidanius et al., 1999; K. K. Smith, 1982),
4. Knowledge of how the intensity of efforts to exclude others tends to escalate (Opotow, 1990; Sidanius et al., 1999; K. K. Smith, 1982),
5. Knowledge of the role of mindfulness (which includes the qualities of openness to new information, awareness of more then one perspective, and creating new categories) in beginning to interrupt this process (Langer, 1989; R. S. Smith & Habbel, 1996a; Devine et al., 2000),
6. Skills in perspective-taking and empathy to successfully interrupt this process (Aboud & Levy, 2000; Aronson et al., 1978; Bridgeman, 1981; Stephan, 1999),
7. Skills in communication and conflict resolution to successfully address situations where intolerance occurs (Habbel & R. S. Smith, 1993; Pedersen, 1993),
8. Integration of factors 1-7 to build motivation and commitment to enact them on a day-to-day basis in their interactions with others (Devine et al., 2000; Devine & Vasquez, 1998; Dovidio et al., 2000; Habbel & R. S. Smith, 1993; R. S. Smith & Habbel, 1996b).

These eight factors have critical implications for the cultivation of competence in constructive interaction with diverse others. First, since many of the processes under discussion are automatized, exercises that illustrate the operation of these automatic thought processes are helpful in raising consciousness and mindfulness (Devine et al., 2000). Second, the need for developing skills and the motivation to implement them (as well as knowledge of concepts) requires an experiential, highly interactive approach to educating participants. Stephan & Stephan (1984) support the idea that experiential pedagogy is more effective than didactic approaches to prejudice reduction (for an alternative view, see McGregor, 1993). Third, since promoting more tolerant interactions among one's peers can be a demanding and frustrating task (cf. Devine & Vasquez, 1998), it is important that these workshop experiences provide the opportunity for fun and the development of group cohesion for ongoing support. Finally, since what is ultimately sought is a change in organizational culture, it is imperative that those in formal and informal leadership positions commit themselves to both the value of this kind of learning and to following through on applying it in their community on a day-to-day basis (Brewer, 2000; Dovidio et al., 2000; Stephan, 1999). The design and implementation of the "Dealing with Differences" program was informed by all of these theoretical considerations.

Situational Constraints on Research

Since the primary intent was to consult with administrators, faculty, and students on ways to reduce prejudices and constructively resolve current intergroup conflicts, no detailed scheme of data collection was devised at the inception of the program. After the "Dealing with Differences" program appeared to be taking root at this and other schools, research on this intervention's effect was launched. Thus, a controlled evaluation of this program's efficacy was not possible due to nonrandom sampling, lack of pre-intervention baseline data, and losing some participants to graduation.

This pilot study is an attempt to explore whether the effects of this intervention on participants are consistent with its theoretical underpinnings, as well as how much participants were able to spread the impact of these workshops to non-participants. Even given the relatively small sample size, these research goals were worth pursuing, considering the favorable response of participants to the intervention and their independent initiation of other community-building activities (which will be explored in the Discussion section).

Hypotheses

The expectation was that this program would make meaningful contributions to participants' knowledge, skills and motivation for trying to build a community where people are less likely to be excluded violently. It was hoped that the efforts of the participants in the program would be reflected in a general increase in the perceived degree of cohesiveness at the school over a ten- month period.

Three hypotheses stem from these expectations: (1) that participants would demonstrate an understanding of the main concepts involved in developing more inclusive communities, especially the links between stereotyping, prejudice and discriminatory behaviors; (2) that workshop participants would have higher levels of motivation and efforts toward inclusivity; and (3) that over a period of ten months, the efforts of the participants at each high school would result in a greater perceived level of inclusivity by non-participants. Two approaches were required in order to address these three hypotheses. For the first two, qualitative analysis of a structured interview was used; the third was explored using a quantitative analysis of survey data. Since the survey contained multiple subscales, a mutivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was chosen as the statistical procedure for analyzing this data.

Method

Participants

Since this program began in January of 1998, two workshops and two Study Circles were conducted with 38 students and six staff overall. Students either volunteered following an announcement or were selected by the school social worker and guidance counselors on the basis of perceived leadership potential (especially within their ethnic group). Staff volunteered or were invited to participate based on perception of their interest.

The entire cohort of 38 student participants was not interviewed. Structured interviews were conducted with all staff participants and only 15 students because thirteen of them had graduated prior to the interviewing cycle and 10 had either repeated schedule conflicts or repeatedly failed to have parents sign participation agreements.

In addition, the Phenomenological Sense of Community Scale (PSOC; Morey & Schell, 1999 & 2000) was used to assess the sense of community at the urban high school as broadly perceived by students and staff who were NOT involved in the workshops. "Dealing With Differences" participants were not a part of this sample. There are approximately 1,600 students at this urban high school and 130 staff members, which includes faculty, administrators, clerical and maintenance workers. Three English classes from the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth grades (Total sample = 198 students), and 20 per cent of the staff (Total sample = 26 staff) were randomly selected to receive the PSOC.

The PSOC was administered again after ten months to a different randomly selected sample of four English classes from the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth grades (Total sample = 320 students), and 40 per cent of the staff (Total sample = 52 staff) to gauge the impact of the "Dealing with Differences" program on the school as a whole. The larger sample size in the post-test was due to an attempt to increase the overall number of respondents, as the proportion of recipients of the PSOC who actually completed it was quite low (19 per cent on the pre-test for students and 20 per cent for staff). Since the intent was to gauge how the efforts of participants in the "Dealing with Differences" program might have impacted the sense of community at this high school, sampling a larger proportion of the school's population was seen as important.

Apparatus

The structured interviews designed by the investigator consisted of two components. The first component included a brief questionnaire dealing with attitudes toward and frequencies of interactions with students outside of one's usual social group or "clique." Additionally, the questionnaire dealt with attitudes toward and frequencies of interaction with students in other ethnic groups (both at school and in their home neighborhoods), and extracurricular activities they participate in (both in and out of school).

The second component consisted of questions dealing with the experience of observing various kinds of exclusion of others at school; what participants remembered most about the workshops and study circles and how they were affected; and how participants might apply what they learned (see Appendix A). The qualitative analysis of the structured interviews was assisted by the use of N4 software (QSR, 1998).

Of the student participants interviewed, three had attended both workshops and both Study Circles, two of them had attended both Study Circles, two attended only the first workshop and the second Study Circle, and eight had attended only the second workshop and the second Study Circle. All staff that had participated in any of the workshops or Study Circles were interviewed. Two of the staff members have attended all programs, one has attended both Study Circles and the 2000 workshop, one has attended the 2000 workshop and Study Circle, one has attended only the 1998 workshop, and one only the 2000 Study Circle.

The Phenomenological Sense of Community Scale (PSOC; Morey & Schell, 1999 & 2000) is a 22-item scale developed to assess individualsf experience of the social climate of their community and used here to assess the programfs impact on the rest of the school. The PSOC factors into four subscales: Commitment, Relatedness, Agency, and Security, which have good reliability (subscale alphas are .84, .84, .81 and .79, respectively; the 22-item alpha is .93). For purposes of comparison with participants, the same questions on inclusivity from the first section of the structured interview were included with the PSOC (see Appendix B).

Design

The evaluation of this program was informed by three traditions of qualitative analysis in behavioral science, one of which is action research (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Rappaport, 1977), in which the intent of the researcher is as much to provide feedback to change agents so they can more effectively intervene in their social settings, as to "objectively" determine causality. The second tradition guiding this evaluation was ecological psychology (Barker, 1968; Rappaport, 1977), in which the researcher explores system-level interconnections of individual or small-group factors. Finally, the third tradition utilized was grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1990), in which identification and categorization of critical elements in a particular setting is sought in terms of their congruence with existing theory.

Since 'Dealing with Differences" was designed with specific psychological principles in mind, these principles form the starting point for applying the traditions of action research, ecological psychology, and grounded theory to investigate this program's effects on participants. From this starting point, the evaluation will focus on how the program design relates to participants' experience of the program. Do participants report the same factors as being central to the program's effectiveness as the theory would suggest? Or, are other issues more important to explore?

Participant responses to questions were initially coded according to thematic categories that reflected the theoretical structure of the program design. Their responses sometimes led to adjustment or addition of questions throughout the data collection process. Finally, additional codes emerged from patterns in participant responses that were not anticipated (the verbatim responses of all participants are available from the author upon request).

The patterns of codes were then compared with what would be expected based on theories of prejudice reduction and conflict resolution (especially Aronson, et al., 1978; Bridgeman, 1981; Habbel & R. S. Smith, 1993; and Pedersen, 1993). This approach reflects the grounded theory tradition of qualitative analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1990), which moves from generalized theory to the specifics of causality in a given locale and back again to verify in what ways theory gets qualified in particular circumstances.

In addition to noting the content of responses to interview questions, codes were ranked in terms of the top three most frequently mentioned. The results and conclusions were then summarized and a member check was conducted to verify both the fidelity of the transcribed responses to participants' intended message and any alternative interpretations of results.

For the PSOC data, a MANOVA was conducted to determine whether the means of responses for the subscale scores was significantly different between the first and second administrations. The data from the inclusivity questionnaire to which both participants and non-participants responded were also compared via MANOVA.

Structure of Program

The training began with a six hour, largely experiential workshop that introduced students and staff to the concepts of stereotyping, prejudice, exclusion, and discrimination, what the emotional and behavioral effects of these phenomena can be for all parties, and how to deal with these effects more constructively. The premise of this training is that much violence in high school settings is related to the exclusion of "others" based on perceived group-level characteristics (Habbel & R. S. Smith, 1993; Jones, 1997; Opotow, 1990; Tajfel & Turner, 1986), and this process follows a predictable route from stereotyping to prejudice to discriminatory behaviors.

The second part of the training involved a six-hour Study Circle which included two other schools (one suburban and one rural). Study Circles are small-group, facilitated dialogues following principles of participatory democracy adapted from the Study Circles Resource Center (Campbell, 1996). While the focus of discussion can be any community issues requiring problem solving and decision making, the focus of these Study Circles were interethnic and intergroup relations. An outline of the program manual is available by request.

Procedure

Two diversity workshops were conducted at the request of the urban high school in January, 1998 and February, 2000. While some specific exercises varied, the general format of the workshop was as follows:

• Introduction of facilitators and ground rules--Everyone (school staff included) was kept on a first-name basis, and general rules for civil public debate were reviewed and agreed upon.
• Icebreakers--Lighthearted activities were used that provided a safe opportunity for self-disclosure and getting acquainted.
• Exclusion Exercise--A large-group exercise where an ingroup and outgroup were created artificially and participants got to see how intense the experience of being excluded and excluding can be, even in a contrived game.
• Stereotyping Exercise--A visual cue (picture, drawing, or object) was given to trigger preconceived notions, so that the concept of stereotyping could be explored.
• Discussion of Exclusion-based Conflicts at School--Participants shared examples of how exclusion can escalate and have serious negative effects for all parties.
• Constructive Responses to Conflict--Scenarios were provided that allow small groups to brainstorm more constructive responses to potentially problematic situations.
• Action Plans--Subgroups discussed how they plan to apply the concepts discussed that day to improve the social climate at their school.

In conjunction with the workshops, the urban high school participated in two Study Circles, one in April, 1999 and the other in April, 2000. In 1999, the Study Circle focused more on ethnicity-based exclusion. In 2000, the focus was more on social-group based exclusion. As in the workshops, introductions, ground rules, and icebreakers started off the day. The general format then involved:

• A guided discussion about participants' experiences with the theme of the Study Circle (racism/ethnocentrism or cliques).
• A guided discussion of scenarios reflecting theme-related problems.
• A discussion of how participants can apply the insights from the previous discussions to actively change their own schools.

Results

Results from the structured interview are reported first, and will be arranged in three clusters in order of the most significant responses to questions in the following three areas: (a) participants' experience of exclusion of students at their school (contextual information); (b) participants' experience of the "Dealing with Differences" program (assessing the extent of their understanding of factors important to the creation of more inclusive communities); and (c) participants' opinions about applying what they learned from these experiences (assessing the extent of their motivation and efforts toward inclusivity). First, the results for each of these areas are described in terms of their degree of support for hypotheses 1 (participants would demonstrate an understanding of the main concepts involved in developing more inclusive communities) and 2 (participants would have higher levels of motivation and efforts toward inclusivity). Then, within each cluster, patterns of responses for each question are summarized. The Phenomenological Sense of Community Scale (PSOC) data are reported last, which assessed if the efforts of the participants at each high school resulted in a greater perceived level of inclusivity by non-participants.

Phenomenological Sense of Community Scale (PSOC)

Thirty-seven students and eight staff members (including, faculty, counselors, administrators, and support staff) at the urban high school completed the first administration of the PSOC. Sixteen students and 16 staff members completed the second administration. The MANOVA showed a significant difference in non-participants' PSOC scores on the relatedness and security subscales between the first and second administration, but in the opposite direction than was hypothesized, F (4, 92) = 2.60, p < .041; (2 = .001). There were no significant differences between participants and non-participants in the program on how inclusive each was of students in different cliques or ethnic groups.

Experience of exclusion

Table 1 displays the categories of responses participants in the "Dealing With Differences" program had to personally observed instances of exclusion. The categories emerged from reviewing all of their comments. The responses of student and staff participants were reported separately in all of the qualitative analyses in order to detect whether their perspectives on and experiences of the school environment differ systematically.

Table 1: Experience of Exclusion at School

Response to Exclusion

Rationale for Exclusion

Type of Exclusion

In regards to the contextual information for the causes and types of exclusion, the perceptions of both students and staff are largely similar. There are distinct differences between students and staff in their responses to observed instances of exclusion, however.

Response to exclusion: Students most frequently endorsed not responding when observing other students being excluded.

Ex.: "Never really did anything, usually it was none of my business, and I just stood around." (Student)

A couple of student participants did not respond because they agreed with the decision of excluding that particular student!

Ex.: "I might have found them annoying, too, you know, if they are needy, desperate, call attention to themselves, or try too hard to latch onto you." (Student)

When students did respond, they were much more likely to be direct and forceful, which was defined as attempting to redress the exclusion while confronting those who are excluding with the wrongfulness of their behavior

Ex.: "I said, "That's not nice, if it was you, you wouldn't like it'." (Student)

Staff most frequently reported using direct, but gentle interventions, which were defined as redressing the exclusion without explicitly confronting or blaming those who are excluding.

Ex.: "With this particular boy, I tried to teach him about different waves of immigration in class and out of class. This is like Archie Bunker reborn! You'd think that that has gone, but that to me is the biggest sign. It's so difficult, because you see them replaying attitudes that you thought were over." (Staff)

Rationale for exclusion: Students focused somewhat more on ingroup bias as an explanation for exclusion.

Ex.: "Because there's not that many of them, they don't know many kids, they don't speak the language..." (Student)

Among staff, meanness was mentioned as frequently as ingroup bias to explain exclusion

Ex.: "The other students were just being mean, looking for someone to pick on. Kids can be that way sometimes, unfortunately." (Staff)

Type of exclusion: Participants were offered the following examples of exclusion: ignored, snubbed, picked on, harassed, threatened, and attacked. Overall, students' and staffs' endorsements of the categories "picked on," "ignored," "snubbed," and "attacked" were proportionally comparable.

Experience of program

Overall, hypothesis 1 was solidly supported by participants' responses to the structured interview. The consistent report of both students and staff that the interpersonal environment of the "Dealing with Differences" program was its most memorable aspect provided substantial support for the importance of building skills in empathy and perspective-taking. This result is consistent with a demonstration of understanding some of the theoretical foundations for the "Dealing with Differences" program and of constructive responses to exclusion. While participants' responses showed awareness of the links between stereotyping, prejudice, and discriminatory behavior, they were not as centrally evident to participants as was hoped.

Hypothesis 2 was moderately supported by data from the structured interview. Sixty per cent of students and 33 per cent of staff didn't see the "Dealing with Differences" program as noticeably affecting their perceptions of or response to others they might see as "different" in some way. However, 40 per cent of students and 50 per cent of staff did say that the program enhanced either their tendency to be more open-minded, their tendency to initiate interactions with those they see as "different" in some way, or both.

Impact of program on perceptions of and response to those seen as "different": The most frequent response of students to this question was that the program didn't have any significant impact on how they thought about or dealt with those they saw as "different" from them in some way, since they saw themselves as being tolerant and open beforehand (nine students out of fifteen mentioned this).

Ex.: "Not really, I've always had lots of friends with different interests. They always seem to be closer than those people who have a whole lot of things in common with you." (Student)

Two staff members also responded to this question as the students did, but these same two did say that the workshops and Study Circles reinforced their prior attitudes and learning, and led to increased comfort and confidence in interacting with diverse others.

Ex.: "I think whenever you hear other's point of view, it renews your thinking. You know why, I think it keeps you in step. I know how I think, but then it brings me back. You gotta pick up the book again, 'Oh, I remember that! This is what it's like, this is how I feel.' It reminds you of what you may already know. And so it keeps you in better touch... I really have no different problems than ever, but it's good to remember." (Staff)

Table 2: Experience of Program

Most Memorable Aspect of Study Circle(s)

Most Memorable Aspect of the Workshop(s)Most Memorable Aspect of the Workshop(s)

The sense of having a safe, supportive environment in which to discuss sensitive issues and in doing so, getting to know diverse others was repeatedly mentioned.

Ex.: "That was really good, I liked that a lot... We talked about incidents of people getting left out, people getting picked on. A lot of people contributed, it was really good how everyone talked. There was a lot of interaction." (Student)

Overall, the staff mentioned specific discussions in the Study Circles as most memorable, (especially from April, 2000), whereas students found the general interpersonal process involved in the Study Circles most compelling.

Ex.: "I can't remember what the question was, but it was something about being young, or age. Students think we're SO old and out of touch, and I remember saying that I don't feel any different now than I did when I was their age. They think we're all so different because we're older, and really, I saw in many ways we're still very alike. We have the same problems, we just learn how to cope a little better as we get older. They think that teenagers, 'We're the only ones who have any problems!' I thought that was really, really interesting." (Staff)

Both students and staff appeared to find the same topics from the 2000 Study Circle to have significant impact (i.e., the "Belonging to cliques" and "What's it like to be young?" discussions).

Most memorable aspect of the workshop(s): There is substantial agreement between students and staff that the atmosphere and process were the most memorable aspects of the workshops (as detailed in Table 2). Essentially, students found the interpersonal processes in the workshops most memorable, followed by the content and concepts illustrated by that process (e.g., the ease with which we all stereotype and how that can lead to exclusion), and then the icebreakers that facilitated the interpersonal process and the experiential exercises that explored the concept of exclusion as equally memorable.

Ex.: "It opened my eyes to a lot of different things, how I should be more open-minded. I remember thinking that there were so many different people I should get to know. It was a really personalized experience with people I didn't really know." (Student)

In comparison, while staff also found the interpersonal processes most memorable, they found the icebreakers to be the next most outstanding component, followed by the content and concepts (though the exclusion exercise wasn't mentioned at all).

Ex.: "I don't think it was an exercise or discussion, but getting students together to spend some time and the conversations they had, and people participated in because they could really be free to be honest. An experience where people were not fearful to say what was important to them, whether it was with a total stranger or someone close to them, that's really rare. On a level where we talk like adults about being left out, and about prejudice, we had an opportunity for teachers and students to be honest and not fearful to share their experiences." (Staff)

Applying what you've learned

Hypothesis 1 is largely supported by participants' responses in this area; particularly to the question of what they had learned that they would most like to share with their peers. Appreciation of the role of mindfulness, perspective-taking, and communication skills were clearly evident in over half of the student responses; it is notable that only a third of the staff responses related to these factors. Additional support for hypothesis 1 can be seen in the consensus amongst all participants that making a "Diversity Club" a formal part of the institutional structure at the school would be the best approach to helping their school become a more inclusive community.

The significant extent to which participants were willing to extend themselves to be more welcoming of others and to participate in formalizing and running a "Diversity Club" indicates sound support for hypothesis 2.

Learning you'd most like to share with peers: What's striking about the responses to this question is the greater consistency and commonality among the students' responses than among the staffs" (see Table 3). Most frequently, students endorsed the value of listening and open-mindedness as an insight they wished to share, followed closely by the importance of approaching and interacting with those who appear "different" in some way.

Table 3: Applying What You've Learned

Learning You'd Most Like to Share With Peers

Best Way to Help Your School Become More Inclusive?

Personal Commitment to Helping Your School Become More Inclusive?

Students also validated two other concepts: not judging others by appearance alone, and how teenagers have many common experiences and other similarities despite various kinds of differences.

Students also validated two other concepts: not judging others by appearance alone, and how teenagers have many common experiences and other similarities despite various kinds of differences.

Ex.: "How to listen, pretty much. Because you tend to hear what people are saying, but you don't listen to the words and the content, you think you know what they're saying and then you shut yourself off and think, That's what he's gonna say, so blah, blah, blah!' If you actually listen to the content, you may see that there are some things he knows more than you, and just a different perspective than your own narrow view." (Student)

Though some staff members echoed the importance of sharing the lessons of similarities within diversity, listening and being open-minded, and interacting with those who seem "different," there were a wide variety of other insights that most respondents wished to share with their fellow staff members.

Ex.: "It's the concept of promoting differences AND promoting similarity, and putting kids together in a non-threatening atmosphere--even better than that, a friendly, nurturing atmosphere--that kids respond, and even some of your toughest kids will be more sensitive than you ever thought they would or could be." (Staff)

Other salient observations were that students at their urban high school seemed more tolerant overall than students at suburban and rural schools, and that their school has made a lot of progress with intergroup relations in the past few years.

Ex.: "I think one of the biggest things I learned was that we're different from other schools. That our students seem to be more tolerant than students at other schools. And also that we've come a long way on this path from several years ago, and the staff isn't the same as it was several years ago, and sometimes, I don't think they see the path that we've come because they weren't here 5 years ago, like if they just started a couple of years ago... And I think it's important for people to see that 5 years ago, this would have never even been something that would have been approached or accepted within this school, to have kids participate in a diversity group." (Staff)

Best way to help the school become more inclusive & Personal commitment to helping school become more inclusive: Table 3 also illustrates an area of unanimity among students and staff: institutionalizing a "Diversity Club" was seen by all participants as the best way to help their school become a more inclusive community.

Ex.: "Well, they're trying with the club, we should announce it more and make it public, like we're not afraid to have people. The media should have a big part in it, too, because I remember how the mix-up with Bosnians and Puerto Ricans got blown up. You should look at the positive things instead of the negative, because you're always doubting." (Student)

Ex.: "That's a tough question...Because it's hard to change people's opinions who aren't open to change. I think that being more visible, having the Diversity Group become a committee to kinda become a formal part of the school is certainly something that will help raise more attention, and if those kids can become more active in just simple things, like signs for events, having an activity once in a while, I think it would do more to raise the awareness that we have issues..." (Staff)

While both students and staff ranked the expansion of an existing "International Night" program as being the next best way to improve inclusivity, a proportion of approximately three times as many students as staff mentioned this idea.

Ex.: "I think that trying to get people to mix, like more International Nights where you learn more about other people's cultures and backgrounds, educating people about differences in the school, but also how similar everyone is and that they're here for the same goal. Getting to talk about this more would help." (Student)

Ex.: 'We also have a thing called an International Night? I think that could be really expanded. They do a lot, but more can be done with that, it's just some food and some posters...Maybe if they had something at school for the whole day, invite other schools." (Staff)

An equal number of students mentioned commitments to being more open, welcoming, and inclusive in their personal interactions with others as mentioned commitments to working on establishing a formal Diversity Club at their school (again, refer to Table 3).

Ex.: "Go against the crowd, talk to people others wouldn't usually talk to. Not follow 'groupiness,' cross boundaries." (Student)

Ex.: "I've made the attempt to get this diversity group more of a club where others can join. I've dropped back from that with AP's but I'd like to look back on that as a contribution." (Student)

Staff overwhelmingly stated their commitment to working on institutionalizing the Diversity Club, especially by recruiting students and staff who didn't volunteer.

Ex.: "Be part of the diversity group and participate when I can, as often as I can." (Staff)

Ex.: "With next year, to expand the Diversity Group, you know, just have some more activities; working with the Attorney General's office on an anti-violence initiative, and in September, working with another program on antiracism/prejudice. I'm excited, we're not done, although we're really satisfied with what we have accomplished, but I think the other thing that's really important is to embrace other adult faculty." (Staff)

Developing a more formalized and structured Diversity Club (and having more workshops and Study Circles of the kind participants attended) is the area of most substantial agreement among students and staff.

Of interest to most respondents was the issue of recruiting and marketing strategies to involve those who are unreceptive to this kind of message.

Ex.: "Work it into the school day somehow, because some people wouldn't participate willingly; make it a class requirement in one certain class that everybody takes." (Student)

Some staff members were especially concerned that faculty and staff become broadly involved, and were equally concerned about the difficulty of achieving this. Notably, each staff member did have some suggestions for addressing these problems, such as personal invitations from staff currently involved so as to spread participation throughout their social network and branch out from there.

Ex.: "And I think that I'd certainly be willing to help to organize and plan if they were going to have some kind of an event, and invite other faculty members to come to that workshop the next time we have one, or a Study Circle, because sometimes I think that it's hard for people to say "no" when you approach them yourself." (Staff)

Discussion

The "Dealing with Differences" program appeared to have a meaningful impact on amplifying participants' motivation to work for a more tolerant school environment where a wider variety of people can feel at home. The program also had some impact on increasing participants' knowledge and skills for such work. The effects on knowledge and skills unfolded somewhat differently for students and staff, however. More frequently than staff, students stated the importance of particular concepts or skills in relation to the diversity workshops, even though both groups of participants saw the interpersonal processes they experienced as the most significant aspect of the workshops. Conversely, within the Study Circles, staff were more impressed with the specific topics of discussion, while students again were more struck by the experience of the interpersonal processes involved.

The differences between staff and student second-rankings of what's most memorable about the workshops may be due to the greater familiarity most staff have with diversity-related concepts from their educational background (this was noted by four staff members). Even so, staff did mention the presentation and linkage of concepts as refreshing.

The greater salience for staff of the discussions about cliques and the experiences of youth seems to lie in the opportunity to listen to students' perspectives about these topics. A couple of staff members specifically noted that they enjoyed hearing students talk about their experiences as a group, because they usually interact with students one-on-one. This finding supports the rationale for separation of student and staff responses in the qualitative analysis. It was particularly helpful for staff to hear from students at different schools, because it clarified some important areas of strength that they had overlooked (generally greater tolerance across social groupings) as well as some commonalities that were surprising (the consensus among students of how much pressure they feel in almost all areas of their lives).

Students' responses to the question about the learnings they'd most like to share with peers clearly indicate their appreciation of the importance of resisting the impulse to judge by appearances alone, listening critically and being open-minded, initiating interactions with those seen as "different," and discovering commonalities by getting to know "different" people. Since these points are reflective of several factors derived from research on intergroup relations and prejudice reduction discussed earlier (specifically, factors 1-3, 5 and 6), the program is achieving results that are consistent with the intent of its design and theoretical underpinnings.

Responses from participants suggest that the strong emphasis on creating a safe environment for honest, personalized interaction (and by implication, the facilitators' ability to actually do this) was a significant contributor to participants' heightened comfort and motivation for interacting with diverse others after the workshops. There is also some support in this data for the value of the experiential pedagogy we used in understanding the stereotyping, prejudice, and exclusion/ discrimination dynamic. As an example, the "exclusion exercise" from the workshop is a type of empathy-building/role-playing method, according to Aboud & Levy's (2000) description (for other empirical support of this method, see Stephan & Stephan, 1984).

These conclusions from the interviews were supported by member checks, which further revealed that students and staff remain enthusiastically involved in efforts to build community. Since the April 2000 Study Circle, the urban high school has:

• Hosted another "Dealing with Differences" workshop with the suburban and rural high schools,
• Sent several participants in their Diversity Club to be trained as facilitators by the National Coalition Building Institute (NCBI; an organization that provides anti-racism and prejudice-reduction workshops),
• Held an all-school anti-violence assembly with several invited community leaders,
• Participated in a community march against violence (an outgrowth of the assembly), and
• Held a "student exchange" with the suburban school (students from each school have visited the other school for a day and shared feedback on the experience).

To the extent that this intervention has been helpful, the fact that there was a relatively short history of conflict between two ethnic groups within a multi-ethnic setting is an important contributing factor. Maoz (2000) illustrates how cooperative interaction is not always enough to overcome intergroup conflict in a circumstance where there is a long history of such conflict (in his example, between Israelis and Palestinians). "Dealing with Differences" capitalized on the diversity within this urban high school in two ways: first, the power dynamics weren't unidimensional; and second, because the conflict wasn't an entrenched ethno-political struggle, it was more possible to craft an experience where shared superordinate goals (Sherif, 1966) could be mutually agreed upon.

The consensus of all participants is that institutionalizing a Diversity Club and expanding it to a wider audience is a critical step in helping to make their school a place where marginalizing the "different" is a less acceptable and common occurrence. One implication of Devine, Plant & Buswell's (2000) work for this program involves working with those who have low internal motivation to be non-prejudiced, but are highly responsive to external social pressure to appear non-prejudiced. Devine et al. (2000) suggest that appealing to egalitarian ideals (and where possible, explicitly defining such ideals as meaning equal opportunity for all) may create internal motivation to be non-prejudiced in those who have high external motivation to be non-prejudiced. To the extent that this point is valid, this program can be effective with participants from this population by amplifying empathy for outgroups and making the argument for equal opportunity/treatment of outgroups salient. Also, Devine et al.¡s (2000) report implies that participants in this program who wish to establish non-prejudiced norms in their community need to develop a variety of strategies, starting with framing interventions in terms of value self-confrontation (Rokeach, 1973).

Limitations of this Pilot Study

While the overall results of this study are promising, they must be viewed with caution given the small sample size. The low rate of return on the PSOC raises concerns about both power and representativeness. The major contributors to this low rate appear to be a pervasive distrust of surveys among staff, and difficulties in getting parents' signatures on students' consent forms. This school is in the midst of a major building expansion and reorganization effort, and resistance to this or any survey may reflect anxieties about how this information will be used with respect to this major organizational change. Supporting this conjecture are the three staff who returned PSOC forms with notes saying that they do not participate in any surveys (two such notes came back in the first administration, and one in the second). In future sampling of students, incentives for participation will be explored, as well as other ways of facilitating the return of consent forms.

The anomalous direction of significance for the PSOC data may have been due to other critical events during the interval between the first and second administration of the surveys. In the fall of 2000, a student committed suicide, and from September to February, there were three shooting incidents in the community that involved teens or young adults who had some connection to students currently at the urban high school. The low completion rate could also be a factor, as there may have been differential participation in the survey, with more of the respondents being dissatisfied with the sense of community there. This is not to say that one should conclude that the null hypothesis ought to be "accepted", only that the direction of statistical significance in the PSOC results is plausibly due to systematic variation that wasn't controlled for.

One of the other limitations of this program is that only a couple of participants reported learning skills for effective intervention in situations where someone is being excluded. To their credit, staff at the urban high school are quite aware of this and have been seeking ways to enhance student ¡s conflict resolution skills (a grant was submitted to the office of the New York State Attorney General for just such a program, but it was not funded).

But, even though skills at intervention have not been specifically referred to as a program result, there is anecdotal evidence that such skills are being exercised. In one such incident, a young man who was not a student at the school came there to look for a student who had "dissed" his girlfriend at a party in the community. Some students of the same ethnicity as this young man who had been program participants defused the situation and suggested that "...We're not here for that. There are better ways of handling this, so don't bring that negativity here..." (Staff report, corroborated independently by student). The young man then left without further incident.

The above example is one of effective conflict resolution, yet it implies the ethical issues inherent in successfully motivating students to intervene in intergroup conflicts whenever possible. Had there been any violence associated with this incident, it would have been tragic for everyone. Individual differences in temperament suggest that the goal of programs such as this one should be to encourage intervention (with prudent risk-assessment, of course) for those who are most suited to that, and preventive measures (approaching the marginalized, educating the community about various groups, etc.) for those less inclined to direct confrontation. Ultimately, making all parties aware of both paths and providing knowledge and skill building relevant to both would be key.

Although there is considerable sensitivity among most students and staff at this urban high school to what they perceive as a negative public perception of their school, their consistent efforts toward goals that match the eight factors mentioned earlier as crucial to the development of more inclusive communities go well beyond mere impression management. This investigator believes that the level of trust developed with most participants during the training permitted full candor about their experiences. Even so, the structured interview should have had a specific question about anything that they perceived as negative or lacking in the training, rather than relying on the more general final question, "Is there anything else that you think it would be important for me or others to know about this program?" Considering that the author was involved in this project on multiple levels (as one of the designers and facilitators as well as the principal investigator), it may be fruitful in addition to this investigation to have an independent observer assess behaviors consistent with a more inclusive community. It would certainly be helpful to utilize a more systematic and rigorous evaluation of this intervention at this and other sites, given the constraints on research design imposed by the pragmatics of responding swiftly to the needs of this school and the surrounding community.

Conclusion

The issue of intergroup conflict and the aggression it can spawn has been important to schools for some time, but especially so over the last decade. Adding perspectives from prejudice reduction to efforts at violence prevention is a valuable use of scientific advances in social cognition. The findings of this pilot study on the "Dealing with Differences" program highlight the importance of involving students and staff in collaborative efforts to improve the social climate of their school. The creation of a group setting, which fostered the opportunity to discuss shared concerns in a mutually respectful way and the development of empathy is clearly an important aspect of participants' perceptions of the value of this program.

Providing this kind of working environment requires skills above and beyond the vitally important ones of developing coherent lesson plans, selecting appropriate readings, and devising valid and reliable tests. Educators would do well to make use of more experiential modes of instruction to address issues of intergroup conflict. Training in group facilitation and skills in leading (not to mention managing) emotionally charged discussions would be helpful, and not just for counselors or social studies teachers. For administrators, awareness of the need to support the development and institutionalization of organizations to promote inclusivity in all aspects of the school is key, as is a clearly articulated and executed commitment to this goal.

Of course, translating the positive experiences of a training group into lasting changes in organizational culture is a more elusive goal, and the results of this pilot study certainly attest to that. It is unclear what the critical mass of participation in a "Diversity Club" would need to be, nor what activities beyond participation in the "Dealing with Differences" program would be required in order to significantly improve the sense of community and inclusivity at this or any other school.

Further action research on this program has been conducted with the suburban and rural schools to determine in what ways the patterns of effects are the same or different, although this research shares some of the methodological limitations of the pilot study. While the settings have different dynamics, participants at all sites have reported similar insights and action orientations in response to this program (Smith, in press). More controlled research is needed to demonstrate what are the necessary and sufficient components for effectiveness in this anti-prejudice, anti-violence, and community building program.

Appendix A: Participant Interview

Gender (circle one) M F Ethnicity/Cultural Background _____________________

Grade _____ Workshops attended? 1998 2000 Study Circles attended? 1999 2000

1. What statement best represents your attitude towards interacting with and getting to know people in social groups/cliques that are very different from your own?

1. I dislike interacting with others who are different.
2. I don't feel comfortable interacting with those who are different and I try to avoid it if possible.
3. I don't feel comfortable interacting with those who are different but I am willing to try if they seem willing.
4. I am open to the possibility of getting to know others who are different, but it's not very important to me.
5. I am interested in getting to know others who are different but I am not sure how to go about it.
6. Getting to know others who are different is very important to me and I am willing to go out of my way to interact with them.
7. I have no opinion one way or the other.

2. How often do you interact with people in social groups/cliques that are different than yours at school?

1. Every day.
2. A few times per week.
3. Once a week.
4. A few times per month.
5. Once a month.
6. Never.

3. What statement best represents your attitude towards interacting with and getting to know people whose ethnic/cultural background is very different from your own?

1. I dislike interacting with others who are different.
2. I don't feel comfortable interacting with those who are different and I try to avoid it if possible.
3. I don't feel comfortable interacting with those who are different but I am willing to try if they seem willing.
4. I am open to the possibility of getting to know others who are different, but it's not very important to me.
5. I am interested in getting to know others who are different but I am not sure how to go about it.
6. Getting to know others who are different is very important to me and I am willing to go out of my way to interact with them.
7. I have no opinion one way or the other.

4. How often do you interact with people of a different ethnic/cultural background than yours at school?

1. Every day.
2. A few times per week.
3. Once a week.
4. A few times per month.
5. Once a month.
6. Never.

5. How often do you interact with people of a different ethnic/cultural background than yours outside school?

1. Every day.
2. A few times per week.
3. Once a week.
4. A few times per month.
5. Once a month.
6. Never.

6. a. What clubs/sports/activities do you participate in besides academic classes at school (for example, band, student government, theater, soccer, etc.)?

b. What clubs/sports/activities are you involved in outside of school (for example, church, recreation, volunteering, etc.)?

7. Have you observed another student at you school being ignored, snubbed, picked on, harassed, threatened, or attacked (Y/N)? _______ Think of a specific example.

1. (If yes) Why do you think they got treated this way?
2. (If yes) What did you do in response?

8. a. (if applicable) What do you remember most about the diversity workshops(1998 & 2000)? Is there a particular exercise or discussion that really stands out in your mind?

b. (if applicable) What do you remember most about the Study Circles (1999 & 2000)? Is there a particular exercise or discussion that really stands out in your mind?

9. What did you learn from these experiences that you would most want to share with fellow students at your school?

10. What do you think would be the best way to help students and staff at your school to be more welcoming and exclude others less?

11. Consider how you used to deal with or think about people you considered "different" from yourself in some way (for example, in hobbies, taste in music/clothes, lifestyle, culture, etc.). Have your experiences in this program had any effect on this?

12. What steps are you personally most comfortable in taking to help make your school more welcoming and inclusive?

13. Is there anything else that you think it would be important for me or others to know about this program?

Appendix B: Sense Of Community Scale

Grade _____ Gender (circle one) M F Ethnicity/Cultural Background ___________

Please respond to each of the following statements as they apply to your current personal experience as a member of your High School community. For each of the statements the terms "community" and "here" means your High School community itself. PLEASE, BE SURE TO READ EACH OF THE ITEMS CAREFULLY AND RESPOND TO ALL OF THE ITEMS BY WRITING THE NUMBER THAT BEST FITS YOUR RESPONSE ON THE SPACE TO THE LEFT OF EACH ITEM. Please, use the following scale:

Not At All         So So         Very Much
        1     2     3     4     5     6

_____ 1. I can really be myself in this community.

_____ 2. I have a sense of security in this community.

_____ 3. I have friends in this community who are an important part of my life.

_____ 4. I feel that I belong here.

_____ 5. I feel lonely in this community.

_____ 6. This community satisfies what I want in terms of relationships with other people.

_____ 7. This community offers me enough opportunities for friendship.

_____ 8. If I had a personal difficulty, there would be people here to whom I could turn for help.

_____ 9. I feel useful in this community.

_____ 10. If I were to fail to take good care of myself, there would be people who would look after me.

_____ 11. I feel that the community's decision-makers work with the well being of this community in mind.

_____ 12. There are people (other than family members) in this community about whom I really care.

_____ 13. I do not feel safe in this community.

_____ 14. I feel isolated from others in this community.

_____ 15. It is important to me that this community does well.

_____ 16. It is too difficult for me to make friends in this community.

_____ 17. I feel that I get something positive out of being a member of this community.

_____ 18. My friends in this community know that they can depend on me.

_____ 19. I trust the leaders of this community.

_____ 20. There are people (other than family members) in this community who care about me.

_____ 21. If I were to try, I could help to change things in this community.

_____ 22. There are people in this community who have goals similar to my own goals.

I. What statement best represents your attitude towards interacting with and getting to know people in social groups/cliques that are very different from your own?

1. I dislike interacting with others who are different.
2. I don't feel comfortable interacting with those who are different and I try to avoid it if possible.
3. I don't feel comfortable interacting with those who are different but I am willing to try if they seem willing.
4. I am open to the possibility of getting to know others who are different, but it's not very important to me.
5. I am interested in getting to know others who are different but I am not sure how to go about it.
6. Getting to know others who are different is very important to me and I am willing to go out of my way to interact with them.
7. I have no opinion one way or the other.

II. How often do you interact with people in social groups/cliques that are different than yours at school?

1. Every day.
2. A few times per week.
3. Once a week.
4. A few times per month.
5. Once a month.
6. Never.

III. What statement best represents your attitude towards interacting with and getting to know people whose ethnic/cultural background is very different from your own?

1. I dislike interacting with others who are different.
2. I don't feel comfortable interacting with those who are different and I try to avoid it if possible.
3. I don't feel comfortable interacting with those who are different but I am willing to try if they seem willing.
4. I am open to the possibility of getting to know others who are different, but it's not very important to me.
5. I am interested in getting to know others who are different but I am not sure how to go about it.
6. Getting to know others who are different is very important to me and I am willing to go out of my way to interact with them.
7. I have no opinion one way or the other.

IV. How often do you interact with people of a different ethnic/cultural background than yours at school?

1. Every day.
2. A few times per week.
3. Once a week.
4. A few times per month.
5. Once a month.
6. Never.

V. How often do you interact with people of a different ethnic/cultural background than yours outside school?

1. Every day.
2. A few times per week.
3. Once a week.
4. A few times per month.
5. Once a month.
6. Never.

VI. a. What clubs/sports/activities do you participate in besides academic classes at school (for example, band, student government, theater, soccer, etc.)?

b. What clubs/sports/activities are you involved in outside of school (for example, church, recreation, volunteering, etc.)?

PLEASE DON'T DISCUSS THIS SURVEY OR YOUR RESPONSES WITH ANYONE AT SCHOOL UNTIL THE END OF THE YEAR. THANKS FOR YOUR HELP!

Author's Note

I am very grateful to the principals, staff and students at Proctor, Waterville, and Whitesboro High Schools for their energetic participation in this project; to John Holt and Mahadevi Ramakrishnan for their input in developing and facilitating the "Dealing With Differences" program; and to Vinod Kool, Mahadevi Ramakrishnan, Steven Specht, JoEllen Vespo, and Richard Wagner for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to R. Scott Smith, Department of Psychology, Utica College of Syracuse University, 1600 Burrstone Road, Utica, NY 13502-4892. Electronic mail may be sent to rsmith@utica.edu. To telephone, (315) 792-3240; faxes may be sent to (315) 792-3292.

References

Aboud, F. E. & Levy, S. R. (2000). Interventions to reduce prejudice and discrimination in children and adolescents. In S. Oskamp (Ed.) Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 269-293). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Aronson, E. (1999). The social animal (8th ed.). New York: Worth

Aronson, E., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., Blaney, N., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological Psychology: Concepts and methods for studying the environment of human behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Brewer, M. B. (2000). Reducing prejudice through cross-categorization: Effects of multiple social identities. In S. Oskamp (Ed.) Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 165-183). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bridgeman, D. (1981). Enhanced role-taking through cooperative interdependence: A field study. Child Development, 52, 1231-1238.

Campbell, S. (1996). Youth issues, youth voices: A guide for engaging youth and adults in public dialogue and problem solving. Pomfret, CT: Topsfield Foundation.

Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotyping and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5-18.

Devine, P. G.; Plant, E. A.; & Buswell, B. N. (2000). Breaking the prejudice habit: Progress and obstacles. In S. Oskamp (Ed.) Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 185-208). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Devine, P. G. & Vasquez, K. A. (1998). The rocky road to positive intergroup relations. In J. L. Eberhardt & S. T. Fiske (Eds.) Confronting racism: The problem and the response (pp. 234-262). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dovidio, J. F.; Kawakami, K.; & Gaertner, S. L. (2000). Reducing contemporary prejudice: Combating explicit and implicit bias at the individual and intergroup level. In S. Oskamp (Ed.) Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 137-163). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Frey, D., & Gaertner, S. L. (1986). Helping and the avoidance of inappropriate interracial behavior: A strategy that can perpetuate a non-prejudiced self-image. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1083-1090.

Gaertner, S. L.; Mann, J. A.; Dovidio, J. F.; Murrell, A. J.; & Pomare, M. (1990). How does cooperation reduce intergroup bias? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59 692-704.

Habbel, D. M., & Smith, R. S. (1993). Framework for applying critical thinking to intercultural encounters. Paper and workshop presented at the 13th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking at Sonoma State University.

Jones, J. M. (1997). Prejudice and racism (2d ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Langer, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Maoz, I. (2000). Multiple conflicts and competing agendas: A framework for conceptualizing structured encounters between groups in conflict--The case of a coexistence project of Jews and Palestinians in Israel. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 6(2), 135-156.

McGregor, J. (1993). Effectiveness of role-playing and antiracist teaching in reducing student prejudice. Journal of Educational Research, 86, 215-226.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Morey, T. M., & Schell, R. E. (1999). Phenomenological sense of a college community:Development of a measure consistent with the values of community psychology. Paper presented at the Eastern Psychological Association Meetings, Providence, RI.

Morey, T. M., & Schell, R. E. (2000). Phenomenological sense of community scale: Initial validation of the measure. Paper presented at the Eastern Psychological Association Meetings, Baltimore, MD.

N4 (Non-numerical Unstructured Data Indexing Searching and Theorizing) qualitative data analysis program, Version 4 (1998). Melbourne, Australia: Qualitative Solutions Research, Pty. Ltd.

Opotow, S. (1990). Moral exclusion and injustice: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 46(1), pp. 1-20.

Pedersen, P. (1993). Mediating multicultural conflict by separating behaviors from expectations in a cultural grid. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 17(3), 343-354.

Pettigrew, T. F. & Tropp, L. R. (2000). Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Recent meta-analytic findings. In S. Oskamp (Ed.) Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 93-114). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rappaport, J. (1977). Community psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.

Sherif, M. (1966). Group conflict and cooperation. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Sidanius, J.; Levin, S.; Rabinowitz, J. L.; & Federico, C. M. (1999). Peering into the jaws of the beast: The integrative dynamics of social identity, symbolic racism, and social dominance. In D. Prentice & D. Miller (Eds.) Cultural divides: Understanding and overcoming group conflict (pp. 80-132). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Smith, K. K. (1982). Groups in conflict: Prisons in disguise. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Smith, R. S. (in press). Using the paradigm of prejudice-reduction to minimize conflict among cliques in a high school setting. In A. Crume (Ed.) Regional Peace Studies Consortium Annual Journal 2001-2002, pp. 103-122.

Smith, R. S., & Habbel, D. M. (1996a). "Leadership as the cultivation of culturally mediated interpretive frameworks." Paper presented at the 15th Annual Conference of the Institute for Global and Cultural Studies at SUNY Binghamton, Binghamton, NY.

Smith, R. S., & Habbel, D. M. (1996b). "Transformational leadership and cultural diversity: Interdependence and synergy." Paper presented at the First Annual Multicultural Studies Conference, Allen University, Columbia, SC.

Snyder, M. (1984). When belief creates reality. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 247-305). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Stephan, W. G. (1999). Reducing prejudice and stereotyping in schools. New York: Teacher's College Press.

Stephan, W. G. & Stephan, C. W. (1984). The role of ignorance in intergroup relations. In N. Miller & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation (pp. 229-257). New York: Academic Press.

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel and W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-17). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Word, C., Zanna, M., & Cooper, J. (1974). The nonverbal mediation of self-fulfilling prophecies in interracial interaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 109-120.