The assessment of Latino affective and behavioral responses to racial campus climate

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Request accessible transcript

Transcript (if available)

Content The Assessment of Latino Affective and Behavioral Responses to Racial Campus Climate Misty D. Sawatzky Rossier School Education University of Southern California ____________________________________________ Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Urban Education Rossier School of Education University of Southern California December 2014 Committee Chair: Alicia C. Dowd, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Education Committee Members: Noreen Webb, Ph.D., Professor of Education Ron Astor, Ph.D., Professor of Urban Social Development Mary Helen Immordino-Yang, Ed.D., Associate Professor of Education ii Copyright by Misty D. Sawatzky, 2014 All Rights Reserved. iii Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to Kay. iv Acknowledgments I would like to take this moment to thank all my wonderful friends and family who supported me throughout my doctoral process: My beautiful grandmother Esther, my mother and father, Warren, Susan, Michael (for his patience and help), Kristin, Robin (without whom I would have been absolutely lost in so many ways), Kris, Stef, my beautiful goddaughter Juni, and my Lola. I would also like to thank Dr. Alicia C. Dowd for her patience and support throughout the last five years. Lastly, I would like to thank my committee for taking time out their busy schedules to guide me through the end of my doctoral journey: Dr. Noreen Webb, Dr. Ron Astor, and Dr. Mary Helen Immordino- Yang. v Table of Contents List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... ix List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... x Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 The Racial Campus Climate Construct ......................................................................... 1 Higher Education and Diversity Assessment ................................................................ 2 Conceptual Framework and Research Design .............................................................. 4 Emotionality .................................................................................................................. 5 Intercultural Effort ........................................................................................................ 6 Overview of the Three Proposed Dissertation Papers .................................................. 6 Article 1. The Emotional Response of Students of Color to Hostile Postsecondary Environments: A Literature Review ................................................................................... 8 Emotions and Emotional Processes ............................................................................ 11 Purposes of Emotions ................................................................................................. 13 The adaptive response. .......................................................................................... 14 Triggering emotions. ............................................................................................. 16 Emotions and Coping in a Hostile Environment ........................................................ 17 Emotional Coping ....................................................................................................... 20 Coping with racialized stress. ............................................................................... 22 Coping with anger. ................................................................................................ 24 Racialized stress coping effects in college. ........................................................... 26 The Role of Racial Identity and Emotions .................................................................. 28 Racial identity as a buffer. .................................................................................... 30 Racial identity as a “double-edged sword.” .......................................................... 32 vi Emotional Regulation ................................................................................................. 33 Social factors and emotional regulation. ............................................................... 34 Emotional regulation as a protective factor. ......................................................... 35 Mother-infant emotional coregulation. ....................................................................... 36 Emotional coregulation for postsecondary students of color. ............................... 38 Implications ................................................................................................................. 40 Research Agenda ........................................................................................................ 41 Campus-level policy and resources. ..................................................................... 41 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 43 Article 2. The Validation of the Latino Emotionality Index (LEI): Assessing Latinos’ Affective Responses to Racial Campus Climate .............................................................. 44 Postsecondary Frameworks: Persistence, Racial Campus Climate, and Affective Processes ..................................................................................................................... 48 Tinto’s integration theory. .................................................................................... 48 Racial campus climate and persistence. ................................................................ 50 The racial campus climate construct. .................................................................... 50 Emotionality and racial campus climate as factors of persistence. ....................... 52 Interdisciplinary Emotionality Literature Review ...................................................... 53 Emotional responses. ............................................................................................ 54 Emotions and behavior. ........................................................................................ 55 Emotional regulation. ............................................................................................ 55 Emotionality Instrument and Validation Study .......................................................... 60 The Latino Emotionality Index (LEI). .................................................................. 60 Validation methods. .............................................................................................. 62 Analyses ...................................................................................................................... 67 Results ......................................................................................................................... 67 vii Item descriptives. .................................................................................................. 67 Reliability. ............................................................................................................. 68 Convergent and discriminant validity. .................................................................. 69 Factor Analyses ........................................................................................................... 71 The six components. ............................................................................................. 73 Discussion ................................................................................................................... 76 Limitations .................................................................................................................. 80 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 80 Article 3. The Assessment of Cultural-Behavioral Responses to Racial Campus Climate: The Development and Validation of the Intercultural Effort Scale- Latino Students (IES- LS)..................................................................................................................................... 82 Literature and Assessment Review ............................................................................. 86 Tinto’s persistence model. .................................................................................... 86 Student effort and student involvement theory. .................................................... 88 Responses to hostile racial campus climate. ......................................................... 89 Psychological literature. ........................................................................................ 91 Assessment review. ............................................................................................... 92 The Intercultural Effort Scale- Latino Students (IES-LS) .......................................... 94 Types of intercultural effort. ................................................................................. 95 Construct map. ...................................................................................................... 98 Item design. ......................................................................................................... 100 Methods..................................................................................................................... 101 Participants. ......................................................................................................... 103 Results ....................................................................................................................... 104 Goodness-of-Fit ........................................................................................................ 104 Item measure. ...................................................................................................... 105 viii Item step difficulties. .......................................................................................... 111 Discussion ................................................................................................................. 112 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 115 References ....................................................................................................................... 116 Appendix A. Survey Questionnaire for the Latino Emotionality Index (LEI) and the Intercultural Effort Scale-LS (IES-LS) ........................................................................... 130 Appendix B. Item Descriptives for the Latino Emotionality Index (LEI) ...................... 137 Appendix C. Latino Emotionality Index (LEI) Scree Plot ............................................. 140 Appendix D. Latino Emotionality Index (LEI) Principal Component Analysis ............ 141 Appendix E. Component Descriptives for the Latino Emotionality Index (LEI) ........... 143 Intercultural Effort Scale (IES-LS) Basic Item Statistics ............................................... 144 Appendix G. Intercultural Effort Scale-Latino Students Principle Component Analysis........................................................................................................................... 146 Appendix H. IES-LS Item Map ...................................................................................... 147 Appendix I. Item Step Difficulties .................................................................................. 149 ix List of Tables Table 1. LEI Sample Demographics (n=240) .................................................................. 64 Table 2. The Five Sub-scales of the Latino Emotionality Index (LEI). ........................... 66 Table 3. Sequential multiple regression analysis for the LEI, Latino racial identity, and racial campus climate ........................................................................................................ 70 Table 4. Intercultural Effort Scale- Latino Students. Types of intercultural effort. ......... 97 Table 5. IES-LS Sample Demographics ......................................................................... 104 Table 6. IES-LS item measure. ....................................................................................... 107 x List of Figures Figure 1. Hostile racial campus climate and the theoretical roles Latino emotionality and intercultural effort play in driving persistence. ................................................................... 5 Figure 2. Emotional responses and coping processes of students of color to racial campus climate. .............................................................................................................................. 19 Figure 3. The validation of the Latino Emotionality Index (LEI). ................................... 62 Figure 4. IES-LS construct map. ..................................................................................... 100 1 Introduction Higher education research demonstrates the link between hostile racial campus environments and detrimental postsecondary outcomes, such as low persistence rates, for students of color (Locks, Hurtado, Bowman, & Osegura, 2008; Museus, Nichols, & Lambert, 2008). Latino students, for instance, are found to perceive their institutional culture as racially alienating (Hurtado, Carter, & Spuler, 1996; Hurtado, 1992; Rankin & Reason, 2005), oftentimes more so than any other racial or ethnic group (Nora and Cabrera, 1996). These perceptions of hostile and unwelcoming environments are linked to feelings of distress and alienation, difficulty integrating into campus culture (Hurtado, Carter, & Spuler, 1996; Harper & Hurtado, 2007) and negative attitudes toward persistence (Gloria, 1997; Gloria, Castellanos, & Orozco, 2005; Gloria & Robinson- Kurpius, 1996). In addition Latinos, currently the fastest growing student demographic in the country, have the lowest attainment rates of undergraduate and graduate degrees relative to any other major racial or ethnic group (NCES, 2010). Accordingly, higher education scholars such as Museus, Hurtado, and Dowd emphasize the need for continued assessment of the campus racial environment and its impact on postsecondary outcomes for this population. The Racial Campus Climate Construct Racial campus climate is a multidimensional construct integrating the external and internal policy environment, structural diversity, as well as psychological and behavioral climate of a higher education institution (Hurtado, Griffin, Arellano, and Cuellar, 2008). Hurtado and Carter (1997) operationalize hostile racial campus climates in terms of discriminatory experiences and a sense of campus racial tension. These 2 discriminatory experiences can range from the overt to the subtle and are linked to adjustment and persistence issues for Latino students (Nora & Cabrera, 1996; Hurtado, Carter, & Spuler, 1996). Racial microaggressions–subtle forms of racialized acts (Solorzano, 1998; Solorzano, Allen, & Carroll, 2002) – consist of verbal and non-verbal interpersonal attacks or more broad institutional-level discriminatory practices (Yosso, Smith, Ceja, & Solorzano, 2009). Overall, racial campus climate serves as an effective assessment construct used to improve our understanding of the ways Latinos experience their racial postsecondary environment (e.g. Hurtado’s Diverse Learning Environments [DLE]). Higher Education and Diversity Assessment Assessment of the campus racial environment is housed within a broader tradition of student survey research in the field of higher education. Student surveys evaluating the collegiate environment began with Pace in the late 1950s (e.g., the College Characteristics Index [CCI]), the establishment of the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) by the Astins in the mid 1960s, Pace’s College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) in the late 1970s, and Kuh’s National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) launched in the 2000s. These instruments laid a foundation for large-scale campus-wide student assessment for the purpose of mapping campus environmental factors onto student outcomes (e.g., achievement or persistence). While successfully establishing the groundwork for institutional self-assessment practices, these instruments ignored racialized aspects of the campus environment for Students of Color. Sylvia Hurtado–the director of the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI)– ameliorated this gap by bringing the postsecondary assessment field’s attention to the 3 experiences of Students of Color, particularly with her conceptualization and assessment of racial campus climate. Hurtado conceptualized racial campus climate as the racial environment of a campus delineated across sociohistorical, policy, psychological, and behavioral dimensions as perceived by its student body, staff, and faculty (Hurtado, 1992; Hurtado, Griffin, Arellano, & Cuellar, 2008). In this vein, Hurtado developed a variety of surveys measuring racial campus climate including the recent DLE, an instrument allowing practitioners at postsecondary institutions to measure their campus’ diversity climate based on the perceptions of their undergraduate student body (HERI, 2012). While improvements in assessment tools have been made, two significant areas remain underdeveloped and under-assessed for students of color: (a) student emotionality– particularly the emotional response of students of color to racialized campus climates– and (b) intercultural effort–or the effort students of color expend in order to fit-in and succeed within racially hostile campus climates. The successful assessment of student emotionality first requires improvements in the field’s understanding of affective processes. Emotionality can be described as the measurable psychological and physical response to something meaningful in one’s environment (Rosenberg, 1998). Our emotions are shaped by our own experiences and have been found to drive learning, decision-making, and social functioning within the educational environment (Oyserman, Sorensen, Reber, & Chen, 2009; Immordino-Yang and Damasio, 2007; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Further, racially discriminatory experiences are inherently emotional in nature (Holland, 2005; Tatum, 1992), deeply meaningful, and lend themselves to emotional responses such as anger and frustration. Emotionality has only been minimally investigated within higher education despite 4 growing attention in other fields. Given the importance of emotions to many significant issues found within contemporary postsecondary research, I integrate emotionality- focused works from other disciplines in order to inform scholarship, assessment and practice. Conceptual Framework and Research Design The following conceptual framework below melds the constructs and theoretical relationships discussed in the subsequent three dissertation articles. Beginning with Hurtado’s construct of hostile racial campus climate, my conceptual framework places students’ of color emotionality and intercultural effort as successive responses to these climate experiences. Reading Figure 1 from left to right, Latino students may experience – as operationalized by Hurtado and Carter (1997)–a hostile racial campus climate (Figure 1-1), which is measured by students’ direct experiences with discrimination and perceptions of racial campus tension. Moving from measurement of this subjective state of campus climate, students’ emotional responses to their climate are reviewed and assessed through the measurement of their initial emotional reactions, emotional regulation, valuation, and commitment (1-2). These emotional responses lead to behavioral responses via the expension of intercultural effort, which is defined here as engaging in behavioral bridging between the students’ home and campus culture (1-3). Over time, intercultural efforts mediate or moderate academic outcomes such as persistence or dropping out. 5 Figure 1. Hostile racial campus climate and the theoretical roles Latino emotionality and intercultural effort play in driving persistence. Emotionality Throughout a continued process of interaction with a hostile climate, Latino students are hypothesized to emotionally react to discriminatory events and tensions (see Figure 1-2). Following a hostile event, Latino students have been shown to affectively respond with feelings of anger, distress, or isolation (Hurtado, Carter, & Spuler, 1996). These emotional reactions would, in turn, lead to emotional regulation, catalyzing cognitive changes. These cognitive changes include valuation, or the value students theoretically place on their goal of degree completion. If the valuation is positive, for instance the belief that “sticking it out” and finishing one’s degree is worth experiencing racialized events and subsequent anger, then commitment to persist will remain and/or be strengthened. Commitment to completion may, then, influence behavioral responses such as intercultural effort (Figure 1-3). ! ! ! ! ! Behavioral Bridging Intercultural Effort Scale- Latino Students (IES-LS) Academic Outcomes Experienced Discrimination & Campus Tension Figure 1. Hostile racial campus climate and the theoretical roles Latino emotionality and intercultural effort play in driving persistence. Emotional Reaction Emotional Regulation Latino Emotionality Index (LEI) Valuation Persistence Hostile Racial Campus Climate* Dropout 1 2 3 4 Related Constructs Student Integration Goal and Institutional Commitment (Tinto, 1975, 1993) Sense of Belonging *(Hurtado & Carter, 1997) Related Constructs Student Effort (Pace, 1969,1984) Student Involvement (Astin 1984, 1993) Academic and Social Integration (Tinto, 1975, 1993) Student Engagement (Kuh, 2001) Commitment 6 Intercultural Effort Intercultural effort is conceptualized as the effort expended in order to bridge the cultural gap between oneself and one’s campus environment. Similar to traditional effort constructs (e.g., Astin), intercultural effort includes elements of both cognitive and behavioral response processes. Intercultural effort is delineated across four dimensions: (a) same-race academic effort, (b) majority academic effort, (c) same-race social effort, and (d) majority social effort. All four of these dimensions are integrated into a single unidimensional (Takane & de Leeuw, 1987) intercultural effort construct; i.e., these four intercultural effort types are conceptualized and validated as parts of a single intercultural effort continuum. Lastly, the affective and intercultural effort responses to racialized campus climates influence the likelihood of persisting to degree completion or dropping- out (see Figure 1-4). Overview of the Three Proposed Dissertation Papers The subsequent three dissertation articles serve to develop assessment instruments to address persistence issues for students of color. In the first article, “The Emotional Response of Students of Color to Hostile Postsecondary Environments: A Literature Review,” I apply insights from interdisciplinary emotionality research to develop a research agenda for the study of racialized campus climates for students of color. Article two, “The Validation of the Latino Emotionality Index (LEI): Assessing Latinos’ Affective Responses to Racial Campus Climate” illustrates my empirical evidence for these postsecondary emotional responses via the validation of a Latino- focused assessment instrument. Lastly the third article, “The Assessment of Cultural- 7 Behavioral Responses to Racial Campus Climate: The Development and Validation of the Intercultural Effort Scale- Latino Students (IES-LS),” is an empirical piece introducing and validating an intercultural effort scale for Latino students. 8 Article 1 The Emotional Response of Students of Color to Hostile Postsecondary Environments: A Literature Review In many respect, I was naïve, but now I’m cynical…When I took my science courses, I had to fight every day through all the racism I felt . . . Each time I took a new class, the same thing happened over and over and over again. Many times I was the only African American in the class. [The White students and professors] were like, . . . ”Well, you got here because of affirmative action, not your grades or your merit.” And when you try and voice something to somebody, they don’t want to hear it. They’re not about to hear it! . . . I’m upset. I’m tired of it. That’s why I changed my major to English.” (Solorzano, Ceja, & Yosso, 2000, pp. 69-70) This quote taken from Solorzano et al.’s (2000) Critical Race Theory, Racial Microaggressions, and Campus Racial Climate: The Experiences of African American College Students, cites a Black female undergraduate discussing the ways microaggressions, or subtle racial hostilities, in her STEM 1 courses eventually forced her out of her major. On one level this quote captures the issue of racial camps climate 2 , more specifically microaggressions, and STEM persistence for students of color. On another, this portrays anger, pain and frustration and the effects of these emotions on the student, both psychologically and academically. The first level has been the focus of a great deal of work in the postsecondary field while the second has been virtually ignored. 1 Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics 2 Racial Campus Climate is defined as the racial environment of a campus delineated across socio- historical, policy, psychological, and behavioral dimensions as perceived by its student body, staff, and faculty (Hurtado, 1992; Hurtado, Griffin, Arellano, & Cuellar, 2008) 9 In the past, emotions were central to educational research. Mid-century educational researchers stressed the importance of emotions within the learning environment. Bloom’s taxonomy (1956), for instance, included affective processes as one of the three domains of learning. Nonetheless, emotionality has moved to the periphery at best in education research. In higher education, the discourse across policy, research, and assessment has moved markedly away from the affective in favor of the cognitive. 3 This cognitive focus has placed emphasis on the “rational” and easily testable (Bowman & Denson, 2011), leading to epistemological, methodological, and policy limitations over the last few decades. This lack of attention to emotionality, while problematic for many aspects of postsecondary research, pointedly impacts the study of higher education experiences and outcomes for students of color. As a means of addressing racial equity gaps in higher education, the negative effects of a hostile racial campus climate have been a topic of research for some time (Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, & Allen, 1999; Rankin & Reason, 2005). While the literature is replete with findings demonstrating the detrimental impact of racialized experiences and institutional culture on postsecondary outcomes for students of color, we have paid little attention to emotional processes within what Pascarella (2006) described as black box phenomena. Essentially, many questions still remain unanswered regarding the processes mediating or moderating the effects of a hostile racial campus climate on educational outcomes for students of color. In this regard, emotionality has been left almost entirely unexplored. 3 Emotions and emotionality are, arguably, encompassed within the domain of cognitive processes yet they are often considered or labeled “non-cognitive” in educational research. 10 Racialized experiences impact the individual and are by their very nature emotional. Simply put, emotionality is where the individual is literally affected by the environment (Harding & Prishram, 2013). Emotions are defined as “psychophysiological changes that result from a response to a meaningful situation in one’s environment” (Rosenberg, 1998, p. 250). Meaningful impact on an individual is inherently housed within affective processes across neurological, cognitive, behavioral, and social meaning- making levels (Damasio, 2010; Denzin, 1984; Dirkx, 2001; Kraiger, Ford, & Salas, 1993; Lupton, 1998; Smith-Lovin, 1995). As such, affective processes shape our perceptions and experiences in powerful ways (Kagan, 2007; Lazarus, 1984). In addition, emotionality drives the cognitive processes that help us make sense of our lives, as well as influencing learning, decision-making, and behaviors (Immordino- Yang & Damasio, 2007; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Oyserman, Sorensen, Reber, & Chen, 2009). Particularly important to the study of students of color, affective processes help us cope with a racially hostile environment (Brondolo, ver Halen, Pencille, Beatty, & Contrada, 2009; Clark, Anderson, Clark, & Williams, 1999; Miller & Kaiser, 2001), assist us in garnering support to heal from affronts to who we are (McNeilly, Anderson, Armstead, et al., 1995), and aid our ability to push beyond racialized barriers in order to achieve our goals (Higgins, Roney, Crowe, & Hymes 1994). These brief examples only begin to outline the many contributions interdisciplinary affective research has to make to the postsecondary field. The following review informs the field about the relevance of emotions and emotional processes to the study of racial climate and persistence issues for students of color. In this review, I synthesize research from five fields as it applies to emotional 11 processes within racially marginalized and academic contexts. These fields include: (a) neuroscience, (b) psychology, (c) emotions research, (d) biomedicine, and (e) child development. The synthesis of the literature is presented in two sections. The first section defines and outlines emotions and emotional processes according to the psychological, neuropsychological, and sociological fields. The second section reviews the literature surrounding emotional coping responses to racism, the role of racial identity in emotional coping, and emotional regulation processes. In this section I introduce an emotional response model linking racial campus climate to academic outcomes for students of color. Lastly, I apply the child development construct of emotional coregulation to the racialized higher education environment and outline a research agenda. Emotions and Emotional Processes Contemporary views of emotion, as outlined by the psychologist Kagan (2007), generally include four processes: (a) a change in our neurological activity that catalyzes changes in other systems (e.g., hormonal) that motivate us to respond; (b) a conscious change in our feelings inclusive of some type of sensory experience(s) (e.g., facial flushing); (c) a cognitive process where we label a feeling with words (e.g., “I feel angry!); and (d) our display of or preparation for an emotionally-related behavioral response, i.e., motor reaction. These processes all denote activations of changes across neurological, physiological, cognitive, and behavioral systems. Thus, emotions are essentially change states across these many systems with the added element of meaningfulness. They are catalyzed by meaningful stimuli in our external environment and, at times, our own cognitive reprocessing (i.e., our remembering of meaningful stimuli from the past). Once these varied systems are activated we process the event or 12 memory across them, making meaningful connections between the event/memory and ourselves. This meaning-making results in cognitive and behavioral responses that ultimately drive our motivation and future behavior (Mayne & Ramsey, 2001). Broken down more precisely, Kagan’s (2007) framework conceptualizes emotions across six components: (a) the provocative or catalyzing event (for our purposes a hostile racialized incident), (b) brain states, (c) detected feelings, (d) appraisals, (e) semantic labels, and (f) actions or behaviors. While all emotions necessitate a catalyst “every emotion originates in brain activity, each is first and foremost a psychological phenomenon” (p. 1). Kagan added that it is the “detection of feelings” or the move to cognition that delineates an actual emotion from an isolated brain state. The neuroscientist Damasio (2010) defined emotions as “complex, largely automated programs of actions” (p. 117). These actions consist of changes internally (e.g., neurologically, hormonally) and externally (facial expressions, posture). Emotionally-driven changes at the physical level include alterations in the amygdala or regions of the frontal lobe cortex (Damasio, 2010). These alterations lead to the release of chemical molecules, secreted by endocrine glands and subcortical nuclei, affecting the brain and the body (e.g., cortisol release and contractions in the stomach). These physiological changes result in behavioral modifications such as facial and bodily expressions (e.g., grimacing and cowering) and the initiation of cognitive processing (e.g., “This college is racist”) (Damasio, 2010). Changes in one system lead to changes in others where the emotionally-related systems “recruit” one another. For instance, activation of emotions such as fear at the physiological level generates cognitive awareness and appraisal of this emotion (Ekman, Levenson, & Friesen 1983; Levenson, 13 Ekman, & Friesen, 1990). Additionally, these reactive processes across emotional systems may also be socially transferred to others in our environment. Displays of emotions such as happiness (e.g., smiling) can activate similar emotional behavioral displays and physiological responses in others (Hatfield & Cacioppo, 1994) (e.g., “contagious” laughter). At the neurological level the affective network–one of three major brain networks outlined by Rose and Strangemen (2007)–is involved in interest, motivation, and stress in education. This affective network consists of the limbic system (i.e., amygdala and hippocampus) structures that play important roles in emotional processes (MacLean, 1949, 1952). In this respect, the limbic system is vastly connected with cortical areas of the brain that drive cognitive processing (LeDoux, 2000). Thus, emotions and cognition are dynamically interwoven, emotions influence cognitive processing and cognition influences emotions. Purposes of Emotions Emotions or emotional states serve many purposes. Emotional functions (Kagan, 2007) that reflect our everyday life include: 1. generating our “flight or fight” response by demanding an awareness, evaluation, and action towards something in our external environment; 2. aiding us in controlling behaviors viewed as socially and/or personally inappropriate; 3. helping us sustain and persevere toward our goals; 4. assisting in our memory processing of experiences; and 5. supporting our learning, particularly about what to avoid in the future. 14 These emotional functions grow more relevant in the context of racial campus climate for students of color. For instance, “flight or fight” responses serve to make the student aware of the racialized environment and also protect her or him from its negative effects. Social emotional regulation helps the student to socially function in an unwelcoming environment while perseverance and motivation allow students to achieve and persist in these climates. Memory processing and meaning-making aid the student in understanding these hostilities while learning allows the student to know expectations for the future and initiate coping in order to protect and sustain well-being. The adaptive response. Emotions are often defined in terms of surveillance and adaptive response to the environment (Frijda, 1987; Levenson, 1994; Saarni, Campos, Camras, & Witherington, 2006; Thompson, 1991). At the neurochemical level, stressful incidents catalyze a series of adaptive changes that generate or suppress further neuroendocrine processes that prepare us to deal with threat (LaBar & Cabeza, 2006; Sapolsky, Romero, & Munck, 2000). For instance, emotional facial expressions such as widening the eyes out of fear or narrowing the eyes out of disgust have been demonstrated to improve visual discrimination in the environment, an evolutionarily advantage in threatening situations (Lee, Mizra, Flanagan, & Anderson, 2014). Hormones also help drive the sympathetic nervous system’s fight or flight response (Sapolsky et al., 2000), which later assists us in emotionally regulating back to our original state, i.e., the process of homeostasis. Damasio (2010) conceptualized emotions in terms of the life regulation processes focused around the need of the individual to maintain homeostatis. Emotions serve as diagnostic tools, letting our conscious self know what is “good” or “bad” for us in the 15 external environment. When pushed beyond our “normal” state, whether positively (e.g., ecstatic) or negatively (e.g., sorrow), emotions act as gatekeepers to let us know that we have moved beyond the boundaries of homeostasis. Consequently, our emotional alert system motivates us to behaviorally respond in some form that will help us return to our “normal” state, thereby maintaining well-being. External factors that catalyze our emotional gatekeepers can be found in both our physical and sociocultural environments. Sociocultural experiences in our environment alert us to threats and motivate us to make behavioral changes in order to avoid negative stimuli. Emotions also let us know when factors in our environment are good for us and encourage us to connect further with those that are likely to help. Essentially, emotions serve as regulatory mechanism via the “sensing and detection of conditions, the measurement of degrees of internal need, the incentive process with its reward and punishment aspects, the prediction devices” (Damasio, 2010, p. 118). The adaptive framing of emotionality lends itself quit clearly to motivation, achievement, and persistence issues for students of color in hostile racial environments. Our emotional lives are ones of assessment, protection, success, and survival in the most basic of senses. Students of color (subconsciously) use their emotional responses to literally “feel out” their institution’s campus climate. Their own negative experiences, the hostile experiences of other students of color, or “senses” of racial hostility alert the student via emotions that they are not welcome. These affective processes consequently affect or change motivations to attempt to “fit in,” to achieve, or even persist. In many instances, a hostile racial campus will weaken motivation to succeed and persist. In others, it may actually strengthen motivation to achieve; for instance, a desire to prove 16 everyone wrong about Latinos (Sawatzky, 2012). However, as we will find in the coping section, this increase in motivation may ultimately take its toll on the student psychologically and physically. Triggering emotions. According to Kagan (20007), the emotion that results from an external event is one of countless possibilities “chosen” by the individual. This choice process is influenced by the individual’s own understanding of the event’s context, which is consequently formed by her/his history, culture, and temperament (Kagan, 2007). Additionally, the mood of the individual is often viewed as the “initial conditions” for the activation of emotional processes (Mayne & Ramsey, 2001). While dynamics across the many emotional systems account for a great deal of an individual’s overall emotional response, the catalyzing event can have significantly different effects depending upon the state of the system when the event occurred. This state or mood of the individual essentially changes the threshold for excitement or activation of specific emotions (Ekman, 1994; Panksepp, 1994). We, as individuals, bring a variety of implicit influences into the ways in which we experience our environment. Our mood at the time of interacting with the environment, implicit (and explicit) emotions, and past experiences all interact stimuli in our environment. In the case of fear conditioning, an object is paired with a noxious stimulus leading to a fear response (Watson & Rayner, 1920). However, that fear response can itself generate hypervigilance, increasing sensitivity to related objects, producing more fear, and eventually leading to phobic avoidance (Barlow, 1988). Similar to the STEM student quoted in the introduction, consistent racial microaggressions or 17 aggressions are likely to leave students of color in depressive or anxious moods on campus. These negative emotional states–aside from affecting the quality of life of the individual (physically, psychology, academically)–also increase vulnerability to negative emotional responses in the future. Emotions and Coping in a Hostile Environment Affective processes are integrated into the many ways students of color cope with the stress of hostile racial campus environments. As described earlier, emotional response is a point of meaningful impact for students, setting in motion a variety of cognitive and behavioral changes. In addition to scaffolding a sense of knowing and driving decision- making, emotional processes also help us cope with negative experiences and environments. Our emotions, in turn, are mediated by our coping styles (Folkman & Lazarus, 1988), which likely drive further cognitive and behavioral changes. In the racialized higher education context, specifically, differing forms of emotional coping have been found to drive academic outcomes for students of color (Smedley, Myers, & Harrell, 1993). In the following section, I outline the role of emotions in a racialized stress-coping context such as emotional regulation processes and introduce the construct of emotional coregulation to the postsecondary context for students of color. Additionally, I review the taxing nature of emotional coping, as conceptualized by psychology, sociology, child development, biomedicine and higher education. Racialized environments are stressful for those targeted (Allison, 1998; Clark, Anderson, Clark, and Williams, 1999; Miller & Major, 2000). In higher education, hostile racial environments cause emotional distress (Smedley, Myers, & Harrell, 1993) forcing students of color to pull from limited coping resources (Brondolo, ver Halen, Pencille, 18 Beatty, & Contrada, 2009). In the following section, I outline many of the ways emotionality is woven throughout stress-coping processes as well as their mediation of postsecondary educational outcomes for students of color. Over the last two decades a great deal of research across many fields (e.g., psychology, biomedical, education) has looked at coping responses to various forms of stigmatization. There is no agreed-upon framework for coping responses to racist incidences nor is there an exceptionally successful way to deal with the many forms of stress caused by racism (see Brondolo, ver Halen, Pencille, Beatty, and Contrada (2009) and Miller and Kaiser (2001) for reviews). However, emotionality is a dynamic player throughout these processes including the interaction between students of color and the racial campus climate context. As demonstrated by Figure 2, emotional reaction–responses at the physical, neurological, cognitive, and behavioral level–follow a hostile racial incident based on how the event is appraised or interpreted. An incident is appraised as racially hostile based on a variety of individual factors such as personal history and sensitivity to discrimination (Barrett & Swim, 1998; Oyserman & Swim, 2001). As touched upon earlier, emotional reactions to stress are cognitive (e.g., “I’m angry and frustrated!”), neurological (e.g., neurochemical changes as a response to stress and negative emotional processes), and behavioral (e.g., clenched teeth). For example, a racialized incident is likely appraised as hostile and negative, which may produce emotions such as anger and frustration. At the neurochemical level, the emotional reaction consists of a series of adaptive changes that generate or suppress further neuroendocrine processes, preparing us to deal with threat (Sapolsky, Romero, & Munck, 2000). In other words, when an 19 event is appraised as a threat, our brain orders physiological changes (e.g., hormonal) that help drive our nervous system’s fight or flight responses (Sapolsky et al., 2000). Figure 2. Emotional responses and coping processes of students of color to racial campus climate. Subsequently, a broad range of dynamic emotional coping processes follow these emotional responses. Included within these emotional coping processes are interrelated cognitive and behavioral changes that allow us to regulate our emotional reactions and return us to our original nonaroused state. For instance, emotional coping in the form of emotional regulation–i.e., calm down our emotional fight or flight responses or their subsequent effects—is likely to drive cognitive change (e.g., moving from excitement surrounding campus life to dread) and behavioral change (e.g., campus avoidance such as skipping class). Essentially, while coping begins immediately following the appraisal of a threat (e.g., neuroendocrine changes), coping strategies are utilized both immediately and over long periods of time (Matheson & Cole, 2014). Salience of racial identity is included as moderator of the emotional appraisal, reaction, and coping processes as they mediate racial hostility and academic outcomes. Racial identity is interlaced across all three emotional constructs, driving how we ! ! ! ! ! Academic Outcomes Racially Hostile Incident Figure 1. The emotional response and coping processes of students of color to racial campus climate and their posited effects on postsecondary outcomes. Emotional Reaction Emotional Coping Persistence High Achievement Racial Campus Climate Dropout 1 2 Persistence Low Achievement Cognitive Appraisal 4 3 5 Emotionality Racial/ Ethnic Identity 20 appraise racialized situations, the severity of our emotional reactions to these situations, and the ways in which we cope. Additionally, racial identity been demonstrated to lessen the negative effects of racism on self-esteem and academic performance (e.g., Oyserman, Harrison, & Bybee, 2001; Wong, Eccles, Sameroff, 2003) and is related to academic self- efficacy (Oyserman, Harrison, & Bybee, 2001). Finally, I posit that emotional coping processes drive academic outcomes such as persistence and dropout. In Figure 2., I delineate the persistence construct between high achievement persistence and low achievement persistence in order to highlight the negative effects emotional responses can have on success in academia even when students choose to persist. Emotional Coping Individuals cope with stressful incidents in several ways. For instance, a racialized campus incident is firstly appraised by the student in terms of what is at stake in the encounter (e.g., personal safety, social embarrassment, personal anger and pain) and secondly appraised to determine the coping options available to the individual (Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, & Guen, 1986). These general coping options have been hypothesized to include styles such as problem-focused relative to emotion-focused coping (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; Struthers et al., 2000, Matheson & Cole, 2014). Problem-focused coping consists of cognition, action, and strategies that will remove or lessen the stressful event or its impact. Prior work demonstrates that problem-focused coping is used when individuals have a greater sense of power to make changes to the stress source (Branscombe, Schmitt, & Harvey, 1999; Matheson & Cole, 2014) and is considered the more adaptive of coping styles (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989; Folkman & Lazarus, 1980). 21 Emotionally-focused coping consists of cognition, action, and strategies aimed at reducing the negative/stressful emotions associated with the negative event (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; Struthers, Perry, & Menec, 2000). Emotionally-focused coping is generally found when individuals perceive the stressor to be out their control and must simply be tolerated (Matheson & Cole, 2014) or when the stressor generates an acute negative effect. This coping style is considered maladaptive (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989; Folkman & Lazarus, 1980) and may lead to greater sensitivity to the threat or “emotion-relevant cues” linked to the threat in the future (Matheson & Cole, 2014, p. 778). Essentially, one racially hostile experience or the overall sense of a racially hostile climate could drive greater sensitivity to racially hostile acts or cues within the racial campus climate in the future. In other words, another way to look at emotionally- focused coping is to understand its dynamic relationship with emotional reactions, particularly future emotional reactions. A racialized incident on campus likely results in an emotional response that consequently influences emotionally-focused coping. This process is also dynamic and inclusive of the ways that today’s coping styles affect emotions and emotional reactions in the future (Folkman & Lazarus, 1988). Struthers, Perry, and Menec (2000) mapped Lazarus’ (1966) problem-versus emotionally-focused coping processes to negative (non-racial) experiences in higher education. The authors posited that emotion-focused coping is a strategy to minimize emotional distress (i.e., the emotional regulation discussed further below) and that it neither aids achievement nor is it related to academic motivation. Problem-focused coping, however, is believed to foster academic achievement and motivation. Since 22 students of color cannot control their racialized status within a hostile college environment they are more likely to emotionally cope. Unfortunately, the postsecondary institutional response to low achieving behavioral student responses to hostile racial climates generally place the onus of rectifying such racialized emotional stress on the student. We expect students of color to problem-solve or strategize a way to overcome their racialized stressors and emotional reactions to hostility and succeed and persist academically. Instead, we must try to understand and assess their emotional navigations throughout the higher education system and focus on campus climate change in order to increase persistence. Coping with racialized stress. Racism is a uniquely virulent stressor for its targets. Understandably, an abundance of literature has studied and reviewed the many ways people of color cope with racialized stress (Allison, 1998; Clark, Anderson, Clark, & Williams, 1999; Miller & Major, 2000; see Brondolo et al., 2009; Harrell, 2000; McNeilly, Anderson, Armstead et al., 1995 for reviews). For instance, Clark, Anderson, Clark, and Williams (1999) built on Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) stress-coping model, placing it within the context of racialized encounters and stress. When something in the environment is viewed as being racist, an exaggerated psychological and physiological response is activated. These responses are also influenced by individual factors (e.g., personal constitution), sociodemographic factors, psychological and behavioral factors, as well as coping responses. While the short-term effects of these racialized encounters are temporary psychological and physiological changes, long-term effects include negative health outcomes such as heart disease. In this vein, Clark et al. (1999) argued that perceived 23 racism should be understood and assessed as having “both chronic and acute dimensions” (p. 807). Racialized stress responses, psychological and physiological, are likely to vary a great deal across individuals depending on the accessibility of coping resources (Clark et al., 1999). Variations in racialized stress responses may differ in terms of intensity or valence and length of time or duration. Coping responses to these stress responses are viewed as adaptive–if they are able to attenuate “enduring” racialized stress responses and, thus, minimize negative health effects. Alternatively, coping responses are considered maladaptive if they have no effect on the stress response and possibly lead to negative health outcomes (Clark et al., 1999; Clark & Harrell, 1982). At the individual level, “general” coping responses are the strategies most commonly used by the individual. General coping styles that may mitigate racial stress responses for people of color–or “racism-specific coping responses” (Clark et al., 1999)– have been hypothesized to attenuate risk for negative health outcomes such as elevated blood pressure (Anderson, McNeilly, & Myers, 1991). These general coping styles likely include “John Henryism” (James, 1994; James, Hartnett, & Kalsbeek, 1983; Neighbors, Njai, Jackson, 2007), social support (McNeilly, Anderson, Armstead, et al., 1995) and religious practice (Lewis-Coles & Constantine, 2006). However, even adaptive racism- specific coping may not be enough to mitigate negative health outcomes for people of color. Coping responses to discrimination, passive and active, have been found to also be related to increased distress, poorer well-being, and many chronic conditions for Black individuals even after sociodemographic and psychological factors are held constant (Williams, Yu, Jackson, & Anderson, 1997). 24 Emotionality often plays a prominent part in the many ways that people of color cope with racialized stress. First, responses to racialized stress include attempting to alter the stressor or adapting oneself to the stressful situation via emotional regulation (Oyserman & Swim, 2001) (discussed in greater detail below). Second, research has studied coping responses surrounding one particular emotion, prevalent (as discussed earlier) and powerful in the racialized context, which is anger. Coping with anger. Anger is a common emotional response to a racialized incident. It is also a very powerful emotion, evoking a strong response behaviorally, psychologically, and physiologically from the individual. Understandably, coping with anger has been frequently studied in the racialized context (see Brondolo et al., 2009 for a complete review; also Armstead & Clark, 2002; Dorr, Brosschot, Sollers, & Thayer 2007; Krieger 1990; Mellor, 2004; Steffen, McNeilly, Anderson, & Sherwood, 2003). Racism-focused psychological literature generally describes two anger coping strategies: (a) anger confrontation and (b) anger suppression. By confronting the perpetrator at the time of the racialized incident the individual may be responding with automaticity (e.g., lashing back at the aggressor), may have a goal of stopping the present aggression, and/or may be attempting to change the future behavior of the aggressor (e.g., the perpetrator needs to know that it is not “okay” to speak that way to people) (Swim et al., 2003). Through the suppression of anger, the individual will try to emotionally regulate or attenuate the negative effects brought on by the anger (Brondolo et al., 2009). Brodolo et al.’s (2009) review found that while most individuals generally report wanting to “do something” in a racialized incident (Plummer & Slane, 1996; Thompson & Sanders 2006), many 25 individuals do not actually engage in confrontation (Hyers, 2007). What strategy for coping with racialized anger an individual decides upon reflects the coping resources perceived to be available and a cost-benefit analysis of actions and consequences. In the context of racialized anger, a confrontational approach to anger coping may be successful in silencing the aggressor but may be costly in how the individual is perceived socially. Through anger confrontation the individual becomes the stereotypical “angry” Black or Latino student in the eyes of her/his White peers or faculty and may be socially and academically avoided in future. It is, therefore, understandable that anger suppression is a common choice in response decision-making. Emotional suppression does not have the immediate sense of risk that confrontation brings. In fact, individuals may believe that anger suppression has no existing risk or consequence. Yet, anger suppression is innocuously harmful. While especially prevalent, coping with a racialized environment in the form of anger suppression has been found to be harmful psychologically in the form of anxiety and physically through higher blood pressure (Brondolo et al., 2009; Brosschot, Gerin, & Thayer, 2006). Whether to suppress anger emotions or act confrontational in the face of racism often becomes a social, psychological, career, and physical question for people of color. This quandary may ultimately lead to feelings of even greater anxiety in future racialized contexts particularly around the inventory-taking of coping resources and cost-benefit analyses of responses (Brondolo et al., 2009). Unfortunately, anger suppression or confrontation, and even the behavior strategizing process itself, all take their toll psychologically and physically on racialized individuals. 26 Racialized stress coping effects in college. In the context of higher education, the detrimental effects of a hostile racial campus climate become an academic question in addition to social, psychological, and physical. While people of color cannot escape a racialized society, students of color have the option to drop out and leave a racially hostile campus. For those who choose to persist, the stress of simply being racialized adds additional stress and barriers to the collegiate experience. Smedley, Myers, and Harrell (1993) found that racial minority stress added significant stress to the already demanding experience of college transition. In this study, racial minority-status was associated with feelings of distress that drained already overutilized coping resources. Further, achievement stresses particular to students of color (e.g., feeling the need to work harder as a Black student) were significantly related to lower grade point average (GPA) (Smedley, Myers, & Harrell, 1993), thereby negatively linking racialized campus stress to achievement. In a similar vein, Smith, Allen, and Danley’s (2007) study applied the construct of “racial battle fatigue” to Black males in the postsecondary setting. Racial battle fatigue encompasses the psychological and physical strain people of color experience and the additional effort and coping exerted in order to manage racism. The authors found that Black male responses to racial microaggressions at predominantly White institutions (PWIs) included frustration, shock, avoidance, anxiety, helplessness, hopelessness, and fear. The racism coping responses of students of color has also been conceptualized as promotive or preventive efforts in educational research (Higgins et al., 1994). The former is exerted to attain goals in spite of the discriminatory environment and the latter as an exercise in avoidance. Promotive effort includes aspects of academic John Henryism or 27 the perceived need to work harder and perform better–to the detriment to one’s health – in order to not be judged as a student of color. Such efforts may be mistaken at the campus level to be a positive effect of an academically rigorous institution. Instead, these increases in academic achievement in students of color are a way of coping with lived experiences of discrimination. While working harder to achieve one’s academic goals may be viewed as positive in some respects, the racialized stress takes a psychological and physical toll as it is mediated through academic stress. On the contrary, preventive or avoidance efforts are likely to lead to a lack of academic engagement, such as not going to campus, attending classes, or even dropping out. As previously discussed, the coping response chosen by students of color to a hostile racial climate is related to a multitude of factors including perceived available coping resources and a cost benefit analysis of actions and consequences. In addition, the acute and chronic nature of the racialization also plays a role in the chosen coping response and subsequent effects. In the postsecondary context, stress due to hostile discriminatory incidences were found only to be minimized if the stress was not pervasive and if the target individual is able to view the event and its effects as manageable (Matheson & Cole, 2014). Additionally, Smedley, Myers, and Harrell (1993) found that acute instances of racial hostility had a limited impact on student stress and posited that these explicit incidences likely magnified the chronic microagressions experienced on campus. Thus, resources must be in place not only to prevent such incidences from occurring at the campus-level but also support for those students, once they have fallen victim. 28 The Role of Racial Identity and Emotions Racial and ethnic identity develops for multiple reasons including the fostering of (a) self-esteem, (b) knowledge of one’s history and understanding of one’s present experiences, and (c) cultural connections with other people of color and their experiences, as well as (d) increasing one’s ability to cope with external racialized stressors (Brondolo et al., 2009). Understandably, racial identity plays a significant part in the emotional reaction/coping processes outlined in Figure 2. Initially, racial identity plays an important role in the appraisal of racially hostile incident. Intuitively, the degree to which an individual identifies with her/his racial or ethnic group mediates the appraisal or assessment of whether one’s racial or ethnic group membership is under attack. For instance, a Latino student who strongly identifies with her/his Latino culture would be more likely to appraise an anti-Latino racialized comment by a White student as a racist affront than a Latino student who does not strongly identify. This latter student who does not strongly see herself/himself as Latino may, instead, appraise the comment as humorous or not applicable to herself/himself (e.g., the insult only applies to immigrant Latinos not oneself). Coping research in the psychological, educational, and biomedical fields often highlights the significant role racial identity plays in the emotional reaction and coping processes as responses to racist events (Brondolo et al., 2009; Lee, 2003; Matheson & Cole, 2014). The emotional response of an individual is based, at least in part, on the strength of one’s connection to the racial/ethnic group threatened (Major, Gramzow, McCoy, Levin, Schmaker, & Sidanius, 2002; Branscombe & Wann, 1994). Further, I 29 posit that racial/ethnic identity mediates the intensity and the quality of the emotional reaction. Racial/ethnic identity and its emotional underlay are at the essence of our understanding of a racialized incident. It is the emotional connection to one’s racial ethnic identity that makes the attack personal while also placing the individual within the cultural and historical context of the attack. This emotional connection makes the attack move from the individual level to that of one’s family, friends, and ancestors. These levels of understanding of the racial incident are part of the appraisal process and help to catalyze an individual’s emotional reaction. Therefore, when an individual is personally attacked, when an individual’s family, friends, and ancestors are attacked, she or he will likely respond with greater anger and frustration than someone without these meaningful connections. When an individual is not emotionally connected to their racial or ethnic identity she/he is not only likely to react on a weaker emotional level, she/he is also liable to respond with qualitatively different emotions. For instance, as found in Tatum’s (1992) work, weak racial identity can produce feelings such as shame as opposed to anger when confronted with racism discourse. In fact, racially hostile events in college may serve as the “encounter” event hypothesized in many racial and ethnic identity development theories (Cross, 1991). It is the deeply emotional nature of these events that theoretically cause the individual to transcend an early state of racial/ethnic development, moving from emotional responses of denial to anger. Racial/ethnic identity also plays a role in the ways in which we cope with these negative feelings (Oyserman, Harriosn, & Bybee, 2001; Wong, Eccles, & Sameroff, 30 2003). While possibly strengthening our emotional reaction to racialized incidences, our connection to our racial/ethnic group may ultimately help us cope with these events, after the fact. The same knowledge of one’s history and emotional immediacy to our racial and ethnic identity can help us avoid internalization by distinguishing between the personal and the greater group (Cross, 2005); i.e., the attack is not personalized and the effects of the attack are diffused (Branscombe, Schmitt, & Harvey, 1999; Mossakowski 2003; Sellers & Shelton 2003). Thus, saliency of racial/ethnic identity serves as a protective factor for people of color (Brondolo et al., 2009). Racial identity as a buffer. Some research explicitly frames racial/ethnic identity as a coping resource capable of buffering the effects of racialized stress (Lee, 2003). Brondolo et al. (2009) reviewed and outlined studies that tested this hypothesis for psychological distress or depressive effects (e.g., Banks & Kohn-Wood 2007; Bynum, Burton, & Best, 2007; Fischer & Shaw 1999; Greene et al. 2006; Lee, 2003; Mossakowski, 2003; Sellers et al., 2003, 2006; Sellers & Shelton, 2003; Wong, Eccles, & Sameroff, 2003). Unfortunately, the authors found only limited evidence for the argument that racial/ethnic identity buffers the effects of racism on psychological distress. For college students, specifically, weak Black racial identity has been linked to stronger correlations of depression to suicidal ideation than those with more salient attachments to Black identity (Walker, Wingate, Obasi, & Joiner, 2008). Walker et al., (2008) demonstrated that acculturative stress and ethnic identity moderated depression- suicide ideation for Black college students. Smedley, Myers, and Harrell (1993) used a stress-coping model in order to analyze the effects of a hostile racial climate on students 31 of color. Their findings support the protective role of social, political, and/or cultural identities, as well as their involvement with the applicable student groups, in promoting sense of well-being. Thus, while attacks on racial identity may generate an emotional response, salient racial identity may shelter students of color, to a certain extent, from more global psychological affects of such environments (e.g., depression disorder). Racial identity and achievement. Racial identification may attenuate the negative effects of racism on self-esteem and academic performance (e.g., Oyserman, Harrison, & Bybee, 2001; Wong, Eccles, & Sameroff, 2003). Racial identity is related to academic self-efficacy (Oyserman, Harrison, & Bybee, 2001) and has been linked to positive sense of self-esteem in Black college students (Phelps, Taylor, & Gerard, 2001). Additionally, awareness of racism, salient racial-ethnic identity, and a sense that their racial/ethnic group was associated with achievement were related to achievement for both Latino and Black youth (Altschul, Oyserman, & Bybee, 2006). Oyserman, Kemmelmeier, Fryberg, Brosh, and Hart-Johnson (2003) argued that when racial-ethnic identity is weak students of color are at risk of coping through academic disengagement. Students without a strong connection to racial identity or those who only identify with the their immediate in-group (Latinos undergraduates that they connect with on their campus instead of Latinos in the greater society) are hypothesized to be at the greatest risk of academic disengagement. Additionally, Oyserman, Harrison, and Bybee, (2001) found that “feeling that achievement is part of being Black” was particularly important to the academic efficacy of young, Black females. 32 Racial identity as a “double-edged sword.” Overall, racial/ethnic identity, itself, is a complex construct. The benefits of salient racial/ethnic identity, in turn, may be gender-specific and dependent upon the particular aspects of racial/ethnic identity emphasized (Oyserman, Harrison, & Bybee, 2001; Oyserman et al., 2000). While a good deal of research demonstrates a buffering role for racial/ethnic identity, other work tells the tale of the insidious nature of racism-effects, most especially for those who strongly identify with their racial/ethnic group. Racial and ethnic identity may, indeed, serve as a buffer to certain effects of racial hostility. However, greater significance placed on racial and ethnic identities sets the individual up in a racially hostile environment. The buffer, unfortunately, becomes a source of daily stress and possibly even emotional trauma (Allison, 1998). For instance, Matheson and Cole (2014) found that emotion-focused coping to a negatively construed identity was related to greater cortisol reactivity, particularly over time. This leads us to consider the possibility that emotion-focused coping processes may increase the intensity of threat appraisal and emotional response for future racialized incidences (Oyserman et al. 2003, Quintana 2007). In fact, Torres and Bowens (1999) found that as racial identity strengthens, reactivity increases as well. Further, for Black college students with a history of cardiovascular disease, they found that positive developments fostered from a strong racial identity, such as self-esteem, did not lessen Black college students’ cardiovascular stress response. Thus, racism’s negative effects permeate through the well-developed defenses of people of color. Racial or ethnic identity, while serving as a protective factor 33 in some instances, also acts as the proverbial “double-edged sword” in others for students of color faced with campus-level racialized stress. Emotional Regulation Emotional regulation and its many forms feature prominently among the many racism-focused coping options available to students of color. Thompson (1991) defined emotional regulation as the ways emotional arousal is monitored, evaluated, and (if necessary) controlled by the individual (Thompson, 1991, p. 270) (see Thompson, 1991, 1994 for reviews of emotional regulation). As described earlier, emotions play an intrinsic role in how racism is processed and the ways individuals respond. In this regard, it becomes up to the target individual to regulate these intense and varied emotions evoked from racialized experiences. As with emotionality research, there are many typologies attempting to conceptually define emotional regulation domains and processes. For instance, Thompson (1994) conceptually broke down emotional regulation across seven processes incorporating the neurological, psychological (particularly cognitive and metacognitive), social, physiological, and metaphysiological aspects of of emotions and emotional regulation. Other literature (Cunningham, Kliewer, & Garner, 2009; Eisenberg, Cumberland, et al., 2001; Rydell, Berlin, & Bohlin, 2003) delineates between two aspects of emotional regulation: emotion self-regulation and emotionality. Emotional self- regulation is conceptualized as the psychological and physiological ways we manage emotions; while emotionality, in the emotional regulation sense, focuses on the ease and intensity in which emotions are aroused (Rydell et al., 2003). Eisenberg, Fabes, Guthrie, and Reiser (2000), on a broader level, delineated 34 Thompson’s (1994) emotional regulation processes between the regulation of internal processes and those of the behavioral responses related to these internal states. In the former, the authors highlighted the “effortful management of attention (e.g., attention shifting and focusing, distraction) and cognitions that affect the interpretation of situations (e.g., positive cognitive restructuring)” (p. 137). Through the latter, labeled emotion-related behavior regulation, Eisenberg et al. (2000) emphasized behavioral changes such as facial responses and gestures (Eisenberg et al., 2000, p. 138). Temporally, some researchers have viewed the emotional response to emotional regulation process as sequential and clean. In this view, we initially emote in response to our environment followed by our emotional regulatory processes (e.g., Ekman, Friesen, & Ancoli, 1980). Others, such as Eisenberg, Fabes, Guthrie, and Reiser (2000), have posited that the relationship between emotional response and emotional regulation is much more dynamic and fluid, allowing for emotional regulation to influence the initial emotional response and vice versa. Social factors and emotional regulation. Social and cultural contexts play a significant role in the way we affectively understand our world and also how we emotionally regulate. The mere presence of others changes the ways we express our emotions (Matsumoto, 1993). These socially driven changes to our emotional expression also affect the ways we process our emotions and consequently drive our own emotional understandings (Matsumoto, 1993). Our emotional expression–and our motivations that drive these expressions–are also socially and culturally driven (Cole, Bruschi, & Tamang, 2002). More specifically, social positionality and institutionalized cultural differences (e.g., structural racism and 35 classism) affect how we emotionally appraise a situation (e.g., an affront vs. friendly joke), what is perceived as an acceptable emotional response (e.g., anger vs. jovial), as well as what is viewed as the appropriate behavioral response to those emotions (e.g., anger displays vs. laughing) (Cole, Bruschi, & Tamang, 2002; Matsumoto, 1993). In Hochschild’s (1979) seminal work, The Managed Heart, the sociologist introduced and described the construct of emotional management or the regulation of emotions and attitudes and the ways social structures and “feeling rules” actually change the ways we emote. The author delineated the effects of social factors on affective processes as driving passive emotions. In addition, social factors change how we cognitively and behaviorally understand and respond to our emotions. This work also highlighted the ways we can break down social factors as driving emotional regulation, both internally (experience of emotion) and externally (expression or display of emotion). In the racialized postsecondary context, these differences between internal and external responses grow exceedingly important. If a student is forced to externally regulate expressions of emotional responses to racially hostile experiences on campus; administrators, faculty, staff, and White peers may operate under the assumption that these hostilities do not exist. Thus, the emotional processes occurring beneath the social surface are complex, acute, and detrimental to the student of color on deeply personal and academic levels. . Emotional regulation as a protective factor. Currently in the field of child development we see a significant push for a more ecological approach to “examine(ing) the strengths and positive adaptation of ethnic minority children” (Cabrera, 2013, p. 4; see also Raver, 2004). Empirical support for this 36 push includes the emergence of developmental advantages fostered within minoritized familial and community environments. For instance, gains in social, emotional, and cognitive factors have been found for minoritized children relative to Whites (Cabrera, 2013). More specifically children of color exhibit greater self-regulation skills–including the ability to manage emotions–relative to their White peers. Researchers have hypothesized that racial socialization rendered through familial connections, such as narratives, may aid in the development of coping skillsets for people of color (BornHughes et al., 2006; Brondolo et al., 2009). In addition to fostering knowledge around available emotional regulation resources and effective processes, parents are found to essentially indoctrinate their children into a racialized life. In this way, families also strengthen their child’s connection to her/his racial/ethnic group, thereby adding further to the child’s coping repertoire for future use (Brondolo et al., 2009). Mother-infant emotional coregulation. Mother-infant emotional coregulation has been found to play an important role in the emotional regulatory gains found among low-SES children and children of color. Raver’s (2004) review highlighted the ways mothers emotionally regulate their infants, and in turn, foster the transference of these skills to the infant’s own self-regulation abilities. For instance, mother-infant interactions include initiating, disrupting, and maintaining synchrony on both emotional and attentional levels (Garner, Landry, & Richardson, 1991; Landry, Smith, Miller-Loncar, & Swank, 1997; Segal et al., 1995). Subsequently, these mother-infant coregulation practices are used as significant indicators of “optimal parenting” among all families, including families of color pressed 37 by structural racism. Through these emotional coregulation processes, mothers also tend to make up for infants’ individual regulatory deficiencies (Beeghly & Tronick, 1994; Molitor et al., 2003; Raver, 1996; Raver & Leadbeater, 1995; Segal et al., 1995). For instance, mothers with significantly low-birth weight “premmies” exert greater effort to attentionally and emotionally regulate with their infant relative to mothers with lower risk infants (Landry, Smith, Miller-Loncar, & Swank, 1997). Thus, these efforts predict positive outcomes for all infants, particularly those considered at the “highest risk” (Landry et al., 1997). Similarly, research demonstrates that emotional self-regulation plays an important roll in mediating models of poverty and environmental risk (Garner & Spears, 2000; Raver, 1996), including racialized status (Raver, 2000). In essence, Raver argued that families of color, specifically mothers, tended to overcompensate for environmental risk issues such as structural or environmental racism. Considering this view, Raver reviewed current research outlining the ways that emotional regulation skillsets are developmental and flexible, i.e., affected by biological and environmental factors and changeable throughout childhood and adolescence (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Izard, Fine, Mostow, & Trentacosta, 2002; Raver, 2002). In the cases of low-income children, emotional regulation skills likely moderate poverty effects by helping children effectively deal with environmental stressors, more so than those with less-developed regulatory skills (Ingoldsby, Shaw, Owens, & Winslow, 1999; Lengua, 2002). As touched upon earlier, emotional regulation also has a strongly social component. Raver describes emotional regulation processes as “dynamic interaction of multiple behavioral, psychophysiological, attentional, and affective systems that allow 38 young children to participate effectively in their social worlds” (p. 350). Essentially, emotional regulatory skillsets are tools that help us function socially. For children of color in a racialized world, the skillsets fostered from infancy by their families are particularly important. In this regard, familial influences inclusive of emotional socialization drive such beneficial processes as (a) emotional meaning-making and regulation, (b) internalizing and externalizing behaviors, and (c) social skills. Essentially, child development research demonstrates the protective role familial emotional regulation socialization serves for Black male youth (Cunningham, Kliewer, & Garner, 2009). Emotional coregulation for postsecondary students of color. Emotions in the academic environment have been theorized to include social components (Pekrun et al. 2002) such as the “collective emotions” or emotions experienced by a group of students (Andersen & Guerrero, 1998; Geen, 1991). Given what is known about emotional-regulation on an individual level as well as what has been conceptualized as emotional coregulation between mothers and infants in the child developmental literature, it is my view that the construct of emotional coregulation plays an integral role for students of color within the postsecondary environment. I assert that students of color not only emotionally regulate on an individual-level but also with other students of color in order to serve a variety of emotional regulatory personal, social, and academic purposes. These coregulation processes add an emotional lens to the motivations behind and reasons for seeking out emotional support and studying with other students of color, particularly within a racially hostile campus environment. After experiencing a racially hostile incident, a student of color will likely respond with anger and anxiety toward the aggressor, a faculty who mediated the 39 aggression, and possibly the institution, overall. Following the incident the student will seek to emotionally co-regulate these negative emotions via her or his cultural peers, i.e., those with whom they have the strongest cultural connection and who most likely have had similar experiences on campus. These culturally and academically connected peers co-regulate in return making emotional coregulation a dynamic and social process. In the past, students have been found to emotionally regulate collaboratively as well as individually within the postsecondary setting (Jarvenolja & Jarvela, 2009). In learning environments, for instance, our interactions with others have been found to shape our engagement and regulation processes, particularly as we collaborate toward learning goals (Higgins, 2000). In classroom collaborative learning environments, students work toward a shared goal, shaping the group’s “common ground and emotional stability” (Jarvenoja & Jarvela, 2009, p. 464; see also Thompson & Fine, 1999). Similarly to collaborative learning environments, I theorize emotional coregulation of students of color as going “beyond individual regulation, because the group members regulate their motivation, emotions, and cognition together . . . through shared responsibility” (Jarvenoja & Jarvela, 2009, p. 464). In a racially hostile environment, students of color may co-regulate with other students of color with the shared goals of achievement and persistence. Students of color likely seek out other students who not only share similar cultural backgrounds, but also know and can share the values and strategies necessary to deal with negative emotional responses to hostilities found in the environment. For instance, spirituality plays a prominent cultural, cognitive, and behavioral role for many students of color (Bryant, Choi, & Yasuno, 2003; Watt, 2003). Through prayer and spiritual 40 discourse students of color may calm their anxieties surrounding their racial environment and achievement. Overall, emotional coregulation is but one perspective explaining why all the Latino students sit together in the dining commons or belong to a Latino fraternity. They are coping with racial microaggression and emotionally co-regulating, i.e., emotionally supporting each other throughout their postsecondary journey. Implications Emotions and emotional processes play an integral role in the lives and experiences of all individuals. Emotions help us make sense of our world, mediate social interactions with our peers, drive our decisions and behavior, and assist us in attaining our goals. However, for people of color in a racialized environment, emotional processes emerge as uniquely adaptive and protective. In these stigmatized and hostile settings, individuals develop and maintain a variety of emotional coping strategies in order to succeed and psychologically survive. For students of color, emotionality serves the same adaptive and protective functions in a racialized postsecondary setting yet with an option for dropping out. In order to improve achievement and persistence rates among students of color the academy needs to better understand the emotional lives of their students of color. In this vein, research attempting to understand the nuances of the relationship between a hostile racial campus climate and persistence for students of color would greatly benefit from the integration of emotional factors and processes. The present review serves to shed light on interdisciplinary emotional understandings and findings in order to inform postsecondary research. As such, I outline below a research agenda and call for a new scholarly focus within my field. Lastly, I 41 discuss implications for the integration of emotionality into higher education practice, policy, and assessment. Research Agenda Greater understanding and improved assessments of affective processes will aid postsecondary researchers in our ability to understand and address many of the barriers impeding the success of racially marginalized students. Thus, suggested future areas of research include the quantitative testing of racialized emotionality as a predictor of achievement or persistence for students of color. In this regard, the psychometric development and validation of an emotionality measure assessing the affective responses of students of color could be utilized for SEM persistence model testing. Qualitatively, an emotional lens added to interview and observation protocols would be particularly helpful to studies surrounding racial campus climate issues for students of color (e.g., microaggression studies). More generally, future research may want to develop and test biopsychosocial models of racial campus climate effects for students of color. For instance, hormonal stress testing would be particularly useful as a physiological measure of racial campus climate response. Campus-level policy and resources. In order to increase achievement and persistence rates for students of color, emotionality may be integrated within many facets of the academy including at the campus resource and practitioner (i.e., administrators, faculty, and staff) levels. From a campus resource perspective, the emotional effects of a hostile racial campus climate may be addressed at a variety of levels. Primarily, resources can be put in place to not only reduce campus racial hostilities but also offer support for those students of color 42 struggling to cope. While emotional regulation processes are oftentimes internal, internalization of campus racial hostilities is detrimental to the psyche of the individual as well as likely linked to negative academic outcomes for at-risk populations. One way to support positive emotional coping is to ensure the allocation of campus resources for emotional coregulation-focused organizations and activities for students of color. In addition, campus counselors trained in student racialized coping should also be available for both individual regulation and coreglation needs. This could be accomplished through professional development training surrounding racial coping counseling and support. However, helping students of color to cope with hostile racialized environments does not address the primary problem. In order to foster racial campus climate change, institutions may want to employ action research (e.g., the Center for Urban Education’s [CUE’s] Equity Scorecard) as a way to assess and change their racial environment. Additionally, incorporation of the racialized emotionality measures into campus-level assessment would help institutions gauge the emotional coping processes underlying the campus experience for students of color. As described above, emotional coping strategies are generally not externally apparent. Assumptions made by administrators, faculty, and staff regarding students’ perception and experiences within their racial campus climate may be invalid. Therefore, survey assessments capturing the emotional responses and subsequent regulation processes of students of color on campus would allow for improved understandings of how the racial campus climate is effecting students of color psychologically and academically. These emotionality-based data could also be used to inform action research or other forms of campus reflection. 43 Conclusion In sum, racialized processes are integrally emotional. Affective processes also shape our own experiences, as well as influence learning, decision-making, and behavior. While higher education scholarship aims to improve outcomes for students of color, scant attention has been paid to the emotional or affective processes of racially marginalized students within the postsecondary environment. The present literature review served to integrate emotionality-focused research across five fields in order to inform future research in the postsecondary field. Within this synthesis I proposed an emotional response model for students of color linking racial campus climate to academic outcomes for students of color. In addition, I introduced the construct of emotional coregulation, or collective and dynamic emotional regulation for students of color. Lastly, I outlined a future research and campus policy agenda encouraging the incorporation of various facets of emotionality into the postsecondary field. 44 Article 2 The Validation of the Latino Emotionality Index (LEI): Assessing Latinos’ Affective Responses to Racial Campus Climate Many Latino students perceive their campus climates as racially alienating (Hurtado, 1992; Hurtado, Carter, & Spuler, 1996; Rankin & Reason, 2005), at times with greater incidence than any other racial or ethnic group (Nora & Cabrera, 1996). These perceptions of hostile and unwelcoming environments have been linked to feelings of distress and alienation, difficulty integrating into campus culture (Hurtado, Carter, & Spuler, 1996; Harper & Hurtado, 2007), and negative attitudes toward persistence (Gloria, 1997; Gloria, Castellanos, & Orozco, 2005; Gloria & Robinson-Kurpius, 1996). The significance of these findings is underscored by Latino demographics in the U.S. Latinos presently make up the fastest growing student group in the country while reporting the lowest attainment rates of baccalaureate and advanced degrees relative to any other major racial or ethnic group (National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 2010). Higher education scholars such as Museus, Hurtado, Cabrera, and Dowd have stressed the need for continued assessment of the campus racial environment and its impact on postsecondary outcomes for Latino students. However, measurement tools in higher education often lack a cultural focus in their development and validity assessments, problematic at both academic and practical levels. Dowd, Sawatzky, and Korn (2010) have argued that without the ability to measure marginalizing processes and experiences an inevitable gap in understanding remains at the research-level as well as a lack of acknowledgment and remediation at the institutional-level. Therefore, the 45 emergence of new measures developed and validated specifically for Latino students is a promising step toward promoting Latino student persistence and educational attainment. Psychometric issues aside, postsecondary researchers continue to use the same postsecondary frameworks developed decades ago without broadening out to interdisciplinary knowledge. One research focus–rich in interdisciplinary scholarship yet generally ignored in higher education research and assessment–is emotionality. Emotions are defined as “psychophysiological changes that result from a response to a meaningful situation in one’s environment” (Rosenberg, 1998, p. 250). Emotionality, or affective processes, shape individual’s perceptions, experiences, goals, and behaviors in powerful ways (Kagan, 2007; Lazarus, 1984). College educators are striving to improve persistence outcomes for Latino students yet giving scant attention to the emotional processes of racially marginalized students in postsecondary environments (Bowman & Denson, 2011; Sawatzky, 2012, 2010). Critical postsecondary research, qualitative and quantitative, touches upon emotional experiences of students of color–for example, validation theory (Rendón, 1994) or sense of belonging (Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Mendoza-Denton et al., 2002)– without further exploring or assessing what is known about emotionality from other fields (e.g., psychology and sociology). In these other fields, racialized 4 processes have long been understood as integrally emotional (Mabry & Kiecolt, 2005; Matsumoto, 1993). The effects of these processes on meaning-making, motivation, and behavior are well 4 Clark, Anderson, Clark, and Williams (1999) defined racism as “ beliefs, attitudes, institutional arrangements, and acts that tend to denigrate individuals or groups because of phenotypic characteristics or ethnic group affiliation” (p. 805). I use the term “racialized” throughout the paper to denote this process of denigration mapped onto students who embody these characteristics or affiliation, in the many forms (e.g., explicit vs. implicit, affronts to the individual vs. the group) found within the postsecondary context. 46 documented (Bagozzi, Gopinath, & Nyer, 1999; Denzin, 1984; Dirkx, 2001; Liljander & Strandvik, 1997; Lupton, 1998). Yet, higher education continues to bypass the emotional even when seeking to understand and measure racialized campus experiences for students of color. In essence, the postsecondary field is ignoring fundamental response processes to racialized contexts; most importantly, ones that feasibly influence outcomes such as success and persistence. By its very nature, the emotional response is the point of meaningful impact between us and our environment. It is where the individual is literally “affected” by power and its various displays (Harding & Prishram, 2013). Emotions are culturally influenced, shaped by our own experiences, and have been found to drive learning, decision-making, and social functioning within the educational environment (Immordino-Yang & Damasio, 2007; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Oyserman, Sorensen, Reber, & Chen, 2009). Emotionality drives the cognitive processes that help us make sense of our lives and influence learning and decision-making processes (e.g., persistence vs. dropout). Affective processes, such as emotional regulation, assist us in coping with a racially hostile environment, help us garner support to heal from affronts to who we are, and aid in our achievement of goals (e.g., achievement and persistence). Assessing emotionality is key to furthering our understanding of the “whys” surrounding postsecondary outcomes for students of color, i.e., a likely candidate for Pascarella’s (2006) “black-box” phenomena. Greater understanding and improved assessments of affective processes will aid postsecondary researchers and policymakers in our abilities to understand and address many of the barriers impeding the completion and success of racially marginalized students within higher education systems. 47 In the following article, I review the theoretical frameworks commonly used in Latino-focused persistence models in postsecondary research. I follow this with a review of interdisciplinary research that outlines novel and significant ways emotional processes affect student experience, motivation, behavior, and outcomes. Next, I describe and validate a new affective-focused measure for postsecondary research and assessment. The Latino Emotionality Index (LEI) measures Latino students’ emotional response to their campus’ cultural environment as well as the ways these emotions create a sense of connectedness to their institution and drive achievement and persistence goals. Data collected from this instrument will help colleges improve their understandings of their own racial campus climate as experienced by Latino students as well as highlight ways to increase completion and success rates for this population. Lastly, the validation results from this study bring a much-needed perspective to the field’s understandings of how Latino students emotionally respond to and regulate their racial campus climate. Information gleaned from the present analyses generates new knowledge to be used in Latino-focused higher education theory and practice. The following section begins with a brief description of the conceptual frameworks commonly used in the assessment and persistence literature. Beginning with prevalent persistence frameworks, I describe the ways affective constructs have been conceptualized within these frameworks for students of color. In addition to theory, I also briefly describe the measurement tools commonly used to study Latino affective-related processes, racial campus climate, and persistence in the past. Next, I pull from emotionality literature across the disciplines to set the groundwork for new theoretical understandings of the role affective processes play in persistence for students of color. 48 Within this section, I highlight emotional regulation frameworks from psychology in order to lay the foundation for the measure introduced and validated in later sections. Postsecondary Frameworks: Persistence, Racial Campus Climate, and Affective Processes Past research establishes the meaningful role racial campus climate plays on the path to success and persistence for students of color (Hurtado, 1992; Hurtado, Carter, & Spuler, 1996; Museus, Nichols, & Lambert, 2008). Minoritized students have indicated difficulty adjusting to racially hostile college environments (Cabrera, Nora, Pacarella, Terenzini, & Hagedorn, 1999; Nora & Cabrera, 1996), lowering their commitment to achieve and persist (Hurtado & Carter, 1999; Museus et al., 2008). Cognitively and affectively, a hostile racial campus climate has been shown to catalyze negative feelings such as distress, disengagement, marginalization, and isolation (Davis et al., 1995; Hurtado, Carter, & Spuler, 1996; Smedley, Myers, & Harrell, 1993). Yet, despite a large body of work assessing racial campus climate as a significant factor in persistence models for students of color, the emotional processing surrounding racial campus climate experiences remain relatively unexplored. Tinto’s integration theory. Tinto’s student persistence model or integration theory (1975, 1993) has served as the general theoretical foundation for the ways Latino integration has been studied in the past (Hurtado & Carter, 1997, Museus, Nichols, & Lambert, 2008). Tinto’s integration theory––originally taken from Durkheim’s Theory of Suicide (1961)––asserts that students who are more integrated within an institutional environment are more likely to persist. Within this framework, Tinto focused on the ways students’ integration and commitment drive dropout. More specifically, Tinto’s constructs ( (a) goal commitment, 49 (b) institutional commitment, (c) academic integration, and (d) social integration) feature prominently in student completion models throughout the field. Tinto theorized goal and institutional commitment as having both predispositional components–i.e., commitment prior to entering college–and dynamic components–i.e., commitment strengthening or weakening as a response to the college environment. Goal commitment, or students’ commitment to educational goals, is operationalized by the target of the goal (e.g., baccalaureate) and the strength of the commitment to that goal (i.e., strong vs. weak). Similarly, Tinto’s institutional commitment is conceptualized as students’ individual commitment to their institution or institutional-type (e.g., HBCUs, Ivy League). For instance, if a student spent their childhood and adolescence yearning to attend a local prestigious football-famous institution–wearing t-shirts and jerseys, telling friends and family they will be attending this institution–the student would be considered to have stronger institutional commitment than a student attending the same institution simply due to cost or ability to commute. Tinto’s academic and social integration constructs are mediated by these commitment constructs as well as other collegiate experiences within an institutional environment. Academic integration–operationalized by Tinto as grade point average (GPA), intellectual development, and congruency of the individual with his/her collegiate environment–is dynamically related to goal commitment and helps drive persistence. Social integration–operationalized as culminating social interactions between the student and the other individuals within the institution (e.g., peers, faculty, administrators)–is also interrelated to institutional and goal commitment and drives persistence. Hence, a student involved in research with faculty (academic integration) and an on-campus sorority 50 (social integration) would strengthen her goal commitment to persist through these activities and would, in turn, have a greater likelihood of persistence. Racial campus climate and persistence. Tinto’s integration theory has been challenged by postsecondary researchers–such as Hurtado, Tierney, Tanaka, Cabrera, and Dowd–for omitting considerations of discriminatory racial campus experiences faced by students of color. Further, the theoretical assumptions underlying Tinto’s theory lead to blaming students of color for their own lack of integration regardless of the possibility of racial hostilities on campus. Policy implications under these assumptions similarly place the onus on students to cope and change in order to succeed. Alternatively, some scholars have questioned the ways institutional policies and culture mediate the successful integration and persistence of traditionally marginalized student populations. While retaining the basic framework of Tinto’s model, scholars such as Museus, Hurtado, Nora, and Cabrera, have incorporated racial campus climate dimensions into Tinto’s integration model in order to serve as theoretical and analytical mediators or moderators of persistence for students of color. The racial campus climate construct. Racial campus climate has been conceptualized by a variety of scholars throughout the higher education literature including Hurtado (1992), Rankin and Reason (2005), Reid and Radhakrishnan (2003), Ancis, Sedlacek, and Mohr, 2000, Cabrera, Nora, Pascarella, Terenzini, and Hagedorn (1999), and Harper and Quaye (2007). Hurtado, Griffin, Arellano, and Cuellar (2008) outlined campus climate as a complex multidimensional construct incorporating the following dimensions: governmental/policy and sociohistorical contexts, structural diversity, institutional policies and histories, 51 psychological climate, and the behavioral climate. This conceptualization includes the dynamic relationships across or between individuals (e.g., Latino and White peers), groups (e.g., faculty and Latino students), social artifacts (e.g., culturally inclusive language in mission statements), and subcontexts (e.g., the college classroom). While not all campus climates are perceived as racialized or hostile to Latino students, these dimensions highlight the many facets contributing to students’ positive or negative experiences. Hurtado and Carter’s (1997) operationalization of hostile campus climate consists of Latinos’ discriminatory experiences and a sense of campus racial tension. Discriminatory experiences reported by Latinos range from overt or explicit hostile interactions (e.g., racist slurs) to racial microaggressions–the more subtle or covert forms of racialized acts (Solorzano, 1998; Solorzano, Allen, & Carroll, 2002). Racial microagressions include verbal and non-verbal interpersonal affronts from faculty, staff, administrators, and peers as well as broader institutional-level discriminatory practices (Yosso, Smith, Ceja, & Solorzano, 2009). For instance, microaggressions include interactions such as assumptions by faculty regarding English as a Second Language (ESL) status or questioning by White peers surrounding whether a Latino student’s acceptance into the institution was due to affirmative action policies. Regardless of overt and covert forms of discriminatory experiences, both types have been found to affect adjustment and persistence for Latino students (Hurtado, Carter, & Spuler, 1996; Nora & Cabrera, 1996). Prior research demonstrates that in any form, subtle or explicit, students’ perceptions of a hostile racial campus climate negatively affect social integration and college adjustment for Latinos (Hurtado, 1994; Hurtado, Carter, & Spuler, 1996). 52 Emotionality and racial campus climate as factors of persistence. While emotional processing has essentially been ignored in persistence models for students of color, a few studies have touched upon the affective dimensions of racial campus climate and their effects on integration and persistence. Hurtado and Carter (1997) furthered Tinto’s integration model by focusing specifically on Latino students’ integration within a racial campus climate–hostile or supportive–and introduced the construct of sense of belonging. Critiquing the prevalent operationalization of Tinto’s integration, the authors delineated the sense of integration as psychological integration, not–as commonly used and assessed in the literature–behavioral participation in campus activities. Moreover, Hurtado and Carter conceptualized sense of belonging as inclusive of “both cognitive and affective elements in that the individual’s cognitive evaluation of his or her role in relation to the group results in an affective response” (p. 328). Findings from their work reveal a strong relationship between Latino students’ sense of belonging and social-academic activities–such as discussing course content with peers or faculty and tutoring. In a similar vein, Smedley, Myers, and Harrell (1993) narrowed Tinto’s integration model to focus on students of color and stressors found within a racially hostile campus environment. The authors used a stress-coping model borrowed from the psychological field to assess the racialized stressors minoritized students experience during freshman year and the effects these stressors have on college adjustment. Smedley et al. employed a range of psychological measures evaluating recent episodic life events stresses, chronic student strain or continuous stressors incorporated into everyday student life, stress placed on students as a function of minority status, psychological distress, and 53 feelings of well-being. Results demonstrate increased minority status achievement stress for students of color. Lastly, Hurtado, Carter, and Spuler (1996) evaluated the relationship between racial campus climate and Latino student adjustment within a persistence framework. Utilizing a variety of measures, the authors measured campus racial climate and structural diversity, as well as student transitional behaviors and experiences in order to explain factors linked to four types of college adjustment: (a) academic, (b) social, (c) personal-emotional, and (d) attachment to the institution. Findings underscore the significance of hostile racial campus climate as a source of difficulty adjusting to college for Latino students. More specifically, perceptions of campus racial or ethnic tension were directly linked to lower personal-emotional adjustment while hostile racialized experiences hindered Latino students’ attachment to their institution. Although much is left unexplored, the significance of emotionality as a driver of integration and persistence subtly emerges from these studies. Given the prominent role emotions play in racialized experiences (Solorzano, Allen, & Carroll, 2002), a nuanced understanding of affective responses to racial campus climates and their role in persistence is needed. For these understandings, I pull from affective scholarship found in other fields such as psychology and child development. Interdisciplinary Emotionality Literature Review Scholarship across other disciplines such as psychology has a history of affective investigation. The knowledge produced by these studies can valuably inform understandings of the racialized postsecondary context. The following is a brief review of emotionality studies and understandings from psychology, business research, 54 neuropsychology, and child development. Across these works an enriched understanding of emotions–the purposes they serve as well as the ways they drive understanding, goals, and behavior–demonstrates the significance of emotionality to studies of students of color in hostile racial campus environments. Emotional responses. According to the neuroscientist Damasio (2010), emotions are triggered by objects in the environment or events past and present. These objects or events trigger a chain of events beginning with signals sent to different brain regions related to language, movement, and reasoning. The activation of these brain regions initiates other processes such as the labeling of an object or event (e.g., “another racial affront”) or appraising it as positive or negative. These triggering objects or events are often ambiguous and can activate multiple neurological sites leading to a composite state of emotionality commonly referred to as “mixed emotions” (Damasio, 2010). In the racialized postsecondary context, hostile campus events may breed frustration and alienation from campus but may also elicit feelings of increased motivation to succeed and persist (e.g., “prove them wrong” mentality). For instance, Sawatzky (2013) found that hostile racial campus climates may in some cases strengthen motivation to achieve or persist (e.g., a desire to demonstrate that Latinos are intelligent). Emotions or emotional states serve many purposes (Kagan, 2007) in the lives of the individual. In a hostile racial environment, emotional “flight or fight” responses act as a system of alarm (Saarni, Campos, Camras, & Witherington, 1998) that increases awareness of a possible threat and activate systems of protection. In the context of the higher education environment, students of color use emotional responses to assess, or 55 literally “feel out,” the racial campus climate of their college. Negative experiences or the “sense” of racial hostility alert students via emotions that they are in an unwelcome environment. The subsequent processing and regulation of theses emotions moderate motivations to possibly try to “fit in,” to achieve, or even persist. From the neuroscience field, the construct of emotional thought (Immordino- Yang & Damasio, 2007) highlights the ways our emotions are inexplicitly linked to cognitive processes such as valuation, commitment, and decision-making. Emotions serve as a barometer for valuation, or appraisal, and subsequent action (Damasio, 2010). In the present context, emotional responses allow Latino students to gauge the nature of their institutional environment, leading them to determine the value of persisting at their institution. Emotions and behavior. From business research, we find that varied types of emotions influence loyalty or commitment behaviors. For instance, positive emotions are found to be the strongest predictors of loyalty behaviors (Bagozzi, Gopinath, & Nyer, 1999; Liljander & Strandvik, 1997)–analogous to persistence in higher education–while negative emotions are the strongest predictors of “switching behavior” (or transfer) (Yu & Dean, 2000). Business research also demonstrates the strong correlations emotions have on job performance, consumer satisfaction, and loyalty in various ways. For instance, anxiety has been found to negatively influence curiosity, learning, and job performance (Reio & Callahan, 2004). Emotional regulation. Emotions play an intrinsic role in how a student processes and responds to a hostile racial campus climate. Once negative emotions are triggered by a racialized 56 experience–for instance, a racial microaggression by a faculty member who assumes ESL status–the student must regulate these intense and varied emotions. Anger–due to its negativity and intensity–for instance, must be dealt with or regulated in some form. Thompson (1991) defined emotional regulation as the ways emotional arousal is monitored, evaluated, and (if necessary) controlled by the individual (Thompson, 1991, p. 270) (see Thompson, 1991, 1994 for reviews of emotional regulation). These changes may be conscious or unconscious, chosen or automatic (Gross, 1998), and are initiated in order to meet one’s goals (Eisenberg, Fabes, Guthrie, & Reiser, 2000). Decision-making may play a role in the ways an individual chooses to regulate negative emotions while many regulation responses are used automatically (Eisenberg et al., 2000). I assert that the types of emotional regulation processes students use are at the proverbial heart of the success and persistence matter. An emotional regulation framework used to explain academic outcomes for students of color outlines the types of cognitive (e.g., motivation, goal setting) and behavioral responses (e.g., campus avoidance versus involvement) students use to regulate a racially hostile environment. Such a framework explains the “why's" and “how's" surrounding academic success and persistence outcomes for students of color within a racialized climate. Gross’ emotional regulation framework. The psychologist Gross’ (1998) framework outlines five emotional regulation types: (a) selection of the situation, (b) modification of the situation, (c) deployment of attention, (d) cognitive changes, and (e) response modulation. Selection of the situation involves taking action that will increase or decrease the likelihood of experiencing situations where a desired or undesired emotion will occur. A Latino student who 57 associates campus experiences with anger due to racial discrimination will emotionally regulate by avoiding class or dropping out. Instead of avoidance or withdrawal behaviors, students may choose modification of the situation, or the changing of their campus experiences in ways that would elicit less or more of an emotional response. A Latino student deciding to join a Latino-focused student organization may begin to experience less negative emotions while on campus if positive affect is paired with campus-based activities. Next, deployment of attention describes cognitive strategies such as distraction or concentration that alter emotional responses. Latinos who decide to acutely concentrate on academics while avoiding the social interactions that may lead to negative emotions utilize this type of regulation. Cognitive change pertains to altering the way a situation is appraised by changing either how one views the situation or the ability to handle its emotional demands. Lastly, response modulation differs from the other regulation processes as it occurs after the emotional response has already happened. For instance, a Latino student may opt to go to the gym to workout or have a drink with friends after experiencing an anger response surrounding a campus-based discriminatory experience. Such work delineating emotional regulation is particularly applicable to how Latino students regulate their emotions in a discriminatory educational environment as well as the subsequent effects of these affective regulations on achievement and persistence. Discriminatory campus experiences, for instance, may drive negative affective reactions to the institutional environment and, therefore, encourage emotional regulation in the form of avoidance behaviors. These academic avoidance behaviors can take the form of lowered achievement (e.g., allocating less time to homework or missing 58 classes), or in more severe circumstances, dropping out. Alternatively, negative campus experiences may also pressure or motivate students of color to succeed and persist in college as a demonstration to themselves and others that, for instance, “Latinas care about school.” In such cases, negative discriminatory experiences can drive negative (e.g., anger) and/or positive emotions (e.g., pride), leading to a strengthening of goal commitment (e.g., persistence), a phenomenon ignored in the racial campus climate literature. Emotional regulation as a protective factor. In addition to influencing motivation and behavior, emotional regulation serves as a protective factor for people of color in a racist society. Many students of color arrive at a college campus with a lifetime of experience regulating emotions resulting from racialization in everyday society. In the child development literature, Cabrera (2013) highlighted gains in self-regulation skills–including the ability to manage emotions–for children of color compared to their White peers. Researchers have hypothesized that racial socialization through familial connections (e.g., the telling of family narratives) may foster developmental resources for children of color (BornHughes et al. 2006; Brondolo et al., 2009). For example, familial indoctrination into a racialized life may strengthen children’s connection to their racial/ethnic group thereby adding to their regulation skillset for future use (Brondolo et al., 2009). Emotional regulation as a social factor. Lastly, emotional regulation can serve as both an individual and social process. Mother-infant emotional coregulation can play an important role in the emotional regulatory gains found in children of color. In these instances, mothers emotionally 59 regulate their infants, and in turn, foster the transference of these skills to the infant’s own self-regulation abilities (Raver, 2004). In the postsecondary environment, Jarvenolja and Jarvela (2009) looked at emotional regulation in a collaborative learning environment, mapping self-regulated learning principles onto the role of group emotional regulation. The authors described evidence for emotional regulation on both the student- and group- levels. Through coregulation, students work toward a shared goal, shaping the group’s “common ground and emotional stability” (Jarvenoja & Jarvela, 2009, p. 464; see also Thompson & Fine, 1999). Emotional coregulation differs from socially-focused individual regulation strategies (e.g., going to a party to relieve frustration) in that the social aspect serves a regulation purpose across individuals in the group and the group drives regulation and goal commitment processes. In a racially hostile campus environment it is, therefore, feasible that students of color coregulate with other students of color with the shared goal of achievement and persistence. Students of color likely seek out other students who not only share similar cultural backgrounds but also share values and strategies to deal with negative emotional responses to hostilities found in the environment. Emotional coregulation is but one explanation for why all the Latino students sit together in the dining commons, for instance. They are coping with racial microaggression and emotionally co-regulating. In sum, research from outside disciplines informs postsecondary understandings of the emotional factors affect and drive persistence issues for students of color. Interdisciplinary scholarship illustrates the many ways emotionality is woven throughout the racial climate experience and how emotional processes likely moderate goal and institutional commitment, as well as achievement and persistence behaviors. Similarly, 60 affective processes help to frame the individual and social nature of regulating racially hostile experiences within the campus environment. Emotionality Instrument and Validation Study The current study validates an assessment tool–developed and validated specifically for Latino students–that researchers and colleges may use to assess Latino students’ emotional responses to their college’s racial campus climate. In addition, to demonstrating the types of emotions Latino students experience as a result of a hostile racial campus climate, this assessment tool also measures the emotional regulation processes that lead to positive and negative academic outcomes (e.g., persistence goals). Data collected from this instrument will help colleges improve their understanding of their own racial campus climate as well as the ways Latino students are emotionally and behaviorally responding to this culture. The Latino Emotionality Index (LEI). The Latino Emotionality Index (LEI) measures Latino students’ emotional response to their campus’ racial climate as well as the ways these emotions relate to goal and institutional commitment. To address present gaps in our understanding of Latino student responses to hostile racial campus climate, this assessment tool will aid postsecondary researchers and policymakers in uncovering and monitoring the affective factors related to persistence and dropout. The LEI incorporates theoretical work from higher education studies (e.g., Tinto, racial campus climate) and psychological fields (e.g., emotional regulation) to build a framework inclusive of the affective processes resulting from racialized experiences on campus leading to persistence outcomes for Latino students. 61 Pulling from Gross’ (1998) regulation model, Immordino-Yang and Damasio’s emotional thought and decision-making processes, and Tinto’s integration constructs, the LEI is operationalized to measure a variety of affective processes that are hypothesized to influence persistence for Latino students. Figure 3 illustrates the framework used for the development of the LEI. Section 1 illustrates the hypothesized hostile racial campus climate as experienced by Latino students. Section 2 represents the four constructs assessed by (a) the emotional reactions to racial campus climate, (b) emotional regulation processes, (c) valuation or appraisal of completion goals, and (d) commitment to one’s completion goals and to one’s institution. For instance, racially hostile experiences may elicit negative emotional reactions regulated in the form of avoidance (e.g., missing class, avoiding faculty). These negative emotions and avoidance behaviors likely influence weak goal commitment–or motivation to persist–as well as weak institutional commitment. The process by which goal and institutional commitment are reevaluated based on these emotional experiences and regulation–i.e., emotional thought as described by Immordino-Yang and Damasio (2007)–is labeled the cognitive process of valuation. Lastly, attenuation of goal and institutional commitment are theorized to influence and ultimately drive Section 3, persistence or dropout behaviors. In this way, the Latino student who avoids coming to campus due to a racially hostile experience would devalue his or her goal of degree completion and eventually dropout. 62 Figure 3. The emotional response of Latinos to racial campus climate within a theoretical persistence network. Validation methods. Participants. Latino students are the focus of the development and validation of the LEI. I assert that validity issues arise from findings using instruments not developed and validated for specific racial, ethnic, or cultural groups. As the developmental psychologist Cybele Raver (2004) stated, “if our measures of emotional self-regulation do not tap emotional self-regulatory skills similarly enough across sociocultural and socioeconomic contexts, we run the risk of introducing unacceptably large amounts of error into our models” (p. 347). Therefore, the sample consisted of an initial N = 605 Latino undergraduate respondents across six campuses (described below). Of these, 29% reported experiencing or possibly experiencing a negative racialized incident. Since the ! ! ! ! ! Academic Outcomes Experienced Discrimination & Campus Tension Figure 2. The emotional response of Latinos to racial campus climate within a theoretical persistence framework. Emotional Reaction Emotional Regulation Latino Emotionality Index (LEI) Valuation Persistence Racial Campus Climate* Dropout Emotional Response Behavioral Response 1 2 3 Commitment Goal & Institutional *(Hurtado & Carter, 1997)! 63 focus of the instrument is to assess the emotional responses of Latino students to hostile racial campus climates, only students who indicated experiencing–directly or indirectly– this phenomenon could be assessed for their responses. Thus, the sample was reduced to n = 177 for the following statistical validation analyses. A stratified sampling plan was used across five Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) and one Emerging HSI, nationally: (a) four community colleges, (b) one public four-year research university, and (c) one private four-year Catholic teaching university. The sampling frame consists of all Latino undergraduates in the United States. While few postsecondary assessment tools have been validated specially for Latinos, none have adequately accounted for the diversity that is amalgamated into the labels “Latino” or “Hispanic.” Therefore, I sought to adequately sample across the regionally and culturally varied groups that make up the majority of Latinos in the U.S. For instance, Miami was targeted for Cuban Latinos (Cubanos) (one community college), the Bronx was targeted for Puerto Rican (Puertorriqueños) and Dominican Latinos (Dominicanos) (one community college), as well as Los Angeles (one private Catholic 4-year and one community college), and Dallas (one public 4-year) for primarily Mexican Latinos (Chicanos and Mexicanos) (see Table 1). 64 Table 1. LEI Sample Demographics (n=240) Total n (%) Gender Female 151 (62.9%) Male 58 (24.2%) Sector Public 2-year 23 (9.6%) Public 2-year 167 (6.9%) Public 2-year 19 (7.9%) Students were recruited through a contact email sent by a staff or administrator on their campus. In the contact email students were be asked to complete an anonymous online questionnaire for Latino undergraduate students accessed via an included hyperlink. Entrance into a raffle for a $100 Amazon gift card was offered as incentive for completion. Reminder emails were sent at the discretion of staff or administrator, generally one week apart for two weeks. Data was collected from March 13, 2014 to July 20, 2014. Questionnaire. The LEI consists of two demographic items (gender and major), two Latino ethnic identity items 5 , four racial campus climate items 6 , and an inventory of items across four subscales based on my theoretical framework described above (see Figure 3). The 5 The two Latino racial identity items were based on Rowley, Sellers, Chavous, & Smith’s (1998) conceptualizations of racial identity and self-image. 6 The four racial campus climate items were based on the work and operationalization of Hurtado and Carter (1997). 65 emotional reactions construct is broken down across three levels per Gross (1998; 2013): discrete terms (which emotions or physiological symptoms are experienced), dimensional terms (intensity), and global terms (overall affective experiences). Emotional reaction items (15 emotions, 9 global emotions) assess the individual and global emotions experienced in response to hostile racial campus climates. Emotional regulation items also follow Gross’ regulation model (1998) and assess across the five types of regulation processes (four-selection of the situation, four-modification of the situation, two- deployment of attention, three-cognitive change, three-response modulation). Valuation items (two items)–following Immordino-Yang and Damasio’s emotional thought and decision-making processes (2007)–assess the cognitive process of reappraisal surrounding Tinto’s commitment constructs. Lastly, the strengthening or weakening of Tinto’s goal and institutional commitment constructs are measured (two goal commitment and two institutional commitment) (see Table 1). Response scales across all items consist of 3- or 5-point Likert or Likert- type items–“Please indicate the degree you felt the following emotions…Not At All, Somewhat, A Lot” or “Overall, these emotions…(e.g., upset me) Not at all, Somewhat, Definitely” (see Appendix A for the complete questionnaire). In order to assess the emotional responses of Latino students to a hostile racial campus climate, the survey questionnaire included an initial skip logic item asking students if they “have,” “may have,” or “never have” experienced racial hostility or tension on campus, either directly (i.e., they, themselves, experienced hostility) or indirectly (i.e., they read of, heard of, or witnessed other students experiencing racial hostility or tension). Students who indicated “never” experiencing campus racial hostility 66 or tensions were “skipped” out of the rest of the LEI questionnaire. Questionnaires were completed via the online platform Qualtrics. Table 2. The Five Sub-scales of the Latino Emotionality Index (LEI). Latino Emotionality Index (LEI) Emotional Reaction: Definition: Latino students’ emotional reactions to racial campus experiences and climate Operationalized: Emotions Inventory Global affective reaction Emotional Regulation: Definition: Latino students’ self-regulation or managing of their own emotions. (Gross, 1998) Types: Selection of the situation Modification of the situation Deployment of attention Cognitive changes Response modulation Valuation: Definition: Cognitive process of appraising the value of persistence or achievement (Immordino-Yang & Damasio, 2007) Goal Commitment: Definition: Latino students’ commitment or dedication to persistence and completion goals (Tinto; 1975, 1993) Institutional Commitment: Definition: Latino students’ commitment or dedication to their institution (Tinto; 1975, 1993) 67 Analyses The developmental psychometric process included a small pilot survey administration and questionnaire assessment via cognitive interviewing with three Latino undergraduate students. Once finalized, the survey administration continued until the initial respondent number reached 600. Statistical validation of the 51-item index consisted of the following analyses: (a) basic item descriptives (i.e., mean, standard deviation); (b) reliability (i.e., Cronbach’s Alpha and item-total correlation), (c) convergent and divergent validity (i.e., simultaneous and sequential multiple regression); and (d) exploratory factor analyses (i.e., Principal Component Analysis preceded by a KMO Index assessment and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity). Exploratory factor analyses (Fabrigar & Estrada, 2007) were used since the present goal of the validation work was to identify the theoretical latent structures underlying the LEI. No a priori assumptions were made regarding which specific emotions and emotional regulation processes would group together; therefore, an exploratory factor analysis, not confirmatory factor analysis, was utilized. Results Item descriptives. Appendix B illustrates item means and standard deviations for the LEI items. Items with the highest means–those indicated with greater frequency and intensity–were “annoyance” (M = 3.14, SD = 1.34), “disappointment” (M = 3.09, SD = 1.42), and “irritation” (M = 3.05, SD = 1.31) suggesting general relevancy to the way Latino students emotionally respond to racial campus climate hostility. Items with the lowest mean scores included “consider dropping out” (M = 1.08, SD = 0.32), “not want to go to 68 campus” (M = 1.14, SD = 0.40), and “not want to go to class” (M = 1.17, SD = 0.45), possibly due to the acuteness of these emotional-behavioral responses. Compared to experiencing irritation or disappointment, we would expect these means to be lower. Theoretically, students would need to be severely affected by their racial campus climate in order to contemplate dropping out of college. The general population of Latino students is likely to continue coping with racial hostilities without earnest questioning of persistence goals. Students will only consider dropping out when campus hostilities continue over time and/or grow more severe. This being stated, the inclusion of these more acute or severe regulation items remains integral to the measure in order to assess students at risk of dropping out. Institutions would be advised to be on alert for these at-risk students and their numbers should be monitored. Therefore, for both theoretical and utility purposes the LEI retained all items for further validity analyses. Reliability. Cronbach’s Alpha for the Latino Emotionality Index is 0.96, demonstrating high internal consistency. Item total correlations were also checked to see how each item related to the overall sum of the rest of the items. Appendix B lists the correlations between the total LEI items and each individual item. Items with the highest correlations included “sadness” (r = 0.74), “frustration” (r = 0.72), and “hurt” (r = 0.70). Emotional regulation items with the highest correlation included “motivated me” (r = 0.69), “(made me) want to work harder” (r = 0.69), “(made me) stronger” (r = 0.68). Those with the lowest correlations included “consider dropping out” (r = 0.24), “not want to go to class” (r = 0.29), and “not want to go to campus” (r = 0.33). These lower correlated items could be removed with high internal consistency maintained. Since these items measure 69 persistence and academic avoidance they were retained for theoretical and practical measurement purposes. Convergent and discriminant validity. In order to inform theoretical and practical validity concerns for the LEI, convergent and discriminant validity analyses were conducted using multiple regression. Convergent validity analyses were used to demonstrate construct validity evidence for the LEI by testing to see how well the instrument maps onto, or relates to, measures of theoretically similar constructs (Fabrigar & Estrada, 2007). For the present purposes, two simultaneous multiple regression analyses were used to the test relations of the LEI to its associated constructs, racial campus climate and Latino racial identity. In order to perform these regressions, six composite LEI variables were calculated based on the averaging of each of the six components found in the finalized factor model (discussed in detail below). Secondly, a single Latino racial identity composite was generated by averaging the two Latino racial identity items added to the questionnaire. Thirdly, a composite racial campus climate variable was created based on averaging the four racial campus climate items. The regression analysis between the LEI and Latino racial identity was not found to be significant (R 2 = 0.05, F[6, 170] = 1.64, p= 0.14). Alternatively, the regression analysis between the LEI composites and racial campus climate revealed a statistically significant regression model (R 2 = 0.15, F[6, 169] = 5.03, p < .001) with the LEI accounting for 39% of the variance for racial campus climate. More specifically, only two components were found to be statistically significant for racial campus climate, Component 3: Latino Campus-Focused Regulation and Component 5: Alienation & 70 Anxiety Emotions (areas in need of further investigation in the future) (see Table 3). Essentially, the LEI was found to significantly relate to racial campus climate but not Latino racial identity. The former helps to build the case regarding the applicability of the LEI to postsecondary assessment and racial campus climate issues. The latter suggests the need for further research into the role Latino racial identity plays in students’ behavioral response. Table 3. Sequential multiple regression analysis for the LEI, Latino racial identity, and racial campus climate Racial Climate Block Adjusted R square Probability Latino Racial Identity 0.01 ns LEI 0.12 p <.001 LEI Components B b p Component 1 -0.001 -0.002 0.99 Component 2 -0.05 -0.06 0.59 Component 3 0.23 0.22 0.03* Component 4 -0.18 -0.17 0.21* Component 5 0.26 0.24 0.03* Component 6 0.11 0.16 0.09 Discriminant validity analyses served to demonstrate what the construct or survey instrument under validation, i.e., the LEI, adds to similar constructs/instruments. In the present context, the LEI was tested to investigate whether it adds new understandings to racial campus climate and racial identity assessment or if the latent constructs assessed in the LEI are simply racial campus climate and/or racial identity. For this analysis, Latino 71 racial identity was first entered into the racial campus climate model resulting in a non- significant increase in the explained variable (Adjusted R 2 = 0.01, F[1, 173] = 1.83, p = 0.18). Second, the LEI was entered in as a block resulting in a statistically significant increase in the variance of racial campus climate (Adjusted R 2 = 0.12, F[7, 167] = 4.31, p <.001). Thus, the LEI was found to capture unique latent qualities different from those measured by racial campus climate. In sum, the LEI successfully demonstrated robust evidence for both convergent and discriminant validity. Factor Analyses Factor analysis further clarifies the dimensional structure of the index, i.e., whether the items reflect a multidimensional index consisting of useful theoretical dimensions or possibly a unidimensional scale. The KMO index was 0.87, greater than the recommended value of 0.50 and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was significant (p < .001). Consequently, the data demonstrated sufficient sampling adequacy and correlation of items to proceed with factor analyses. Utilizing a Varimax Rotation and Principal Component Analysis, nine components with Eigenvalues greater than 1 emerged. Two components were removed based on a visual assessment of the screen plot (see Appendix C) and an absence of high item loading. The reduced seven-component model was condensed further down to six when the seventh component was found to only load one item, “find helpful faculty and staff.” Consequently, the nine-factor solution was reduced down to a final six-component model and the “find helpful faculty and staff” item was added to its second highest component. 72 Using the reduced six-factor solution, a final exploratory factor analysis was conducted using Principal Component Analysis and a Varimax Rotation. These six components collectively explained 65.64% of the variance in this model. Items were grouped with the components where their highest factor loading was found (see Appendix D). Component 1 explained 14.25% and was labeled Irritation, Anger, & Disappointment Emotions since all the items consisted of similar negative emotions, not regulatory processes. Component 2 accounted for 12.89% and was labeled Pride & Motivation Regulation since it was mostly represented by the emotion of pride and positive motivational regulation processes. Component 3 (12.22% of the variance) was labeled Latino Campus-Focused Regulation and was entirely represented by regulation of campus-based activities with other Latino students. Component 4 (10.95% of the variance) was labeled Avoidance & Disconnect Regulation and consisted of regulation processes and behaviors related to avoidance of campus and persistence questioning. Component 5 (10.52% of the variance) was labeled Alienation & Anxiety Emotions and was mostly represented by nervous and anxious emotions related to alienation. Lastly, Component 6 (4.81% of the variance) was labeled Shame and Embarrassment Emotions, as comprised of these two emotions plus an item indicating questioning persistence. For the six-component final model, each component embodies a specific response profile that may used as a subscale for future analyses. This subscale score (i.e., mean score) for each component may be calculated per campus administration (see Appendix E for component means and standard deviation). Subscale scores across the six components would determine campus-level proportions delineating the ways Latino students are emotionally responding to their racial campus climate. 73 The six components. From theoretical and practical perspectives, this six-factor solution has useful implications for the field’s understanding of Latino students’ emotional responses to hostile racial campus climate and the types of response profiles campuses should want to assess and encourage. Remediating the hostility of a campus’ racial campus climate should, of course, remain the highest priority for campuses. However, it is certainly beneficial for colleges to also know which responses should be fostered within a Latino student population and which should be accounted for and addressed when a climate is being perceived as hostile. The six components that emerged from the factor analyses map out three primarily emotion or emotional reaction dimensions (e.g., items indicating feelings of irritation or anxiety). The other three components consisted mostly of emotional regulation or behavioral-focused items (e.g., “[made me] want to work harder” or “[made me] not want to go to campus”). Across these six dimensions, two are considered representative of or beneficial to positive student outcomes, three are regarded as negative to positive student outcomes, and one is neutral (neither positive or negative)– emotional reactions in wait for further regulation. Component 1–Irritation, Anger, & Disappointment Emotions: All items mapped onto component 1 consisted of similar negative emotions, or emotional reactions to racially hostile experiences. These emotions represent basic alert messages to Latino students that call attention to the racial campus climate and prepare for further processing. From a psychological perspective, this profile illustrates perceptions of racial 74 hostility as having external causes without negative internalizing, i.e., viewing racial hostilities as the fault of the external individual, institution, or society. Component 2–Pride & Motivation Regulation: This component is comprised of items representing pride and positive regulation responses such as working harder in school and a strengthening of goal commitment to persist. These motivational regulation responses are hypothesized to occur as a result of the initial emotions or emotional reactions (components 1, 5, and 6) to racially hostile experiences. This type of “prove them wrong” response has positive implications for academic outcomes and is considered successful. Pride and motivation regulation responses characterize students as having strong (and higher ordered) racial identity and self-efficacy. These students are independent, self-regulators and choose to succeed regardless of weak institutional commitment. Component 3–Latino Campus-Focused Regulation: This component represents campus-based regulation and coregulation activities with other Latino students (e.g., becoming more involved with Latino clubs or seeking emotional support from other Latino students on campus). Similar to Component 2, this emotionality profile has positive implications for persistence goals, reflects students with strong Latino racial identity, and is deemed successful. Differing from Component 2, however, this profile indicates strong institutional commitment and a preference for social as opposed to self- regulation strategies. Component 4–Avoidance & Disconnect Regulation: This component consists of regulation processes and behaviors related to avoiding campus and persistence questioning. This profile illustrates weak goal and institutional commitment and includes 75 dropout or transfer ideation items. It is possible that these students are avoiders by nature or the hostility found within the campus climate generated enough discomfort to cause them to disconnect from college life. Regardless, these regulation behaviors are precursors to dropping-out and should be accounted for and addressed. Component 5–Alienation & Anxiety Emotions: Items mapped onto this component consisted of nervous and anxiety emotions related to alienation (e.g., tense, alone, depressed). Similar to Component 1, items grouped under this component are emotions or emotional reactions to a racially hostile experience. Differing from the first component, however, alienation and anxiety emotions denote students who feel threatened and may not feel in control of their campus environment. Students reflected in this profile may arguably suffer from a nervous or depressive disposition which, if this is the case, leaves them more vulnerable to the impact of racial hostilities. Therefore, this component type requires increased accountability and support from campus. Component 6–Shame and Embarrassment Emotions: This component was comprised of the shame and embarrassment emotions and one item surrounding questioning persistence. Similarly to Components 1 and 5, Component 6 consists of emotions or emotional reactions. Qualitatively, however, shame and embarrassment reflect an internalization of racial hostilities that are negative and harmful. Students emotionally reacting to a hostile racial campus climate in this way denote weak racial identity and self-blaming. Additionally, the secondary loading of the persistence questioning item illustrates the potential detrimental nature of the shame and embarrassment emotional response. 76 In brief, all six components represent unique emotionality profiles for Latino students responding to climate hostilities. Components indicative of positive student developmental and academic outcomes–such as Components 2 (Pride & Motivation) and 3 (Latino Campus-Focused Regulation)–are emotional responses to be fostered by institutions and measured as indicators of student success. In this regard, campus resources could be allocated to encourage these emotionality response types via campus- organized activities (e.g., Latino study groups or mentoring programs). Alternatively, resources should be directed toward students responding in negative ways such as those mapped onto components 4 (Avoidance & Disconnect Regulation), 5 (Alienation & Anxiety Emotions), and 6 (Shame & Embarrassment Emotions). For example, professional development for student affairs staff to help combat students’ racialized anxiety or depression may attenuate harmful emotional regulation cognition and behavior. Finally, component 4, specifically, should be held to strict accountability at the institutional level as a means to monitor and discourage dropout for Latino students. Discussion The present analyses establish useful connections across the ways Latino students emotionally react to and regulate their racial campus climate. More specifically, the six profiles that emerged from the factor analyses illustrate differential emotional responses with positive and negative implications for the individual Latino student. These implications reflect the influence of emotionality on psychological, developmental, and academic student outcomes for students of color. Campus-level findings from this index delineate which emotional response-types are proportionally prevalent for Latino students 77 at their respective colleges. In turn, these data highlight which response types are in need of targeting through campus services and support. Components 2 (Pride & Motivation Regulation) and 3 (Latino Campus-Focused Regulation) portray Latino students successfully regulating their hostile racial campus climate. Students embodying these components are confident and strong in their Latino identity and pull from this identity to combat racial hostilities and tension in order to meet their goals. In both instances, emotional processes mediate or moderate their academic goals. These components differ, however, in the ways these students use their racial identity. Component 2 students use confidence in themselves and who they are as Latinos to drive their motivation to succeed and persist in college. Component 3 students use their Latino racial identity to seek out and connect with other Latinos on campus for support. At the campus level, component 2 students do not require additional campus support. They access what they need from themselves as well as their family and friends outside of college. Alternatively, component 3 students need campus resources and support in order to thrive. These students greatly benefit from Latino-focused clubs and activities and use them to scaffold their ability to meet achievement and persistence goals. As evident by component 3 (Latino Campus-Focused Regulation), Latino students not only emotionally regulate on an individual-level but also with other Latino students. Latino coregulation processes serve a variety of emotional regulatory personal, social, and academic purposes. These coregulation behaviors add an emotional lens to motivations behind seeking out emotional support and studying with other students of color, particularly within a racially hostile campus environment. Upon experiencing a 78 racially hostile incident, a Latino student might respond with anger and anxiety toward the aggressor, a faculty who mediated the aggression, and possibly the institution overall. Following the incident the student might seek to emotionally coregulate these negative emotions via her or his cultural peers, i.e., those with whom they have the strongest cultural connection and those who likely share similar experiences on campus. These culturally and academically connected peers coregulate their own emotional reactions in return, thereby making emotional coregulation a dynamic and social process. In contrast to the positive portrayals of emotional responses demonstrated by components 2 and 3; components 4 (Avoidance & Disconnect Regulation), 5 (Alienation & Anxiety Emotions), and 6 (Shame and Embarrassment Emotion) outline the varied negative effects of a hostile racial campus climate on emotionality. These profiles reflect students resigned to dropping out, alienated by their own campus environment and nervous, or ashamed of who they are and questioning their own place in college. In these instances, emotional processes are vulnerable responses to a negative environment. As a result, emotional regulation processes function not to sustain and motivate persistence but to protect the individual at the expense of academic goals. If pushed far enough, psychological survival overtakes academic aspirations as the prominent goal and barriers to dropout are weakened. Thus, without strength in racial identity, self-efficacy, or social campus support these students are left to struggle and grow increasingly at-risk for dropout. Comprehensively, data gleaned from the LEI demonstrated Latino students’ emotional responses to their campus environment and the ways these emotions influenced academic success, commitment to their institution, and commitment to 79 persistence goals in college. These data have the potential to inform postsecondary scholarship and institutional self-assessment in meaningful ways. Future inclusion of the LEI to persistence models in postsecondary scholarship may answer many of the questions left unanswered (or variance unaccounted for) in SEM models. At the assessment level, the LEI may be nationally administered alongside large- scale assessment surveys such as the Higher Education Research Institute’s (HERI) Diverse Learning Environments (DLE) as a means to assess Latino students’ emotional responses to their campus climate. At the institutional level, data gleaned from LEI might be used for critical action research purposes–such as the Center for Urban Education’s (CUE’s) Equity Scorecard–to inform faculty, staff, and administrators’ understandings of their own institution’s racial culture and catalyze future organizational changes that foster success for Latino students. In terms of accountability policy, the results of large- or small- scale analyses would serve institutional self-assessment purposes at Hispanic- Serving Institutions (HSIs), specifically. In these instances, LEI data could be used to measure and monitor the racial campus climate for Latino students, demonstrating need for or impact of Title V grant monies. Methodologically, repeated administrations and analyses using this measure also have the potential to track changes in the emotional and behavioral responses of Latino students to their racial climate, i.e., demonstrate positive or negative outcomes as a result of changes or interventions within the campus environment. In sum, the LEI serves to assess a significant aspect of the Latino student response–emotionality–to racial campus climate for institutional assessment, accountability, and scholarly purposes. This measure allows for nuanced understandings 80 of the affective processes experienced by Latino students within racialized campus climates and their subsequent regulation techniques. In turn, the LEI will help generate new knowledge surrounding the ways affective responses affect persistence rates for Latinos. Campus-level uses of LEI include action research, accreditation, and policy applications. Use of this instrument will also lay the groundwork for future scholarship studying the relationship between racial campus climate and persistence for students of color. Limitations While hostile racial campus climate experiences (and emotional responses, themselves) are likely to fall within the realm of consciousness, the LEI is only capable of measuring the emotional responses of students who have the awareness to affirm their experience with this phenomenon. Interdisciplinary research demonstrates many aspects of the existence and significance of subconscious responses to our environment, most particularly responses of the emotional nature. Students’ emotional lives are indeed complex and certainly exist and function on a subconscious level. However, limitations of survey research include the measurement of (primarily) constructs accessible to the conscious. An additional limitation of the present validity analyses–and future use of the LEI–is the inability to measure and compare students’ psychological and behavioral predispositions. These types of data comparisons would allow for broader claims regarding causality across the racial campus environment, emotionality, and persistence. Conclusion Affective processes have long been ignored in higher education persistence models for students of color. Critical postsecondary work has touched upon emotionality 81 without further exploring the ways emotions have been understood and assessed in other fields. The present article briefly reviews interdisciplinary research outlining emotional responses reflected within the racialized campus climate as well as introducing and validating a new assessment instrument designed specifically for Latino student populations. This instrument, the Latino Emotionality Index (LEI), measures Latino students’ affective response to their campus’ cultural environment as well as the ways these emotions influence institutional commitment and commitment to persist. The LEI was successfully validated and is encouraged to be used to measure and assess Latino undergraduate students’ responses to their college’s racial campus culture. Findings from the validation analyses demonstrate six distinct profiles of emotional responses to hostile racial campus experiences. It is recommended that certain profiles or response types be fostered by colleges in order to improve student developmental, psychological, and academic outcomes for their Latino student populations. 82 Article 3 The Assessment of Cultural-Behavioral Responses to Racial Campus Climate: The Development and Validation of the Intercultural Effort Scale- Latino Students (IES-LS) Higher education has a history of self-assessment dating back to the 1950s with Pace’s College Characteristics Index [CCI]), Astins’ Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) in the 1960s, and Pace’s College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) in the late 1970s, continuing on to Kuh’s National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) in the 2000s. The development and use of these instruments–along with a more recent focus on accountability in postsecondary policy–established the practice of large-scale campus-wide student assessment for the purpose of mapping campus environmental factors onto student outcomes (e.g., achievement or persistence). Postsecondary institutions use measures of student engagement, specifically, as barometers of their own institutional effectiveness on and off campus. Student engagement as defined by NSSE’s Kuh is essentially one of academic involvement or “the time and energy students devote to educationally sound activities inside and outside of the classroom” (Kuh, 2003, p. 25). The rationale for collecting these student-level engagement data is to reflect back institutional practices and inform campus policy. In this regard, the NSSE has been used to measure student engagement and demonstrate “collegiate quality” at over 1,574 colleges nationwide (NSSE, 2014). The construct of student effort is traditionally assessed in higher education as a subcomponent of student engagement, most prominently via the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) (NSSE, 2010) and the College Student Experience Questionnaire (CSEQ) (Pace, 1999). Similar to student engagement, these instruments 83 measure the temporal (i.e., time on task) and academic (e.g., studying) dimensions of a student effort construct. For instance, the NSSE asks students to indicate how often they have used tutoring services on campus or generated multiple drafts for a particular assignment (NSSE, 2014). Consequently, the assessment of postsecondary student effort has been operationally narrowed down to what has been conceptualized as academic effort. This operationalization of student effort is linked to positive academic outcomes for all students. However, students of color are found to put forth similar degrees of student effort as Whites but report lower academic outcomes (Kuh, 2010). Essentially, race or racial experiences serve as a moderator of success in the postsecondary environment, a finding well established in the literature (Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Mendoza-Denton, Downey, Purdie, Davis, & Pietrzak, 2002; Museus, Nichols, & Lambert, 2008; Nora & Cabrera, 1996). While acknowledging experiential differences for students of color and Whites, Kuh described the reason behind these outcomes discrepancies for NSEE findings as “unclear” and alluded to the need for further investigation (Kuh, 2010). Diversity-focused scholars such as Museus, Hurtado, Harper, Solorzano, and Nora have posited that the cultural constraints placed on students of color through racially biased institutional practices and culture are to blame for many of the negative effects found for students’ of color academic outcomes. Campus practice and culture are expressed in the construct of racial campus climate, defined as the racial environment of a campus delineated across sociohistorical, policy, psychological, and behavioral dimensions as perceived by its student body, staff, and faculty (Hurtado, 1992; Hurtado, 84 Griffin, Arellano, & Cuellar, 2008). Given the effects of racial campus climate on academic outcomes for students of color, researchers such as Tanaka (2004) as well as Dowd, Sawatzky, and Korn (2011) have argued for a broadening of the student effort construct to include intercultural effort. Tanaka (2004) framed the construct of intercultural effort as the effort expended by minoritized students to reduce the intercultural divide between themselves and the institutional culture. When this divide between students’ home culture and their campus culture is significant, minoritized students must utilize both cognitive tools–for example, decisions to engage coping strategies–and behavioral tools (e.g., linguistic code switching to fit-in) in order to successfully navigate their institution’s social and academic environments. Thus, intercultural effort not only reflects students’ response to their campus culture but also their participatory experience within it. Merriam-Webster (2013) defined effort as “conscious exertion of power” or “a serious attempt.” For Latino students in racialized environments, joining a Latino student organization becomes not only a simple act of involvement in the “traditional” Astin (1984) sense. It is, or may also be, an endeavor to bridge a cultural divide that, if left unresolved, may hinder determination to persist. Given the pressing need to increase persistence for Latino students, the demographic with the lowest attainment rates in the United States (NCES, 2010), the objectives of the present research are to operationalize the intercultural effort construct and validate a scale that will refine our understanding of Latino students’ experiences within–and responses to–racial campus climates. In this regard, data gleaned from an intercultural effort scale will add a novel and valuable dimension to the ways we assess and view student effort. More broadly, these data will 85 help inform institutional effectiveness about the impact of racial campus climate on Latino persistence rates. While existing instruments assess various aspects of discriminatory environments for racially minoritized students, missing from these previously developed measures and items is their ability to adequately capture the construct of intercultural effort for Latino students. Racial campus climate scales and items assess the climate of the institution, not the cognitive and behavioral responses of minoritized students to that institutional climate. While a few items found within these scales measure student-level responses to racial climates, they do so as a means of measuring campus climate and were designed as one piece of an amalgamate of items for this purpose. Instruments such as the Cultural Congruity Scale (CCS) (Gloria & Robinson Kurpius, 1996) and the Diverse Learning Environments (DLE) survey (Higher Education Research Institute (HERI), 2012) include intercultural effort-type items. However, these scales and indexes were validated as either a subcomponent or a manifestation of a different broader and/or latent construct. Additionally, DLE items such as measuring students’ behavioral frequency in making “an effort to get to know people from diverse backgrounds” or “an effort to educate others about social issues” are developed for all student populations, including non- marginalized groups. The assessment outcomes for these items focus on “citizenship in a pluralistic democracy” (HERI, 2012), a developmental objective for all postsecondary students, not a measure of the ways racially minoritized students cope with their institutional climate. This absence in conceptualization and assessment denotes a need for further psychometric development in this area. 86 The following section synthesizes previous research and assessment tools that serve as a foundation for the intercultural effort construct. This synthesis highlights what is currently missing from the postsecondary literature and the contribution an intercultural effort assessment tool has the potential to make in the field. Subsequently, the development and validation of the Intercultural Effort Scale-Latino Students (IES-LS) is reviewed and discussed. Literature and Assessment Review Prior research and existing race-based assessment tools lay the groundwork for the intercultural effort construct and scale development. The following literature and assessment review serves to highlight the ways student integration, involvement, emotional effort, and responses to racialized campus climates have been conceptualized and assessed in the past. This review provides the need for the further psychometric development of assessment tools measuring Latino postsecondary cultural-behavioral responses to hostile racial campus climates. Tinto’s persistence model. Tinto’s (1993) student persistence model serves as the theoretical foundation for the majority of ways Latino integration has been studied in the past (Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Museus, Nichols, & Lambert, 2008). In brief, this theory asserts that students who perceive themselves as integrated into their campus’ community–socially and academically–are more likely to persist. From this perspective, if Latino students simply become more integrated in their campus they will have a greater likelihood of degree completion. Tinto’s critics argue that this model places the onus of integration on the student without holding institutional policies or culture responsible for barriers to 87 integration (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Rendon, Jalomo, & Nora, 2000; Tierney, 1992). In this vein, Castillo et al. (2006) argued for movement away from person- centered persistence models to that of situation-centered models, emphasizing the setting as the mediator to persistence for Latinos. Past research such as that done by Gloria and Pope-Davis (1997) demonstrated that expecting Latinos to conform to their campus cultures fosters an unwelcoming climate for students. Thus, situation-centered models highlight the ways the institutional climate may serve to minimize (and maximize) the cultural “distance” between the Latino student and her/his campus climate. Recently, scholars have included the concept of cultural distance between the culture of origin and the culture of immersion in persistence models for students of color. Kuh and Love (2000) outlined a cultural perspective to Tinto’s persistence model, highlighting the dichotomous choice racially minoritized students make in order to persist: adapt to the dominant culture or immerse oneself in one or more subcultures. Similarly, Museus and Quaye (2009) introduced an intercultural framework for minoritized students’ persistence, where “intercultural” describes two types of cultural divides for minoritized students: (a) between one’s home culture and one’s postsecondary institution, and (b) between the broad institutional culture and the subcultures (e.g., racial or ethnic, religious, academic majors) found within a campus. These frameworks begin to account for the many ways in which students of color navigate their college environment when cultural divides are present. Variations across these navigation processes are precisely the focus of an intercultural effort measure. 88 Student effort and student involvement theory. Pace (1969, 1984) viewed the construct of student effort as the ways students invest themselves in their own learning and development given the resources allocated to them by the institution. In this way, he believed that students should be held accountable for their use of the opportunities offered to them within the collegiate setting. Based on this premise, students’ use of resources could be assessed as their temporal and cognitive investments and viewed as their engagement in these academically focused effort activities. Similar to Pace’s student effort, Astin (1984) defined student involvement as “the amount of physical and psychological energy that the student devotes to the academic experience” (p. 518). Student involvement is operationalized according to a variety of academic and social behaviors having been found to influence achievement or persistence (e.g., student-faculty interaction, campus athletics). These conceptualizations of involvement behaviors, along with Pace’s (1969, 1984) theoretical and psychometric underpinnings, helped to lay the foundation for the student effort construct and its operationalization along academic and temporal dimensions (NSSE, 2010; Pace, 1999). Consequently, Astin’s student involvement and Pace’s student effort constructs fail to address the cultural-behavioral components of student involvement and effort for racially minoritized students (Dowd, Sawatzky, Korn, 2011; Tanaka, 2004). Assuming that the overall assessment purpose of both constructs is to increase success and persistence rates, and noting that Latino students presently have the lowest persistence rates of any other demographic, cultural-behavioral considerations are of even greater importance. 89 Responses to hostile racial campus climate. Utilizing Carroll’s (1998) framework for Black responses to environmental stress, Solorzano, Allen, and Carroll (2002) mapped out a variety of responses that students of color may have to a racially hostile environment. At one end of the continuum, Solorzano et al. (2002) posited that certain racially marginalized students opt to “identify with the oppressor”, believing that by becoming “more White” they would be more successful and have an improved quality of life. The authors asserted that these students “adopt” negative attitudes and beliefs espoused by the dominant culture reflecting on people of color. In this regard, these students are often found to be alienated from peers from their own ethnic/racial group. On the opposite end of the continuum, racialized minority students may take a forceful anti-White position. These students are described as embittered by their discriminatory experiences with Whites and consequently avoid contact as much as possible. However, this polar conceptualization leaves unexamined the possibility that students of color can fall somewhere in between these two extremes, neither identifying as White nor hateful toward everything “White.” These students would have the capacity to move bidirectionally across such continuums throughout their young adulthood, fluctuating according to variations in personal experiences, differing peer group association, etc. An individual student’s placement along this hypothetical continuum is feasibly more dynamic and flexible than the standardized and unidirectional stages described in racial or ethnic identity development models (e.g., Cross, 1978; Helms, 1990; Phinney, 1993). A negative microaggression on campus, for instance, may 90 unidirectionally push a student along this continuum while a positive interaction with a White faculty member the following day may push in the opposite direction. Further, I would theorize that movement along this continuum grows more flexible for those individuals moving away from the poles or two extremes, i.e., the majority of students of color. Those who have fully embraced “Whiteness” or anti- “Whiteness” would be more prone to a fixed placement, albeit temporary throughout their lifetime of development, given the extremity of their position. Similar to individuals described in the early stages of racial identity development (Cross, 1978; Helms, 1990), a student of color who has fully embraced “Whiteness” is likely to hold tight to her/his schemas and not allow for the flexibility allotted by students found in the middle of the continuum. This flexibility is best described by Fries-Brit and Turner (2002) and their depiction of “bicultural” responses of Black students to a predominantly White campus: To survive on White campuses, some Black students consciously assimilate into the White cultures, but this does not necessarily mean that they know less about Black culture. More than likely Black students . . . have learned to become bicultural, developing a repertoire of expressions and behaviors from both the White and Black community and switching between them as appropriate. (p. 320) These responses exemplify intercultural effort behaviors demonstrated by Black students in a racialized campus climate environment. A second aspect of this hypothetical continuum–often inaccurately placed at the anti-White extreme–is what Solorzano, Allen, and Carroll (2002) labeled as “pro-brown.” This stance signifies a want to identify with “being” Black or Latino and a need to seek 91 out racial or ethnic “safe spaces” where students of color can find support from other Black or Latino students. I emphasize that this response of seeking out of these “counter spaces” (Solorzano et al., 2002) is likely found on a much broader level throughout the continuum than solely within a “pro-brown” positionality. In other words, students of color may feel completely validated in their own sense of racial or ethnic identity 7 –with or without any “anti-White” positionality–while purposefully seeking out racially-neutral spaces on campus. These spaces may not be experienced as necessarily “pro-brown,” but rather lacking a racial dynamic similar to White students interacting within an all-White environment. Reasons for pursuing these race-neutral spaces include what Solorzano et al. (2002) described as feelings of “being on stage” while on campus versus finding “home base.” Similarly to “being on stage,” students of color feel pressured by their campus environment to act in prescriptive ways. These acting behaviors are a significant component of intercultural effort. Alternatively, “home base” consists of academic and social “counter spaces” such as culturally-focused courses, student organizations, fraternities, or sororities. Psychological literature. Gross’ (1998) emotional regulation framework may be applied to the roles affective processes play in Latino experiences and behaviors within the racial campus climate environment. Grandey (2000) furthered Gross’ model by applying it to the workplace or organizational context. Further, Grandey incorporated Hochschild’s (1983) 7 I do not conceptualize these “states” such as “pro-brown” or “anti-White” as discrete stages suggested by certain racial or ethnic identity models (Cross, 1978; Helms, 1995, Phinney, 1993), but rather response descriptors found within a continuous and dynamic relationship between individual students of color and their racial campus climate. 92 construct of emotional labor and its affects on stress and burnout. Hochschild defined emotional labor as “the management of feeling to create a publicly observable facial and bodily display” (p. 7), highlighting the ways this type of effort leads to burnout. Grandey also described Ashforth and Humphreys’ (1993) theoretical addition to emotional labor, the goal of “impression management” according to an organization’s rules or culture. Thus, emotional labor describes the effort racialized minority students may expend in order to alter emotional expressions. Hypothetically, this “enhancing, faking, or suppressing” of emotions serves to bridge the cultural divide between students and the cultural climate of one’s institution. Exerted along with other forms of intercultural effort, emotional labor may, in turn, lead to student burnout and dropout. Assessment review. At the racial campus climate level, evaluation instruments range from the comprehensive (HERI, 2012; Rankin & Reason, 2005) to single-item scales (Hurtado & Carter, 1999; Museus, Nichols, & Lambert, 2008). Other evaluative tools center on subconstructs of racial campus climate or other aspects of students’ racialized experiences in higher education. Dowd, Sawatzky, and Korn (2011) reviewed survey instruments and items somewhat concurrent with the concept of intercultural effort while illustrating the lack of an appropriate measure for this construct. The following section briefly summarizes assessment tools closely related to intercultural effort and concludes with a critique of how and why they differ from the construct at hand. Racial campus climate. Assessments of racial campus climate vary in many ways, including sampling frames (all students or certain minoritized groups) and units of analyses (student or 93 institution), as well as broad to narrow measurement foci. The Cooperative Institutional Research Program’s (CIRP) Diverse Learning Environments (DLE) Survey (HERI, 2012) was designed to assess the following three constructs across multiple units of analyses: campus cultural climates, related institutional practices, and student learning outcomes. This comprehensive survey–whose sampling frame consists of all students–included items assessing behavioral responses to cultural climate in a vein similar to intercultural effort. This dimension was conceptualized and evaluated along the lines of students’ intergroup relations (e.g., frequency of interactions with peers from other racial or ethnic groups) and involvement with diversity programs or activities on campus. On a smaller scale, Gloria and Robinson Kurpius’ (1996) University Environment Survey (UES) assessed Latino students’ perceptions of their university environment in a more narrow way (e.g., “The university seems to value minority students”). Cultural congruity, barriers, and sense of belonging. One subconstruct surrounding Latinos’ experiences within a racialized campus climate is sense of cultural fit with one’s institution. For instance, Hurtado and Carter (1997) developed and assessed Latino students’ sense of belonging in relation to campus racial climate. Similarly, Hurtado, Carter, and Spuler (1996) utilized the Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire’s (SACQ’s) (Baker & Siryk, 1989) Social Adjustment scale (18-items) to assess Latino students’ cognitive and behavioral adjustment. This scale included items measuring a sense of integration or belonging within with their campus environment (e.g., “ I feel that I fit in well as part of . . . environment”). 94 Behavioral measures of involvement. Lastly, prior work following Astin and/or Tinto’s theoretical models utilized behavioral measures in order to capture racialized minority students’ academic or social involvement within a racial campus climate. For instance, Museus, Nichols, and Lambert’s (2008) structural equation model for racial climate and persistence included academic and social involvement as mediators. The authors divided academic involvement between two subconstructs, structural and normative. Structural academic involvement was measured via a single-item scale of cumulative undergraduate GPA while normative academic involvement was assessed using a continuous index of average student responses across five activities (e.g., “participated in study groups,” “talked with faculty outside of class about academics”). Social involvement was measured according to a similar continuous index across five activities foci: fine arts, intramural sports, collegiate athletics, school clubs, and going places with friends from school. These subconstructs may be construed as forms of intercultural effort in the sense that they represent the behavioral manifestation of ways students, including Latinos, make attempts at involvement within their campus environment. The Intercultural Effort Scale- Latino Students (IES-LS) The Intercultural Effort Scale- Latino Students (IES-LS) measures the intercultural effort expended by Latino students in order to bridge the cultural division between themselves and their campus culture, as they experience it, in order to persist. This scale advances prior assessments of racial campus climate (Hurtado & Carter, 1997), cultural congruity (Gloria & Robinson Kurpius, 1996), sense of belonging (Hurtado et al., 95 1996), or involvement activities (Museus et al., 2008). The IES-LS measures Latino students’ cultural-behavioral responses to their campus racial climate. Effort is an exertion of mental, and generally, physical energy. It is an act of “doing,” whether or not the manifestation is cognitive or behavioral or both. Therefore, intercultural effort–although predominantly behavioral–also includes cognitive processes. Similar to Astin’s (1984) conceptualization of student involvement, intercultural effort “implies a behavioral component” while acknowledging the cognitive processes driving these behaviors. The present validation (and future use) of this scale will not only generate greater insight into the ways Latino students respond to their racial campus climate but also broaden our understanding of how campus climate may or may not drive success and completion rates for Latinos at their respective institutions. Types of intercultural effort. In the IES-LS, I operationalize the intercultural effort construct across four subconstructs: (a) social effort: same-race, (b) social effort: majority, (c) academic effort: same-race, and (d) academic effort: majority. These four types of intercultural effort are exerted by Latino students within their racial campus climate and are based in part on Nora’s (1993) modalities of Latino student integration: social and academic. As illustrated in Table 4, intercultural social effort consists of either bonding and integrating oneself within a Latino student sub-culture (same-race) or conforming to the social norms of White culture (majority) on campus. I operationalize social-majority effort as conformatory behaviors denoting an integrative behavioral change to what is expected from a dominant White campus climate. “Conformatory” emphasizes the cognitive awareness and maintenance of one’s 96 home culture and in this way differs from the way assimilation is conceptualized. Latino students' engagement in conformatory behaviors does not indicate they are abandoning Latino culture nor does the absence of these behaviors denote a lack of cultural capital. Instead, the cognitive processes driving intercultural effort are ones of negotiation between the display of Latino students’ home culture and that of the majority on campus. Consequently, intercultural social effort is employed as a result of significant cultural divide between Latino culture and institutional culture and a struggle to maintain Fries- Brit and Turner’s biculturality. Intercultural academic behaviors may serve to inculcate Latino students within a Latino-focused academic environment on campus (same-race) or bridge an academic gap widened by racially hostile campus climate (majority). Academic effort: same-race can consist of connecting with institutional agents (Stanton-Salazar, 2010), supporting or being supported by other achievement-focused Latinos (Harper, 2006), or taking Latino studies courses (Solorzano, Allen, & Carroll, 2002). Majority-focused academic effort, on the contrary, is a process of reaching out to White students, faculty, and staff in order to overcome racial stereotypes, acquire information about academic expectations, and meet personal achievement and career goals. 97 Table 4. Intercultural Effort Scale- Latino Students. Types of intercultural effort. Social Effort: Same-Race Definition: The pursuit of or engagement in informal/non-academic social activities with Latino campus peers, faculty, or staff. Reflects Solorzano, Allen, & Carroll’s (2002) description of finding “counter spaces” or “home-base” within a hostile campus climate environment. Purpose: Social connection with Latinos, finding “safe spaces,” creating a niche within campus life, integration. Examples: • Joining Latino student organizations, clubs, fraternities or sororities • Attending Latino-focused social events on and off campus with Latino students Social Effort: Majority Definition: The effort exerted to engage or connect with White peers, faculty, or staff in order to ameliorate the socio-cultural divide between themselves and the campus climate. These informal conformatory behaviors consist of Solorzano et al.’s (2002) students’ of color reports of being “on-stage” or acting “White.” Purpose: Attempts to “fit-in” with the majority campus culture, integrate socially for a more rewarding educational experience, connections to succeed, ease the academic process, affectively and psychologically ease tensions caused by racial climate. Examples: Behavioral code-switching • Changing emotional expression • Dress or self-styling “White” Linguistic code-switching • Change accent to sound “White” 98 Table 4 (continued) Academic Effort: Same-Race Definition: The pursuit of or engaging in formal/academically-focused activities with Latino peers, faculty, or staff. This effort is both support-seeking and support-giving as reflected in Harper (2006) and is exerted in-class and out-of-class. Purpose: Seeking of academic-focused “safe-spaces” that support achievement motivation and behaviors. This effort fosters feelings of Hurtado and Carter’s (1997) “sense of belonging” as well as cultural and social capital within the academic environment. Examples: • Enrolling in Latino studies courses • Seeking out of Latino Institutional Agents, i.e., supportive faculty or staff, for mentoring or advising (Stanton-Salazar, 2010) Tutoring, advising, or studying with Latino peers Academic Effort: Majority Definition: The effort exerted to engage or connect with White peers, faculty, or staff in order to ameliorate the academic-cultural divide between themselves and the campus climate. Purpose: Excel academically within a hostile racial campus climate. Latino students may also believe that the majority culture views them as a token representative, driving them to demonstrate high achievement as a Latino role model. Examples: • Work harder academically in order to be a role model for Latinos • Seeking out White faculty or staff for tutoring or advising Construct map. I hypothesize the intercultural effort construct as unidimensional, i.e., groups of behaviors with the same purpose, manifesting the same construct. Latino students are proposed to be placed (and move) along the continuum throughout their postsecondary 99 experience(s). The continuum begins from a state absent of intercultural effort and moves up to higher levels of exertion of intercultural effort operationalized by frequency. As illustrated in the construct map (Figure 4), each of the four types of intercultural effort is weighted differently according to their hypothesized levels of theta or degree of the latent factor, intercultural effort. Same-race behaviors are theorized to require less intercultural effort, and are therefore lower on the continuum, than majority- race behaviors for both academic and social behaviors. However, social and academic behavior ordering is conceptualized to differ based on group membership, i.e., same-race: social effort is lower on the continuum (or “easier”) than same-race: academic effort while majority-social effort is more “difficult” or higher than majority-academic effort. For instance, social effort: same-race items are theorized to require less effort than social effort: majority since less effort is likely needed for Latino students to socialize with other Latino students than with White students in a racially hostile environment. Conversely, majority: academic effort is theorized to require less effort than majority: social effort under the assumption that the college environment would scaffold and necessitate majority: academic behaviors over social. This operationalization does not require that Latinos progress along every component or dimension in order to reach higher levels of intercultural effort (i.e., Guttman scaling). Instead, a student may move quickly from exerting lower levels of intercultural effort (e.g., social effort- same-race: low) to higher levels (e.g., social effort- majority: high). Lastly, although a student is found within a single dimension of intercultural effort, he/she is not necessarily exerting all the intercultural effort subcomponents within that dimension. 100 Figure 4. IES-LS construct map. Item design. The IES-LS questionnaire consists of four demographic items (race/ethnicity, gender, semester, and major), two racial identity items (e.g., “I identify with my Hispanic/Latino background”), four racial campus climate items (e.g., “As a Latino, I am treated differently by other students on campus”), four frequency cultural fit items (e.g., “Indicate how often on your campus you have experienced not fitting-in socially with other students as a Latina or Latino”), and 40 scaled checklist-type intercultural effort items (see Appendix A for complete questionnaire). ! Respondent’s Level of Construct (Theta) Direction of increasing intercultural effort High Social Effort-Majority “Often” Academic Effort-Majority “Often” Moderate Social Effort-Majority “Sometimes” Academic Effort-Majority “Sometimes” Academic Effort-Same-Race “Often” Social Effort-Same-Race “Often” Low Academic Effort-Same-Race “Sometimes” Social Effort-Same-Race “Sometimes” Lack of Intercultural Effort Social Effort-Majority “Never” Academic Effort-Majority “Never Academic Effort-Same-Race “Never” Social Effort-Same-Race “Never Direction of decreasing intercultural effort 101 The “cultural fit” items assess students’ perception of cultural fit between themselves and their campus’ racial climate, a theoretical precursor to the expansion of intercultural effort. The scaled intercultural effort items measure the frequency of qualitatively different forms of intercultural effort exerted by Latino students in relation to their campus context. Similar to the ways student effort is traditionally operationalized, intercultural effort is gradated according to behavioral frequency dimensions, i.e., a response scale of “never,” “sometimes,” and “often.” Methods The present study sought to develop and validate the Intercultural Effort Scale- Latino Students (IES-LS) using a rating scale (RS) item-response modeling approach (Andrich, 1978; Masters, 1982). In comparison to classical test theory (CTT), item- response theory (IRT) allows for a more comprehensive (and arguably more precise) assessment of the psychometric properties of a given scale. IRT uses the latent qualities of respondents to predict observed responses and calibrates both respondents and items onto the same continuum. This unidimensional continuum allows us to determine the “difficulty” of each item or the degree of theta (i.e., intercultural effort) needed to endorse each item (de Ayala, 2009). Using IRT we determine model-fit – as opposed to CTT where the model is assumed to be true – through a variety analyses. If the IES-LS validation is successful, each intercultural effort behavior (i.e., its corresponding item) will be correctly classified according to the amount of effort a student must expend in order to indicate engaging in this behavior “sometimes” or “often.” Additionally, the spread of the items or the degree to which they adequately cover the continuum of the construct can be determined. Successful coverage would map 102 items across the continuum of low intercultural effort to high. This coverage can then be compared to the degrees of theta, or intercultural effort, captured by individuals in the sample. Item difficulty levels should adequately cover the entire continuum but specifically the area of the continuum where the majority of the population (or sample) is found. If most of the respondents are found to be high in intercultural effort and majority of items are mapped onto the low end of the continuum, the scale would not have the ability to adequately measure intercultural effort expended by Latino students. Lastly, each item’s response parameters should be hierarchically ordered from lowest to highest difficulty. For instance, the response of “sometimes” for a given item should not capture a difficulty measure higher than “often” for the same behavior. The psychometric development process included a pilot survey administration and questionnaire assessment using cognitive interviewing with Latino undergraduates (n = 5) and survey finalization. Survey validation included the administration of the finalized questionnaire across six sites and subsequent IRT unidimensionality, reliability, and goodness-of-fit analyses. Questionnaires were administered via the online platform Qualtrics and analyses were conducted using Winsteps Rasch Software. Validation goals included the successful calibration of the IES-LS as a reliable unidimensional scale, demonstrating the hierarchical ordering of items by projected “difficulty” or the degree of intercultural effort needed to endorse a response item. Ideally, the collected sample would consistently map along all the hypothesized levels of the IES-LS construct (see Figure 4), indicating differing frequency and types of 103 intercultural effort based on respondents’ varied racial campus climate experiences and behavioral responses to that climate. Participants. The present IRT validation had a sample size of approximately 572 Latino undergraduate respondents–above the 500 recommended sample size for accurate parameter estimation (Tsutakawa & Johnson, 1990). In addition to 500 respondents, the sampling goal included a heterogeneous group of Latino students reflective of the full range of population characteristics across varying institutional types. Latino undergraduate students at six Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) located in different states across the U.S. were included. Institutional characteristics consisted of the following: (a) four community colleges, (b) one public four-year research university, and (c) one private four-year Catholic teaching university (see Table 5 for respondent demographics). The sampling frame consisted of all Latino undergraduates in the U.S. Thus, student-level differences were sought that were representative of the many regional and cultural facets of Latinos in the United States. For instance, Cuban Latinos were targeted in Miami while Chicanos or Mexican Latinos were sought in Los Angeles and in the southwest. 104 Table 5. IES-LS Sample Demographics n % Sector Public 2-Year 99 17.3% Public 4-Year 428 74.8% Private 4-Year 45 7.8% Gender Female 388 67.8% Male 184 32.1% Results The IES-LS demonstrated high internal reliability with Cronbach’s alpha at 0.94 and a Pearson’s separation index of .86 (Appendix F for classic item statistics). Unidimensionality of the IES-LS was also successfully tested using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) (see Appendix G). From the PCA, one dominant first factor emerged with a possible subcomponent or minor clustering of items found across “same-race” dimensions both academic and social (items 14, 6, 17, 11, 12, 13). Goodness-of-Fit The data was found to fit a 1-parameter logistic (1-PL) model reasonably well, with items adequately mapping across the theoretical continuum of intercultural effort. The item map (Appendix H) graphically illustrates the overall goodness-of-fit of the model. Comprehensively the instrument captures difficulty levels ranging from -1.97 to 1.08 logits with a small degree of item crowding found across -0.5 to 0.5 logits. 105 Overall, the IES-LS was found to be a “difficult” scale with a bias toward the upper end of the continuum. The item map illustrates a lack of respondents found on the continuum beginning around 0.25 logits and above. IES-LS items on average were difficult to endorse at the “often” response level making sense on practical and theoretical levels. Many of these intercultural effort behaviors may be too taxing or not even possible to engage in regularly or “often” (e.g., Latino-focused debates). Additionally, not all campus social interactions would demand or trigger feelings of cultural distance and subsequent behavior change. From a practical perspective, the difficulty bias of the scale should be preserved in order to measure whether students expended high degrees of intercultural effort even if they were not well-represented in the current sample. Respondents capturing the highest degrees of theta (or effort) would likely be a small proportion of Latino students yet would serve as important data points for the monitoring of dropout or severe racial campus climate issues. Item measure. A comparison of the item map and the Figure 4 construct map shows that not all aspects of the latter held up post-calibration. Item statistics (found in Table 6), listed from highest difficulty to lowest, show how difficulty did not cleanly map onto the four categories theorized by the construct map. As theorized, most social effort-same-race behaviors were “easy” or required little effort while many social effort-majority items were found to be difficult to endorse. For instance, item 22 “dressed more ‘White’ than off-campus” has a measure or difficulty level of 0.77, making it one of hardest or most effortful behaviors for students to endorse. Contrary to the construct map, many academic effort-majority items (theorized to require high levels of effort) were placed very low on 106 the intercultural effort continuum. Item 19, “tried to show other students in class that Latinos can do well in school,” has a difficulty measure of -1.0, making it “easy” to endorse. This suggests that the difficulty of each item is more nuanced to the individual behavior than the simplistic four dimension (academic vs. social and same-race vs. dominant) outlined in earlier sections. Table 6. IES-LS item measure. Item Difficulty Measure Model S.E. Infit Mean- Square Infit Z Standar- dized Outfit Mean- Square Outfit Z Standar- dized Point Measure Correla- tion Campus Debates Latino Issues 1.08 0.10 1.02 0.3 1.15 0.9 0.33 Latino Sorority/Fraternity Events 0.87 0.10 1.16 1.4 1.72 2.7 0.26 Acted Differently Than Off-Campus 0.77 0.09 1.01 0.2 1.03 0.2 0.35 Dressed More White 0.77 0.09 0.98 -0.2 0.99 0.0 0.35 Enrolled In Latino Studies Course 0.74 0.09 1.0 0.0 1.20 1.1 0.35 Acted More White 0.74 0.09 0.95 -0.5 0.77 -1.1 0.37 Campus Organized Latino Events 0.73 0.09 0.9 -1.3 0.83 -1.3 0.41 Time Spent At Diversity Center 0.69 0.09 0.94 -0.6 0.81 -1.0 0.38 Changed Talk To Sound Less Latino 0.69 0.09 0.97 -0.3 0.96 -0.2 0.37 Mask Feelings Around Whites 0.68 0.09 0.92 -1.0 0.84 -0.9 0.40 Acted Less Latino 0.62 0.09 0.93 -0.9 0.80 -1.4 0.41 Talk More White 0.59 0.09 1.02 0.2 1.39 1.9 0.36 107 Table 6 (continued) Item Difficulty Measure Model S.E. Infit Mean- Square Infit Z Standar- dized Outfit Mean- Square Outfit Z Standar- dized Point Measure Correla- tion Used Different Words To Sound White 0.50 0.08 0.96 -0.5 0.87 -0.8 0.41 Acted White With Faculty/Staff 0.49 0.08 0.93 -0.8 0.84 -0.9 0.41 Held Back During Racial Discussion 0.48 0.08 1.09 1.3 2.00 6.4 0.35 Tried Not to Stand Out 0.44 0.08 0.96 -0.5 0.92 -0.4 0.41 Talk Racial Issues With Latinos 0.39 0.08 0.95 -0.9 0.89 -1.3 0.48 Looked for Places to Be Yourself 0.29 0.08 0.97 -1.9 0.83 -1.4 0.46 Hid Negative Feelings 0.27 0.087 0.97 -0.4 0.93 -0.6 0.44 Pushed To Interact With Whites 0.19 0.08 0.89 -1.8 0.80 -2.0 0.48 Talk Racial Issues SOC 0.11 0.08 1.06 1.0 1.03 0.4 0.44 Tried Not To Look Aggressive 0.03 0.07 1.03 0.4 0.96 -0.3 0.44 Looked for Latinos to Hang -0.11 0.07 0.93 -1.2 0.92 -0.9 0.51 Discussed Personal Feelings Latinos -0.17 0.07 0.93 -1.2 0.81 -2.0 0.51 108 Table 6 (continued) Item Difficulty Measure Model S.E. Infit Mean- Square Infit Z Standar- dized Outfit Mean- Square Outfit Z Standar- dized Point Measure Correla- tion Find Professor/Staff For Support -0.24 0.07 1.01 0.1 0.99 -0.1 0.49 Other Latinos Study -0.29 0.07 0.89 -0.2 0.82 -2.4 0.55 Discuss Coursework with Whites -0.49 0.07 0.93 -1.3 0.93 -0.9 0.54 Discuss Coursework Other Latinos -0.57 0.07 0.98 -0.3 0.92 -1.1 0.54 Studied with Other Latinos -0.92 0.08 1.00 0.0 0.98 -0.4 0.58 Show Faculty Latinos Do Well -0.95 0.06 0.97 -0.5 0.97 -0.4 0.56 Faculty Office Hours -0.97 0.07 1.27 4.9 1.26 3.8 0.47 Show Students Latinos Do Well -1.00 0.06 0.91 -1.7 0.87 -1.7 0.59 Chat With Other Latinos In Class -1.03 0.07 0.93 -1.3 0.90 -1.7 0.61 Helped Other Latinos With Classwork -1.03 0.07 0.93 -1.2 0.90 -1.7 0.61 Studied with White Students -1.09 0.07 1.15 2.8 -1.17 2.7 0.52 109 Table 6 (continued) Item Difficulty Measure Model S.E. Infit Mean- Square Infit Z Standar- dized Outfit Mean- Square Outfit Z Standar- dized Point Measure Correla- tion Visited Advising Or Tutoring Center -1.16 0.07 1.23 4.3 1.24 3.3 0.51 Studied with Other SOC -1.45 0.07 1.05 0.9 1.04 0.7 0.6 Pushed To Do Better In School -1.97 0.07 1.07 1.2 1.08 0.9 0.64 110 111 Table 6 demonstrates that the model has goodness-of-fit as indicated by standard error, infit/outfit mean-square, infit/outfit mean-square z standardized, and point-mean correlation. Infit mean-square, specifically, demonstrates the stability of the instrument, i.e., the ways the data map onto the underlying model of item difficulties. Table 6 also reveals appropriate infit scores, with all items found between 0.84 and 1.23. Item step difficulties. Each item’s response parameters fit a hierarchical model, i.e., every increase in the response scale (moving from “never” to “sometimes” and “sometimes” to “often”) is mapped onto increased difficulty (see Appendix I for item step difficulties). However, overlap exists for the item step parameters 0.3 (“often”) and 0.2 (“sometimes”) for a few items between 0.5 and -0.5 logits. It is possible that model-fit may hold if the 3-point response scale was reduced down to a dichotomous scale. The 3-point scale was ultimately adopted in order to better assess frequency of behavior, i.e., measure beyond “yes” or “no.” In conclusion, the IES-LS was found to demonstrate goodness-of-fit for the 1-PL model as shown by evidence of high internal reliability, unidimensionality, spread of item difficulty, and item step difficulty ordering. A subcomponent or minor clustering of items measuring same-race activities was suggested by the PCA but an assumption of unidimensionality was preserved. Additionally, IES-LS items illustrated some difficulty bias with the majority falling in the upper half of the continuum. However, item spread was found to be adequately mapped across the scale in order to retain the assumption of goodness-of-fit. 112 The success of the present validation adds the IES-LS to a small number of instruments within the higher education field that have been validated using IRT. Findings from this IRT analysis allow us to determine the degree of effort Latino students must expend in order to engage in particular intercultural behaviors. Modifying the theorized construct map described in earlier sections, we find a more nuanced measure of intercultural effort behaviors beyond social vs. academic behaviors and Latino vs. majority interactions. For instance, we see that studying with White students requires less intercultural effort than discussing personal feelings with other Latino students. For Latino students, the act of discussing personal feelings is more effortful than simply studying, regardless of race. Thus, the varying degrees of effort expended by Latino students are found at the individual behavior or item level, not within the four broad categories. Theoretically, it is assumed that engagement in more effortful behaviors indicates greater disconnect between the individual Latino student and the campus climate. While additional research is needed to determine the relationship between intercultural effort and persistence, the successful scaling of the IES-LS furthers our understanding of the nature of Latino students’ behavioral response to their campus environment using measurement theory. Discussion The successful validation of the IES-LS has important implication for the ways student effort is traditionally understood and assessed by instruments such as the NSSE. As argued by Tanaka (2004) as well as Dowd, Sawatzky, and Korn (2011), the construct of student effort has been previously underdeveloped theoretically and psychometrically 113 for students of color studying in a racialized campus climate environment. The present validation of the IES-LS demonstrates the nuances of intercultural effort for Latino students, a process ignored by traditional student effort measures. These findings bring a new perspective to what constitutes student effort and engagement specifically for students of color experiencing cultural disconnect on campus. Previous measures of student effort that look solely at academic and temporal dimensions lack the ability to measure intercultural effort dimensions. On measurement and practical levels this gap is problematic. Even students of color who expend a great deal of intercultural effort might emerge as lacking in effort, i.e., lazy or lacking in motivation, according to traditional assessments. Further, the validation of the IES-LS challenges the profile of the highly engaged student. Latino students forced to employ significant intercultural effort in order to succeed may feel disconnected from their campus climate yet still be highly engaged. In these regards, assessment of intercultural effort may add clarity to questions linking effort with academic outcomes for students of color. Research implications of the present validation findings include the opportunity to build on the ways student effort, racial campus climate, and persistence are studied for students of color. For example, inclusion of the IES-LS in persistence models for Latino students would feasibly account for a significant degree of variance in structural equation modeling (SEM) models. Overall, future investigations using the IES-LS are needed in order to better understand the role intercultural effort plays in achievement and persistence for the Latino student population. 114 Additionally, the IES-LS will aid institutional-self-assessment strategies and could be used in tandem with racial campus climate scales (e.g., HERI’s DLE) in order to assess the institutional conditions influencing Latino students’ intercultural effort responses and/or subsequent achievement or persistence rates. Institutions wanting to assess campus climate for their Latino students would be able to measure the behavioral responses of this population. As described above, the expension of effortful behaviors reflects upon the racial campus climate of an institution. Institutions that effectively reduce the burden of intercultural effort for its Latino students could hypothetically increase the opportunity for academic effort. Thus, campuses hoping to increase academic effort and engagement would want to minimize the cultural distances between campus climate and students of color, lessening the burden of intercultural effort expension. The IES-LS may also be used to assist organizational change through action research at institutional or departmental levels. Campuses wanting to reduce the load of cultural incongruity on Latino students may employ IES-LS data to highlight areas in need of remediation. For instance, the Center for Urban Education’s (CUE’s) Equity Scorecard uses campus-level data to enhance faculty, staff, and administrators’ understandings of equity practices for students of color. Lastly, from a policy perspective the IES-LS may be particularly useful to Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs) wanting to assess the behavioral response of Latino students to their “Hispanic serving” climate. IES-LS data could be used for accreditation and Title V accountability reporting purposes. Broad use of the IES-LS would demonstrate Latino-focused assessment practices at an HSI. Alternatively, Latino 115 students’ intercultural effort could be used as an outcome variable in order to evaluate the success of a Title V funded campus climate intervention. Conclusion The present article outlines the theoretical and measurement background of the construct of student effort within higher education literature and assessment. In contrast to previous conceptualizations of student effort, the construct is expanded in order to include intercultural effort, meaning the effort students of color expend in order to bridge the cultural divide between themselves and their campus. As follows an instrument measuring intercultural effort specifically for Latino students, the Intercultural Effort Scale-Latino Students (IES-LS) was introduced and successfully validated using IRT. This scale moves beyond the assessment of students’ cognitive and affective evaluations and reactions to their campus cultural climate to include the assessment of students’ behavioral coping responses to discriminatory environments. The successful validation of this instrument as a unidimensional construct fosters new academic understandings of the ways Latino students experience and respond to their campus racial climates. Additionally, administration of the IES-LS at the institutional level will serve to address a postsecondary assessment gap via the measurement of Latino students’ behavioral responses to their campus racial climate (Dowd, Sawatzky, & Korn, 2011). The IES-LS will aid institutional-self-assessment strategies and could be used in tandem with racial campus climate scales in order to measure the institutional conditions influencing Latino students’ intercultural effort responses and subsequent achievement or persistence rates. In turn, these findings may assist in highlighting areas in need of cultural remediation at the campus-level. 116 References Allison, K. W. (1998). Stressed and oppressed social category membership. In J. K. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice the target’s perspective (pp. 145-171). Academic Press. Altschul, I., Oyserman, D., & Bybee, D. (2006). Racial‐ethnic identity in mid‐ adolescence: Content and change as predictors of academic achievement. Child Development, 77(5), 1155-1169. Ancis, J. R., Sedlacek, W. E., & Mohr, J. J. (2000). Student perceptions of campus cultural climate by race. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78, 180-185. Andersen, P. A., & Guerrero, L. K. (1998). Principles of communication and emotion in social interaction. Handbook of communication and emotion: Research, theory, applications, and contexts, 49-96. Andrich, D. (1978). Application of a psychometric rating model to ordered categories which are scored with successive integers. Applied Psychological Measurement, 2, 581-594. Armstead, C. A., & Clark, R. (2002). Assessment of self-reported anger expression in pre-and early-adolescent African Americans: Psychometric considerations. Journal of Adolescence, 25(4), 365-371. Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1993). Emotional labor in service roles: The influence of identity. Academy of Management Review, 18(1), 88-115. Astin, A. (1984). Student involvement: A development theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 24(4), 297-308. Bagozzi, R. P., Gopinath, M., & Nyer, P. U. (1999). The role of emotions in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(2), 184-206. Baker, R. W., & Siryk, B. (1989). Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services. Barlow, D. H. (1988). Anxiety and its disorders. New York: Guilford Press. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173. Barrett, L. F., & Swim, J. K. (1998). Appraisals of prejudice and discrimination. In J. K. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp. 11-36). New York: Academic Press. 117 Beeghly, M., & Tronick, E. Z. (1994). Effects of prenatal exposure to cocaine in early infancy: Toxic effects on the process of mutual regulation. Infant Mental Health Journal, 15(2), 158-175. Bloom B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc. Bowman, N. A., & Denson, N. (2011). The integral role of emotion in interracial interactions and college student outcomes. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 4(4), 223-235. Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Harvey, R. D. (1999). Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(1), 135. Branscombe, N. R., & Wann, D. L. (1994). Collective self‐esteem consequences of outgroup derogation when a valued social identity is on trial. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24(6), 641-657. Brondolo, E., ver Halen, N. B., Pencille, M., Beatty, D., & Contrada, R. J. (2009). Coping with racism: A selective review of the literature and a theoretical and methodological critique. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 32(1), 64-88. Brosschot, J. F., Gerin, W., & Thayer, J. F. (2006). The perseverative cognition hypothesis: A review of worry, prolonged stress-related physiological activation, and health. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 60(2), 113-124. Bryant, A. N., Choi, J. Y., & Yasuno, M. (2003). Understanding the religious and spiritual dimensions of students' lives in the first year of college. Journal of College Student Development, 44(6), 723-745. Cabrera, A., Nora, A., Pascarella, E. T., Terenzini, P. T., & Hagedorn, L. (1999). Campus racial climate and the adjustment of students to college: A comparison between White students and African American students. Journal of Higher Education, 70, 134-160. Carroll, G. (1998). Mundane extreme environmental stress and African American families: A case for recognizing different realities. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 271-284. Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: a theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(2), 267. Castillo, L. G., Conoley, C. W., Choi-Pearson, et. al. (2006). University environment as a mediator of Latino identity and persistence attitudes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(2), 267-271. 118 Clark, R., Anderson, N. B., Clark, V. R., & Williams, D. R. (1999). Racism as a stressor for African Americans: A biopsychosocial model. American Psychologist, 54(10), 805. Clark, V. R., & Harrell, J. P. (1982). The relationship among Type A behavior, styles used in coping with racism, and blood pressure. Journal of Black Psychology, 8(2), 89-99. Cole, P. M., Bruschi, C. J., & Tamang, B. L. (2002). Cultural differences in children's emotional reactions to difficult situations. Child Development, 73(3), 983-996. Cross, W. (1991). Shades of Black: Diversity in African American Identity. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Cross, W. (1978). The Thomas and Cross models of psychological nigrecence: A literature review. Journal of Black Psychology, 4, 13-31. Cunningham, J. N., Kliewer, W., & Garner, P. W. (2009). Emotion socialization, child emotion understanding and regulation, and adjustment in urban African American families: Differential associations across child gender. Development and Psychopathology, 21(1), 261. Damasio, A. (2010). Self comes to mind: Constructing the conscious brain. New York, NY: Vintage Books. Davis, M., Dias-Bowie, Y., Greenberg, K., Klukken, G., Pollio, H. R., Thomas, S. P., & Thompson, C. L. (2004). “A fly in the buttermilk”: Descriptions of university life by successful Black undergraduate students at a predominantly White southeastern university. Journal of Higher Education, 75(4), 420-445. De Ayala, R. J. (2009). Theory and practice of item response theory. Guilford Publications. Denzin, N. (1984). On understanding emotion. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Dirkx, J. M. (2001). The power of feelings: Emotion, imagination, and the construction of meaning in adult learning. New Directions For Adult and Continuing Education, 89, 63-72. Dorr, N., Brosschot, J. F., Sollers III, J. J., & Thayer, J. F. (2007). Damned if you do, damned if you don't: The differential effect of expression and inhibition of anger on cardiovascular recovery in Black and White males. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 66(2), 125-134. 119 Dowd, A. C., Sawatzky, M., & Korn, R. (2011). Theoretical foundations and a research agenda to validate measures of intercultural effort. The Review of Higher Education, 53(1) 17-44. Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Guthrie, I. K., & Reiser, M. (2000). Dispositional emotionality and regulation: their role in predicting quality of social functioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(1), 136. Ekman, P. (1994). Strong evidence for universals in facial expressions: A reply to Russell's mistaken critique. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 268-287. Ekman, P., Levenson, R. W., & Friesen, W. V. (1983). Autonomic nervous system activity distinguishes among emotions. Science, 221 (4616), 1208-1210. Fabrigar, L. R., & Estrada, M. J. (2007). Multitrait multimethod matrix and construct validity. Encyclopedia of Measurement and Statistics, 2, 666. Frijda, N. H. (1987). Emotion, cognitive structure, and action tendency. Cognition and Emotion, 1(2), 115-143. Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1988). Coping as a mediator of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(3), 466. Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. J. (1986). Dynamics of a stressful encounter: cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(5), 992. Fries-Britt, S., & Turner, B. (2002). Uneven stories: Successful Black collegians at a Black and a White campus. Review of Higher Education, 25(3), 315-330. Garner, P. W., Landry, S. H., & Richardson, M. A. (1991). The development of joint attention skills in very-low-birth-weight infants across the first 2 years. Infant Behavior and Development, 14(4), 489-495. Geen, R. G. (1991). Social motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 42(1), 377-399. Gloria, A. M. (1997). Chicana academic persistence: Creating a university-based community. Education and Urban Society, 30(1), 107-121. Gloria, A. M., Castellanos, J., & Orozco, V. (2005). Perceived educational barriers, cultural fit, coping responses, and psychological well-being of Latina undergraduates. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 27(2), 161-183. 120 Gloria, A. M., Robinson Kurpius, S. E., Hamilton, K. D., & Wilson, M. S. (1999). African American students’ persistence at a predominately white university: Influences of social support, university comfort, and self-beliefs. Journal of College Student Development, 40(3), 257-268. Grandey, A. A. (2000). Emotion regulation in the workplace: A new way to conceptualize emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), 95-110. Gross, J. (1998). The emerging field of emotional regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2 (3), 271-299. Gross, J. (2013). Emotion regulation: Taking stock and moving forward. Emotion, 13(3), 359-365. Harding, J., & Pribram, E. D. (2013). Losing our cool? Cultural Studies, 18(6), 863-883. Harper, S. (2006). Peer support for African American male college achievement: Beyond internalized racism and the burden of “acting White.” The Journal of Men’s Studies, 14(3), 337-358. Harper, S. R., & Hurtado, S. (2007). Nine themes in campus racial climates and implications for institutional transformation. New Directions for Student Services, 120, 7-24. Harrell, S. P. (2000). A multidimensional conceptualization of racism‐related stress: Implications for the well‐being of people of color. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 70(1), 42-57. Hatfield, E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1994). Emotional contagion: Studies in emotion and social interaction. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Helms, J.E. (1995). An update of Helms’s White and People of Color racial identity models. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp. 181-198). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Higgins, E. T., Roney, C. J., Crowe, E., & Hymes, C. (1994). Ideal versus ought predilections for approach and avoidance distinct self-regulatory systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(2), 276. Higher Education Research Institute (HERI). (2012). Diverse learning environments: Assessing and creating conditions for student success. Retrieved from www.heri.ucla.edu/dle Hochschild, A. R. (1979). Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. American Journal of Sociology, 551-575. 121 Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press. Holland, S. P. (2005). The last word on racism: New directions for a critical race theory. The South Atlantic Quarterly, 104(3), 403-423. Hurtado, S. (1992). The campus racial climate: Contexts and conflict. Journal of Higher Education, 63(5), 539-567. Hurtado, S., & Carter, D. F. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus racial climate on Latino students’ sense of belonging. Sociology of Education, 70, 324-325. Hurtado, S., Carter, D. F., & Spuler, A. (1996). Latina/o student transition to college: Assessing difficulties and factors in successful college adjustment. Research in Higher Education, 37, 135- 157. Hurtado, S., Griffin, K. A., Arellano, L., & Cuellar, M. (2008). Assessing the value of climate assessments: Progress and future directions. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1(4), 204-221. Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pedersen, A., & Allen, W. (1999). Enacting diverse learning environments: Improving the climate for racial/ethnic diversity in higher education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Vol. 26, No. 8. ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, One Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 630, Washington, DC 20036-1181. Hyers, L. L. (2007). Resisting prejudice every day: Exploring women’s assertive responses to anti-Black racism, anti-Semitism, heterosexism, and sexism. Sex Roles, 56(1-2), 1-12. Immordino-Yang, M. H., & Damasio, A. (2007). We feel therefore we learn: The relevance of affective and social neuroscience in education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 1(1), 3-10. Ingoldsby, E. M., Shaw, D. S., Owens, E. B., & Winslow, E. B. (1999). A longitudinal study of interparental conflict, emotional and behavioral reactivity, and preschoolers' adjustment problems among low-income families. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 27(5), 343-356. Izard, C. E., Fine, S., Mostow, A., Trentacosta, C., & Campbell, J. (2002). Emotion processes in normal and abnormal development and preventive intervention. Development and Psychopathology, 14(04), 761-787. James, S. A. (1994). John Henryism and the health of African-Americans. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 18(2), 163-182. 122 James, S. A., Hartnett, S. A., & Kalsbeek, W. D. (1983). John Henryism and blood pressure differences among black men. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 6(3), 259-278. Jarvenolja, H. & Jarvela, S. (2009). Emotion control in collaborative learning situations: Do students regulate emotions evoked by social challenges. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 463-481. Kagan, J. (2007). What is emotion: History, measures, and meanings. New Haven: Yale University Press. Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 311. Krieger, N. (1990). Racial and gender discrimination: risk factors for high blood pressure? Social Science & Medicine, 30(12), 1273-1281. Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we're learning about student engagement from NSSE: Benchmarks for effective educational practices. Change:The Magazine of Higher Learning, 35(2), 24-32. LaBar, K. S., & Cabeza, R. (2006). Cognitive neuroscience of emotional memory. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7(1), 54-64. Landry, S. H., Smith, K. E., Miller-Loncar, C. L., & Swank, P. R. (1997). Predicting cognitive-language and social growth curves from early maternal behaviors in children at varying degrees of biological risk. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 1040. Lazarus, R. S. (1984). On the primacy of cognition. American Psychologist, 39, 124-129. LeDoux, J. E. (2000). Emotion circuits in the brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 23,155–184. Lee, R. M. (2003). Do ethnic identity and other-group orientation protect against discrimination for Asian Americans? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50(2), 133. Lee, D. H., Mirza, R., Flanagan, J. G., & Anderson, A. K. (2014). Optical origins of opposing facial expression actions. Psychological Science, 23(3), 745. Lengua, L. J. (2002). The contribution of emotionality and self‐regulation to the understanding of children’s response to multiple risk. Child development, 73(1), 144-161. 123 Levenson, R. W. (1994). Human emotion: A functional view. In P. Ekman & R. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions (pp. 123-126). New York: Oxford University Press. Levenson, R. W., Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1990). Voluntary facial action generates emotion‐specific autonomic nervous system activity. Psychophysiology, 27(4), 363-384. Lewis-Coles, M. A. E. L., & Constantine, M. G. (2006). Racism-related stress, Africultural coping, and religious problem-solving among African Americans. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12(3), 433. Liljander, V., & Strandvik, T. (1997). Emotions in service satisfaction. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 8(2), 148-169. Locks, A. M., Hurtado, S., Bowman, N. A., & Oseguera, L. (2008). Extending notions of campus climate and diversity to students’ transition to college. The Review of Higher Education, 31(3), 257- 285. Lupton, D. (1998). The emotional self: A sociocultural exploration. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Mabry, J. B., & Kiecolt, K. J. (2005). Anger in black and white: Race, alienation, and anger. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 46(1), 85-101. MacLean, P. D. (1952). Some psychiatric implications of physiological studies on frontotemporal portion of limbic system (visceral brain). Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 4(4), 407-418. MacLean, P. D. (1949). Psychosomatic disease and the" visceral brain" recent developments bearing on the papez theory of emotion. Psychosomatic Medicine, 11(6), 338-353. Major, B., Gramzow, R. H., McCoy, S. K., Levin, S., Schmader, T., & Sidanius, J. (2002). Perceiving personal discrimination: the role of group status and legitimizing ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3), 269. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224- 253. Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch Model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149- 174. Matheson, K., & Cole, B. M. (2004). Coping with a threatened group identity: Psychosocial and neuroendocrine responses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(6), 777-786. 124 Matsumoto, D. (1993). Ethnic differences in affect intensity, emotion judgments, display rule attitudes, and self-reported emotional expression in an American sample. Motivation and Emotion, 17(2), 107-123. Mayne, T. J., & Ramsey, J. (2001). The structure of emotion: A nonlinear dynamic systems approach. In T. J. Mayne, & G. Bonanno (Eds.); Emotions: Current issues and future directions (pp. 1-37). New York: Guilford Press. McNeilly, M. D., Anderson, N. B., Robinson, E. L., McManus, C.F., Armstead, C. A., Clark, R., et al. (1996). The convergent, discriminant validity of the perceived racism scale: A multidimensional assessment of White racism among African Americans. In R. Jones (Ed.), Handbook on tests and measurements for Black populations (pp. 359-374). Richmond, CA: Cobb and Henry. Mellor, D. (2004). Responses to racism: A taxonomy of coping styles used by Aboriginal Australians. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 74(1), 56-71. Mendoza-Denton, R., Downey, G., Purdie, V. J., Davis, A., & Pietrzak, J. (2002). Sensitivity to status-based rejection: Implications for African American students’ college experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 896- 918. Miller, C. T., & Kaiser, C. R. (2001). A theoretical perspective on coping with stigma. Journal of Social Issues, 57(1), 73-92. Miller, C. T., & Major, B. (2000). Coping with stigma and prejudice. In T.F. Heatherton, R. E. Kleck, M. R. Hebl, & J. G. Hull (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma (pp. 243-272). New York: Guilford. Mossakowski, K. N. (2003). Coping with perceived discrimination: does ethnic identity protect mental health? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44(3), 318-331. Museus, S. D., Nichols, A., H., Lambert, A. D. (2008). Racial differences in the effects of campus racial climate on degree completion: A structural equation model. The Review of Higher Education, 32(1), 107-134. National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic groups (NCES 2010-015). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010015.pdf Neighbors, H. W., Njai, R., & Jackson, J. S. (2007). Race, ethnicity, John Henryism, and depressive symptoms: The national survey of American life adult reinterview. Research in Human Development, 4(1-2), 71-87. NSSE. (2014). About NSSE. Retrieved from http://nsse.iub.edu/html/about.cfm 125 Nora, A. & Cabrera, A. (1996). The role of perceptions of prejudice and discrimination on the adjustment of minority students to college. Journal of Higher Education, 67, 119-148. Oyserman, D., Harrison, K., & Bybee, D. (2001). Can racial identity be promotive of academic efficacy? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25(4), 379– 385. Oyserman, D., Kemmelmeier, M., Fryberg, S., Brosh, H., & Hart-Johnson, T. (2003). Racial-ethnic self-schemas. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66(4), 333-347. Oyserman, D., Sorensen, N., Reber, R., Chen, S. X. (2009). Connecting and separating mindsets: Culture as situated cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(2), 217-235. Oyserman, D., & Swim, J. K. (2001). Stigma: An insider's view. Journal of Social Issues, 57(1), 1-14. Pace, C. R. (1999). The development and framework of the CCSEQ. In C. A. Ethington, A. M. Guthrie & P. W. Lehman (Eds.), CCSEQ: Test manual and comparative data (3rd ed.). Memphis, TN: University of Memphis. Pace, C. R. (1969). Measuring the quality of college student experiences. Los Angeles: University of California, Higher Education Research Institute. Panksepp, J. (1994). The basics of basic emotion. In P. Ekman and R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions (pp. 237-242). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pascarella, E. T. (2006). How college affects students: Ten directions for future research. Journal of College Student Development, 47(5), 508-520. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research (Vol. 2). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Phelps, R. E., Taylor, J. D., & Gerard, P. A. (2001). Cultural mistrust, ethnic identity, racial identity, and self‐esteem among ethnically diverse black university students. Journal of Counseling & Development, 79(2), 209-216. Phinney, J. S. (1993). A three-stage model of ethnic identity development in adolescence. In M. E. Bernal & G.P. Knight (Eds.), Ethnic identity formation and transmission among Hispanics and other minorities (pp. 61-79). Albany: State University of New York Press. Plummer, D. L., & Slane, S. (1996). Patterns of coping in racially stressful situations. Journal of Black Psychology, 22(3), 302-315. 126 Quintana, S. M. (2007). Racial and ethnic identity: Developmental perspectives and research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(3), 259. Rankin, S. R., & Reason, R. D. (2005). Differing perceptions: How students of color and White students perceive campus climate for underrepresented groups. Journal of College Student Development, 46(1), 43- 61. Raver, C. C. (2004). Placing emotional self‐regulation in sociocultural and socioeconomic contexts. Child Development, 75(2), 346-353. Raver, C. C., & Leadbeater, B. J. (1995). Factors influencing joint attention between socioeconomically disadvantaged adolescent mothers and their infants. In C. Moore & P. Dunham (Eds.). Joint attention: Its origins and role in development (pp. 251-271). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Reid, L. D., & Radhakrishnan, P. (2003). Race matters: The relation between race and general campus climate. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 9(3), 263-275. Reio Jr, T. G., & Callahan, J. L. (2004). Affect, curiosity, and socialization-related learning: A path analysis of antecedents to job performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19(1), 3-22. Rendón, L. I., Jalomo, R. E., & Nora, A. (2000). Theoretical considerations in the study of minority student retention in higher education. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 127-156). Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press. Rosenberg, E. L. (1998). Levels of analysis and the organization of affect. Review of General Psychology, 2, 247- 270. Rose, D. H. & Strangeman, N. (2007) Universal design for learning: meeting the challenge of individual learning differences through a neurocognitive perspective, Universal Access in the Information Society, vol. 5. Rydell, A. M., Berlin, L., & Bohlin, G. (2003). Emotionality, emotion regulation, and adaptation among 5-to 8-year-old children. Emotion, 3(1), 30. Saarni, C., Campos, J. J., Camras, L. A., & Witherington, D. (2006). Emotional development: Action, communication, and understanding. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (series eds.) and N. Eisenberg (vol. ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol.3. Social, emotional, and personality development (6 th ed., pp. 226-299). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 127 Sapolsky, R. M., Romero, L. M., & Munck, A. U. (2000). How do glucocorticoids influence stress responses? Integrating permissive, suppressive, stimulatory, and preparative actions 1. Endocrine Reviews, 21(1), 55-89. Sawatzky, M. (2012). Students’ emotional response to racism discourse in the postsecondary setting: A critical phenomenological investigation. Paper presented at the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Las Vegas, NV. Sawatzky, M. (2010). Confronting racism in the classroom: Emotions and their impact on positive educational outcomes. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Study of Higher Education, Indianapolis, IA. Sellers, R. M., & Shelton, J. N. (2003). The role of racial identity in perceived racial discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(5), 1079. Segal, L. B., Oster, H., Cohen, M., Caspi, B., Myers, M., & Brown, D. (1995). Smiling and fussing in seven‐month‐old preterm and full‐term black infants in the still‐ face situation. Child Development, 66(6), 1829-1843. Smedely, B. D. , Myers, H. F., & Harrell, S. P. (1993). Minority-status stresses and the college adjustment of ethnic minority freshman. Journal of Higher Education, 64(4), 434-452. Smith, W. A., Allen, W. R., & Danley, L. L. (2007). “Assume the position...you fit the description” psychosocial experiences and racial battle fatigue among African American male college students. American Behavioral Scientist, 51(4), 551-578. Smith-Lovin, L. (1995). The sociology of affect and emotion. Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology, 118-148. Solorzano, D. (1998). Critical race theory, race and gender microaggressions, and the experience of Chicana and Chicano scholars. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(1), 121-136. Solorzano, D., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. (2000). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college students. Journal of Negro Education, 60-73. Solorzano, D., Allen, W. R., & Carroll, G. (2002). Keeping race in place: Racial microaggressions and campus racial climate at the University of California, Berkeley. UCLA Chicano/Latino Law Review, 23, 15-111. Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2010). A social capital framework for the study of institutional agents and their role in the empowerment of low-status youth. Youth and Society, 42(2), 1-44. 128 Steffen, P. R., McNeilly, M., Anderson, N., & Sherwood, A. (2003). Effects of perceived racism and anger inhibition on ambulatory blood pressure in African Americans. Psychosomatic Medicine, 65(5), 746-750. Struthers, C. W., Perry, R. P., & Menec, V. H. (2000). An examination of the relationship among academic stress, coping, motivation, and performance in college. Research in Higher Education, 41(5), 581-592. Swim, J. K., Hyers, L. L., Cohen, L. L., Fitzgerald, D. C., & Bylsma, W. H. (2003). African American college students’ experiences with everyday racism: Characteristics of and responses to these incidents. Journal of Black Psychology, 29(1), 38-67. Takane, Y., & de Leeuw, J. (1987). On the relationship between item response theory and factor analysis of discretized variables . Psychometrika, 52, 393-408. Tanaka, G. (2002). Higher education's self-reflexive turn: Toward an intercultural theory of student development. Journal of Higher Education, 73(2), 263-296. Tatum, B. D. (1992). Talking about race, learning, about racism: The application of racial identity development theory in the classroom. Harvard Educational Review, 62(1), 1-24. Thompson, L., & Fine, G. A. (1999). Socially shared cognition, affect, and behavior: A review and integration. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(4), 278-302. Thompson, R. A. (1994). Emotion regulation: A theme in search of definition. Monographs of the society for research in child development, 59(2‐3), 25-52. Thompson, R. A. (1991). Emotional regulation and emotional development. Educational Psychology Review, 3(4), 269-307. Tierney, W. G. (1992). An anthropological analysis of student participation in college. Journal of Higher Education, 63(6), 603-618. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89-125. Torres, A., & Bowens, L. (1999). Correlation between the internalization theme of racial identity attitude survey-B and systolic blood pressure. Ethnicity & Disease, 10(3), 375-383. 129 Tsutakawa, R. K., & Johnson, J. C. (1990). The effect of uncertainty of item parameter estimation on ability estimates. Psychometrika, 55(2), 371-390. Walker, R. L., Wingate, L. R., Obasi, E. M., & Joiner Jr, T. E. (2008). An empirical investigation of acculturative stress and ethnic identity as moderators for depression and suicidal ideation in college students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14(1), 75. Watson, J. B., & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3(1), 1. Williams, D. R., Yu, Y., Jackson, J. S., & Anderson, N. B. (1997). Racial differences in physical and mental health socio-economic status, stress and discrimination. Journal of Health Psychology, 2(3), 335-351. Wong, C. A., Eccles, J. S., & Sameroff, A. (2003). The influence of ethnic discrimination and ethnic identification on African American adolescents’ school and socioemotional adjustment. Journal of Personality, 71(6), 1197–1232. Yosso, T. J., Smith, W. A., Ceja, M., & Solórzano, D. G. (2009). Critical race theory, racial microagressions, and campus racial climate for Latina/o undergraduates. Harvard Educational Review, 79(4), 659-691. Yu, Y., & Dean, A. (2001). The contribution of emotional satisfaction to consumer loyalty. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 12(3), 234-250. 130 Appendix A Survey Questionnaire for the Latino Emotionality Index (LEI) and the Intercultural Effort Scale-LS (IES-LS) Student Demographics: 1. Gender: • Female • Male • Other 2. Is this your first semester of quarter? • Yes • No 3. Please indicate your current or prospective major: (open-ended) Latino Racial Identity Items 4. I identify with my Hispanic/Latino background. • Strongly Disagree • Disagree • Neither Agree Nor Disagree • Agree • Strongly Agree 5. In general, being Hispanic/Latino is an important part of my self-image. • Strongly Disagree • Disagree • Neither Agree Nor Disagree • Agree • Strongly Agree 131 Racial Campus Climate Items 1. “As a Latino/a, I feel like I am treated differently by other students on campus.” • Strongly Disagree • Disagree • Neither Agree Nor Disagree • Agree • Strongly Agree 2.“As a Latino/a, I am treated differently by my professors in class.” • Strongly Disagree • Disagree • Neither Agree Nor Disagree • Agree • Strongly Agree 3. “There is a lot of racial tension on my campus” • Strongly Disagree • Disagree • Neither Agree Nor Disagree • Agree • Strongly Agree 4. “I feel like my campus values diversity” • Strongly Disagree • Disagree • Neither Agree Nor Disagree • Agree • Strongly Agree Latino Emotionality Index 1. Please take a moment to think back to any experiences of racial discrimination or racial tension at this college. These experiences may have ranged from subtle to obvious and may have been nothing more than a vague feeling that something was not right. They may have also been incidences experienced by others on your campus that you saw, read, or heard about. After thinking back: (indicate all that apply) 132 • I may have personally experienced racial discrimination or racial tension at this campus. • I may have seen, read, or heard about others experiencing racial discrimination or racial tension at this campus. • I have personally experienced racial discrimination or racial tension at this campus. • I have seen, read, or heard about others experiencing racial discrimination or racial tension at this campus. • I have never personally experienced nor seen, read, or heard about others experiencing racial discrimination or racial tension at this campus. 2. How often have these experiences occurred on your campus? (indicate all that apply) • Rarely • Regularly • Often When you think back to this/these experience(s) of racial discrimination or racial tension at this college, or your experience(s) of seeing, hearing, or reading about others, please indicate the intensity of the following emotions you felt at those times. LEI-Emotions and Emotional Processes Items Emotional Reaction: Emotions Inventory Please indicate how often at this college you have: (Never, Sometimes, Often) 1a. Experienced personal racial discrimination 1b. Experienced the racial discrimination of others 1c. Felt racial tension on your campus 2. Take a moment to think back to those experiences of racial discrimination or feelings of racial tension. Please indicate the degree you felt the following emotions at that time: (Not At All, Somewhat, A Lot) 2a. Fear 2b. Hurt 2c. Anger 2d. Shame 2e. Disgust 2f. Anxiousness 2g. Shock 2h. Sadness 2i. Frustration 2j. Irritation 133 2k. Disappointment 2l. Surprise 2m. Pride 2n. Annoyance 2o. Embarrassment 3. Overall, these emotions… (Not at all, Somewhat, Definitely) Global: 3a. Upset me 3b. Made me feel stressed 3c. Made me feel depressed 3d. Made me feel alone 3e. Mae me feel alienated 3f. Made me nervous 3g. Made me tense 3h. Made me stronger 3i. Motivated me Emotional Regulation: Selection of the Situation 3j. Made me not want to go to class 3k. Made me not want to go to campus 3l. Drove me not to want to interact with White students on campus 3m. Made me not want to interact with my professors or staff from school Modification of the Situation: 3n. Motivated me to find other Latino students on campus to talk to 3o. Drove me to find faculty or staff who can help 3p. Motivated me to get more involved with Latino clubs or sororities/fraternities at school 3q. Drove me to become more involved with Latino-focused political activities on campus Deployment of Attention: 3r. Drove me to focus more on my coursework and ignore everything else at school 3s. Made me focus on just getting my degree and getting out Cognitive Change: 3t. Motivated me to do well in school 3u. Drove me want to work harder 3v. Made me stronger Response Modulation: 3w. Motivated me to work on coursework with other Latino students 134 3x. Drove me to seek academic support from other Latino students 3y. Drove me to seek emotional support from other Latino students 3z. Motivated me to support other Latinos on campus 3aa. Made me consider counseling Valuation: 3bb. Made me question whether it is worth it to stay in school 3cc. Made me ask myself how much I want to finish my degree Goal Commitment: 3dd. Drove me even more to finish college 3ee. Made me consider dropping-out Institutional Commitment: 3ff. Made me consider transferring to a different college 3gg. Made me wish I went a different school Intercultural Effort Scale-Latino Students (IES-LS) Campus Congruency Items (Not scaled) 1.Please indicate how often on your campus you have experienced: (Never, Sometimes, Often) 1a. Not fitting-in socially with other students as a Latina or Latino 1b. Not connecting with faculty or staff because you are Latina or Latino 1c. Standing out as a Latina or Latino during a classroom discussion 1d. Feeling the need to work harder than White students in order to be academically accepted. IES-LS Scale items & Subconstruct Groupings We engage in activities on campus for a variety of reasons. For example, we may go to a campus event because we like who is performing or speaking, our friends are going, and we hope to meet new friends with similar interests. Another reason for engaging in campus-related activities may be to feel more connected to your campus as a Latina or Latino because you feel a bit disconnected. This may include wanting to connect more with your faculty, staff, or other students at your college. The following lists a number of campus activities that you may have engaged in since enrolling at your school. Take a moment to think back to some of the reasons you had for engaging in these activities and then indicate how often you have engaged in the following activities in order to feel more connected to your campus as a Latina or Latino. 135 Your response options include: 1) "never," 2) "sometimes," or 3) "often." If trying to feel more connected to your campus as a Latina or Latino is likely not one of the reasons for engaging in these activities please indicate "never." (Never, Sometimes, Often) Social Effort: Same-Race 1a. Attended campus debates or panels about Latino issues 1b. Talked about racial or cultural campus experiences with other Latino students 1c. Talked about racial or cultural campus experiences with other students of color 1d. Looked for places on campus where you feel like you can be culturally yourself 1e. Looked for other Latino students on campus to hang out with 1f. Hung out with other Latino students for fun 1g. Spent time at your Latino or diversity center on campus 1h. Participated in Latino sorority or fraternity events 1i. Participated in campus-organized Latino cultural events 1j. Discussed your personal feelings with other Latino students 1k. Made an effort to chat with other Latino students in your classes Social Effort: Majority 2a. Dressed more “White” than you do off-campus 2b. Acted differently than you do off-campus 2c. Changed the way you talk to sound more “White” 2d. Acted less “Latino/a” when socializing with White students 2e. Acted “White” when speaking with faculty or staff 2f. Acted more “White” on campus than you do with friends from outside of school 2g. Used different words than usual in order to sound more “White” 2h. Changed the way you talk to sound less “Latino” 2i. Held back during classroom discussions about race 2j. Tried not to look aggressive 2k. Tried not to stand out amongst White students on campus 2l. Held your tongue during classroom discussions because you might come off as too “Latino” 2m. Hid negative feelings experienced in class 2n. Tried to mask your real feelings around your White classmates 2o. Pushed yourself to interact with White students on campus Academic Effort: Same-Race 3a. Made an effort to discuss course work with other Latino students outside of class 3b. Looked for other Latino students on campus to study with 3c. Studied with other Latino students 3d. Studied with other non-White students 3e. Tried to find a professor or staff member on campus that will support you 3f. Helped other Latino students with classwork 3g. Enrolled in a Latino studies course 136 3sh Made an effort to chat with other Latino students in your classes Academic Effort: Majority 4a. Tried to find a professor or staff member on campus that will support you 4b. Tried to show your faculty that Latino/a students can do well in school 4c. Tried to show other students in class that Latinos can do well in school 4d. Attended professor’s office hours 4e. Pushed yourself better to do better in school 4f. Visited the academic advising or tutoring center 4g. Made an effort to discuss course work with White students outside of class 4h. Studied with White students 137 Appendix B Item Descriptives for the Latino Emotionality Index (LEI) Item Mean SD r Annoyance 3.14 1.34 0.68 Disappointment 3.09 1.49 0.68 Irritation 3.05 1.31 0.66 Frustration 3.02 1.42 0.72 Disgust 2.93 1.47 0.63 Anger 2.86 1.39 0.70 Shock 2.54 1.35 0.61 Surprise 2.51 1.37 0.47 Sadness 2.49 1.37 0.74 Hurt 2.36 1.21 0.70 Motivated Me 2.24 0.83 0.69 Pride 2.16 1.32 0.55 Want to Work Harder 2.14 0.84 0.69 Do Well in School 2.10 0.83 0.63 Made Me Stronger 2.08 0.87 0.66 Drove Me More to Finish 2.03 0.87 0.66 Stronger 2.01 0.82 0.68 Shame 1.98 1.39 0.42 Upset Me 1.97 0.74 0.69 138 Anxiousness 1.90 1.10 0.60 Item Mean SD r Embarrassment 1.88 1.08 0.45 Talk it Out- Friends/Family 1.72 0.78 0.62 Support Other Latino Students 1.68 0.74 0.57 Fear 1.66 0.88 0.56 Find Other Latino Students 1.64 0.74 0.61 Focus on Just Getting Degree 1.61 0.81 0.49 Tense 1.59 0.73 0.57 Question Goal to Finish 1.58 0.80 0.59 Involved with Latino Clubs 1.55 0.72 0.50 Stressed 1.53 0.68 0.63 Talk it Out- Latino Students 1.49 0.69 0.50 Work on Coursework- Latinos 1.47 0.69 0.56 Involved with Latino Politics 1.47 0.69 0.53 Alienated 1.38 0.66 0.53 Depressed 1.37 0.59 0.52 Nervous 1.34 0.60 0.52 Seek Acad. Support - Latinos 1.34 0.62 0.49 Seek Emot. Support- Latinos 1.32 0.58 0.52 Find Helpful Faculty/Staff 1.31 0.55 0.50 Alone 1.31 0.61 0.47 Question Staying in School 1.25 0.57 0.46 139 Consider Counseling 1.23 0.50 0.42 Item Mean SD r Talk to Faculty/Staff 1.23 0.51 0.40 Not Interact w/ White Students 1.21 0.49 0.35 Wish Went to Different School 1.21 0.50 0.39 Consider Transferring 1.20 0.50 0.41 Not Interact with Faculty/Staff 1.18 0.44 0.38 Not Want to Go to Class 1.17 0.45 0.29 Not Want to Go to Campus 1.14 0.40 0.33 Consider Dropping Out 1.08 0.32 0.24 140 Appendix C Latino Emotionality Index (LEI) Scree Plot 141 Appendix D Latino Emotionality Index (LEI) Principal Component Analysis Item Loading Component (1): Irritation, Anger, & Disappointment Hurt 0.57 Anger 0.79 Disgust 0.83 Shock 0.57 Sadness 0.63 Irritation 0.89 Frustration 0.84 Disappointment 0.77 Surprise 0.56 Annoyance 0.74 Upset Me 0.64 Component (2): Pride & Motivation Regulation Pride 0.51 Stronger 0.72 Motivated Me 0.72 Talk it Out- Outside Friends/Family 0.57 Focus More on Coursework 0.63 Focus on Just Getting Degree 0.42 Do Well in School 0.80 Want to Work Harder 0.79 Made Me Stronger 0.77 Drove Me More To Finish 0.82 Component (4): Latino Campus Focused Regulation Find Other Latino Students 0.66 Find Helpful Faculty/Staff 0.57 Involved with Latino Clubs 0.81 Involved with Latino Politics 0.73 Talk It Out-Latino Students 0.77 Talk to Faculty or Staff 0.66 Work on Coursework-Latinos 0.61 Seek Academic Support-Latinos 0.78 Seek Emotional Support-Latinos 0.76 Support Other Latino Students 0.62 142 Appendix D LEI Principal Component Analysis (continued) Item Loading Component (4): Avoidance & Disconnect Regulation Not Want to Go to Class 0.60 Not Want to Go to Campus 0.71 Question Staying in School 0.63 Consider Dropping Out 0.72 Consider Transferring 0.80 Wish Went to Different School 0.77 Consider Dropping Out 0.72 Consider Transferring 0.80 Wish Went to a Different School 0.77 Consider Counseling 0.70 Component (5): Alienation & Anxiety Emotions Fear 0.53 Anxiousness 0.63 Stressed 0.68 Depressed 0.68 Alone 0.61 Alienated 0.61 Nervous 0.75 Tense 0.56 Not Interact with White Students 0.58 Not Interact with Faculty/staff Component (6): Shame and Embarrassment Emotions Shame 0.56 Embarrassment 0.68 Question Goal to Finish 0.46 143 Appendix E Component Descriptives for the Latino Emotionality Index (LEI) N Mean SD Component 1 200 2.7173 1.00841 Component 2 200 2.0040 .67992 Component 3 207 1.5203 .53542 Component 4 201 1.1846 0.36140 Component 5 202 1.4559 0.50843 Component 6 205 1.8163 0.79511 144 Appendix F Intercultural Effort Scale (IES-LS) Basic Item Statistics N Mean SD Pushed To Do Better In School 568 2.26 0.85 Studied with Other SOC 565 2.00 0.72 Hungout With Latinos For Fun 568 1.92 0.72 Visited Advising Or Tutoring Center 566 1.92 0.82 Studied with White Students 568 1.89 0.73 Helped Other Latinos With Classwork 564 1.87 0.71 Chat With Other Latinos In Class 567 1.86 0.74 Show Students Latinos Do Well 568 1.84 0.84 Faculty Office Hours 567 1.84 0.77 Studied with Other Latinos 566 1.84 0.69 Show Faculty Latinos Do Well 568 1.82 0.84 Discuss Coursework Other Latinos 568 1.70 0.72 Discuss Coursework with Whites 569 1.66 0.74 Other Latinos Study 564 1.59 0.70 Find Professor/Staff For Support 567 1.56 0.72 Looked for Latinos to Hang 570 1.55 0.67 Discussed Personal Feelings Latinos 566 1.53 0.71 Talk Racial Issues SOC 568 1.49 0.63 Talk Racial Issues With Latinos 569 1.45 0.59 Tried Not To Look Aggressive 567 1.44 0.69 Pushed To Interact With Whites 569 1.43 0.64 145 Hid Negative Feelings 569 1.41 0.62 Looked for Places to Be Yourself 569 1.38 0.63 Held Back During Racial Discussion 568 1.35 0.59 Tried Not to Stand Out 566 1.30 0.60 Used Different Words To Sound White 568 1.30 0.58 Acted Less Latino 569 1.29 0.56 Acted White With Faculty/Staff 568 1.29 0.59 Campus Organized Latino Events 568 1.29 0.54 Held Tongue Classroom Discussion 563 1.28 0.57 Mask Feelings Around Whites 569 1.26 0.55 Changed Talk To Sound Less Latino 569 1.26 0.54 Talk More White 568 1.25 0.56 Acted Differently Than Off-Campus 569 1.25 0.53 Time Spent At Diversity Center 568 1.24 0.54 Enrolled In Latino Studies Course 565 1.24 0.53 Campus Debates Latino Issues 569 1.22 0.48 Dressed More White 570 1.22 0.52 Acted More White 568 1.21 0.52 Latino Sorority/Fraternity Events 569 1.18 0.49 146 Appendix G Intercultural Effort Scale-Latino Students Principle Component Analysis IES-CS Principal Component of Standardized Residual Emperical Modeled Total raw variance in observations 70.1 100% 100% Raw variance explained in measures 26.1 37.20% 37.50% Raw variance explained in persons 14.7 20.90% 21% Raw variance explained in items 11.5 16.30% 16.40% Raw unexplained variance (total) 44 62.80% 100% 62.50% Unexplained variance in 1st contast 6.6 9.40% 14.90% Standardized Residual Loading for Items Item Loading Studied with White Students -0.62 Hung Out with Latinos for Fun -0.55 Helped Other Latinos w Coursework -0.54 Chat with Other Latinos in Class -0.52 Discuss Coursework w Other Latinos -0.52 Other Latinos Study -0.49 147 Appendix H IES-LS Item Map Figure X. IES-LS Item Map 3 PERSONS ITEMS | | | | | | CAMPUSDE.3 2 + . | . | ACTEDDIF.3 CAMPUSOR TALKRACI | ACTEDLES.3 CHANGEDT DIVERSIT DRESSEDM ENROLLED HELDBACK LATINOSO MASKFEEL ACTMOREWH . | HELDTONG.3 TALKMORE USEDDIFF # | ACTEDWHI.3 HIDNEGAT LOOKEDPL NOTSTANDO RACETALK | PUSHEDIN.3 STANDING 1 . + LOOKEDLA.3 .# | DISCUSSE.3 OTHERLAT TRIEDNOT .# | FINDPROF.3 .# | DISCUSSC.3 NEEDWORK STUDIEDW COURSWHIT .## | NOTCONNE.2 .# | CHATLATI.3 HELPEDLA STUDYWHI .### | LATINOSO.2 FACULTYO.3 HUNGOUTL 0 .###### + CAMPUSDE.2 SHOWFACU.3 DRESSEDM STUDYSOC ACTEDWHI .######## ACTEDDIF.2 SHOWSTUD.3 CHANGEDT VISTIEDA (Continued) 148 (Continued) DIVERSIT ENROLLED TALKMORE .###### | ACTEDLES.2 ACTEDWHI CAMPUSOR HELDTONG MASKFEEL ########### | USEDDIFF.2 TRINOTST .###### | HELDBACK.2 NOTFITTI ############# | HIDNEGAT.2 LOOKEDPL ########## | PUSHEDIN.2 STANDING TRIEDNOT -1 .########## + TALKRACI.2 ######### | DISCUSSE.2 PUSHEDDO.3 RACTALK .### | FINDPROF.2 LOOKEDLA NEEDWORK .####### | OTHERLAT.2 ############# | COURSTAL .2 ##### | DISCUSSC.2 ############ | SHOWFACU.2 SHOWSTUD -2 .####### + .### | FACULTYO.2 VISTIEDA .##### | CHATLATI.2 STUDIEDW ### | HELPEDLA.2 STUDYWHI .### | HUNGOUTL.2 #### | .## | PUSHEDDO.2 STUDYSOC -3 .# + | .## | | .# . | | -4 .# + | | .#### | | -5 .############ <less><frequ> 149 Appendix I Item Step Difficulties Item N Average Measure S.E. Mean Outfit Mean Sq. Point Mean Correlation Campus Debates Latino Issues Never 458 -1.82 0.08 1.0 -0.32 Sometimes 96 -0.66 0.09 1.2 0.25 Often 15 0.29 0.25 1.1 0.19 Latino Sorority/Fraternity Events Never 491 -1.74 0.07 1.1 -0.27 Sometimes 53 -0.62 0.15 2.0 1.9 Often 25 -0.28 0.15 1.5 0.17 Acted Differently Than Off-Campus Never 450 -1.85 0.08 1.0 -0.34 Sometimes 94 -0.67 0.09 1.1 0.25 Often 25 0.14 0.16 0.8 0.23 Dressed More White Never 474 -1.82 0.07 1.0 -0.34 Sometimes 68 -0.54 0.11 1.1 0.24 Often 28 0.14 0.14 0.8 0.24 Enrolled In Latino Studies Course Never 458 -1.84 0.08 1.0 -0.34 Sometimes 80 -0.62 0.08 0.8 0.24 Often 27 0.1 0.19 1.8 0.23 150 Acted More White Never 477 -1.83 0.07 0.9 -0.37 Sometimes 61 -0.35 0.09 0.5 0.26 Often 30 0.12 0.15 1.0 0.25 Campus Organized Latino Events Never 430 -1.93 0.08 0.9 -0.39 Sometimes 114 -0.65 0.07 0.9 0.29 Often 24 0.43 0.14 0.6 0.26 Time Spent At Diversity Center Never 460 -1.86 0.08 1.0 -0.37 Sometimes 78 -0.55 0.08 0.7 0.25 Often 30 0.19 0.15 0.8 0.26 Changed Talk To Sound Less Latino Never 451 -1.86 0.08 1.0 -0.36 Sometimes 89 -0.67 0.08 1.0 0.24 Often 29 0.23 0.16 0.8 0.26 Mask Feelings Around Whites Never 448 -1.9 0.08 0.9 -0.40 Sometimes 92 -0.46 0.08 0.7 0.30 Often 29 0.08 0.17 1.0 0.24 151 Acted Less Latino Never 433 -1.93 0.08 0.9 -0.41 Sometimes 106 -0.54 0.08 0.8 0.31 Often 30 0.13 0.14 0.7 0.25 Talk More White Never 460 -1.83 0.08 1.0 -0.34 Sometimes 72 -0.69 0.11 2.1 0.21 Often 36 0.11 0.13 0.8 0.27 Held Tongue Classroom Discussion Never 442 -1.87 0.07 0.9 -0.42 Sometimes 86 -0.54 0.06 0.5 0.27 Often 35 0.35 0.13 0.6 0.31 Used Diff Words To Sound White Never 436 -1.93 0.08 1.0 -0.41 Sometimes 95 -0.53 0.07 0.7 0.29 Often 37 0.01 0.14 1.0 0.26 Acted White With Faculty/Staff Never 445 -1.9 0.08 1.0 -0.4 Sometimes 83 -0.57 -0.09 0.9 0.26 Often 40 0.13 0.11 0.7 0.29 Held Back During Racial Discuss Never 401 -1.91 0.08 1.1 -0.35 Sometimes 134 -0.81 0.09 2.7 0.26 Often 33 -0.29 0.19 1.8 0.20 Tried Not to Stand Out 152 Never 438 -1.93 0.08 1.0 -0.42 Sometimes 86 -0.43 0.07 0.7 0.30 Often 42 -0.08 0.14 1.2 0.26 Talk Racial Issues With Latinos Never 341 -2.17 0.09 1,0 -0.46 Sometimes 200 -0.81 0.06 0.9 0.35 Often 28 0.27 0.13 0.7 0.26 Looked for Places to Be Yourself Never 400 -2.03 0.08 0.9 -0.44 Sometimes 124 -0.7 0.06 0.8 0.28 Often 45 0.18 0.12 0.7 0.32 Hid Negative Feelings Never 379 -2.06 0.09 1,0 -0.44 Sometimes 148 -0.72 0.07 0.9 0.31 Often 42 -0.06 0.13 0.9 0.27 Pushed To Interact With Whites Never 374 -2.12 0.08 0.9 -0.48 Sometimes 148 -0.64 0.06 0.7 0.34 Often 47 -0.02 0.11 0.9 0.29 Talk Racial Issues SOC Never 331 -2.16 0.10 1.1 -0.44 Sometimes 194 -0.87 0.06 1.0 0.31 Often 43 -0.17 0.13 1.1 0.25 Tried Not To Look Aggressive 153 Never 384 -2.05 0.08 1.0 -0.44 Sometimes 119 -0.74 0.08 0.9 0.27 Often 64 -0.21 0.09 1.0 0.30 Looked for Latinos to Hang Never 313 -2.28 0.10 1.0 -0.49 Sometimes 200 -0.89 0.06 1.0 0.31 Often 57 -0.03 0.10 0.8 0.32 Discussed Personal Feelings Latinos Never 331 -2.16 0.10 1.1 -0.44 Sometimes 159 -0.81 0.06 0.60 0.30 Often 71 -0.13 0.09 0.80 0.34 Find Professor/Staff For Support Never 326 -2.26 0.09 1.1 -0.50 Sometimes 166 -0.77 0.05 0.6 0.32 Often 75 -0.34 0.1 1.2 0.30 Other Latinos Study Never 299 -2.39 0.1o 0.9 -0.54 Sometimes 195 -0.86 0.05 0.7 0.33 Often 70 -0.12 0.09 0.8 0.34 Discuss Coursework with Whites Never 283 -2.46 0.10 0.9 -0.56 Sometimes 195 -0.83 0.05 0.7 0.33 Often 91 -0.34 0.09 1.1 0.33 Discuss Coursework Other Latinos 154 Never 259 -2.54 0.11 1.0 -0.55 Sometimes 221 -0.93 0.05 0.7 0.32 Often 88 -0.37 0.08 1.0 0.32 Studied with Other Latinos Never 189 -2.9 0.14 1.0 -0.59 Sometimes 280 -1.07 0.05 0.7 0.31 Often 97 -0.43 0.09 1.1 0.33 Show Faculty Latinos Do Well Never 259 -2.58 0.11 0.9 -0.58 Sometimes 153 -0.96 0.07 1.1 0.23 Often 156 -0.5 0.06 1.0 0.41 Faculty Office Hours Never 219 -2.55 0.13 1.3 -0.48 Sometimes 220 -1.12 0.06 1.0 0.22 Often 128 -0.67 0.08 1.3 0.30 Show Students Latinos Do Well Never 250 -2.63 0.11 0.9 -0.59 Sometimes 157 -1.07 0.06 0.8 0.19 Often 161 -0.42 0.06 0.9 0.45 Chat With Other Latinos In Class Never 197 -2.96 0.13 0.9 -0.63 Sometimes 250 -1.02 0.05 0.6 0.31 Often 120 -0.47 0.08 1.0 0.36 Helped Other Latinos With Classwork 155 Never 185 -2.95 0.14 1.0 -0.60 Sometimes 270 -1.16 0.05 0.7 0.26 Often 109 -0.33 0.07 0.9 0.38 Studied with White Students Never 185 -2.78 0.14 1.2 -0.53 Sometimes 260 -1.14 0.06 1.1 0.24 Often 123 -0.6 0.08 1.2 0.32 Visited Advise/Tutoring Center Never 217 -2.59 0.13 1.5 -0.50 Sometimes 180 -1.22 0.06 0.9 0.15 Often 169 -0.62 0.06 1.1 0.38 Hungout With Latinos For Fun Never 172 -2.95 0.15 1.1 -0.56 Sometimes 269 -1.2 0.06 1.2 0.22 Often 127 -0.49 0.07 1.1 0.36 Studied with Other SOC Never 146 -3.25 0.16 1.1 0.36 Sometimes 272 -1.21 0.05 0.8 0.22 Often 147 -0.6 0.08 1.1 0.36 Pushed To Do Better In School Never 148 -3.3 0.16 1.1 -0.64 Sometimes 126 -1.39 0.08 1.1 0.06 Often 294 -0.78 0.05 1 0.51

Asset Metadata

Creator Sawatzky, Misty Dawn (author)

Core Title The assessment of Latino affective and behavioral responses to racial campus climate

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 09/10/2015

Defense Date 08/26/2014

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag emotionality,intercultural effort,Latino,OAI-PMH Harvest,racial campus climate

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Advisor Dowd, Alicia C. (committee chair), Astor, Ron Avi (committee member), Immordino-Yang, Mary Helen (committee member), Webb, Noreen (committee member)

Creator Email dawn8888@hotmail.com,sawatzky@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-472719

Unique identifier UC11287100

Identifier etd-SawatzkyMi-2910.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-472719 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-SawatzkyMi-2910.pdf

Dmrecord 472719

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Sawatzky, Misty Dawn

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This three paper dissertation reviews the emotional and behavioral responses of Latino students to racial campus climate experiences. The first paper reviews the emotional responses of students of color to a hostile racial campus climate including the ways emotionality plays a role in the achievement and persistence of these populations. From an assessment perspective the second paper introduces and reviews the validation process for an instrument, the Latino Emotionality Index (LEI), which measures these emotional processes for Latino undergraduate students. Lastly, the third paper validates and introduces a second assessment instrument, the Intercultural Effort Scale-Latino Students (IES-LS), for the measurement of the intercultural effort expended by Latino undergraduate students within a hostile racial campus climate context.