Attitudes and Perceptions about Diversity among Counselor Education Graduate Students.

Abstract

Counselor education graduate students' attitudes about racial diversity and gender equity were assessed using the Quick Discrimination Index (QDI, Ponterotto et al., 1995) and compared to data obtained from the QDI development and validation process. In addition, the extent to which students' perceptions of diversity included other identity components (e.g., sexual orientation, disability, religion, etc.) was examined. The pilot study described in this article was intended as a preliminary investigation of graduate students' attitudes about racial diversity and gender equity using a small sample. As such, the findings are not generalizable; however, replication of this study using a larger sample is invited and encouraged.

A focus on diversity, particularly in relation to the exploration of one's own attitudes, beliefs, and biases, is critical to the preparation of competent counselors, whether their intended work setting is on college campuses or in community agencies, private practice, career counseling centers, or schools. Although more limited definitions of diversity are restricted to discussions of race/ethnicity, counselors must be knowledgeable about and sensitive to issues surrounding a number of equally important factors that also come under the "diversity umbrella" (e.g., gender, sexual orientation, disabilities, religion, age, class, etc.) (Hays, 1996; McWhirter, 1994; Robinson & Howard-Hamilton, 2000) and recognize patterns that are common to all areas of prejudice. Indeed, as Garcia (personal communication, January 26, 2001) argued, "[t]ensions over which `ism' is most important continues the 'divide-and-conquer' patriarchal colonization process which...[k]eeps us from recognizing each other as potential allies in the same straggle for dignity, respect, and liberation." Moreover, although racism, sexism, and classism "reinforce and feed on each other" (Henley, Meng, O'Brien, McCarthy, & Sockloskie, 1998, p. 321), cultural sensitivity/competence in one area does not necessarily translate to cultural sensitivity/competence in others.

Several measures have been developed to assess competence in multicultural counseling. Although the American Psychological Association [APA] does appear to be moving toward a more inclusive definition, multicultural counseling is still generally portrayed as counseling people of diverse races/ethnicities. Most instruments claiming to quantify multicultural counseling assess the awareness, knowledge, and skills needed to work effectively with ethnically diverse clients or students. Examples include the Cross-Cultural Counseling Inventory-Revised (CCCI-R; LaFromboise, Coleman, & Hernandez, 1991), the Multicultural Competency Checklist (Ponterotto, Alexander, & Grieger, 1995), and the Multicultural Awareness/Knowledge/Skills Survey (MAKSS; D'Andrea, Daniels, & Heck, 1991). Other instruments, such as the Quick Discrimination Index (QDI; Ponterotto et al., 1995) have been designed to assess prejudice in general populations rather than competence as a helping professional. The QDI is particularly interesting in that it deals specifically with attitudes and focuses on gender as well as racial/ethnic equity. As such, it serves as a useful tool in formatively evaluating counselor education students' early development as culturally competent counselors in relation to two important areas of diversity: race/ethnicity and gender.

The QDI is a 30-item five-point Likert-type self-report measure (1 = strongly agree; 5 = strongly disagree). It consists of three subscales: (a) cognitive attitudes toward racial diversity (e.g., "I think the school system, from elementary school through college, should promote values representative of diverse cultures," (b) affective attitudes toward greater personal contact with racial diversity (e.g., "If I were to adopt a child, I would be happy to adopt a child of any race," and (c) attitudes toward women's (gender) equity (e.g., "I think feminist perspectives should be an integral part of the higher education system). Although the QDI does not address other issues of diversity, such as issues of class, sexual orientation, disability, age, religion, or national origin, it was selected for this study as a vehicle for examining attitudes of counselor education graduate students that encompass at least two major areas (i.e., race/ethnicity and gender).

This study has a two-fold purpose. First, it was designed to examine first-year counselor education graduate students' attitudes about race and gender. Second, to address the growing recognition in the literature that multiculturalism includes other important elements of one's identity (in addition to race/ethnicity), this study sought to assess the scope of first-year counselor education graduate students' perceptions of diversity (i.e., Did they perceive the term diversity as encompassing concepts such as gender, sexual orientation, disabilities, religion, etc., in addition to race/ethnicity?).

Method

Participants

The participants consisted of 38 women and 12 men enrolled in two sections of a graduate course in counseling theories at a large, urban university in the western United States. Twenty-nine were Caucasian, nine were Latino/a, eight were African American, and four were Asian American.

Instrumentation

The QDI (Ponterotto et al., 1995) is a 30-item Likert-type self-report measure (1 = strongly agree; 5 = strongly disagree), comprised of three subscales: (a) cognitive attitudes toward racial diversity (9 items), (b) affective attitudes toward greater personal contact with racial diversity (7 items), and (c) attitudes toward women's (gender) equity (7 items). The QDI can be scored two ways. The first method involves the combination of all 30 items to create a QDI Total score. The second, preferred, method, involves the separation into three separate subscales. In the second method, only 23 of the 30 items are scored. Ponterotto et al. (1995) reported Cronbach's alphas for the QDI of .88 (Total score), .85 (Factor 1), .83 (Factor 2), and .65 (Factor 3). Test-retest reliability coefficients reported were .90 (Factor 1), .82 (Factor 2), and .81 (Factor 3) (means of three groups tested).

Procedure

Participants were asked to complete a brief demographic questionnaire (e.g., gender, age, ethnicity) in combination with their response to the statement "To me, the word "diversity" includes the following factors (circle all that you believe apply): age, gender, ethnicity/race, disability, sexual orientation, religion, social status, national origin, other." They were then asked to complete the Quick Discrimination Index (QDI; Ponterotto et al., 1995). Following the protocol suggested by Ponterotto and his colleagues, "Social Attitude Survey" appeared at the top of the instrument to mask the intent of the measure. Students were advised that participation was voluntary and were given the option of using that class time to complete other work. None of the students declined to participate. Surveys were coded to protect the confidentiality of the respondents.

Results

Perceptions of Diversity

Students' perceptions of diversity were overwhelmingly inclusive of various areas. The percentage of students who circled each item were: age (92%); gender (94%); ethnicity/race (100%); disability (86%), sexual orientation (84%); religion (88%); social status (82%); national origin (88%); other (30%).

Attitudes toward Racial and Gender Equity

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted by gender and race on each of the three QDI factors (i.e., racial cognitive attitudes, racial affective attitudes, and attitudes toward gender equity). Analyses were not conducted on the responses of the Asian American participants, as the number in this category (n = 4) precluded meaningful analyses. Data from each of the three subscales are discussed below.

Cognitive attitudes toward racial diversity.

When examined by both gender and race of participants, counselor education graduate students' scores on Factor 1 (i.e., cognitive attitudes toward racial diversity) were higher than those of the sample used by Ponterotto et al. (1995) in the development of their instrument (see Study 2 of the three studies reported by Ponterotto et al., 1995). For women in the current study, M = 35.8 (maximum possible score = 45) (SD = 6.61), compared to the data reported by Ponterotto et al. (M = 32.4, SD = 5.17). Similarly, for men in this study, M = 33.0 (SD = 4.94), as compared to the data reported by Ponterotto (M = 28.7, SD = 7.16). For both this sample and Ponterotto's sample, African Americans had the highest scores [M = 40.0, SD = 4.86 (this sample); M = 36.1, SD = 3.9 (test development sample)], followed by Latinos/Latinas [M = 36.6, SD = 4.72 (this sample); M = 33.8, SD = 4.7 (test development sample)], followed by Caucasians [M = 33.4 (this sample) (SD = 6.41); M = 29.3, SD = 6.3 (test development sample)]. Individual means and standard deviations for men and women within each ethnic category are provided in Table 1. Ponterotto et al. (1995) reported significantly higher scores on Factor 1 for women compared to men (p [is less than] .001), and for both African Americans and Hispanic Americans compared to Caucasian Americans p [is less than] .01). Although significance was not obtained in the current study due to small sample size, trends were similar, as reported above.

For Tables 1, 2, 3

see issue's website http://www.rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/sump.htm

Affective attitudes toward greater personal contact with racial diversity. Results related to Factor 2 (i.e., affective attitudes toward greater personal contact with racial diversity) were less consistent with those obtained from the test development sample. However, similar to the data presented by Ponterotto et al. (1995), no significant difference was found between men and women. For women in this study, M = 26.8 (maximum possible score = 35), SD = 4.88; for men in this study, M = 26.9, SD = 4.05. [Gender-specific data in relation to Factor 2 was not reported by Ponterotto et al. (1995).] In this study, Caucasians scored higher than Latinos/Latinas or African Americans on Factor 2 (Caucasians: M = 27.5, SD = 4.92; Latinos/Latinas: M = 26.2, SD = 2.95; African Americans: M = 25.1, SD = 5.17). Individual means and standard deviations for men and women within each ethnic category are provided in Table 2. In contrast, Ponterotto et al. (1995) reported that Hispanic Americans M = 28.6, SD= 3.2) scored significantly higher (p [is less than] .01) than both African Americans (M = 23.8, SD = 4.7) and White Americans (M = 22.5, SD = 5.7). Further, in contrast with scores on Factor 1, the participants in Ponterotto's study had higher scores than those in this study. Again, differences in this study did not reach significance.

Attitudes toward women's (gender) equity.

On Factor 3 (attitudes toward women's [gender] equity), the mean score for women in this study (M = 27.4, SD = 3.83) (maximum possible score = 35) was identical to the mean score for women in Ponterotto's sample (M = 27.4, SD = 3.72). Although Ponterotto et al. (1995) reported significantly (p [is less than] .001) higher scores for women than for men, overall gender group differences (races combined) were not as evident in the current study. The mean Factor 3 score for men in this study was M = 25.7 (SD = 4.46); for men in Ponterotto's sample, M = 21.2, SD = 5.06). In the current study, there was a noticeable difference between the scores of Latino (M = 21.7, SD = 5.51) and Latina (M = 27.0, SD = 1.90) participants. In this study, Caucasians scored higher than Latinos/Latinas and only slightly higher than African Americans on Factor 3 (Caucasians: M = 27.4, SD = 4.17; Latinos/Latinas: M = 25.2, SD = 4.12; African Americans: M = 27.3, SD = 3.15). Individual means and standard deviations for men and women within each ethnic category are reported in Table 3. Results differed from Ponterotto's findings, which indicated that Hispanic Americans (M = 27.8, SD = 4.3) (p [is less than] .01) and African Americans (M = 26.4, SD = 5.1) (p [is less than] .05) scored significantly higher than White Americans (M = 23.7, SD = 5.0). As was the case for Factors 1 and 2, neither gender nor racial differences were significant in this study.

Discussion

This study explored the attitudes of first-year counselor education graduate students in relation to race and gender and also assessed the inclusiveness of their perceptions of diversity. Although diversity and/or multiculturalism is often conceived of as relating only to race/ethnicity, students in this study indicated an appreciation of many other factors that contribute to a diverse society, including gender, age, religion, national origin, disability, and sexual orientation. There are several possible interpretations. First, these students' attitudes may be partially attributable to the emphasis placed on issues of diversity by their counselor education program. Although they were first year students, they already had been exposed to some exploration of these concepts in their classes. Second, their classes were comprised of students who were different from each other in relation to all these factors. Third, the urban university that they attended was located in a geographical area where all types of diversity is common. Thus, caution should be exercised in generalizing this finding to other programs or institutions which may be dissimilar in terms of student population and/or program emphasis.

Regarding counselor education graduate students' cognitive attitudes toward racial diversity, affective attitudes toward greater personal contact with racial diversity, and attitudes toward women's (gender) equity, several comments can be offered. First, some description of the sample in Ponterotto et al.'s (1995) study is warranted. Participants were 220 late adolescents and adults from the New York City metropolitan area, including 104 junior and senior high school students and 116 adults (including college students). The ethnic composition of Ponterotto's sample and the sample in this study were somewhat similar: the current sample was 58% Caucasian, 18% Latino/Latina, 16% African American, and 8% Asian American; in Ponterotto's sample, 60% were Caucasian, 23% Hispanic, 10% African American, and 4% Asian American. Seventy-six percent of the participants in this study were female and 24% were male, compared to 59% female and 41% male participants in Ponterotto's sample. Ponterotto et al. (1995) noted that, consistent with Ponterotto and Pedersen's (1993) "contact hypothesis" theory, urbanites in general may be more accepting of racial and gender equity because it is congruent with their day-to-day contact and experience. The similarities between Ponterotto's and this sample may thus account for some of the similarities in scores.

It is interesting to note that, although participants in this study scored higher than those in Ponterotto's study on cognitive attitudes toward racial diversity (QDI Factor 1), they scored lower on affective attitudes toward greater personal contact with racial diversity (QDI Factor 2). One interpretation of this finding is that a counselor education program may be successful in educating students on an intellectual level regarding race and gender issues, but less so in terms of students' internalization of these beliefs and application to their personal lives. This speaks to the level of congruence between counselors' personal and professional lives. Because congruence is recognized as a desirable counselor trait (Rogers, 1951), this interpretation has possible implications for the training that counselor education programs provide. Counselor educators engaged in program development may wish to consider and investigate additional opportunities for more intensive self-exploration by their students.

Consistent with Ponterotto's findings, women scored higher than men on cognitive attitudes toward racial diversity (Factor 1) and attitudes toward women's [gender] equity (Factor 3). Although African American and Latino/a students scored higher than Caucasian students on cognitive attitudes toward racial diversity (Factor 1), this was not the case for affective attitudes toward greater personal contact with racial diversity (Factor 2) or attitudes toward women's [gender] equity (Factor 3). In fact, Caucasian students scored higher than ethnic minority students on these two factors. Ponterotto et al. (1995) noted that his findings were consistent with the literature in that persons of color typically scored significantly higher than Caucasian respondents on instruments designed to assess multicultural sensitivity. It is not clear why this was not more evident in this study.

The small size of this sample is recognized as a major limitation of this study and, as already indicated, is a factor in not achieving significance when comparing gender and racial differences. Further research should be conducted with larger samples. Nonetheless, the intention of this research was exploratory; no hypotheses were proposed. The value of this research may be in providing not only a vehicle for examining students' attitudes toward diversity, but also a catalyst for further exploration of these concepts in counseling as well as other educational programs.

References

D'Andrea, M., Daniels, J., & Heck, R. (1991). Evaluating the impact of multicultural counseling training. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70, 143-150.

Hays, P. (1996). Addressing the complexities of culture and gender in counseling. Journal of Counseling and Development, 74, 332-338.

Henley, N. M., Meng, K., O'Brien, D., McCarthy, W. J., & Sockloskie, R. J. (1998). Developing a scale to measure feminist attitudes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 317-348.

LaFromboise, T. D., Coleman, H. L. K., & Hernandez, A. (1991). Development and factor structure of the Cross-Cultural Counseling Inventory-Revised. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 22, 380-388.

McWhirter, E. H. (1994). Counseling for empowerment. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

Ponterotto, J. G., Alexander, C. M., & Grieger, I. (1995). A multicultural competency checklist for counseling training programs. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 23, 11-20.

Ponterotto, J. G., Burhard, A., Rieger, B. P., Grieger, I., D'Onofrio, A., Dubuisson, A., Heenehan, M., Millstein, B., Parisi, M., Rath, J. F., & Sax, G. (1995). Development and initial validation of the Quick Discrimination Index (QDD. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 1016-1031.

Robinson, T. L., & Howard-Hamilton, M. F. (2000). The convergence of race, ethnicity, and gender. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centered therapy: Its current practices, implications, and theory. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Rose Marie Hoffman California State University, Long Beach

Rose Marie Hoffman, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor in the Department of Educational Psychology, Administration, and Counseling, where she serves as Coordinator of the School Counseling Master's and Credential Programs.