Post on 05-May-2018
1
Leveraging a Pride Perspective on Difference to Foster Student Achievement and Success
Nicole M. Stephens
Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University
MarYam G. Hamedani
Center for Social Psychological Answers to Real-world Questions (SPARQ),
Stanford University
Sarah S. M. Townsend
Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California
2
Abstract This article presents a new way to help disadvantaged students succeed in higher education:
pride interventions. Pride interventions teach students a contextual and asset-based
understanding of social difference, leveraging the idea that people’s different backgrounds are an
important source of identity, meaning, and motivation. We propose that pride interventions have
two key benefits: improving disadvantaged students’ academic performance and increasing all
students’ understandings of difference. We begin by describing “pride” vs. “prejudice”
perspectives on social difference, and discuss how these perspectives suggest different ways to
intervene. Second, we review scholarship from education, cultural psychology, and
organizational behavior, which documents that acknowledging or including people’s diverse
backgrounds in their schools and workplaces can improve performance. Third, we use our recent
research on difference-education as an example to illustrate how pride interventions can improve
students’ academic and social outcomes over time. Specifically, we theorize that pride
interventions benefit disadvantaged students (e.g., first-generation students) by providing a
contextual and asset-based understanding of difference that increases their sense of fit and
empowerment in college. Finally, we outline additional benefits of pride interventions, and
describe strategies that researchers and educators can employ to effectively educate students
about social difference in today’s diverse and divided world.
Word Count: 200
3
Leveraging a Pride Perspective on Difference to Foster Student Achievement and Success
The culture of American higher education, especially at elite colleges and universities,
reflects and promotes assumptions about what it means to be “smart,” “educated,” and
“successful.” These assumptions are not neutral, but are instead powerfully shaped by White,
middle-to-upper class beliefs, norms, and values (e.g., Fryberg, Covarrubias, & Burack, 2013;
Quaye & Harper, 2014). As a result, students of color, as well as students from low-income or
working-class backgrounds, often feel excluded in these educational settings, which can lead
them to question whether they fit or belong in college (e.g., Covarrubias & Fryberg, 2015;
Ostrove & Long, 2007; Walton & Cohen, 2007). Students from low-income or working-class
backgrounds can also be unfamiliar with the “rules of the game” needed to succeed in higher
education, which can undermine their sense of empowerment and efficacy (e.g., Housel &
Harvey, 2010; Ostrove & Long, 2007; Reay, Crozier, & Clayton, 2009). Taken together,
participating in these kinds of mainstream college environments can systematically disadvantage
underrepresented students,1 and contribute to the persistent achievement gap between these
students and their advantaged peers (Astin & Oseguera, 2004; Bowen, Kurzweil, & Tobin, 2005;
Croizet & Millet, 2011; Goudeau & Croizet, 2017; Sirin, 2005). These psychological challenges
work alongside disparities in resources and pre-college preparation to fuel the achievement gap.
In recent years, college student activists have organized to spotlight these kinds of
disparate educational experiences and the unequal outcomes they can produce (Wong, 2015;
Wong & Green, 2016). On campuses across the nation, these activists have joined together to
bring attention to numerous ways that institutions of higher education can marginalize students,
as well as produce and maintain disparities in students’ social experiences, academic
1 By the term underrepresented, we refer to students who are underrepresented in higher education—for example, students who are first-generation, low income, and/or racial or ethnic minorities.
4
performance, and access to opportunities. Student activists have proposed several strategies that
they hope will mitigate these inequities and increase inclusion on their campuses. One proposed
strategy is for schools to implement new programs designed to educate students, faculty, and
staff about the ways in which people’s different backgrounds and social group memberships can
shape their experiences in college and in life, including how they understand themselves, relate
to others, and experience the world (cf., Libresco, 2015). For example, student activists at
Princeton demanded cultural competency training for staff and faculty at the university, as well
as mandatory classes on “the history of marginalized peoples” for students. As these Princeton
activists wrote in their list of demands, “Learning about marginalized groups, their cultures, and
structures of privilege is just as important as any science or quantitative reasoning course.”
Student activists’ demands tap into the larger public conversation about what it means to
be an equal, inclusive, and just society today, especially as the U.S. population becomes more
diverse and grapples with what this diversity means. Today’s multicultural and interconnected
world requires the skills to both understand and navigate across various forms of social
difference, such as those due to race or ethnicity, social class, religion, gender, nation of origin,
and sexuality.2 In fact, educators at leading schools, colleges, and universities across the country
increasingly identify this capacity as critical to a 21st-century education (Binkley et al., 2012;
Harper, 2008; Hurtado, 2007; Soland, Hamilton, & Stecher, 2013). Importantly, efforts to
educate students about difference and inequality would not only help to address student activists’
2 The term social difference refers to the systematic variation in people’s experiences, opportunities, or outcomes that can emerge from different prior experiences in particular contexts over time (Adams, Biernat, Branscombe, Crandall, & Wrightsman, 2008; Bruner, 1990; Markus, 2008; Omi & Winant, 1986). These differences, however, are rarely seen as neutral and are often associated with particular systems of hierarchy and oppression (Markus, 2008; Markus & Moya, 2010).
5
concerns, but also provide a way to begin building the crucial understanding and multicultural
skills that are needed in today’s diverse and divided world.3
Can we take advantage of this timely opportunity to educate students about social
difference and inequality while, at the same time, leveraging these insights to help mitigate
persistent disparities in students’ college experiences and academic performance? Bringing
together insights from successful social psychological interventions and literatures in education,
cultural psychology, and organizational behavior, we propose that interventions that
communicate a pride perspective on social difference have the potential to accomplish both of
these important goals. Teaching students a pride perspective on difference means helping them
understand, first, how and why social differences matter, and, second, that social differences can
be a source of identity, meaning, and motivation. We theorize that this perspective can benefit
students from diverse backgrounds, enable them to feel like they fit in college, and empower
them with the know-how and skills that they need to succeed.
In this article, we begin by describing “pride” vs. “prejudice” perspectives on social
difference, and discuss how these perspectives inform different ways to intervene to help
disadvantaged students succeed in school. We then review evidence supporting the efficacy of
pride interventions, and use our recent research on difference-education as an example to
illustrate our theory of how pride interventions can improve students’ academic and social
outcomes over time (cf. Stephens, Hamedani, & Destin, 2014; Stephens, Townsend, Hamedani,
Destin, & Manzo, 2015; Townsend, Stephens, Smallets, & Hamedani, 2017). Finally, we outline
additional benefits—beyond improving the academic performance of disadvantaged students—
3 Like all social psychological interventions, educating students about difference on its own is not a panacea. Sustained changes to individuals’ experiences and outcomes require not only changing individuals, but also changing the institutions that would support and sustain these individual-level changes over time (e.g., changes to policy or practice).
6
that a pride intervention can produce for all students, and describe strategies that a pride
intervention can employ to effectively educate students about difference.
Social Psychology: Ambivalence about Difference
What can social psychology tell us about the promises and pitfalls of educating students
about difference? The field provides us with two divergent answers to this question: that calling
attention to differences between social groups can either serve as a source of pride or as a source
of prejudice.
As Markus (2008) argues in her article, “Pride, Prejudice, and Ambivalence: Toward a
Unified Theory of Race and Ethnicity,” social psychology’s first and most common answer is
that calling attention to social difference is a source of prejudice. From this perspective, focusing
on differences between people or social groups is largely viewed as a situational threat.
Differences are seen as negative or divisive because, when they are acknowledged or become
salient, they have the potential to result in stereotyping, bias, and discrimination. As she
explains, this common view of difference derives from the field’s historic desire to distinguish
itself from personality and clinical psychology by locating people’s differences in external and
malleable social situations, rather than internal, stable, or “essential” traits or characteristics. This
prejudice view of difference is also grounded in social psychology’s commitment to
understanding the basic processes by which the immediate situation fuels biased cognition,
emotion, and behavior, rather than the ways in which those processes might be culture-specific,
or function differently for particular social groups. The prejudice literature includes work on
intergroup relations, implicit bias, social categorization, and social identity threat. This literature
tends to view attending to difference as detrimental because of its potential to foster intergroup
conflict, as well as to make people feel threatened, devalued, or excluded (e.g., Brewer & Miller,
7
1984; Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000; Steele, 2010; for discussion see Gurin & Nagda, 2006; Gurin,
Nagda, & Zúñiga, 2013).
The second and less common answer is that calling attention to social difference is not
only a source of bias and discrimination, but can also be a source of pride. From a pride
perspective, recognizing differences between people or social groups has the potential to be
positive or affirming because these differences are also a source of self or identity,4 meaning, and
motivation. As Markus (2008) describes, from a pride perspective, social differences are
contextual: they derive from people’s ongoing participation and repeated experiences in
particular sociocultural contexts5 over time. Since these contexts are diverse in cultural beliefs,
values, and practices, as well as material conditions and resources, so too are the people who
inhabit them. In other words, people’s ongoing participation in different social contexts (e.g.,
contexts that differ by race, ethnicity, or social class) produces different lived experiences,
which, in turn, shape the type of self that one is likely to become and how that self thinks, feels,
and acts in the world. These differences can be experienced or perceived positively or negatively
depending on the status, power dynamics, or valuations associated with a given background or
social group membership (Markus, 2008; Markus & Moya, 2010). While the pride perspective
certainly recognizes that social differences can be a source of prejudice, it also acknowledges
that we should not overlook the ways in which they can also function as a source of pride.
4 By the term self, we refer to the “me” at center of experience that continually develops through ongoing engagement in particular sociocultural contexts (Markus, 2008; Markus & Kitayama, 2010). The self can have and use multiple identities that shape how the individual makes sense of experience and responds to the environment. These identities can be personal, collective, social, or organizational. When we use the terms self or identity in this article, we utilize the terms that the researchers have used in the work that we reference. 5 The term sociocultural context refers to a socially and historically constructed environment that contains a set of culture-specific ideas, practices, and institutions (Markus & Hamedani, 2007; Stephens, Markus, & Fryberg, 2012).
8
The pride literature includes work on cultural models of self; the sociocultural shaping of
thought, feeling, and action; and identity-based motivation (e.g., Markus & Kitayama, 1991,
Markus & Kitayama, 2010; Mesquita & Frijda, 1992; Oyserman, Fryberg, & Yoder, 2007). This
literature tends to view attending to and acknowledging difference as worthwhile because of its
potential to serve as a source of meaning, motivation, and engagement; affirm or empower the
self; and foster group-based identity and solidarity. Research on culture and the self, for
example, reveals that coming from a working-class background need not be experienced as a
disadvantage in high status workplace environments, but can instead serve as an asset or
strength. For example, in an interview study with Masters in Business Administration students,
one student from a working-class background stated: “There’s a lot of pride that you take in
being self-made to a certain degree, not having people open those doors for you, having to
recognize opportunities and seize them when the time came. And it teaches you a certain level of
work ethic and appreciation because it wasn’t just something that you fell into, you had to work
hard for it, so, you want to make the most of those opportunities” (Dittmann, Stephens, &
Townsend, 2017). While coming from a working-class background in college-educated
workplaces is often associated with needing to confront and overcome background-specific6
challenges (e.g., having limited cultural capital to succeed compared to middle- or upper-class
peers; Rivera, 2012; Rivera, 2015), it can also serve as an asset or strength—a source of pride
and motivation.
Pride and Prejudice Perspectives on Difference Lead to Different Ways to Intervene
Both the pride and prejudice perspectives on social difference are informative and useful,
yet offer different ways to explain educational disparities between groups, as well as suggest
6 The term background-specific refers to content (e.g., obstacles, strengths, or strategies) that is especially relevant to students from particular backgrounds.
9
different ways to intervene to reduce these disparities. Keeping the pride and prejudice
perspectives in mind, consider how they might explain the underperformance of first-generation
or working-class7 college students—i.e., students who have neither parent with a four-year
degree—in higher education. Viewing social difference through a prejudice perspective, for
example, might lead you to focus on the features or cues in the immediate situation that could be
threatening and hold students back. For example, the stereotype threat literature demonstrates
that making social class differences salient in performance situations can activate negative
stereotypes about working-class students’ intellectual abilities, increase their levels of stress and
anxiety, and undermine their academic engagement, identification, and performance (Croizet &
Claire, 1998; Croizet & Millet, 2011; Spencer & Castano, 2007; Steele, 1997).
Since the prejudice perspective views difference as a source of situational threat,
interventions grounded in this perspective seek to buffer or protect students from negative
experiences that can result from social difference. Specifically, these interventions tend to focus
on protecting students from the threat of social difference by changing how students construe
their experiences of social identity threat. For example, “belongingness” interventions change
how students construe their particular experiences of adversity so that they interpret it as a
common experience that is shared with other students (e.g., Walton & Cohen, 2007; Yeager et
al., 2016). Similarly, “affirmation” interventions seek to buffer students from social identity
threat by affirming students’ personal values and thereby broadening how they construe their
experiences of adversity (e.g., Cohen, Garcia, Apfel, & Master, 2006; Sherman et al., 2013). A
7 Given that parental educational attainment is widely regarded as a proxy for students’ social class backgrounds (e.g., Sirin, 2005; Snibbe & Markus, 2005; Stephens, Markus, & Townsend, 2007), throughout this article, we refer to first-generation students as working-class or as from working-class backgrounds.
10
number of popular and successful social psychological interventions that seek to reduce
educational disparities are informed by this prejudice perspective (cf. Brady, Reeves, et al., 2016;
Cohen & Sherman, 2014; Kinias & Sim, in press; Miyake et al., 2010; Sherman et al., 2013;
Walton & Cohen, 2007).
On the other hand, viewing social difference through a pride perspective would involve
explaining the underperformance of first-generation students in a different way. The pride
perspective would take into account not only cues in the immediate situation that could hold
students back, but also how first-generation students’ different experiences in previous
sociocultural contexts and culture-specific selves might cause them to experience a culture clash
with the middle-to-upper class culture of higher education. For example, the literature on cultural
models of self demonstrates that many mainstream educational settings exclude or devalue
working-class students’ culture-specific selves and ways of being, and that acknowledging or
including these students’ different perspectives or experiences can significantly improve their
engagement, motivation, and performance (e.g., Brannon, Markus, & Taylor, 2015; Covarrubias,
Herrmann, & Fryberg, 2016; Stephens, Fryberg, Markus, Johnson, & Covarrubias, 2012).
While there is a growing body of empirical work in social psychology demonstrating the
benefits of including students’ backgrounds in their educational experiences (e.g., Brannon et al.,
2015; Cheryan, Plaut, Davies, & Steele, 2009), to our knowledge, educational interventions
designed to leverage the pride perspective to help disadvantaged students succeed academically
have not been tried until recently. Since the pride perspective views social difference as a
potential source of identity, meaning, and motivation, interventions guided by this perspective
would seek to leverage the positive and empowering benefits of difference by acknowledging its
significance in students’ lives. A pride intervention would teach students a new way of
11
understanding8 their own and others’ social differences—both their experiences of feeling
different from others in college and actually encountering different experiences as they engage in
college environments. This understanding can help students learn how their different
backgrounds can shape their experiences and that feeling different from others can also be
positive and serve as an asset or strength.
We theorize that teaching students the pride perspective should enable them to gain an
understanding of social difference that is both contextual and asset-based. That is, students
would learn: (1) that people’s social differences are often contextual (i.e., shaped by their
backgrounds or previous participation in diverse sociocultural contexts), and that (2) social
differences can be assets (i.e., experienced as assets or strengths, not only as challenges, deficits,
or obstacles to overcome). Understanding that difference is contextual and can be an asset should
normalize students’ social differences and help them understand what they need to do to be
successful, thereby increasing their sense of fit and comfort in college. For example, when first-
generation students confront background-specific obstacles in college (e.g., feeling uncertain
about the best way to select a major), this understanding can help them see that these challenges
may be due to their backgrounds (e.g., not having college-educated parents), rather than because
they do not belong or have what it takes to succeed in college. This understanding can also help
students see that their backgrounds have afforded them with strengths or assets to overcome
challenges (e.g., being the kind of person that does not give up), and that someone “like them”
can draw on these assets to succeed (e.g., seeking out additional mentorship from professors). As
8 This approach builds on the core methodological strategy of existing successful social psychological interventions: providing people with a new mindset or lay theory to change how they understand their experience and behavior (Wilson, 2011; Yeager et al., 2016). Lay theories are “fundamental assumptions about the self and social world that guide how individuals perceive, construe, and understand their experiences” (Molden & Dweck, 2006, p. 193).
12
a result, first-generation students can feel empowered, rather than threatened, both because they
understand the source of their challenges as well as know what they can do to overcome them.
We propose that pride interventions can accomplish the important goal of fostering
academic success for disadvantaged students, while, at the same time, educating all students
about how and why their differences matter. To support this claim, we first provide an overview
of previous research from education, cultural psychology, and organizational behavior, which
documents that acknowledging or including people’s diverse backgrounds in their schools and
workplaces can produce positive performance-related outcomes. Then, we draw on an example
of a pride intervention that we designed—difference-education—to illustrate our theory of how
pride interventions can produce important academic and social benefits for students.
Evidence to Support the Efficacy of Pride Interventions
To explore whether a pride approach to intervention can accomplish the dual goals of
improving disadvantaged students’ academic performance in college, while also educating
students about social differences, we reviewed several literatures in education, cultural
psychology, and organizational behavior. Together these literatures provide robust evidence that
including students’ or employees’ different backgrounds and experiences in their schools and
workplaces can improve their engagement, motivation, and performance.
Theory and research in education suggests that engaging students’ differences is one key
pathway to foster their success. This research shows that incorporating students’ diverse
backgrounds and experiences into teaching and learning is critical to providing them with an
inclusive and equitable environment in which they can thrive academically. These literatures
include research in multicultural education (Au, 2009; Banks, 2007; Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003;
Noddings, 2005; Sleeter & Grant, 2009); culturally responsive, sustaining, or empowering
13
pedagogies (Gay, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Paris & Alim, 2014); intergroup dialogues
(Gurin & Nagda, 2006; Gurin et al., 2013; Zúñiga, Lopez, & Ford, 2012); social justice or
critical education (Adams, Bell, & Griffin, 2007; Carlisle, Jackson, & George, 2006; Freire,
1970/2001; Morrison, Robbins, & Rose, 2008); youth citizenship and activism (Cammarota,
2011; Ginwright & James, 2002; Westheimer & Kahne, 2004); and community-engaged learning
(Butin, 2007; Westheimer & Kahne, 2007). Moreover, recent studies examining the effects of
ethnic studies curricula in schools provide robust empirical support for this claim. Analyses
using administrative data from the Tucson Unified School District indicated that taking Mexican
American Studies classes was positively associated with both passing Arizona state standardized
tests and graduating from high school (Cabrera, Milem, Jaquette, & Marx, 2014). In a similar
study that looked at San Francisco high schools, researchers estimated the causal effects of
assigning students to take an ethnic studies course in ninth grade. The results indicated that
assignment to this course increased ninth-grade student attendance by 21 percentage points,
GPAs by 1.4 grade points, and credits earned by 23 (Dee & Penner, 2016).
Supporting this work in education, research in cultural psychology provides further
evidence explaining why a pride approach to intervention should foster student success.
Research on cultural models of self; the sociocultural shaping of thought, feeling, and action; and
identity-based motivation demonstrates that connecting students’ selves or identities to their
academic environments (e.g., classrooms), behaviors (e.g., completing a homework assignment),
and schoolwork (e.g., an essay prompt) results in greater academic engagement, motivation, and
performance (Brannon et al., 2015; Cheryan et al., 2009; Cheryan, Ziegler, Montoya, & Jiang, in
press; Hamedani, Markus, & Fu, 2013; Fryberg et al., 2013; Fryberg & Markus, 2007; Fu &
Markus, 2014; Syed, Azmitia, & Cooper, 2011). Similarly, identity-based motivation theory
14
asserts that people are more likely to take action when the action of interest is congruent with
their identities (Oyserman et al., 2007). For example, including African American college
students’ culture-specific ideas or practices in their coursework (e.g., reading a book like The
Color Purple) can increase these students’ academic persistence (Brannon et al., 2015).
Likewise, including female-friendly ideas about what it means to be a computer scientist in
classroom environments increases women’s interest in entering the field (Cheryan et al., 2009;
see also Cheryan, Master, & Meltzoff, 2015).
Research in organizational behavior provides further evidence that engaging people’s
differences can help them feel like they belong and improve their performance; in this case, by
improving employees’ experiences and job performance in the workplace. Research on
organizational culture and climate, employee socialization, as well as person-environment fit,
suggests that providing a workplace context that acknowledges and supports employees’
different experiences and perspectives can improve trust, reduce attrition, and bolster
performance (e.g., Cable, Gino, & Staats, 2013; Chatman, 1991; Denison & Mishra, 1995). For
example, Cable and colleagues (2013) demonstrate that socialization practices that provide
employees with an opportunity to bring their unique personal identities into the workplace
increase employee retention compared with traditional practices that do not recognize
employees’ diverse identities and backgrounds. Moreover, research on diversity messaging
suggests that underrepresented groups tend to benefit more from diversity messages that
acknowledge the significance of social difference, rather than those that deny or ignore those
differences (Apfelbaum, Sommers, & Norton, 2008; Ely & Thomas, 2001; Plaut, 2010; Plaut,
Thomas, & Goren, 2009; Purdie-Vaughns, Steele, Davies, Ditlmann, & Crosby, 2008). Finally,
research on job crafting suggests that bringing the work context, including the key components
15
of one’s job, into alignment with employees’ particular identities or meaning-systems can bolster
performance and engagement (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001).
Together this work in education, cultural psychology, and organizational behavior
suggests that recognizing or including people’s diverse backgrounds in their schools and
workplaces can produce positive performance-related outcomes. In the next section, we use an
example of a pride intervention that we designed—called difference-education—to illustrate our
theory of how pride interventions can produce important academic and social benefits for
students.
What Does a Pride Intervention Look Like? The Example of Difference-Education
The goal of pride interventions is to teach students a contextual and asset-based
understanding of social difference. These interventions could communicate this understanding,
however, through a number of different formats. Pride interventions, for example, could take the
form of an ethnic studies course curriculum, a memoir or documentary, or small group
discussions with a moderator. As a first step, we opted to teach students a pride perspective on
social difference using a simulated dialogue among students from diverse backgrounds, which
we call difference-education.
Difference-education is the first social psychological intervention to leverage a pride
perspective on difference to reduce achievement gaps between social groups. The defining
feature of a difference-education intervention is that it uses the contrasting real-life stories of
both advantaged and disadvantaged students from diverse backgrounds to encourage intervention
participants to see social differences through a pride perspective. These contrasting personal
narratives simulate the experience of “dialoguing about difference” (Gurin et al., 2013), and help
intervention participants learn about how people’s diverse backgrounds and prior life
16
experiences can matter for their own and others’ experiences in college—in both positive and
negative ways. This difference-education intervention builds on insights derived from research
on the benefits of students’ participation in intergroup dialogues and diversity courses (e.g.,
Cole, Case, Rios, & Curtin, 2011; Gurin & Nagda, 2006; Gurin et al., 2013; Nelson Laird, 2005;
Zúñiga et al., 2012). In particular, this research suggests the importance of not only
acknowledging the significance of diversity, but of also going deeper to provide students with a
meaningful educational experience that teaches them frameworks or analytical tools to
understand the complex and varied ways in which social differences operate in their own and
others’ lives.
We tested this difference-education intervention with first-generation9 college students to
see if we could improve their experiences and academic outcomes over time (Stephens,
Hamedani, et al., 2014). As noted earlier, due to the predominantly middle- and upper-class
culture of higher education (Bernstein, 1974; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990; Bourdieu &
Wacquant, 1992; Stephens, Markus, & Phillips, 2014), many first-generation students feel
different from other students and question whether they fit in and have what it takes to succeed
(cf. Stephens, Brannon, Markus, & Nelson, 2015; Stephens, Fryberg, et al., 2012). By providing
students with a contextual and asset-based understanding of difference, this difference-education
intervention should therefore help first-generation students to overcome the two key
psychological obstacles that they face in higher education: a lack of fit and empowerment.
9 We focused on first-generation students because researchers as well policymakers and practitioners have increasingly acknowledged the impact of students’ social class backgrounds on their outcomes in college, and have asked for solutions to improve their opportunity to succeed (cf., Goudeau & Croizet, 2017; Lott, 2002). Moreover, we focus on first-generation rather than low-income students because we are not only interested in the effects of lacking resources (e.g., income or wealth), but also the effects of not having the types of middle-class cultural capital that come from having parents who have obtained four-year college degrees.
17
We use the term fit to refer to a sense of being welcomed, recognized, and included
within the college community (Shnabel, Purdie-Vaughns, Cook, Garcia, & Cohen, 2013; Walton
& Cohen, 2007, 2011). Illustrating what it is like to experience a lack of fit, a first-generation
student from Vanderbilt recounted, “Never before had I truly felt such an extreme sense of
estrangement and alienation… I quickly realized that although I may look the part, my cultural
and socio-economic backgrounds were vastly different from those of my predominantly white,
affluent peers. I wanted to leave” (Riggs, 2014, para. 2). We use the term empowerment to refer
to both: (1) the psychological experience of preparedness, efficacy, ownership, and control over
one’s experience (cf., Gurin et al., 2013) and (2) the understanding of and willingness to enact
the strategies needed to make the most of one’s experience. Describing the lack of empowerment
she felt upon entering college, one first-generation student from Cornell said, “I had no road map
for what I was supposed to do once I made it to campus… Aside from a check-in with my
financial aid officer…I was mostly keeping to myself to hide the fact that I was a very special
kind of lost” (Capó Crucet, 2015, para. 15).
To experimentally investigate whether the difference-education intervention could
improve first-generation college students’ social and academic outcomes by improving their
sense of fit and empowerment, we recruited first-year students at an elite university at the
beginning of the academic year. To assess the benefits of this approach in a rigorous way, we
randomly assigned half of the participants to attend a difference-education intervention and the
other half to attend a control intervention. In both conditions, incoming students attended a panel
in which more senior students told personal stories about how they adjusted to and found success
in college. Both sets of stories were comparable in valence, length, and appeal. The incoming
18
students and panelists included both first-generation and continuing-generation students (i.e.,
students who have at least one parent with a 4-year degree).
In the difference-education intervention, panelists’ stories provided a contextual and
asset-based understanding of social difference. To provide a contextual understanding, students’
stories linked their social class backgrounds to the different kinds of experiences that they had in
college. In particular, the stories revealed how students’ backgrounds helped shape: (1) the
challenges or obstacles that they were likely to confront, as well as (2) the strengths and
strategies that they leveraged to be successful. To convey an asset-based understanding of social
difference, the stories also revealed how students’ diverse backgrounds can be an asset or
strength, not only a source of difficulty or challenge.10 Importantly, this contextual and asset-
based understanding of social difference was communicated by not only linking each of the
panelist’s personal stories to their particular social class backgrounds, but also more holistically,
by showcasing the systematic variation in panelists’ stories throughout the panel.
For instance, to highlight the different kinds of challenges or obstacles that students from
different social class backgrounds frequently confront, panelists were asked, “Can you provide
an example of an obstacle that you faced when you came to [university name] and how you
resolved it?” One first-generation panelist responded, “Because my parents didn’t go to college,
they weren’t always able to provide me the advice I needed, so it was sometimes hard to figure
out which classes to take and what I wanted to do in the future.” This first-generation story
conveys a contextual understanding of difference by linking the student’s previous social class
context (i.e., not having college-educated parents) to an obstacle he faced in college (i.e., not
10 To convey a realistic and balanced understanding of social difference, we did not provide a wholly positive representation of how students’ backgrounds can affect their college experiences. We contend that focusing on strengths alone would be unrealistic, or even counterproductive for students. We plan to test this idea in future research.
19
knowing which classes to take). In contrast, after previously mentioning her parents’ graduate-
level degrees, one continuing-generation panelist responded, “I went to a small private school,
and it was great college prep. We got lots of one-on-one attention, so it was a big adjustment
going into classes with 300 people.” As in the first-generation story, the continuing-generation
story links the student’s social class background (i.e., having highly educated parents) to a
college obstacle (i.e., having less attention and support in college than in high school).
To further communicate a contextual understanding of difference, as well as highlight
how students’ backgrounds can serve as valuable assets, difference-education also helped
students see that their diverse social class backgrounds can positively inform the strategies and
strengths that they use to succeed in college. To provide examples of their strategies and
strengths, first- and continuing-generation student panelists discussed how they worked to
address and overcome the particular challenges that they confronted. For instance, after the first-
generation student in the example above described the difficult experience of not being able to
get specific advice about college and careers from his parents, he stated “there are other people
who can provide that advice, and I learned that I needed to rely on my adviser more than other
students.” In contrast, after the continuing-generation student in the example above described the
challenge of being overwhelmed in large classes, she explained “I felt less overwhelmed when I
took the time to get to know other students in the class.”
In addition to learning concrete strategies, students also heard the panelists describe their
background-specific strengths. For instance, to highlight their backgrounds as a source of
strength or as an asset, panelists were asked, “What experiences that you had prior to [university
name] prepared you to excel in ways that you wouldn’t have anticipated at the time?” After
describing her social class background, one first-generation panelist responded, “I’ve been
20
through a lot in my life, and am sure that I’m not alone in that experience, but that defines
everything about me. It gave me perspective that made [university name] a lot easier to tackle.
Midterms and papers seem hard, and they are, but at the same time they just seem like another
drop in the bucket, and I love that perspective.” This first-generation story links the student’s
social class background (i.e., overcoming adversity due to coming from a family without college
education) to a strength (i.e., having a broad perspective) that could serve as a source of identity,
meaning, and motivation.
Likewise, after describing her parents as having obtained college degrees, one
continuing-generation panelist responded, “My choice to attend [university name] really was
supported by everyone in my family. There was no sort of imposition by my parents, “you need
to go to the University of Texas”, or anything like that. It was like, ‘wherever you want to go
we’ll fully support you in any way that we really can,’ and so they were very open with it.” As in
the first-generation story, the continuing-generation story links the student’s social class
background (i.e., having college-educated parents) to a strength (i.e., having parents that are
open and supportive) that could serve as a source of identity, meaning, and motivation.11
Students in the control intervention, in contrast, were exposed to similar stories, but these
stories did not communicate a contextual and asset-based understanding of difference. That is,
the panelists’ stories did not include background-specific information about how their social
class backgrounds shaped their college experiences. Using the same panelists and format,
students also told personal stories about their experiences in college—in particular, the
challenging obstacles that they faced, and the strengths and strategies that they leveraged to be
11 Unlike first-generation students, continuing-generation students do not tend to experience concerns about whether their backgrounds could be a deficiency in college. While they may still benefit from this asset-based understanding of difference, it might help them in a different way than first-generation students. We discuss this later in the paper.
21
successful. For example, panelists were asked, “What do you do to be successful in your
classes?” One panelist first told her story12 about an obstacle she faced in college (e.g., the
coursework was difficult) and then suggested a strategy for success, “Go to class, and pay
attention. If you don’t understand something or have a hard time with the material, meet with
your teaching assistant or professor during office hours.” As in the difference-education
condition, participants in the control condition learned about panelists’ different experiences in
college, including the challenges they faced (e.g., a student found coursework to be difficult),
and the strengths and strategies that they learned to be successful (e.g., a student found it helpful
to meet with a professor). Notably, across both conditions, participants learned the same types of
strategies for success, such as seeking help from peers and professors. The key difference
between the conditions was that students in the control condition did not learn how their own and
others’ backgrounds could inform their experiences in college (i.e., their obstacles, strengths, or
strategies for success).
Difference-education Teaches Students About Difference and Closes the Achievement Gap
Outcomes of difference-education. To examine whether a pride intervention can
accomplish the dual goals of educating students about how difference matters, while also
reducing achievement gaps between groups, we provide an overview of the social and academic
outcomes of difference-education. To identify these outcomes, in an initial study, we followed
intervention participants throughout their first two years of college, conducting a series of
12 Across conditions, the stories were as similar as possible. That is, both sets of stories included the same panelists, format, and strategies for success. They were also comparable in valence, length, and appeal. Yet, the stories could not be identical. If the stories were identical across both conditions (e.g., if the control condition contained the story of a student being embarrassed about relying on financial aid), then the participants in the control condition would have been able to infer the panelists’ social class backgrounds, and thus, they would have gained the same message about how students’ backgrounds matter.
22
surveys and an in-person laboratory study (Stephens, Hamedani, et al., 2014; Stephens,
Townsend, et al., 2015).
First, suggesting that the difference-education intervention effectively educated students
about difference (i.e., provided the contextual and asset-based understanding of difference), a
survey administered soon after the intervention revealed that intervention participants reported
that they learned how their different backgrounds matter in college. Further, suggesting that
students retained the contextual and asset-based understanding of social difference, and gained
some multicultural skills associated with that understanding, follow-up surveys one and two
years later showed that participants had greater appreciation for difference, higher levels of
perspective-taking, and an increased comfort and willingness to discuss their backgrounds with a
peer (Stephens, Hamedani, et al., 2014; Stephens, Townsend, et al., 2015).
Second, an analysis of students’ official first-year grades revealed that the difference-
education intervention effectively reduced the social class achievement gap: first-generation
students in the difference-education condition earned higher end-of-year grades than their
counterparts in the control condition (Stephens, Hamedani, et al., 2014). This improvement in
grades was explained by an increase in first-generation students’ empowerment—in this case,
operationalized as an increased tendency to engage in the behaviors needed to be successful at
their university (e.g., seeking campus resources; Stephens, Hamedani, et al., 2014). In a
replication study, we tested the difference-education intervention using different methods (i.e.,
the same intervention content was administered individually and online) at another university,
and found the same grades benefits for first-generation students (Townsend et al., 2017). Like
the first study, the improvement in grades was explained by empowerment—in this case,
operationalized as a greater sense of efficacy, preparedness, and control (Townsend et al., 2017).
23
Beyond the academic benefits, in the initial study of difference-education (Stephens,
Hamedani, et al., 2014), we also found that the difference-education intervention helped all
students—both first-generation and continuing-generation—to experience a higher quality
college transition, as well as academic and social experience, compared to the control condition.
In particular, they showed higher levels of academic identification, perceived academic
preparation, psychological wellbeing, and social fit, as well as reduced stress and anxiety. In
addition, at the end of their second year in college, difference-education again produced benefits
for both first- and continuing-generation students. In a follow up study, difference-education
participants showed greater willingness to talk about their backgrounds with a peer, displayed
higher levels of comfort in the face of academic stressors (i.e., based on their physiology), and
described feeling more academically prepared for college than control participants (Stephens,
Townsend, et al., 2015). Together these results provide the first evidence that a pride intervention
can accomplish the dual goals of educating students about difference, while, at the same time,
reducing the social class achievement gap.
How a contextual and asset-based understanding increases fit and empowerment among
first-generation students. Next, drawing on difference-education as an example of a pride
intervention, we describe the processes by which a pride intervention can improve first-
generation students’ academic and social outcomes over time. Specifically, we theorize that a
pride intervention provides a contextual and asset-based understanding of social difference that
can help to increase first-generation students’ sense of social fit and empowerment in college.
First, by showing students that difference is contextual, a pride intervention should serve
to communicate that difference is a normal and expected part of the college experience, thereby
increasing first-generation students’ comfort and fit (cf., Plaut, 2010). More specifically, when
24
first-generation students feel different from other students or face different challenges (e.g.,
feeling uncertain about the best way to select a major), this contextual understanding can help
them see that these different experiences are likely due to their backgrounds (e.g., not having
college-educated parents), rather than because they do not belong or have what it takes to
succeed in college. Supporting this claim, as described above, difference-education interventions
have been shown to increase first-generation students’ sense of social fit with the college
environment13 (Stephens, Hamedani, et al., 2014; Townsend et al., 2017). For example, after
participating in our difference-education intervention, a first-generation student described her
newfound sense of fit, recounting “I am a first-generation college student so it’s nice to know
that not everyone comes from a highly educated, upper middle class family. I feel like I’m an
outsider here, but the panel made it clear that’s not exactly how it is and you can be successful no
matter what background you come from.”
Second, by showing students how difference can be an asset, a pride intervention should
serve to communicate that students from different backgrounds can leverage their background-
specific strengths and strategies to find their own path to success in college, thereby increasing
first-generation students’ sense of empowerment (cf., Gurin et al., 2013). Specifically, when
first-generation students confront background-specific challenges, they can feel empowered,
rather than threatened, both because they understand the source of their challenges as well as
know what they can do to overcome them. Supporting this claim, as described above, difference-
education interventions are effective at improving students’ long term academic outcomes, in
13 As noted in the results section above, Stephens, Hamedani, et al., 2014 showed that difference-education increased social fit for both first- and continuing-generation students. In contrast, Townsend et al., 2017 found that difference-education improved social fit just for first-generation students. We return to this issue later when we discuss how the intervention can produce benefits for both disadvantaged and advantaged students.
25
part, because they empower students with the concrete, behavioral strategies and also the
psychological entitlement that they need to take advantage of the resources available to them
(Stephens, Hamedani, et al., 2014; see also Townsend et al., 2017). After participating in our
difference-education intervention, one first-generation student described gaining a sense of
empowerment, stating, “I found that the panelists who came from backgrounds similar to mine
and […] who had parents that didn’t attend a university ran into many of the similar dilemmas
and obstacles in their lives. And I found this information that I received very helpful because I
realized that there are students here that have faced and overcome similar obstacles to me and it
just gives me a sense of encouragement that I can also overcome those obstacles.” Another
student added, “It might give me some insight when I actually go through those obstacles to see
what they did or maybe try out what they did and see if it works for me.”
Pride Interventions Can Benefit All Students
The results from difference-education show that a pride intervention can, in fact,
accomplish the dual goals of reducing the social class achievement gap while also educating
students about difference. However, given that pride interventions reduce achievement gaps by
providing all students with a new understanding of social difference (i.e., an understanding of
difference that is contextual and asset-based), they should provide an additional set of benefits
that go beyond improving disadvantaged students’ academic performance in college.
Specifically, we propose that educating students about social difference has potential to ease all
students’ transitions to college and also equip them with the multicultural skills that they need to
thrive both while in college and beyond. While the claim that pride interventions can help all
students is novel in the literature on social psychological interventions and academic
achievement, it is supported by our research on difference-education, as well as the literature on
26
multicultural education, intergroup dialogues, and work on the benefits of diversity courses. As
education scholar Geneva Gay (1997) describes:
Multicultural education is intended for all students and deals with issues that affect
everyone. In other words, its [beneficiaries] are both the privileged and oppressed; the
European American majority as well as the many minority groups of color; the valiant
and the vanquished; men and women. (Gay, 1997, p. 5)
Consistent with Geneva Gay’s suggestion, we argue that, by educating all students about
the significance of social difference, pride interventions have the potential to benefit everyone.
First, by providing a contextual and asset-based understanding of difference, a pride intervention
has the potential to improve all students’ experiences as they transition to college. For example,
if a continuing-generation student were to face challenges due to her background (e.g., being
accustomed to having a lot of support from parents and then feeling lost in college),
understanding that difference is contextual and can be an asset could help that student see that
her different experiences are a normal and expected part of the college experience due to her
particular background. Such an understanding could foster a greater sense of ease and comfort
for this student, and, in turn, improve her ability to effectively adjust to college. As noted above,
difference-education did indeed improve the overall quality of the college transition (e.g.,
increased academic preparation, psychological wellbeing, and social fit) for both first-generation
and continuing-generation students. In contrast, most existing interventions that improve the
academic outcomes of disadvantaged students do not produce significant intervention benefits
for advantaged students (e.g., Cohen et al., 2006; Sherman et al., 2013; Walton & Cohen, 2007).
27
Second, by providing a contextual and asset-based understanding of social difference,
pride interventions have potential to not only improve the college transition for everyone, but
also help all students to better understand each other’s differences and equip them with the
multicultural skills to better navigate across those differences (cf. Banks, 2007; Gay, 1997; Gurin
et al., 2013; Noddings, 2005; Zúñiga et al., 2012). As noted above, difference-education did
indeed improve both first- and continuing-generation students’ understanding of and behavioral
responses to social difference in ways that suggest they gained multicultural skills (e.g.,
increased appreciation of difference, perspective-taking, and willingness to talk about their
backgrounds). In contrast, existing interventions that improve the academic outcomes of
disadvantaged students do not typically provide these types of multicultural skills (cf. Yeager &
Walton, 2011).14
Along the same lines, building on work on the benefits of intergroup dialogues and
diversity courses, we theorize, but have not yet tested, the hypothesis that pride interventions
should improve intergroup relations, increase community or civic engagement, decrease
students’ need to cover or hide their identities, and enable students to feel like they can be their
full, authentic selves (cf. Bowman, 2011; Cole et al., 2011; Ford & Malaney, 2012; Gurin et al.,
2013; Krings, Austic, Gutiérrez, & Dirksen, 2015; Nelson Laird, 2005; Yoshino, 2007). We also
theorize that providing a contextual and asset-based understanding has the potential to render the
larger institutional culture more open to and accepting of students from different backgrounds.
Strategies to Effectively Educate Students about Difference
Drawing on the example of difference-education, we have demonstrated that pride
interventions can accomplish the dual goals of fostering academic achievement for
14 While existing academic interventions do not document these types of multicultural benefits, it is possible that they do have other effects that have not yet been documented.
28
disadvantaged students, while also educating students about social difference. Yet, if
opportunities to learn about social difference are not delivered in the “right” way, as the
prejudice perspective has long acknowledged, students could experience them as threatening and
these efforts could instead undermine students’ performance (Bowman, 2010; Croizet & Claire,
1998; Milem, Chang, & Antonio, 2005). Given the challenges that come with discussing social
difference, an important question remains: what are some strategies that researchers or
practitioners can employ in a pride intervention in order to educate students about difference in a
way that is empowering, rather than threatening? Below we briefly describe these strategies, the
literatures that support why taking these steps is important, and how we would suggest
implementing these strategies in a pride intervention, using difference-education as an example.
Avoid stereotyping. When discussing social difference, research suggests that it is critical
to avoid stereotyping or making assumptions about people based on their social group
memberships. Instead, it is important to recognize the intersection of multiple identities that is
unique to each person (cf. Ashmore, Deaux, & McLaughlin-Volpe, 2004; Cole, 2009; Crenshaw,
1989, 1991; Gurin et al., 2013; Markus & Conner, 2013; Rosenthal, 2016; Shelton & Sellers,
2000). A large body of research on stereotyping and prejudice suggests that students will feel
threatened, and that their performance will be undermined, when others make broad
generalizations about who they are, or what skills or abilities they have, due to their social group
membership (e.g., Carter, 2007; Downey & Pribesh, 2004; Major, Spencer, Schmader, Wolfe, &
Crocker, 1998; McKown, 2013; Nasir, Snyder, Shah, & Ross, 2013; Oates, 2003; Schmader,
Major, & Gramzow, 2001; Steele, 1997, 2010).
In a pride intervention, multiple strategies can be used to meet this goal. First, it is
important to demonstrate variation in students’ experiences both across and within social groups;
29
signal that these social differences are tendencies or patterns, rather than one-to-one
relationships; and show that social differences are malleable, fluid, and subject to change with
new experiences. In the difference-education intervention, the panelists’ stories were designed to
differ not only across students’ social class backgrounds, but also within their particular social
class background. For example, first-generation students talked about similar, but not identical,
kinds of experiences in college. Another strategy is to help students maintain a sense of
individuality by showing them how the diverse sociocultural contexts of their lives—e.g., their
social class background or the region of the country in which they grew up—can intersect to
shape people in distinct ways. For example, while our difference-education intervention
highlighted students’ social class backgrounds, we also had the panelists talk openly about their
other intersectional identities (e.g., one panelist discussed his experience as an African
American, male, first-generation college student).
Acknowledge both the negative and the positive. When teaching students about social
difference, research suggests the importance of balancing negative and positive content. On the
one hand, teaching positive content alone (e.g., pride in one’s group or identity) would not
provide a realistic portrayal of students’ experiences, nor would it prepare students for the
background-specific challenges they are likely to face in their college environment (e.g., Adams
et al., 2007; Freire, 1970/2001; Gurin et al., 2013). On the other hand, focusing on negative
content alone (e.g., prejudice frequently experienced by one’s group) would likely be highly
demotivating and harmful for students (e.g., Major & O’Brien, 2005; Steele, 2010). Relatedly,
research on helping students face obstacles or challenges also shows that it is important to
balance negative discussions of difficulty or challenge with positive strategies and a path to
success. For example, the literature on incremental mindsets suggest the importance of showing
30
students that they can overcome challenging obstacles in order to foster their motivation,
persistence, and performance (e.g., Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007; Dweck, 2002;
Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995). Likewise, research on “wise feedback” shows that negative
feedback can have motivating consequences when it is paired with “an invocation of high
standards and by an assurance of the student’s capacity to reach those standards” (Cohen, Steele,
& Ross, 1999, p. 1302; see also Cohen, 2008; Yeager et al., 2014).
In a pride intervention, it is important to provide students with opportunities to learn
about how people’s backgrounds can shape their experiences in both positive and negative ways.
To provide a realistic and balanced portrayal of students’ experiences and to convey that specific
obstacles can be overcome, a discussion of the negative challenges associated with one’s
background can be counterbalanced with a discussion of the positive strengths and strategies
(e.g., seeking help from professors) that can provide a path to success. In the difference-
education intervention described above, panelists described challenges they faced in choosing a
major, identifying a future career path, or reconciling their life back home with their new life in
college. Panelists not only discussed these challenges, but also ways to overcome them, thereby
empowering intervention participants with actionable, concrete strategies that they can use to be
successful. Moreover, to counteract potential threat that could come from a focus on negative
challenges, panelists also shared stories about background-specific strengths that could serve as
valuable assets.
Make difference relevant to everyone. When educating people about social difference,
research further suggests the importance of making difference relevant to everyone, irrespective
of one’s particular background or social group memberships (see Moss-Racusin et al., 2014;
Moss-Racusin et al., 2016). Making difference relevant to everyone can serve to normalize the
31
experience of difference and reassure disadvantaged students that they are not being singled out
or marginalized (cf., Hummel & Steele, 1996). Making difference relevant is also critical for
advantaged students. Importantly, in the absence of such efforts, research suggests that
advantaged groups will experience diversity as irrelevant to their experience or as actively
threatening (e.g., Craig & Richeson, 2014; Dover, Major, & Kaiser, 2016; Plaut, Garnett,
Buffardi, & Sanchez-Burks, 2011; Wilkins, Hirsch, Kaiser, & Inkles, 2016). Finally, efforts to
make difference relevant to everyone may encourage perspective-taking, and thereby generate
greater intergroup understanding and empathy (cf. Broockman & Kalla, 2016).
In a pride intervention, it is critical to present social difference as relevant to all students.
One strategy to accomplish this goal is to include both panelists and participants who come from
both advantaged and disadvantaged groups. In the difference-education intervention, the
panelists and the participants included first- and continuing-generation students. As a result, the
participants in the audience heard panelists from diverse social class backgrounds tell personal
stories about their experiences. For example, one continuing-generation student recounted having
a difficult time being successful in large classes because she had been accustomed to attending a
small private school with a tight-knit community. Intervention participants therefore learned that
all students’ backgrounds shape their experiences in college. Including individuals from diverse
backgrounds as panelists and participants also makes it possible to frame the intervention as a
general (vs. group-specific) program that can help everyone adjust to a new setting.
Give voice to underrepresented narratives. When educating students about social
difference, research also reveals that giving voice to underrepresented students’ narratives is
crucial for empowering them to find a path to success (Adams et al., 2007; Alterio & McDrury,
2003; Delgado & Stefancic, 2000; Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2008 Freire, 1970/2001; Mitra,
32
2004; Solórzano & Yosso, 2002). This research underscores the importance of including
alternative narratives—e.g., student stories that are typically excluded from the mainstream—
that provide diverse perspectives and also serve to recognize and validate the perspectives of
disadvantaged students. Further supporting this idea, research on narrative identity demonstrates
the powerful ways in which people “create identity by constructing stories about their lives”
(Hammack, 2008; McAdams, 2001; McAdams & McLean, 2013, p. 233). The process of
constructing narratives about the self and learning from others’ stories provides a particularly
effective, realistic, and authentic context in which to engage students in dialogue about
difference.
In a pride intervention, these insights should be implemented in at least two key ways.
First, the narratives that panelists share should enable participants, especially those who are
disadvantaged by the setting, to recognize themselves in these stories and learn about the
background-specific strategies that they need for success. In the difference-education
intervention described earlier, we presented panelists’ stories in a way that illuminated their
diverse ways of experiencing college and being successful students. These narratives varied
systematically according to panelists’ social class backgrounds. Second, it is critical to choose
narratives that convey comfort and self-acceptance, rather than discomfort or embarrassment. In
the intervention described above, the panelists shared their own authentic stories and discussed
difficult topics, but at the same time, demonstrated an understanding and acceptance of their own
experiences. For example, as one first-generation panelist confidently shared, “Once I came to
[university name], I realized that I didn’t have to be strong all of the time and that most people
had no expectations of me besides trying my best and putting in effort in classes. After that, I
realized that there was no shame in struggling or asking for help.”
33
Discussion
In higher education, social differences along the lines of class, race, ethnicity, gender,
sexuality, and disability continue to shape students’ academic and social experiences and
outcomes. Given the attention to social difference on college campuses and in American society
today, we have a timely opportunity to expand and improve how people understand themselves
and others. As college student activists have proposed, understanding how difference matters is a
vital skill needed to navigate today’s increasingly diverse and divided world. Notably,
understanding difference is also a crucial first step to making institutions like college campuses
more inclusive and equitable—spaces in which people of all backgrounds can thrive. We began
this article by asking whether it was possible to take advantage of this spotlight on social
difference to educate college students about how their differences matter, while, at the same
time, improving the performance of students who are frequently disadvantaged by mainstream
educational environments. By teaching students to understand social difference through a pride
perspective, we propose that the answer is yes.
First, we described pride vs. prejudice perspectives on social difference in social
psychology, and discussed how these perspectives inform different ways to intervene to help
disadvantaged students succeed in school. Second, we reviewed literatures in education, cultural
psychology, and organizational behavior, which provide evidence that engaging
underrepresented students’ and employees’ identities and backgrounds can improve their
performance and success. Third, we used our recent research on difference-education as an
example to illustrate our theory of how pride interventions can produce important academic and
social benefits over time (cf. Stephens, Hamedani, et al., 2014; Stephens, Townsend, et al., 2015;
Townsend et al., 2017). Specifically, we provided evidence that pride interventions benefit
34
disadvantaged students (e.g., first-generation college students) by providing a contextual and
asset-based understanding of difference, which increases their sense of fit and empowerment in
college settings. Finally, we outlined additional benefits that pride interventions can produce for
all students, and also described strategies that pride interventions should employ to effectively
educate students about difference.
Implications and Future Directions
In this paper, we theorized about how and why an intervention that leverages a pride
perspective on difference can be an effective approach. Yet, a number of important questions
remain unanswered. As is also the case with other popular and successful social psychological
interventions, future research on pride interventions should further specify the necessary and
sufficient components that drive the intervention’s benefits. One question is whether
background-specific role models are necessary for students to gain the understanding that
difference is contextual and can serve as an asset. For example, would intervention participants
need to listen to the stories of successful senior students, or could they simply read an article
about social inequality (e.g., research on how social class backgrounds can impact the college
experience)? On the one hand, research suggests that students are most likely to learn from and
personalize the intervention message when they listen to the stories of successful older students
(e.g., Marx, Ko, & Friedman, 2009; Marx & Roman, 2002). On the other hand, research on the
causal effects of ethnic studies curricula suggests that these programs yield similar benefits as
difference-education, and do so without utilizing peer role models to deliver the message
(Cabrera et al., 2014; Dee & Penner, 2016). Another related question is whether students in pride
interventions need to learn about how their different backgrounds shape their experience in both
positive and negative ways, or whether learning about the positive—strengths and strategies—is
35
sufficient. While we theorize that it is important to acknowledge both the positive and negative,
we are currently examining this question in a difference-education study by comparing the
effects of stories that focus on both the positive and negative effects of one’s background to
those that focus solely on the positive.
Further, while we theorize that pride interventions can improve disadvantaged students’
academic, social, and multicultural outcomes by increasing fit and empowerment, future research
should further specify the impact of each of these processes. Our difference-education studies
suggest that both of these processes are important, but that empowerment (i.e., using campus
resources; feeling prepared, efficacious, and in-control) is the primary mechanism that explains
first-generation students’ improved academic achievement (i.e., GPA). Future research should
investigate the specific ways in which fit and empowerment catalyze behavioral change and
impact particular college outcomes over time. It is also important to consider the multiple and
reciprocal pathways through which fit and empowerment are likely to influence each other. For
example, an initial sense of fit may be necessary for empowerment to have a chance to impact
students’ behavior in significant and enduring ways. Future work should also consider how fit
and empowerment unfold across different domains over time—both in college and after students’
transition to the workplace—as well as how these processes may unfold similarly or differently
for disadvantaged and advantaged students.
In addition to gaining a better understanding of how a pride intervention approach
benefits students, future research should also consider how to catalyze culture change at an
institutional level. While we theorize that pride interventions can benefit disadvantaged students
by increasing their fit and empowerment, these individual-level changes are not a panacea and
cannot support long-term change if they are not built into and reinforced by the larger college
36
culture. To maintain and support these individual-level changes over time, policies, practices,
and resources must also be changed in tandem at the institutional level (Hamedani, Zheng,
Darling-Hammond, Andree, & Quinn, 2015; Markus & Conner, 2013; Okonofua, Paunesku, &
Walton, 2016; Stephens, Markus, et al., 2012). As a starting point, pride interventions focus on
changing individuals’ psychological understanding, experience, and behavior (e.g., how students
make sense of their experience). However, in the process of increasing fit and empowerment, we
theorize that widespread use of a contextual and asset-based understanding of difference, in turn,
has the potential to change the institutions themselves. For example, this understanding could
alter the nature of students’ intergroup relationships, their levels of engagement on campus, and,
ultimately their empowerment to change their universities. As in the case of the Princeton
student activists, increasing individual-level awareness and understanding of difference has
potential to change institutions over time by creating a more inclusive and accepting
environment in which student activists are empowered to effect change.
Beyond changing culture at an institutional level, future research should also examine
how to translate interventions that leverage a pride perspective to different settings (e.g., the
workplace, community colleges) and different social groups (e.g., women or racial or ethnic
minorities). Notably, across diverse settings and groups, the general methodological strategy of
the approach would be the same: the intervention would seek to change people’s experiences,
behaviors, and outcomes by providing a contextual and asset-based understanding of social
difference. However, as is the case for any intervention, it is important to take the local context
into account. In practice, what this means is that researchers must first seek to understand the
existing views, concerns, and challenges that a particular disadvantaged group faces in a
particular setting. As a second step, the intervention content (i.e., the themes conveyed in the
37
stories) should be tailored to address the particular background-specific concerns that are most
relevant to the targeted groups in that context.
In the case of different settings, we suggest that pride interventions hold the potential to
improve students’ outcomes in settings beyond elite universities. In community colleges,
students’ experiences (e.g., living off campus) and concerns (e.g., paying for tuition) may differ
significantly from elite university students’ experiences (e.g., living on campus) and concerns
(e.g., fitting in). Thus, an effective pride intervention at a community college would need to
address the particular challenges that students confront and equip them with the particular
strategies needed to overcome those challenges. As for different social groups, we theorize that
pride interventions have the potential to help not only first-generation students, but also women
and racial or ethnic minorities. For example, gender is a topic that is often acknowledged and
discussed in American society much more frequently than social class, which suggests that views
about gender could be harder to change. Thus, a pride intervention designed to reduce gender
disparities might need to be tailored to counteract people’s existing erroneous ideas about
gender, rather than simply focusing on raising their awareness.
Conclusion
Economic inequality in American society has skyrocketed since the 1970’s (Duncan &
Murnane, 2011; Piketty & Saez, 2014; Reardon & Bischoff, 2011), and has spurred a powerful
and on-going national conversation about its impact on economic opportunity, racial equity, and
educational attainment. The enduring spotlight on these issues has raised the voices of those who
seek to reduce disparities between social groups, while also increasing societal awareness about
the significance of difference. Popular social movements, such as Occupy Wall Street’s
consciousness-raising around economic inequality, Lean In’s push for increased gender equity in
38
the workplace, and Black Lives Matter’s call to end racial injustice in policing and the legal
system, reflect this focus. Likewise, student movements across college campuses nationwide
highlight the critical need for institutions to begin to educate faculty, students, and staff about
how social difference matters.
Although social psychology provides tools that can help reduce educational disparities,
the field has historically been ambivalent about explicitly calling attention to social difference—
more often viewing difference as a potential source of prejudice than a potential source of pride.
While both pride and prejudice perspectives suggest different and effective ways to intervene to
reduce gaps in opportunity and achievement among students, the pride perspective has the added
benefit of meeting the important societal goal of educating students about the significance of
difference and providing multicultural skills. In our recent research, we designed and tested an
intervention that leveraged the pride perspective’s view that recognizing social differences
between groups, if done in the right way, can be beneficial and produce a range of positive
outcomes. Our review of research suggests that pride interventions do indeed provide a viable
path to begin to both reduce the social disparities that divide us, while also providing students,
employees, and citizens with the understanding of difference that is a necessary first step to
navigating the increasingly diverse and multicultural reality of today’s world.
39
References
Adams, M., Bell, L. A., & Griffin, P. (2007). Teaching for diversity and social justice (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Adams, G., Biernat, M., Branscombe, N. R., Crandall, C. S., & Wrightsman, L. S. (2008).
Beyond prejudice: Toward a sociocultural psychology of racism and oppression. In G.
Adams, M. Biernat, N. R. Branscombe, C. S. Crandall, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.),
Commemorating Brown: The social psychology of racism and discrimination (pp. 215-
246). Washington, DC: APA Books.
Alterio, M., & McDrury, J. (2003). Learning through storytelling in higher education: Using
reflection and experience to improve learning. Sterling, VA: Routledge.
Apfelbaum, E. P., Sommers, S. R., & Norton, M. I. (2008). Seeing race and seeming racist?
Evaluating strategic colorblindness in social interaction. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 95(4), 918-932. doi:10.1037/a0011990
Ashmore, R. D., Deaux, K., & McLaughlin-Volpe, T. (2004). An organizing framework for
collective identity: Articulation and significance of multidimensionality. Psychological
Bulletin, 130(1), 80-114. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.1.80
Astin, A. W., & Oseguera, L. (2004). The declining "equity" of American higher education. The
Review of Higher Education, 27(3), 321-341. doi:10.1353/rhe.2004.0001
Au, W. (2009). Rethinking multicultural education: Teaching for racial and cultural justice.
Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools.
Banks, J. A. (2007). Educating citizens in a multicultural society (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
40
Bernstein, B. (1974). Class, codes, and control: Theoretical studies towards a sociology of
language (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Schocken Books.
Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M.
(2012). Defining 21st century skills. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.),
Assessment of teaching 21st century skills (pp. 17–66). London, UK: Springer.
Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence
predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an
intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246-263. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture. London,
UK: Sage Publications.
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Bowen, W. G., Kurzweil, M. A., & Tobin, E. M. (2005). From 'bastions of privilege' to 'engines
of opportunity'. Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(25), B18-B18.
Bowman, N. A. (2010). Disequilibrium and resolution: The nonlinear effects of diversity courses
on well-being and orientations toward diversity. The Review of Higher Education, 33(4),
543-568. doi:10.1353/rhe.0.0172
Bowman, N. A. (2011). Promoting participation in a diverse democracy a meta-analysis of
college diversity experiences and civic engagement. Review of Educational Research,
81(1), 29-68. doi:10.3102/0034654310383047
Brady, S. T., Reeves, S L., Garcia, J., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Cook, J., Taborsky-Barba, S.,
Tomasetti, S., Davis, E., & Cohen, G. L. (2016). The psychology of the affirmed learner:
41
Spontaneous self-affirmation in the face of stress. Journal of Educational Psychology,
108(3), 353-373. doi:10.1037/edu0000091
Brannon, T. N., Markus, H. R., & Taylor, V. J. (2015). “Two souls, two thoughts,” two self-
schemas: Double consciousness can have positive academic consequences for African
Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(4), 586.
doi:10.1037/a0038992
Brewer, M. B., & Miller, N. (1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on
desegregation. In N. Miller & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of
desegregation (pp. 281-302). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Broockman, D., & Kalla, J. (2016). Durably reducing transphobia: A field experiment on door-
to-door canvassing. Science, 352(6282), 220-224. doi:10.1126/science.aad9713
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Butin, D. W. (2007). Justice-learning: Service-learning as justice-oriented education. Equity and
Excellence in Education, 40(2), 177-183. doi:10.1080/10665680701246492
Cable, D. M., Gino, F., & Staats, B. R. (2013). Breaking them in or eliciting their best?
Reframing socialization around newcomers’ authentic self-expression. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 58(1), 1-36. doi:10.1177/0001839213477098
Cabrera, N. L., Milem, J. F., Jaquette, O., & Marx, R. W. (2014). Missing the (student
achievement) forest for all the (political) trees: Empiricism and the Mexican American
studies controversy in Tucson. American Educational Research Journal, 51(6), 1084-
1118. doi:10.3102/0002831214553705
Cammarota, J. (2011). From hopelessness to hope: Social justice pedagogy in urban education
and youth development. Urban Education, 46(4), 828–844.
42
doi:10.1177/0042085911399931
Capó Crucet, J. (2015, August 22). Taking My Parents to College. The New York Times.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com
Carlisle, L. R., Jackson, B. W., & George, A. (2006). Principles of social justice education: The
social justice education in schools project. Equity & Excellence in Education, 39(1), 55-
64. doi:10.1080/10665680500478809
Carter, P. L. (2007). Keepin’ it real: School success beyond black and white. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Chatman, J. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public
accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3): 459-484.
doi:10.5465/AMBPP.1989.4980837
Cheryan, S., Master, A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2015). Cultural stereotypes as gatekeepers:
Increasing girls’ interest in male-dominated STEM fields by diversifying stereotypes.
Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1-8. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00049
Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How
stereotypical environments impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1045-1060. doi:10.1037/a0016239
Cheryan, S., Ziegler, S. A., Montoya, A., & Jiang, L. (2016). Why are some STEM fields more
gender balanced than others? Psychological Bulletin 143(1), 1-35.
doi:10.1037/bul0000052
Cohen, G. L. (2008). Providing supportive feedback. In M. Pollock (Ed.), Everyday antiracism:
Getting real about race in school (pp. 82-84). New York, NY: The New Press.
43
Cohen, G. L., Garcia, J., Apfel, N., & Master, A. (2006). Reducing the racial achievement gap: A
social-psychological intervention. Science, 313(5791), 1307-1310.
doi:10.1126/science.1128317
Cohen, G. L., & Sherman, D. K. (2014). The psychology of change: Self-affirmation and social
psychological intervention. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 333-371.
doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115137
Cohen, G. L., Steele, C. M., & Ross, L. D. (1999). The mentor’s dilemma: Providing critical
feedback across the racial divide. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(10),
1302-1318. doi:10.1177/0146167299258011
Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64(3),
170-180. doi:10.1037/a0014564
Cole, E. R., Case, K. A., Rios, D., & Curtin, N. (2011). Understanding what students bring to the
classroom: Moderators of the effects of diversity courses on student attitudes. Cultural
Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17(4), 397-405. doi:10.1037/a0025433
Covarrubias, R., & Fryberg, S. (2015). The impact of self-relevant representations on school
belonging for underrepresented Native American students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 21(1), 10-18. doi:10.1037/a0037819
Covarrubias, R., Herrmann, S., & Fryberg, S. (2016). Affirming the interdependent self:
Implications for Latino student performance. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,
38(1), 47-57. doi:10.1080/01973533.2015.1129609
Craig, M. A., & Richeson, J. A. (2014). More diverse yet less tolerant? How the increasingly
diverse racial landscape affects white Americans’ racial attitudes. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 40(6), 750-761. doi:10.1177/0146167214524993
44
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique
of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of
Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139-167.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence
against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. doi:10.2307/1229039
Croizet, J.-C. (2008). The pernicious relationship between merit assessment and discrimination
in education. In G. Adams, M. Biernat, N. Branscombe, C. Crandall, & L. S. Wrightsman
(Eds.), Commemorating Brown: The social psychology of racism and discrimination (pp.
153-172). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Croizet, J. -C., & Claire, T. (1998). Extending the concept of stereotype threat to social class:
The intellectual underperformance of students from low socioeconomic
backgrounds. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(6), 588-594.
doi:10.1177/0146167298246003
Croizet, J. -C., & Millet, M. (2011). Social class and test performance: From stereotype threat to
symbolic violence and vice versa. In M. Inzlicht, & T. Schmader (Eds.), Stereotype
threat: Theory, process, and application (pp. 188-201). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Dee, T., & Penner, E. (2016). The causal effects of cultural relevance: Evidence from an ethnic
studies curriculum (Working Paper No. 21865). Retrieved from National Bureau of
Economics Research website: http://www.nber.org/papers/w21865
Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2000). Critical race theory: The cutting edge. Philadelphia, PA:
Temple University Press.
Denison, D., & Mishra, A. (1995). Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness.
45
Organization Science, 6(2). 204-223. doi:10.1287/orsc.6.2.204
Dittmann, A., Stephens, N. M., & Townsend, S. S. M. (2017). Working in middle-class
organizations, but still working class: How social class background impacts subjective
workplace experience. Manuscript in preparation.
Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2000). Aversive racism and selection decisions: 1989 and
1999. Psychological Science, 11(4), 315-319. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00262
Downey, D. B., & Pribesh, S. (2004). When race matters: Teachers' evaluations of students'
classroom behavior. Sociology of Education, 77(4), 267-282.
doi:10.1177/003804070407700401
Dover, T. L., Major, B., & Kaiser, C. R. (2016). Members of high-status groups are threatened
by pro-diversity organizational messages. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 62, 58-67. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.006
Duncan-Andrade, J. M. R., & Morrell, E. (2008). The art of critical pedagogy: Possibilities for
moving from theory to practice in urban schools (Vol. 285). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Duncan, G. J., & Murnane, R. J. (Eds.). (2011). Whither opportunity?: Rising inequality,
schools, and children's life chances. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Dweck, C. S. (2002). Messages that motivate: How praise molds students' beliefs, motivation,
and performance (in surprising ways). In J. Aronson (Ed.), Improving academic
achievement: Impact of psychological factors on education (pp. 37-60). New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., and Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and
reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6(4), 267-285.
doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0604_1
46
Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The moderating effects of work
group perspectives on diversity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 229-273.
doi:10.2307/2667087
Ford, K. A., & Malaney, V. K. (2012). “I now harbor more pride in my race”: The educational
benefits of inter-and intraracial dialogues on the experiences of students of color and
multiracial students. Equity & Excellence in Education, 45(1), 14-35.
doi:10.1080/10665684.2012.643180
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (Myra Bergman Ramos, Trans.). London, UK:
Bloomsbury.
Freire, P. (2001). Pedagogy of the oppressed: 30th anniversary edition. New York, NY:
Continuum.
Fryberg, S. A., Covarrubias, R., & Burack, J. A. (2013). Cultural models of education and
academic performance for Native American and European American students. School
Psychology International, 34(4), 439-452. doi:10.1177/0143034312446892
Fryberg, S. A., & Markus, H. R. (2007). Cultural models of education in American Indian, Asian
American, and European American contexts. Social Psychology of Education, 10(2), 213-
246. doi:10.1007/s11218-007-9017-z
Fu, A. S., & Markus, H. R. (2014). My mother and me: Why tiger mothers motivate Asian
Americans but not European Americans. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
40(6), 739-749. doi:10.1177/0146167214524992
Gay, G. (1997). The relationship between multicultural and democratic education. The Social
Studies, 88(1), 5-11. doi:10.1080/00377999709603738
47
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Ginwright, S. & James, T. (2002). From assets to agents of change: Social justice, organizing,
and youth development. New Directions for Student Leadership, 2002(96), 27-46.
doi:10.1002/yd.25
Goudeau, S., & Croizet, J.-C. (2017). Hidden advantages and disadvantages of social class: How
classroom settings reproduce social inequality by staging unfair comparison.
Psychological Science, 28(2), 1-9. doi:10.1177/0956797616676600
Gurin, P., & Nagda, B. (2006). Getting to the what, how, and why of diversity on campus.
Educational Research, 35(1), 20-24. doi:10.3102/0013189X035001020
Gurin, P., Nagda, B. A., & Zúñiga, X. (2013). Dialogue across difference: Practice, theory, and
research on intergroup dialogue. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Gutiérrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires
of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19-25. doi:10.3102/0013189X032005019
Hamedani, M. G., Markus, H. R., & Fu, A. S. (2013). In the land of the free, interdependent
action undermines motivation. Psychological Science, 24(2), 189-196.
doi:10.1177/0956797612452864
Hamedani, M. G., Zheng, X., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., & Quinn, B. (2015). Social
emotional learning in high school: How three urban high schools engage, educate, and
empower youth—Cross-case analysis. Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity
Policy in Education.
Hammack, P. L. (2008). Narrative and the cultural psychology of identity. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 12(3), 222-247. doi:10.1177/1088868308316892
48
Harper, S. R. (2008). Creating inclusive campus environments for cross-cultural learning and
student engagement. Washington, DC: NASPA, Student Affairs Administrators in Higher
Education.
Housel, T. H., & Harvey, V. L. (2010). The invisibility factor: Administrators and faculty reach
out to first-generation college students. Boca Raton, FL: Universal Publishers.
Hummel, M., & Steele, C. (1996). The Learning Community: A program to address issues of
academic achievement and retention. Journal of Intergroup Relations, 23(2), 28-32.
Hurtado, S. (2007). Linking diversity with the educational and civic missions of higher
education. The Review of Higher Education, 30(2), 185-196. doi:10.1353/rhe.2006.0070
Kinias, Z. & Sim, J. (in press). Facilitating women’s success in business: Interrupting the process
of stereotype threat through affirmation of personal values. Journal of Applied
Psychology.
Krings, A., Austic, E. A., Gutiérrez, L. M., & Dirksen, K. E. (2015). The comparative impacts of
social justice educational methods on political participation, civic engagement, and
multicultural activism. Equity & Excellence in Education, 48(3), 403-417.
doi:10.1080/10665684.2015.1057087
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that's just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant
pedagogy. Theory Into Practice, 34(3), 159-165. doi:10.1080/00405849509543675
Libresco, L. (2015, December 3). Here are the demands from students protesting racism at 51
colleges. FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved from www.fivethirtyeight.com
Lott, B. (2002). Cognitive and behavioral distancing from the poor. American Psychologist,
57(2), 100-110. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.57.2.100
49
Major, B., & O'Brien, L. T. (2005). The social psychology of stigma. Annual Review of
Psychology, 56, 393-421. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070137
Major, B., Spencer, S., Schmader, T., Wolfe, C., & Crocker, J. (1998). Coping with negative
stereotypes about intellectual performance: The role of psychological disengagement.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(1), 34-50.
doi:10.1177/0146167298241003
Markus, H. R. (2008). Pride, prejudice, and ambivalence: Toward a unified theory of race and
ethnicity. American Psychologist, 63(8), 651-667. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.8.651
Markus, H. R., & Conner, A. (2013). Clash!: 8 cultural conflicts that make us who we are. New
York, NY: Hudson Street Press.
Markus, H. R., & Hamedani, M. G. (2007). Sociocultural psychology: The dynamic
interdependence among self systems and social systems. In S. Kitayama & D. Cohen
(Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp. 3–39). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion,
and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
Markus, H. R. & Kitayama, S. K. (2010). Cultures and selves: A cycle of mutual constitution.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 420-430. doi:10.1177/1745691610375557
Markus, H., & Moya, P. M. (2010). Doing race: 21 essays for the 21st century. New York, NY:
W.W. Norton and Company.
Marx, D. M., Ko, S. J., & Friedman, R. A. (2009). The “Obama effect”: How a salient role
model reduces race-based performance differences. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 45(4), 953–956. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.012
Marx, D. M., & Roman, J. S. (2002). Female role models: Protecting female students math test
50
performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(9), 1185–1197.
doi:10.1177/01461672022812004
McAdams, D. P. (2001). The psychology of life stories. Review of General Psychology, 5(2),
100-122. doi:10.1037//1089-2680.5.2.100
McAdams, D. P., & McLean, K. C. (2013). Narrative identity. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 22(3), 233-238. doi:10.1177/0963721413475622
McKown, C. (2013). Social equity theory and racial‐ethnic achievement gaps. Child
Development, 84(4), 1120-1136. doi:10.1111/cdev.12033
Mesquita, B., & Frijda, N. H. (1992). Cultural variations in emotions: A review. Psychological
Bulletin, 112(2), 179-204. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.112.2.179
Milem, J. F., Chang, M. J., & Antonio, A. L. (2005). Making diversity work on campus: A
research-based perspective. Washington, DC: Association American Colleges and
Universities.
Mitra, D. L. (2004). The significance of students: Can increasing “student voice" in schools lead
to gains in youth development?. Teachers College Record, 106(4), 651-688.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00354.x
Miyake, A., Kost-Smith, L. E., Finkelstein, N. D., Pollock, S. J., Cohen, G. L., & Ito, T. A.
(2010). Reducing the gender achievement gap in college science: A classroom study of
values affirmation. Science, 330(6008), 1234-1237. doi:10.1126/science.1195996
Molden, D., & Dweck, C.S. (2000). Meaning and motivation. In C. Sansone & J. Harackiewicz
(Eds.), Intrinsic motivation (pp. 131-159). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Molden, D. C., & Dweck, C. S. (2006). Finding “meaning” in psychology: A lay theories
approach to self-regulation, social perception, and social development. American
51
Psychologist, 61(3), 192-203. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.3.192
Morrison, K. A., Robbins, H. H., & Rose, D. G. (2008). Operationalizing culturally relevant
pedagogy: A synthesis of classroom-based research. Equity & Excellence in Education,
41(4), 433-452. doi:10.1080/10665680802400006
Moss-Racusin, C. A., van der Toorn, J., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., &
Handelsman, J. (2014). Scientific diversity interventions. Science, 343(6171), 615-616.
doi:10.1126/science.1245936
Moss-Racusin, C. A., van der Toorn, J., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., &
Handelsman, J. (2016). A “scientific diversity” intervention to reduce gender bias in a
sample of life scientists. Life Sciences Education. 15(3), 1-11. doi:10.1187/cbe.15-09-
0187
Nasir, N. I. S., Snyder, C. R., Shah, N., & Ross, K. M. (2013). Racial storylines and implications
for learning. Human Development, 55(5-6), 285-301. doi:10.1159/000345318
Nelson Laird, T. F. (2005). College students’ experiences with diversity and their effects on
academic self-confidence, social agency, and disposition toward critical thinking.
Research in Higher Education, 46(4), 365-388. doi:10.1007/s11162-005-2966-1
Noddings, N. (Ed.). (2005). Educating citizens for global awareness. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Oates, G. (2003). Teacher-student racial congruence, teacher-perceptions, and test performance.
Social Science Quarterly 84(3), 508-525. doi:10.1111/1540-6237.8403002
Okonofua, J. A., Paunesku, D., & Walton, G. M. (2016). Brief intervention to encourage
empathic discipline cuts suspension rates in half among adolescents. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 113(19), 5221-5226. doi:10.1073/pnas.1523698113
52
Omi, M. & Winant, H. (1986). Racial formation in the United States. New York, NY: Routledge.
Ostrove, J. M., & Long, S. M. (2007). Social class and belonging: Implications for college
adjustment. The Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 363-389. doi:10.1353/rhe.2007.0028
Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2014). What are we seeking to sustain through culturally sustaining
pedagogy? A loving critique forward. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 85-100.
doi:10.17763/haer.84.1.982l873k2ht16m77
Piketty, T., & Saez, E. (2014). Inequality in the long run. Science, 344(6186), 838-843.
doi:10.1126/science.1251936
Plaut, V. C. (2010). Diversity science: Why and how difference makes a difference.
Psychological Inquiry, 21(2), 77-99. doi:10.1080/10478401003676501
Plaut, V. C., Garnett, F. G., Buffardi, L. E., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2011). “What about me?”
Perceptions of exclusion and whites’ reactions to multiculturalism. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 101(2), 337-353. doi:10.1037/a0022832
Plaut, V. C., Thomas, K. M., & Goren, M. J. (2009). Is multiculturalism or color blindness better
for minorities?. Psychological Science, 20(4), 444-446. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9280.2009.02318.x
Purdie-Vaughns, V., Steele, C. M., Davies, P. G., Ditlmann, R., & Crosby, J. R. (2008). Social
identity contingencies: How diversity cues signal threat or safety for African Americans
in mainstream institutions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(4), 615-630.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.615
Quaye, S. J., & Harper, S. R. (2014). Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical
perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations. New York, NY:
Routledge.
53
Reay, D., Crozier, G., & Clayton, J. (2009). ‘Strangers in paradise’? Working-class students in
elite universities. Sociology, 43(6), 1103-1121. doi:10.1177/0038038509345700
Reardon, S. F., & Bischoff, K. (2011). Income inequality and income segregation. American
Journal of Sociology, 116(4), 1092-1153. doi:10.1086/657114
Riggs, L. (2014, Jan 13). What it's like to be the first person in your family to go to college. The
Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com
Rivera, L. A. (2012). Hiring as cultural matching: The case of elite professional service
firms. American Sociological Review, 77(6), 999-1022. doi:10.1177/0003122412463213
Rivera, L. A. (2015). Go with your gut: Emotion and evaluation in job interviews. American
Journal of Sociology, 120(5), 1339-1389. doi:10.1086/681214
Rosenthal, L. (2016). Incorporating intersectionality into psychology: An opportunity to promote
social justice and equity. American Psychologist, 71(6), 474-485. doi:10.1037/a0040323
Shelton, J. N., & Sellers, R. M. (2000). Situational stability and variability in African American
racial identity. Journal of Black Psychology, 26(1), 27-50.
doi:10.1177/0095798400026001002
Sherman, D. K., Hartson, K. A., Binning, K. R., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Garcia, J., Taborsky-Barba,
S., ... & Cohen, G. L. (2013). Deflecting the trajectory and changing the narrative: How
self-affirmation affects academic performance and motivation under identity threat.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(4), 591-618. doi:10.1037/a0031495
Schmader, T., Major, B., & Gramzow, R. H. (2001). Coping with ethnic stereotypes in the
academic domain: Perceived injustice and psychological disengagement. Journal of
Social Issues, 57(1), 93-111. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00203
54
Shnabel, N., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Cook, J. E., Garcia, J., & Cohen, G. L. (2013). Demystifying
values affirmation interventions: Writing about social belonging is a key to buffering
against identity threat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(5), 663-676.
doi:10.1177/0146167213480816
Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of
research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417-453.
doi:10.3102/00346543075003417
Sleeter, C. E. & Grant, C.A. (2009). Making choices for multicultural education: Five
approaches to race, class and gender (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Snibbe, A. C., & Markus, H. R. (2005). You can't always get what you want: Educational
attainment, agency, and choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(4),
703-720. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.703
Soland, J., Hamilton, L. S., & Stecher, B. M. (2013). Measuring 21st-century competencies:
Guidance for educators. Los Angeles, CA: RAND Corporation.
Solórzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an
analytical framework for education research. Qualitative inquiry, 8(1), 23-44.
doi:10.1177/107780040200800103
Spencer, B., & Castano, E. (2007). Social class is dead, long live social class! Stereotype threat
among low-socioeconomic individuals. Social Justice Research, 20(4), 418-432.
doi:10.1007/s11211-007-0047-7
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and
performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613-629. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.6.613
Steele, C. M. (2010). Whistling Vivaldi and other clues to how stereotypes affect us. New York,
55
NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
Stephens, N. M., Brannon, T. N., Markus, H. R., & Nelson, J. E. (2015). Feeling at home in
college: Fortifying school-relevant selves to reduce social class disparities in higher
education. Social Issues and Policy Review, 9(1), 1-24. doi:10.1111/sipr.12008
Stephens, N. M., Fryberg, S. A., Markus, H. R., Johnson, C. S., & Covarrubias, R. (2012).
Unseen disadvantage: How American universities’ focus on independence undermines
the academic performance of first-generation college students. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 102(6), 1178–97. doi:10.1037/a0027143
Stephens, N. M., Hamedani, M. G., & Destin, M. (2014). Closing the social-class achievement
gap: A difference-education intervention improves first-generation students’ academic
performance and all students’ college transition. Psychological Science, 25(4), 943-53.
doi:10.1177/0956797613518349
Stephens, N. M., Markus, H. R., & Fryberg, S. A. (2012). Social class disparities in health and
education: Reducing inequality by applying a sociocultural self model of behavior.
Psychological Review, 119(4), 723-44. doi:10.1037/a0029028
Stephens, N. M., Markus, H. R., & Phillips, T. (2014). Social class culture cycles: How three
gateway contexts shape selves and fuel inequality. Annual Review of Psychology,
65(1), 611-634. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115143
Stephens, N. M., Markus, H. R., & Townsend, S. S. (2007). Choice as an act of meaning: The
case of social class. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 814-830.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.814
Stephens, N. M., Townsend, S. S. M., Hamedani, M. G., Destin, M., & Manzo, V. (2015). A
difference-education intervention equips first-generation college students to thrive in the
56
face of stressful college situations. Psychological Science, 26(10), 1556-1566.
doi:10.1177/0956797615593501
Syed, M., Azmitia, M., & Cooper, C. R. (2011). Identity and academic success among
underrepresented ethnic minorities: An interdisciplinary review and integration. Journal
of Social Issues, 67(3), 442-468. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01709.x
Townsend, S. S. M., Stephens, N. M., Smallets, S., & Hamedani, M. G. (2017). Fitting in by
being different: An online difference-education intervention closes the social class
achievement gap by promoting fit. Manuscript in preparation.
Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and
achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(2), 82-96.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.82
Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2011). A brief social-belonging intervention improves academic
and health outcomes of minority students. Science, 331(6023), 1447-1451.
doi:10.1126/science.1198364
Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). Educating the “good” citizen: Political choices and
pedagogical goals. Political Science and Politics, 37(2), 241-247.
doi:10.1017.S1049096504004160
Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2007). Justice-learning: Service-learning as justice-oriented
education. Equity & Excellence in Education, 40(2), 97-100. doi:
10.1080/10665680701246492
Wilson, T. D. (2011). Redirect: The surprising new science of psychological change. New York,
NY: Little, Brown and Company.
Wilkins, C. L., Hirsch, A. A., Kaiser, C. R., Inkles, M. P. (2016). The threat of racial progress
57
and the self-protective nature of perceiving anti-White bias. Group Processes and
Intergroup Relations, 1, 1-12. doi:10.1177/1368430216631030
Wong, A. (2015, May 21). The renaissance of student activism. The Atlantic. Retrieved from
www.theatlantic.com
Wong, A., & Green, A. (2016, April 4). Campus politics: A cheat sheet. The Atlantic. Retrieved
from www.theatlantic.com
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active
crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179-201.
doi:10.5465/AMR.2001.4378011
Yeager, D. S., & Walton, G. M. (2011). Social-psychological interventions in education: They’re
not magic. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 267-301.
doi:10.3102/0034654311405999
Yeager, D. S., Walton, G. M., Brady, S. T., Ezgi, N. A., Paunesku, D., Keane, L., … Dweck,
C. S. (2016). Teaching a lay theory before college narrows achieve gaps at scale.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
113(24), E3341-E3348. doi:10.1073/pnas.1524360113
Yeager, D. S., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Garcia, J., Apfel, N., Brzustoski, P., Master, A., …Cohen, G.
L. (2014). Breaking the cycle of mistrust: Wise interventions to provide critical feedback
across the racial divide. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 804-824.
doi:10.1037/a0033906
Yoshino, K. (2007). Covering: The hidden assault on our civil rights. New York, NY: Random
House.
Zúñiga, X., Lopez, G. E., & Ford, K. A. (Eds.) (2012). Intergroup dialogue: Engaging difference,
58
social identities, and social justice [Special issue]. Equity & Excellence in Education,
45(1). doi:10/1080/10665684.2012.646903