Getting There is Only Half the Battle: Stigma Consciousness and Maintaining Diversity in Higher Education

Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 61, No. 3, 2005, pp. 481--506 Getting There is Only Half the Battle: Stigma Consciousness and Maintaining Diversity in Higher Education Elizabeth C. Pinel, Leah R. Warner, and Poh-Pheng Chua The Pennsylvania State University Increases in stigma consciousness since arriving at a primarily White college could predict the college performance and self-esteem of the academically stigmatized. After reviewing relevant research, the authors report on a study in which 44 stigmatized (African Americans and Latinos/Latinas) and 79 nonstigmatized (Whites and Asian Americans) students completed measures of stigma consciousness, GPA, disengagement from academics, and self-esteem. Among stigmatized males, increases in stigma consciousness predicted lower GPAs and greater disengagement. Although stigmatized females had low GPAs regardless of their increases in stigma consciousness, with increases in stigma consciousness came less disengagement from school and lower self-esteem. The discussion offers suggestions for how to minimize these negative effects of heightened stigma consciousness levels. More ethnic minorities enroll in college than ever before (American Council on Education, 2000 2001). Despite this increase in enrollment, less than 50% of all African Americans, Native Americans, and Latinos/Latinas enrolled in college (hereon academically stigmatized students ) complete college (American Council on Education, 2000 2001). Moreover, the college completion rate of these groups trails that of Whites and Asian Americans by a significant margin, with the gap being especially large for males (American Council on Education, 2000 2001). What can account for this considerable gap in college completion between academically stigmatized ethnic minorities and their nonstigmatized counterparts? Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Elizabeth C. Pinel, Department of Psychology, 543 Moore Building, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802 [e-mail: ecp6@psu.edu]. 481 C 2005 The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues

482 Pinel, Warner, and Chua We think the belief that members of academically stigmatized ethnic minorities suffer intelligence deficits, and thus do not truly earn their admission to college, has something to do with it. Specifically, we believe that academically stigmatized ethnic minority students feel the stigma about their (lack of) intelligence most poignantly upon arriving at a predominantly White college. As a result, they become highly attuned to their stereotyped status, and this increase in stigma consciousness (Pinel, 1999) makes them vulnerable to the academic stigma about their group. Stigma Consciousness Stigma consciousness reflects individual differences either dispositional or situationally induced in the extent in which targets of widespread stereotypes focus on their stereotyped status and believe it pervades their life experiences (Pinel, 1999). Targets high in stigma consciousness tend to believe that stereotypes about their group permeate their interactions with members of the outgroup, and, more generally, that they cannot escape their stereotyped status. In contrast, targets low in stigma consciousness, although aware of stereotypes about their group, would disagree that their stereotyped status regularly plays a role in their experiences. To capture this variability across targets of stereotypes, Pinel (1999) developed and validated the Stigma Consciousness Questionnaire (SCQ) for a wide range of stereotyped groups (e.g., women, lesbians, gay men, African Americans, Latino/Latinas, etc.). This 10-item measure asks respondents to indicate their level of agreement to statements pertaining to the extent to which stereotypes about their group affect them and play a role in their interactions with members of the outgroup. Sample items from the SCQ for women include: When interacting with men, I feel as though they interpret all of my behaviors in terms of the fact that I am a woman and Stereotypes about women have not affected me personally. To modify the questionnaire for use with a particular group, one simply changes the ingroup and the outgroup to which each item refers. The results of several studies conducted across a wide range of stereotyped groups provide evidence for the validity of the stigma consciousness construct. As one might expect, research indicates that people high in stigma consciousness, in comparison to people low in stigma consciousness are more likely to: (1) perceive discrimination directed toward them personally (Pinel, 1999); (2) perceive discrimination directed toward their group (Pinel, 1999); (3) provide concrete examples of discriminatory acts directed toward members of their group (Pinel, 1999); and (4) attribute negative feedback from an outgroup member to discrimination (Pinel, 2004). Importantly, Pinel (2004) observed that this last finding (i.e., the tendency to make attributions to discrimination) occurs among people with dispositionally high levels of stigma consciousness, as well as among

Getting There is Half the Battle 483 those low-stigma-conscious people exposed to situations that elevate their stigma consciousness levels. Specifically, Pinel (2004) situationally manipulated stigma consciousness by asking people with dispositionally low levels of stigma consciousness to reflect upon times when their group gets stereotyped. Compared to a control group of low-stigma-conscious participants, those who had undergone this situational induction of stigma consciousness exhibited an increased tendency to make attributions to discrimination (see Pinel, 2004). Findings such as these raise our confidence that stigma consciousness per se, and not some correlate of stigma consciousness, accounts for the results reviewed here. In sum, stigma consciousness levels appear to play a role in how targets experience their stereotyped status: targets high in stigma consciousness show a greater tendency than targets low in stigma consciousness to believe that their stereotyped status matters in their dealings with others. Moreover, people s stigma consciousness levels can reflect individual differences, but they also can rise or fall depending on the situation. We argue that one situation that could contribute to the rise of stigma consciousness levels occurs when academically stigmatized students arrive at a predominantly White college. Stigma Consciousness at College As noted earlier, Pinel (2004) has successfully induced high stigma consciousness levels in a study on stigma consciousness and attributions to discrimination. Specifically, upon arriving at the laboratory, female participants assigned to a state stigma consciousness condition read a list of examples of men stereotyping and/or discriminating against women. These scenarios constituted the 10 examples most frequently experienced by a separate sample of female pilot participants. Samples include: Beautiful women being treated as if they are unintelligent and People expecting that women cannot perform stereotypically male tasks as well as men can. After reading each example, participants indicated whether or not they had ever observed a similar scenario and then completed a stigma consciousness questionnaire for women. Compared to participants in a control condition, these participants reported significantly higher levels of stigma consciousness following the manipulation. Moreover, with regard to their attributions to discrimination, participants with situationally elevated stigma consciousness levels were virtually indiscernible from those with dispositionally high stigma consciousness levels. If a simple manipulation, administered over the course of 5 or 10 minutes, can have a profound effect not only on one s stigma consciousness levels but also on the consequences of those stigma consciousness levels, it seems quite reasonable to expect that arriving at a predominantly White campus would have an equally (if not more) profound effect on the stigma consciousness levels of academically stigmatized ethnic minority students. Like the participants in the above study,

484 Pinel, Warner, and Chua such students receive reminders of their stigmatized status; only they do so on a much more regular and consistent basis (Steele, 1997). We make a first attempt at examining this question empirically in the study we report on a bit later; for now, let us turn to relevant research on affirmative action and tokenism. Although this research does not examine stigma consciousness per se, it proves consistent with our claim that attending a predominantly White college increases the stigma consciousness levels of students belonging to academically stigmatized ethnic minorities. Affirmative action. Research indicates that unless people are explicitly told that the admissions (or hiring) decisions for beneficiaries of affirmative action get made on the basis of merit as well as group membership, people assume that such decisions derive solely from a consideration of group membership (Heilman, Battle, Keller, & Lee, 1998; Pratkanis & Turner, 1996). The only reason these ethnic minorities exist at a particular college, so the logic goes, is because of their ethnicity. These erroneous beliefs promote negative attitudes toward presumed beneficiaries (Heilman, McCullough, & Gilbert, 1996; Maio & Esses, 1998), making their college experience a time where clearly, their ethnicity matters. How do the beneficiaries themselves feel? That s a tough question to answer, primarily because people do not always know whether or not they are a beneficiary (Major, Feinstein, & Crocker, 1994). Laboratory studies that remove this ambiguity by manipulating participants beliefs about how they get selected for certain tasks provide some support for the notion that believing one has been selected solely on the basis of one s gender or ethnicity can prove deleterious; not only can it affect feelings of competence (Heilman, 1996; Heilman et al., 1998), but it can also affect actual performance (Brown, Charnsangavej, Keough, Newman, & Rentfrow, 2000). However, empirical evidence gathered outside of the lab demonstrates that most potential beneficiaries (e.g., women and men of color) do not feel degraded or undermined by affirmative action policies (Ayers, 1992; Catalyst, Inc., 1998). Although the word might still be out on how affirmative action (or erroneous beliefs about affirmative action) affects the self-concepts and performance of presumed beneficiaries, we can be pretty certain that it affects their interactions with others and in turn, their stigma consciousness levels. Members of academically stigmatized ethnic minorities will in all likelihood encounter people who doubt they were admitted to college on the basis of merit. Consistent with this claim, the results of a recent survey indicate that 73% of an ethnic minority sample believed that their professors and/or peers viewed them with a suspicion of inferiority (Truax, Cordova, Wood, Wright, & Crosby, 1998). For some of these students, such as those raised in highly diverse neighborhoods, this may be the first time they have ever encountered the stigma associated with their group (i.e., this suspicion of inferiority). But even for those students who have had prior exposure to

Getting There is Half the Battle 485 this stigma, their college experience will likely represent the first time they will be questioned as to whether they belong at an academic institution. Except in rare cases (e.g., when members of ethnic minorities attend elite private schools), most people in the current day United States do not question whether ethnic minorities deserve to be in junior high school or high school, or whether they got in with the help of the government. In short, research relevant to discussions of affirmative action proves consistent with our claim that upon arrival at college, members of academically stigmatized ethnic minorities will experience heightened stigma consciousness levels. That they will occupy a token status in this context does not help matters either, as we shall see in the next section. Tokenism. Despite increases in ethnic minority enrollment, most universities and colleges still consist primarily of White students and faculty (with the exception, of course, of Historically Black Colleges). Based on the results of a survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Education (2000), in 1998, African Americans constituted 11% of all students enrolled at 4-year and 2-year colleges and universities in the United States. Latinos/Latinas constituted 9%; Asian Americans constituted 6%; and American Indians constituted less than 1%. Whites, on the other hand, constituted 70% of all students. More than just numbers, these statistics may have implications for how ethnic minorities experience college. Because each ethnic minority group comprises less than 15% of students enrolled in college, members of ethnic minorities take on a token status in college (Kanter, 1977). Not only should this token status heighten stigma consciousness levels, it should also intensify the negative consequences presumed to accompany high stigma consciousness levels. Consistent with the claim that token status will increase stigma consciousness levels, research on the spontaneous self-concept (McGuire, McGuire, Child, & Fujioka, 1978) indicates that people describe themselves based on that which distinguishes them from the majority of the other people in a given situation. According to this research, being the sole Latina in a group of mostly Whites should make one s ethnicity salient. Indeed, research explicitly examining the experiences of people occupying a solo status indicates that solos of all kinds are keenly aware of their uniqueness (for a review, see Niemann & Dovidio, 1998). Moreover, these feelings of distinctiveness have side effects that could negatively affect a token s performance such as difficulties concentrating (Lord & Saenz, 1985) and lowered feelings of self-competence (Mellor, 1995). Thus, as with the work on affirmative action reviewed above, this work on tokenism conforms to our suggestion that academically stigmatized ethnic minorities who occupy a token status in predominantly White colleges and universities experience a situationally induced increase in stigma consciousness upon arriving at college.

486 Pinel, Warner, and Chua The Consequences of Heightened Stigma Consciousness Levels In addition to the work on the consequences of stigma consciousness previously discussed, work on stereotype threat and psychological disengagement contributes to our understanding of how increases in stigma consciousness could pose obstacles for academically stigmatized ethnic minorities. According to Steele and his colleagues (Steele, 1997; Steele & Aronson, 1995), suspicions of inferiority can severely undermine the performance of academically stigmatized students. Consistent with this claim, researchers have repeatedly observed a tendency for targets of negative performance stereotypes to perform worse than their nonstereotyped counterparts when these stereotypes are called to their attention or, more generally, when targets are stereotype threatened. In contrast, when researchers take measures to render the situation innocuous (e.g., explicitly stating that the stereotype does not apply to the current test participants are about to take), targets perform just as well as their nonstereotyped counterparts. Researchers have observed these stereotype threat effects across a wide range of stereotyped groups, including women in the domain of math and African Americans in the domain of academics (Brown & Pinel, 2003; Steele, 1997; Steele & Aronson, 1995). In addition to having an impact on targets immediate performance in a given situation, suspicions of inferiority can take a toll on targets over the long run through a process dubbed psychological disengagement (Major, Spencer, Schmader, Wolfe, & Crocker, 1998; Major & Schmader, 1998). When targets psychologically disengage from a particular domain, they tend to devalue their performance in that domain and no longer consider it as an important source of feelings of self-worth. Although this process can protect targets self-esteem from potentially negative feedback in the stigmatizing domain, it also could keep them from wanting to push themselves to excel in that domain. Research suggests that some targets of negative performance stereotypes do indeed disengage from school over time (Major & Schmader, 1998). This consequence of negative stereotypes could have unfortunate implications for the college completion rates of academically stigmatized students: to the extent that academics are no longer important to them, these students may place less investment in their performance. Some potentially deleterious consequences of this decreased investment could include lower grades and decreased concern about whether one does or does not graduate. Taken together, the work on stereotype threat and psychological disengagement highlights the potentially insidious impact that negative academic stereotypes can have on students seeking postsecondary degrees. One would expect these effects to be particularly pronounced among students with elevated stigma consciousness levels. Indeed, research indicates that targets of academic stigmas perform worse in academic domains when they are high and not low in stigma consciousness (Brown, Pinel, Rentfrow, & Lee, 2002; Brown & Pinel, 2003). In one

Getting There is Half the Battle 487 study, Brown et al. (2002) examined the effects of reminders of one s stereotyped status on provisional students at a large university. For provisional students high in stigma consciousness, such reminders significantly lowered their self-reports of intelligence. Unfortunately, their performance suffered too: unlike provisional students low in stigma consciousness, those high in stigma consciousness performed significantly worse on a portion of a standardized test when they were reminded of their stereotyped status than when they received no such reminder. More recently, Brown and Pinel (2003) extended this research to women in the domain of math. As with provisional students, women experienced performance deficits under conditions of stereotype threat, but only if they had high levels of stigma consciousness. Similar relations between stigma consciousness and performance emerged in afield study on this topic. Specifically, Brown et al. (2002; Brown & Lee, in press) observed that stigma consciousness levels go a long way toward explaining performance gaps between academically stigmatized (African Americans and Latinos/Latinas) and nonstigmatized (Whites and Asian Americans) students. Students in academically stigmatized groups performed just as well as their nonstigmatized counterparts providing they had low levels of stigma consciousness; if they had high levels of stigma consciousness, however, they performed significantly worse. Taken together, this work (Brown et al., 2002; Brown & Pinel, 2003) provides some insight into the connection between stigma consciousness and academic performance. Although we know of no research (prior to the study reported here) that explicitly examines the link between stigma consciousness and disengagement, the results of two separate studies give us reason to believe that stigma consciousness might promote disengagement as well as poor performance. In one such study, Pinel (1999) observed that women high in stigma consciousness expressed less interest in being quizzed on stereotypically male topics when they anticipated being teamed up with a male partner. In yet another investigation on an entirely different sample, staff workers with high levels of stigma consciousness felt underappreciated, dissatisfied with their jobs, wanted to quit their jobs, and ultimately did (Pinel & Paulin, in press). Taken together, these studies suggest that heightened stigma consciousness levels might contribute to psychological disengagement from academics among academically stigmatized ethnic minorities. An Extension of Prior Work on Stigma Consciousness and Academic Performance It seems pretty clear from the research discussed above that academic stigmas can impair the performance of the targets of those stigmas, especially if those targets have high levels of stigma consciousness. In the study that follows, we hoped to extend this research by looking at whether the act of attending a predominantly White college increases the stigma consciousness levels of academically

488 Pinel, Warner, and Chua stigmatized minorities. In addition, we examined the relation between these hypothesized increases in stigma consciousness levels and two variables likely to predict whether or not one stays in school: grade point average (GPA) and psychological disengagement. Based on the reasoning presented throughout this article, we expected that increases in stigma consciousness upon arriving at college would correspond to lower GPAs and higher levels of psychological disengagement. If increases in stigma consciousness since arriving at a White college promote disengagement from school, they could also protect the self-esteem of the academically stigmatized. After all, previous research highlights the self-protective function served by psychological disengagement (Major & Schmader, 1998). For example, Major et al. (1998) noted that when they gave Black participants negative feedback on a measure of intelligence, only those who had not psychologically disengaged from academics felt bad. Given these findings, we wondered whether the psychological disengagement predicted to accompany heightened stigma consciousness levels might also serve a self-protective function. To this end, we also included a measure of self-esteem in the current study. Inclusion of this measure allowed us to ask whether those students who disengage from academics nonetheless reap benefits for their self-esteem levels. Participants Method One hundred and twenty-eight undergraduates at a large, predominantly White university in the northeast participated in this study in fulfillment of a research requirement in their introductory psychology course. We did not analyze the data from eight participants who had only partially responded to the key questionnaires in this study. In addition, we excluded the data for outliers (defined as scoring higher or lower than 2.5 standard deviations away from the mean) on our measure of change in stigma consciousness. This left us with 113 participants (37 Whites, 32 Asians, 24 Latinos/Latinas, and 20 Blacks) in our final sample. Procedure Participants arrived at the testing session in groups. After reading and signing consent forms, participants received a questionnaire packet that included several measures. Here we describe only those measures pertinent to the current study. These include two Stigma Consciousness Questionnaires for Race/Ethnicity (The SCQ for Race/Ethnicity; Pinel, 1999): one pertaining to participants stigma consciousness levels prior to attending the university, and one pertaining to participants stigma consciousness levels since arriving at the university. Participants also indicated their current GPA and completed measures of psychological disengagement

Getting There is Half the Battle 489 (Major & Schmader, 1998), and self-esteem (Tafarodi & Swann, 1995). We describe each measure in turn. The SCQ for Race/Ethnicity (from Pinel, 1999) This scale consists of 10 items measuring individual differences in stigma consciousness. Sample items include Stereotypes about people of my race/ethnicity do not affect me personally and My race/ethnicity does not influence how people act with me. Respondents indicate their level of agreement to each item on a scale ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). For the measure of stigma consciousness prior to attending the university, respondents recalled how they felt before arriving at the University. In addition, the sentence Before I came to the University Park campus preceded the 10 SCQ items. For the measure of stigma consciousness since arriving at the university, respondents indicated how they have been feeling in general, since coming to the University Park campus. For both scales, higher numbers indicate higher levels of stigma consciousness (alphas =.87 and.86). Grade Point Average After completing the above measures, participants indicated their college GPA. If participants did not yet have an official college GPA because they had been enrolled for less than one semester they reported their anticipated GPA. Less than 30% of participants provided their anticipated instead of actual GPA, making it unlikely that our results pertaining to GPA reflect a bias on the part of those providing their anticipated GPA. Moreover, the pattern of results does not change when we exclude the data from people who provided estimates of their GPA. For these reasons, and in the interest of maximizing statistical power, we chose to keep the data from participants who estimated their GPA in our analyses. Psychological Disengagement (Major & Schmader, 1998) This 3-item scale requires respondents to indicate their level of agreement to items such as How I do intellectually has little relation to who I actually am. Participants make their responses on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Higher numbers equal higher levels of disengagement (alpha =.63). The Self-Liking/Competence Scale (SLC; Tafarodi & Swann, 1995) This 20-item measure consists of two 10-item subscales. One subscale measures self-liking or the degree to which respondents like themselves. This subscale

490 Pinel, Warner, and Chua includes items such as I feel comfortable with myself and I have a negative attitude toward myself. The other subscale measures self-competence, or the extent to which respondents view themselves as competent. Sample items include I don t succeed at much and I perform inadequately in many important situations. Respondents indicate their level of agreement with each item on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The scale is scored such that high scores indicate high levels of self-esteem. Researchers can use the combined score as a measure of self-esteem, or they can look at each component of self-esteem separately (Tafarodi & Swann, 1994). Because we were primarily interested in the global construct of self-esteem, we combined both subscales to create an overall index of self-esteem (alpha =.92). After completing the questionnaire packets, the experimenter thanked and debriefed all participants. Several mentioned enthusiasm about our research and noted its relevance to their own experiences in college. Results We hypothesized that members of academically stigmatized ethnic minorities would experience an increase in stigma consciousness upon arriving at a predominantly White college. To test this first hypothesis, we submitted participants stigma consciousness scores to a 2(sex: male, female) 2 (stigmatized status: stigmatized, nonstigmatized) 2 (time: before college, after college) analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures on the third variable. This analysis revealed a main effect of time, F(1, 109) = 7.40, p<.01, which was qualified by a stigmatized status by time interaction, F(1, 109) = 4.80, p =.03. Confirming prediction, stigmatized participants experienced an increase in stigma consciousness from before arriving at college (M = 2.53) to after arriving at college (M = 2.80), p <.01. Nonstigmatized students, on the other hand, had equal levels of stigma consciousness before arriving at college (M = 2.36) and after (M = 2.39), p =.67. No other effects emerged as statistically significant (all p s >.13). We next examined whether increases in stigma consciousness predict variables relevant to college completion such as GPA and psychological disengagement as well as participants psychological well-being. To this end, we computed a series of regression equations in which we regressed each of our criterion variables on sex (females coded as 0; males coded as 1), stigmatized status (stigmatized participants coded as 0; nonstigmatized coded as 1), change in stigma consciousness (after centering it; see Aiken & West, 1991), the three two-way interactions, and the three-way interaction (Table 1 depicts the intercorrelations among all variables for the entire sample; Table 2a and 2b depicts the intercorrelations broken down by sex and stigmatized status). We discuss the results of each analysis in turn.

Getting There is Half the Battle 491 Table 1. Bivariate Intercorrelations Among Sex, Group, Change in Stigma Consciousness ( SCQ), Psychological Disengagement, Grade Point Average (GPA), and Self Esteem Sex Group SCQ Disengagement GPA Self-Esteem Sex.05.07.16.10.05 Group.19.20.22.18 SCQ.03.15.10 Disengagement.10.15 GPA.09 Self-esteem Note. p<.05. N = 113. Table 2a. Bivariate Intercorrelations Among Change in Stigma Consciousness ( SCQ), Psychological Disengagement, Grade Point Average (GPA), and Self Esteem for Stigmatized and Nonstigmatized Females and Males SCQ Disengagement GPA Self-Esteem SCQ.40 /.14.28/.07.41 /.04 Disengagement.32/.34.04/.09.56 /.13 GPA.66 /.03.24/-.08.01/.10 Self-esteem.02/-.29.17/.11.01/.35 Note. Correlations for stigmatized participants appear in bold. Correlations for females appear above the diagonal (n = 26 for stigmatized females; n = 37 for nonstigmatized females); correlations for males appear below the diagonal (n = 18 for stigmatized males; n = 32 for nonstigmatized males). p<.05; p<. 01. Table 2b. Bivariate Intercorrelations Among Change in Stigma Consciousness ( SCQ), Psychological Disengagement, Grade Point Average (GPA), and Self Esteem for Stigmatized and Nonstigmatized Females and Males SCQ Disengagement GPA Self-Esteem SCQ.14.07.04 Disengagement.34.09.13 GPA.03.08.10 Self-esteem.29.11.35 Note. Correlations for nonstigmatized females (n = 37) appear above the diagonal; correlations for nonstigmatized males (n = 32) appear below the diagonal. p<.05. GPA As can be seen in Table 3, the regression equation predicting GPA yielded a significant effect for stigmatized status, β =.31, t(105) = 2.58, p =.01, which was qualified by a two-way interaction between sex and stigmatized status, β =.54, t(105) = 3.11, p<.01. A three-way interaction between sex, stigmatized status, and change in stigma consciousness, β =.32, t(105) = 2.27, p =.02, further qualified this effect.

492 Pinel, Warner, and Chua Table 3. Summary of the Simultaneous Regression Analysis Predicting Grade Point Average (N = 112) Variable B SE B β t df Stigmatized status.29.11.31 2.58 105 Sex.11.14.12.80 105 SCQ race.25.16.31 1.59 105 (Stigmatized status) (sex).27.18.26 1.54 105 (Stigmatized status) ( SCQ race).30.20.25 1.49 105 (Sex) ( SCQ race).62.20.54 3.11 105 (Stigmatized status) (sex) ( SCQ race).71.31.32 2.27 105 Note. R =.40; R 2 =.16; F(7, 105) = 2.87, p =.009; For stigmatized status, stigmatized = 0 and nonstigmatized = 1; For sex, females = 0 and males = 1; SCQ = change in stigma consciousness from before to after entering college. p<.05, p<.01. To interpret the three-way interaction, we conducted separate regression equations by sex. These analyses revealed that for females, only stigmatized status predicted GPA, β =.30, t(59) = 2.47, p =.02, with nonstigmatized females performing better than stigmatized females. Among males, increases in stigma consciousness corresponded to lower GPAs, β =.52, t(46) = 3.19, p<.01, but a near-significant interaction between change in stigma consciousness and stigmatized status qualified this effect, β =.29, t(46) = 1.84, p =.07. To examine the nature of this near-significant interaction, we conducted separate regression equations for the males according to their stigmatized status. As can be seen in Figure 1, 3.3 Stigmatized Nonstigmatized GPA 3 2.7 Low High Increase in Stigma Consciousness Note.We calculated the means plotted above following the recommendations of Aiken and West (1991). Fig. 1. Males grade point average (GPA) as a function of stigmatized status and change in stigma consciousness.

Getting There is Half the Battle 493 stigmatized males had lower GPAs as a function of increases in stigma consciousness since arriving at college, β =.66, t(16) = 3.51, p<.01. Nonstigmatized males showed no such effect, t(30) < 1. Taken together, the results of the analyses performed on GPA indicate that academically stigmatized females performed worse than their nonstigmatized counterparts, regardless of the extent to which their stigma consciousness levels increased upon arriving at college. In contrast, academically stigmatized males performed poorly in college only to the extent that they experienced increases in stigma consciousness upon their arrival. Psychological Disengagement We submitted participants scores on the disengagement subscale of the psychological disengagement inventory to the regression analyses described above. This analysis yielded several statistically significant effects (see Table 4), including a main effect of stigmatized status, β =.32, t(105) = 2.68, p<.01, a main effect of change in stigma consciousness, β =.41, t(105) = 2.12, p =.04, an interaction between stigmatized status and change in stigma consciousness, β =.36, t(105) = 2.14, p =.04, and an interaction between sex and change in stigma consciousness, β =.47, t(105) = 2.73, p<.01. As with GPA, a three-way interaction between sex, stigmatized status, and change in stigma consciousness qualified these effects, β =.45, t(105) = 3.20, p<.01. To interpret this three-way interaction, we conducted separate regression equations by sex. As can be seen in Figure 2a, these analyses revealed that for females, stigmatized status predicted disengagement, β =.33, t(59) = 2.74, p<.01, as did change in stigma consciousness, β =.40, t(59) = 2.16, p =.04, and the interaction between the two, β =.41, t(59) = 2.19, p =.03. Breaking this two-way Table 4. Summary of the Simultaneous Regression Predicting Academic Disengagement (N = 112) Variable B SE B β t df Stigmatized status.82.31.32 2.68 105 Sex.15.38.06.40 105 SCQ race.89.42.41 2.12 105 (Stigmatized status) (sex).72.48.26 1.52 105 (Stigmatized status) ( SCQ race) 1.17.55.36 2.14 105 (Sex) ( SCQ race) 1.47.54.47 2.73 105 (Stigmatized status) (sex) ( SCQ race) 2.69.84.45 3.20 105 Note. R =.41; R 2 =.17; F(7, 105) = 3.08, p =.005; For stigmatized status, stigmatized = 0 and nonstigmatized = 1; For sex, females = 0 and males = 1; SCQ = change in stigma consciousness from before to after entering college. p<.05; p<.01.

494 Pinel, Warner, and Chua A 4 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2 3 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2 Disengagement Low Change in Stigma Consciousness High Stigmatized Nonstigmatized B 3.8 Disengagement 3.6 3.4 3.2 3 2.8 Stigmatized Nonstigmatized 2.6 2.4 Low High Change in Stigma Consciousness Note.We calculated the means plotted above following the recommendations of Aiken and West (1991). Fig. 2. (a) Females disengagement as a function of stigmatized status and change in stigma consciousness. (b) Males disengagement as a function of stigmatized status and change in stigma consciousness. interaction down by stigmatized status, we see that stigmatized females became more engaged in academics as a function of increases in stigma consciousness, β =.40, t(24) = 2.16, p =.04; nonstigmatized females did not, t(35) < 1. Figure 2b depicts the disengagement results for the males. Specifically, we see that the males data also revealed a two-way interaction between stigmatized status and change in stigma consciousness, albeit in the opposite direction, β =.38, t(46) = 2.31, p =.03. In contrast to stigmatized females, stigmatized males showed a nonsignificant tendency to become less engaged, β =.32, t(16) = 1.35, p =.20, as a function of increases in stigma consciousness. Nonstigmatized males,

Getting There is Half the Battle 495 on the other hand, showed a tendency to become more engaged as a function of increases in stigma consciousness, β =.34, t(30) = 1.98, p =.06. The pattern of results observed for the disengagement measure suggests that our male and female stigmatized participants reacted to their stigmatized status in very different ways. Whereas male stigmatized students tended to disengage from academics as their stigma consciousness levels increased upon arriving at college, female stigmatized students tended to become more engaged. Given the presumed role that disengagement plays in protecting the self-esteem of stigmatized individuals (Major & Schmader, 1998; Major et al., 1998), we should see these differential patterns among male and female stigmatized students corresponding to differential patterns in their self-esteem. We turn to this issue next. Self-esteem We submitted participants self-esteem scores to the regression analyses described above (for complete results, see Table 5). This analysis yielded a main effect of change in stigma consciousness, β =.42, t(105) = 2.10, p =.04, a marginally significant interaction between stigmatized status and change in stigma consciousness, β =.30, t(105) = 1.75, p =.08, and a three-way interaction between sex, stigmatized status, and change in stigma consciousness, β =.34, t(105) = 2.36, p =.02. We interpreted the three-way interaction by conducting separate regression equations by sex. As can be seen in Figure 3, these analyses revealed that, for women, change in stigma consciousness predicted self-esteem, β =.42, t(59) = 2.13, p =.04, such that females exhibited lower self-esteem as their stigma consciousness levels increased upon arriving at college. A marginally significant interaction between the stigmatized status and change in stigma consciousness qualified this effect, however, β =.35, t(59) = 1.78, p =.08. Breaking this two-way interaction down by stigmatized status, we see that stigmatized females exhibited Table 5. Summary of the Simultaneous Regression Predicting Self-Esteem (N = 112) Variable B SE B β t df Stigmatized status.22.14.19 1.56 105 Sex.05.18.04.29 105 SCQ race.41.20.42 2.10 105 (Stigmatized status) (sex).03.22.02.13 105 (Stigmatized status) ( SCQ race).45.25.30 1.75 105 (Sex) ( SCQ race).42.25.30 1.66 105 (Stigmatized status) (sex) ( SCQ race).92.40.34 2.36 105 Note. R =.32; R 2 =.10; F(7, 105) = 1.73, p =.11; For stigmatized status, stigmatized = 0 and nonstigmatized = 1; For sex, females = 0 and males = 1; SCQ = change in stigma consciousness from before to after entering college. p<.05; p<.10.

496 Pinel, Warner, and Chua 4.4 4.3 Stigmatized Nonstigmatized Self-esteem 4.2 4.1 4 3.9 3.8 Low Change in Stigma Consciousness High Note. We calculated the means plotted above following the recommendations of Aiken and West (1991). Fig. 3. Females self-esteem as a function of stigmatized status and change in stigma consciousness. lower levels of self-esteem as a function of increases in stigma consciousness, β =.41, t(24) = 2.22, p =.04; nonstigmatized females did not, t(35) < 1. In contrast to the females data, for the males data, no effects reached even marginal levels of significance (all p s >.12). The picture that emerges when we put these self-esteem findings together with the GPA and disengagement findings proves consistent with the claim that psychological disengagement serves a self-protective function. Recall that even though stigmatized females had lower GPAs than nonstigmatized females (regardless of their increases in stigma consciousness), only females with comparatively small increases in stigma consciousness disengaged psychologically from academics. Our self-esteem findings show that these females who disengaged had high levels of self-esteem, whereas those who did not those who experienced relatively large increases in stigma consciousness upon arriving at college had lower levels of self-esteem. The males data also seem to suggest that psychological disengagement might protect stigmatized individuals self-esteem. Recall that stigmatized males had low GPAs to the extent that they experienced an increase in stigma consciousness upon arriving at college but that these very same men tended to disengage from academics. Notably, in contrast to stigmatized females, stigmatized males who experienced an increase in stigma consciousness upon arriving at college had equally high self-esteem as those who did not experience an increase. Moreover, these males had equally high self-esteem as their nonstigmatized counterparts.

Getting There is Half the Battle 497 Summary and Discussion The findings from our preliminary study provide some sustenance to our argument that stigma consciousness levels of academically stigmatized minority students increase upon their arrival at college and that these elevated stigma consciousness levels play a role in the negative effects of academic stigmatization. In contrast to nonstigmatized students, stigmatized students reported significant increases in their stigma consciousness levels upon arriving at college. We also observed that these elevated stigma consciousness levels among stigmatized students predict different things for males and females. Males exhibited precisely the effects that we had expected to see. Specifically, stigmatized males who experienced an increase in race-based stigma consciousness upon arriving at college exhibited a tendency to perform poorly and to disengage psychologically from school. These results point to the possibility that increases in stigma consciousness directly impact variables related to the retention of stigmatized male college students, and could have important implications for the tendency for male stigmatized students to trail their female counterparts in terms of college attainment (American Council of Education, 2001 2002). We observed a somewhat different pattern of results for our females. These females performed worse than their nonstigmatized counterparts, regardless of how their stigma consciousness levels changed since arriving at college. Nonetheless, only those with comparatively low increases in stigma consciousness psychologically disengaged. Moreover, compared to stigmatized females who experienced comparatively high increases in stigma consciousness, these females had high levels of self-esteem. These findings provide further support for the notion that psychological disengagement serves a self-protective function (e.g., Major & Schmader, 1998), and call our attention to the importance of considering sex differences in the discussion of the effects of stigmatization. Unfortunately, our small sample size limited the types of analyses we could conduct. For example, it would be interesting and important to test whether the results from our preliminary study differ depending on whether ethnic minority students occupied a token status prior to attending college. Although we asked our participants for this information, we could not examine the effect of this variable because most of our minority participants found Penn State to be less diverse than their previous life situation. In addition to considering their previous experiences with diversity, future researchers will want to consider other features of the context in which participants were raised when studying the plight of academically stigmatized students. Such features might include experiences with race socialization, socioeconomic status, and percentage of time spent living in the United States. Questions also remain about the quality of participants retrospective reports about their stigma consciousness levels prior to arriving at Penn State. It is difficult

498 Pinel, Warner, and Chua to know how accurately participants recalled their stigma consciousness levels prior to attending college, particularly when some of them have been enrolled in college for several years. To address this possible shortcoming of our measure of change in stigma consciousness, we examined change in stigma consciousness as a function of sex, stigmatized status, and years in college. If students had a difficult time recalling their stigma consciousness levels prior to college, we should have found an effectof years in college, whichwe did not (F<1). Although this finding increases our confidence in our measure, we hope that future researchers will employ a longitudinal design to examine the question of how stigma consciousness levels change as a function of attending a predominantly White college. The field clearly needs more research on this topic before we can make conclusive statements about these preliminary findings. That being said, we maintain that our research, combined with the results of previous work on stigma consciousness and stereotype threat, signals a need to think about ways to reduce the likelihood that academically stigmatized ethnic minorities will become high in stigma consciousness upon arriving at a predominantly White university. We offer some suggestions in what follows, suggestions that we hope interested researchers will put to the test. Suggested Remedies and Applications Given the proposed link between elevated stigma consciousness levels among academically stigmatized ethnic minorities and college completion, one might wonder what can be done to help. To address this issue, we begin with a discussion of programs already in place at the members of the Big 10 universities, with an eye toward whether these programs would target the concerns we have raised about the role that elevated stigma consciousness levels play in the retention problem (readers wanting more detail regarding these programs will want to visit the relevant Web sites for the specific institution of interest). We follow this discussion with some suggested new remedies, some of which can be instituted at the institutional level and others of which can be instituted at the individual level. What are We Doing Already? Although not designed explicitly to tackle the problems that may accompany elevated stigma consciousness levels, several colleges and universities have in place programs meant to help maintain diversity in higher education. Here, we briefly describe the programs that, to our knowledge, the Big 10 universities offer. Some of these programs target the academic resources available to minority students, while others target intrapersonal and interpersonal processes.

Getting There is Half the Battle 499 Boosting Academic Resources All of the Big 10 universities hold academic resource centers geared specifically toward minority students. In general, the types of services offered include supplies, study space, research opportunities, tutoring, and mentoring. The most common attempt to boost the resources available to minority students comes in the form of mentoring. Reflecting this focus, the Big 10 universities (along with The University of Chicago) teamed up to create the Summer Research Opportunity Program, a program that provides academically stigmatized minority (i.e., Native Americans, African Americans, Mexican Americans, and Puerto Rican Americans) sophomores and juniors majoring in the sciences an opportunity to foster a one-on-one mentoring relationship with a professor through direct involvement in research. The project culminates in a presentation given at a conference held for all participating students and universities, which in turn enables the students to establish connections across universities and exchange information. Targeting Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Processes Concerned that the retention problem stems in part from feeling isolated from others as a result of being in the ethnic minority, several colleges concentrate on creating a sense of belongingness among their ethnic minority students. The University of Michigan and Illinois State University have both targeted this specific concern in their POSSE Program (Pathways to Student Success and Excellence) and Connections Program, respectively. These programs engage students in activities designed to foster a this is my institution, too mentality. With a similar goal in mind, The University of Minnesota offers internships (or Diversity Connections ) that focus on community building. Finally, through their Office of Minority Student Affairs, Michigan State University has a program where ethnic minority students (Minority Aides, or MAS) assigned to residential halls act on the behalf of minority students. In addition to providing a support network and feeling of community, MAS give presentations focusing on a variety of issues, including adjusting to college and race relations. Moreover, MAS provide student advocacy and peer counseling. Universities have also developed programs to foster connections to the community at large, as exemplified in certain extension services at the University of Minnesota and Ohio State University. Ohio State, for example, established a center in a predominantly African American area of a nearby city where students can receive academic credit for participating in local and national research and conferences pertaining to minority issues.

500 Pinel, Warner, and Chua The Best of Both Worlds Instead of targeting one or the other, some programs geared to help ethnic minority students target both academic resources and psychological issues. Most notable among these are the University of Minnesota s Student Excellence in Academics and Multiculturalism (SEAM) and the University of Michigan s Pathways to Student Success and Excellence (POSSE) program. SEAM strives to help students make the transition from smaller high schools to the large university setting by providing them with the option of taking 2 to 3 smaller classes with the same set of students. Participants in this program thus begin to establish a sense of community with their classmates, as well as feelings of knowing and respecting one another as individuals. As one SEAM participant put it: There is a bond between myself and the people within my learning community. I feel that we all get along pretty well. Success is easier to achieve in our classes because we are together in so many of them...we have gained an understanding of each other (see Web site for the SEAM program: http://www.oma.umn.edu/seam.html). In addition to offering community-based learning, SEAM provides ongoing tutoring to its enrollees. Although open to all first-year students, ethnic minority students form the majority of students who enroll (this past year 95% of SEAM enrollees were members of ethnic minorities). 3 Like SEAM, POSSE targets both social and academic issues relevant to the college experiences of ethnic minority students. In addition to activities designed to strengthen the connection these students feel to their university, POSSE provides summer conferences in which students learn about college writing, course expectations, and how to make use of their course syllabus. Students participating in the program also have several mentors at their disposal who not only provide them with information about resources available throughout the campus but who also provide them with customized feedback about their academic strengths and weaknesses. Summary The programs described above give the reader a taste for the kinds of efforts universities have made to address the retention problem in higher education. Although some of these efforts might indirectly curb stigma consciousness levels among academically stigmatized students (by, for example, connecting them with a community of people who reject the stigma about their group or who know them as individuals), none were intentionally designed with this concern in mind. In fact, some might actually intensify the problem, to the extent that they send the message to academically stigmatized minority students that they need extra help (Pratkanis & Turner, 1996; Steele, 1997). Given our present analysis, however, we suggest that people involved in efforts to retain academically stigmatized ethnic