Citation
A Motivational Approach for Understanding Receptivity to Diversity: Implications for Diversity Training

Material Information

Title:
A Motivational Approach for Understanding Receptivity to Diversity: Implications for Diversity Training
Creator:
RICHARDS, CHANELLE R. ( Author, Primary )
Copyright Date:
2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Cultural diversity ( jstor )
Expectancy theory ( jstor )
Hispanics ( jstor )
Job training ( jstor )
Learning ( jstor )
Learning motivation ( jstor )
Modeling ( jstor )
Motivation ( jstor )
Questionnaires ( jstor )
White Americans ( jstor )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Chanelle R. Richards. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Embargo Date:
12/31/2015
Resource Identifier:
658210110 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

A MOTIVATIONAL APPROACH FOR UNDERSTANDING RECEPTIVITY TO DIVERSITY: IMPLICATIONS FOR DIVERSITY TRAINING By CHANELLE R. RICHARDS A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO MY DOCTORAL COMMITTEE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My sincere gratitude goes to Dr. Carolyn M. Tucker as the chair of my committee. Her time, mentorship, and encouragement have been invaluable to me and the completion of this project. She has taught me the true virtue of excellence and has been a precious source of inspiration. I would like to also thank Dr. Mary Fukuyama, Dr. Julia Graber, and Professor Sherrie Russell-Brown for their time, support, and assistance as members of my committee. I would also like to thank my parents for their endless support and guidance. Next, I would like to express my sincere appreciation and gratitude to Mr. James Champion for supporting my graduate career and providing me with the critical population to conduct this study. Finally, my heartfelt appreciation goes to my best friend, Ms. Sherrice Parris, for supporting and facilitating my graduate career. ii

PAGE 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................................................................................ii LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................vi ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................................viii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Events Resulting from Diversity in the Workplace......................................................1 Diversity Management..................................................................................................3 Is Diversity Training Necessary?..................................................................................5 Need For and Purpose of this Study.............................................................................6 Expectancy Theory of Motivation................................................................................7 Hypotheses and Research Questions............................................................................9 2 LITERATURE REVIEW...........................................................................................11 Content and Objectives of Diversity Training............................................................11 Evaluation Outcomes of Diversity Training...............................................................12 Review of Expectancy Theories.................................................................................16 Valence Model of Motivation.............................................................................17 Expectancy-Valence Model of Motivation.........................................................19 Valence-Instrumentality-Expectancy Model.......................................................20 Self-Efficacy Theory...........................................................................................27 Expectancy Measure............................................................................................28 Instrumentality Measure......................................................................................32 Receptivity to Diversity..............................................................................................37 Receptivity to Diversity Training...............................................................................41 Summary.....................................................................................................................42 3 METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................44 Participants.................................................................................................................44 Instruments.................................................................................................................48 Procedure....................................................................................................................54 Intervention.................................................................................................................56 iii

PAGE 4

4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................57 Descriptive Data for All Major Variables..................................................................58 Results of a Preliminary Correlation Analysis between All of the Variables in this Study.......................................................................................................................60 Hypothesis 1...............................................................................................................65 Results from the Analysis to Test Hypothesis One.............................................65 Hypothesis 2...............................................................................................................67 Results from the Analysis to Test Hypothesis Two............................................67 Hypothesis 3...............................................................................................................71 Results from the Analysis to Test Hypothesis Three..........................................71 Hypothesis 4...............................................................................................................73 Results from the Analysis to Test Hypothesis Four............................................73 Results from the Analysis to Examine Research Question One.................................74 Post Hoc Analyses......................................................................................................75 Descriptive Statistics for Hispanic and White American Participants in this Study................................................................................................................75 Results of the Preliminary Correlation Analyses Applied to All of the Variables in this Study Using Data from Hispanic Participants......................77 Results of the Preliminary Correlation Analyses Applied to All of the Variables in this Study Using Data from White American Participants..........79 Hypothesis 1...............................................................................................................80 Results from the Analysis to Test Hypothesis One for Hispanic and White American Participants Separately by Race/Ethnicity......................................80 Hypothesis 2...............................................................................................................82 Results from the Analysis to Test Hypothesis Two for Hispanic and White American Participants Separately by Race/Ethnicity......................................82 Hypothesis 3...............................................................................................................85 Results from the Analysis to Test Hypothesis Three for Hispanic and White American Participants Separately by Race/Ethnicity......................................85 Hypothesis 4...............................................................................................................88 Results from the Analysis to Test Hypothesis Four for Hispanic and White American Participants Separately by Race/Ethnicity......................................88 Results from the Analyses to Examine the Research Question Using the Data from Hispanic Participants and White American Participants in Separate Analyses...........................................................................................................89 5 DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................95 Results Regarding the Descriptive Data.....................................................................95 Hypothesis 1...............................................................................................................96 Results Regarding Hypothesis 1..........................................................................96 Hypothesis 2.............................................................................................................100 Results Regarding Hypothesis 2........................................................................100 Hypothesis 3.............................................................................................................104 Results Regarding Hypothesis 3........................................................................104 iv

PAGE 5

Hypothesis 4.............................................................................................................107 Results Regarding Hypothesis 4........................................................................107 Results from the Analysis to Examine Research Question One...............................108 Results From the Post Hoc Analyses........................................................................109 Limitations of the Current Research.........................................................................116 Implications for Future Research..............................................................................119 Implications of Findings for Counseling Psychologists...........................................120 Conclusions...............................................................................................................122 APPENDIX A INFORMED CONSENT FORM..............................................................................123 B DEMOGRAPHIC DATA QUESTIONNAIRE........................................................125 C RECEPTIVITY TO DIVERSITY INDEX...............................................................127 D RECEPTIVITY TO DIVERSITY MANAGEMENT INDEX.................................128 E THE INSTRUMENTALITY/VALENCE QUESTIONNAIRE...............................129 F MARLOW CROWNE SOCIAL DESIRABILITY SCALE-SHORT FORM.........131 G SELF EFFICACY SCALE FOR CULTURAL COMPETENCE............................133 H KNOWLEDGE QUESTIONNAIRE........................................................................134 I GENERAL SELF-EFFICACY SCALE...................................................................135 REFERENCES................................................................................................................137 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................146 v

PAGE 6

LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1 Descriptive Data for All Major Variables in this Study........................................59 4-2 Paired Sample t-test Results for the Variables of Interest in this Study from Pre-training to Post-training...................................................................................60 4-3 Results of the Preliminary Pearson Correlation Analysis Between All the Variables in this Study at Pre-Training..................................................................61 4-4 Results of the Preliminary Pearson Correlation Analysis Between All the Variables in this Study at Post-Training................................................................62 4-5 Summary of the Multiple Regression Model Predicting Receptivity to Diversity Management from Pre-Training Cultural Self-Efficacy, General Self-Efficacy, and Instrumentality/Valence...........................................................68 4-6 Summary of the Multiple Regression Model Predicting Difference in Receptivity to Diversity Management from Difference in Cultural Self-Efficacy from Pre-Training to Post-Training, Difference in General Self-Efficacy from Pre-Training to Post-Training, and Difference in Instrumentality/Valence from Pre-Training to Post-Training................................70 4-7 Summary of the Multiple Regression Model Predicting Difference in Receptivity to Diversity from Difference in Cultural Self-Efficacy from Pre-Training to Post-Training, Difference in General Self-Efficacy from Pre-Training to Post-Training, and Difference in Instrumentality/Valence from Pre-Training to Post-Training................................................................................72 4-8 Relationship Between Cultural Self-Efficacy and Knowledge Assessment Scores; Between Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire Scores and Knowledge Assessment Scores; and Between General Self-efficacy and Knowledge Assessment Scores at Pre-training and Post-Training........................73 4-9 Descriptive Data for All Major Variables in this Study for Hispanic Participants.............................................................................................................76 4-10 Descriptive Data for All Major Variables in this Study for White American Participants.............................................................................................................77 vi

PAGE 7

4-11 Relationship Between Cultural Self-Efficacy and Knowledge Assessment Scores; Between Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire scores and Knowledge Assessment Scores; Between General Self-Efficacy and Knowledge Assessment scores at Pre-training and Post-Training........................87 4-12 Mean by Age for All the Major Variables in this Study........................................93 4-13 Mean by Race/Ethnicity and Gender for the All Major Variables in this Study...94 vii

PAGE 8

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy A MOTIVATIONAL APPROACH FOR UNDERSTANDING RECEPTIVITY TO DIVERSITY: IMPLICATIONS FOR DIVERSITY TRAINING By Chanelle R. Richards December 2005 Chair: Carolyn M. Tucker Major Department: Psychology The primary purpose of this research was to use the expectancy theory of motivation to examine the motivational factors that influence receptivity to diversity among diversity training participants prior to and following diversity training. The secondary purpose of this study was to examine the association between diversity knowledge assessment scores and receptivity to diversity among diversity training participants prior to and following diversity training. Research participants consisted of 172 employees from the Burger King Corporation in Miami, Florida, who participated in an 8-hour diversity training. These participants were administered an assessment battery, prior to and following diversity training, that consisted of measures of self-efficacy, receptivity to diversity, demographic qu estionnaire, and a diversity knowledge assessment questionnaire. As hypothesized it was found that participants’ level of agreement that diversity training leads to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural viii

PAGE 9

competence predicted receptivity to diversity and receptivity to diversity management. However, contrary to the hypothesized relationship between receptivity to diversity and diversity knowledge assessment scores or between receptivity to diversity management and diversity knowledge assessment scores, nonsi gnificant results were found. Overall, the findings in this study suggest that diversity training may not need to be modified in accordance with diversity training participants’ level of receptivity to diversity in order to enhance the knowledge acquired from diversity training. The findings also provided support for the development of di versity training programs th at include highlighting the rewards of diversity training for diversity training participants. Highlighting the rewards of diversity training may in turn reduce the backlash to and skepticism about the implementation of diversity training within organizations, and thereby increase the utility and effectiveness of diversity training outcomes. Several limitations were discussed including the implementation of diversity training that could not be tailored to the design of the present study, the lack a control group, and the one session nature of the 8-hour diversity training session. An examination of the effects of diversity training on receptivity to diversity and the development of new theoretical models to assist with the prediction of diversity training outcome and receptivity to diversity may prove to be fruitful future research. ix

PAGE 10

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION As demographic changes rapidly occur in the U.S., the cultivation of a more diverse society ensues. One aspect of society tremendously impacted by this diversity is the work place—place where diversity must be handled effectively such that it promotes rather than impedes work productivity. Achieving this goal involves acknowledging, respecting, and accommodating cultural differences through action. “In organizations, this involves welcoming heterogeneity by developing a variety of initiatives at the management and organizational levels as well as the interpersonal (individual and intergroup) levels” (Carnevale & Stone, 1994, p. 22). In other words, diversity in the workplace has forced organizations to consider systemic changes that require individual, environment and policy modifications that integrate the practice of cultural sensitivity. However, these interventions have not come about without speculation from unquiet audiences about their effectiveness. Events Resulting from Diversity in the Workplace Although there are many benefits to a diverse society, there are several adverse factors that have resulted from the steadily increasing diversity in our society. For example, a poll conducted by Harris Interactive/Witeck-Combs Communications revealed that despite the proliferation of attention given to issues of diversity in the workplace, 73% of Americans believe gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered workers experience workplace discrimination. In addition, Americans believe that 68% of 1

PAGE 11

2 people with disabilities and 61% of African-Americans experience workplace discrimination (DiversityInc, 2003). The census 2000 data revealed that female employees, on average, continue to make less than their male counterparts. “Census figures showed that women are paid 73 cents for every dollar men receive” (DiversityInc, 2003, p. 13). In other words, disparate earnings between men and women, instances of discrimination, and issues with prejudice prevail in spite of the development and implementation of both legal and organizational programs geared toward impartiality. At a legislative level, Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action compliance laws have been enforced in an attempt to ensure equality in the workplace. Moreover, the passage of federal legislation in the 1960s prohibiting discrimination helped open up doors for minority and female applicants. In addition, the American Disabilities Act (1990) made salient the importance of recognizing the difficulties that disabled individuals face in the workplace. These three groups have become the fastest growing segment in the workforce, and accommodating their needs has become a vital responsibility for human resources managers (Decenzo & Silhanek, 2002). Furthermore, Affirmative Action programs make certain that the decisions and practices of organizations enhance the employment, upgrading, and retention of members from protected groups. However, the corresponding stigma that is associated with such programs helps to further perpetuate stereotypes about minority employees. In addition, the legal responses to the increasing demands of diversity have been viewed as a morally correct action. Nonetheless, Koonce (2001) argues that addressing the needs of a culturally diverse workforce is not only morally correct but makes good business sense, as the amount of diversity in both formal and informal structures of organizations will

PAGE 12

3 impact factors such as creativity, problem solving, and intraorganizational communications (Cox, 1994). The psychological literature also indicates that discrimination in the workplace highly impacts job satisfaction. Soni (2000) found statistically significant differences in social-psychological aspects of job satisfaction between whites and minorities. Minority males and females consistently disagreed that supervisors promoted the value of diversity and utilized differences effectively, whereas their white male and female counterparts agreed more often. Soni exclaims that “ethnic, race, and gender based biases influence the psychological well-being of those who are subjected to these attitudes, and this, in turn, influences their job satisfaction and motivation (Locke, 1976)” (p. 402). In addition, Sears (1988) argues that ethnic and gender prejudices are more likely to manifest as opposition to diversity initiatives or affirmative action programs, rather than in direct or subtle racist/sexist comments. This logic provides an alternative rationale for the occurrence of backlash to diversity initiatives. Diversity Management Globalization, conflict management, and increased value placed on diversity have all contributed to the need for diversity management in organizations. Managing diversity has been defined as the strategic planning and implementation of organization practices and systems to manage people so that the potential advantages of diversity are maximized while its potential disadvantages are minimized. Thus, managing diversity encompasses maximizing the ability of all employees to contribute to organizational goals while helping them to achieve their most optimal potential, unhindered by group identities. Practitioners assert that the management of diversity is crucial to the accomplishment of organizational goals and is therefore of a paramount concern to managers.

PAGE 13

4 One of the most widely used practices by organizations to address and prevent the potential problems that may manifest with the acquisition of a diverse workforce is the strategic implementation of diversity training as part of their job training program. Job training is defined as a learning experience that focuses on improving an employee’s ability and competencies (i.e., knowledge, skills, and behaviors) to perform his or her job (DeCenzo & Silhanek, 2002). Diversity training efforts have concentrated on providing cultural data and enhancing cultural sensitivity (Plummer, 1998). More specifically, the purposes or objectives of this training are to increase cultural awareness, knowledge, and skills of employees as they pertain to dealing with on the job issues of diversity and interpersonal communication among diverse employees. Nonetheless, because many organizations mandate that their employees undergo such training without examining employees’ perceptions of diversity (i.e., value of diversity) prior to demanding that they ascribe to the diversity value of their respective organizations and undergo diversity training, the resulting effects (for employees and organizations) of such training may at times be inconsequential at best. Therefore, there may exist differential effectiveness of diversity training and desired learning outcomes depending on whether or not employees are receptive to respecting and valuing diversity (Sears, 1988). Moreover, it has been asserted that “very little empirical evidence exists about whether organizational members in fact subscribe to the diversity value and to the diversity management initiatives of the employer” (Soni, 2000, p. 397). It has also been stated that there is a dearth of empirical studies that have examined employees’ receptivity to diversity and diversity training outcomes. Therefore, the research being proposed is designed to empirically address this important topic.

PAGE 14

5 Is Diversity Training Necessary? Diversity training programs have been on the rise due to the challenges that accompany diversity in the workplace. Data suggest that employers annually spend between $50 to $60 billon on training employees and that 60-70% of this money is spent on diversity training programs. However, such programs have their strengths and limitations. Moreover, the verdict on whether diversity training does what it sets out to do in organizations is not clear. In a diversity training survey conducted by FaxForum (1994), 72% of the survey respondents said that diversity training is necessary, and 7% said they were undecided. Interestingly, one respondent expressed that diversity training is “at once a fad and a way to push political correctness into corporate America.” Another respondent asserted that diversity training efforts have produced “no noticeable results except anger and wasted time,” and that “they often cause more problems than they solve.” In contrast, some respondents said that diversity training is “very positive” and “it has helped managers recognize our diversity as an opportunity to improve business performance, rather than as an obstacle that needs to be controlled.” It is apparent that employees have vehement reactions to diversity, which may ultimately influence the outcomes of diversity training programs. In addition, although it appears intuitive that trainers may need to assess employees’ receptivity to or readiness for diversity prior to mandating their attendance at diversity training programs, it is a practice yet to become routine. Finally, although it is often the case that the major goal of job training is to obtain the necessary knowledge needed to improve job performance, the evaluation of training effectiveness does not always assess training objectives. In other words, organizations often inadequately assess the degree to which training influences learning outcomes,

PAGE 15

6 one’s motivation toward diversity, or employees’ receptivity to diversity prior to and after diversity training. In general, the current most popular method used to measure the effectiveness of training is the use of formal evaluations that tend to address trainer qualities, self-reported learning from and satisfaction with a particular training. However, many factors can influence an employee’s perceived effectiveness of training. In other words, the popular assessment foci fail to objectively assess the effectiveness and/or outcome of a required training. Need For and Purpose of this Study The literature suggests that there is a lack of empirical evidence that supports the use of diversity training as an intervention to improve receptivity to diversity among employees. In addition, the speculation about the influence of receptivity to diversity on diversity training outcomes and the effectiveness of diversity training is a legitimate concern that has recently been expressed by many scholars. As a steadily increasing diverse society continues to permeate the workforce, the necessity for a theory-based empirical understanding of the potential impact of the interventions that organizations choose to implement in dealing with a diverse workforce is also warranted. Finally, researchers who examine the effectiveness of diversity training rarely use objective measures of diversity training outcome; therefore, the proposed study seeks to fill this void by using receptivity to diversity and a diversity knowledge assessment to objectively measure diversity training outcome. The primary purpose of the present theory-based investigation is to use the expectancy theory of motivation to examine the motivational factors [i.e., cultural self-efficacy, general self-efficacy, and level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence] that may

PAGE 16

7 influence receptivity to diversity and receptivity to diversity management among participants in a diversity training prior to and following this diversity training. The secondary purpose of the present study is to examine the association between receptivity to diversity and diversity knowledge assessment scores and between receptivity to diversity management and diversity knowledge assessment scores among participants in a diversity training both prior to and following the diversity training. Finally, the present study will examine among participants in a diversity training the association between demographic variables (i.e., ethnicity/race, gender, and age) and the following variables: cultural self-efficacy, general self-efficacy, the extent to which trainees agree that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence, receptivity to diversity management, and receptivity to diversity. Expectancy Theory of Motivation The present study will use the expectancy theory of motivation (Vroom, 1964) as a framework for understanding the motivational factors that may influence receptivity to diversity and receptivity to diversity management prior to and post diversity training. The expectancy theory of motivation is one of the most commonly used theories for understanding and predicting learning outcomes. According to this theory, various choices of behavior are evaluated according to 3 components: expectancy, instrumentality, and valence. Expectancy refers to the belief that one can perform a specific action (i.e., expectation component of self-efficacy). Instrumentality refers to the belief that performing a particular behavior (e.g., attending a training program) will be associated with a particular outcome (e.g., increased cultural competence). Instrumentality is also the outcome expectation component of self-efficacy. Finally, the

PAGE 17

8 valence refers to the value that a person places on an outcome (e.g., importance given to cultural competence). The expectancy theory of motivation suggests that the more motivated learners are toward training the better the learning, and ultimately, the better the training outcome (Noe, 2002). In other words, the mental state that the learner brings to the instructional process influences the learning process. This theory attempts to comprehensively assess motivational processes with respect to performing a particular behavior. It proposes that individuals evaluate various choices of behavior based on expectancy, instrumentality, and valence. For the present study, this theory suggests that the expectancy, instrumentality, and valence variables will influence receptivity to diversity, receptivity to diversity management, and knowledge assessment scores of the experienced diversity training. When applied to the present study, the expectancy theory of motivation suggests that learning is most likely to occur when (a) diversity training participants believe they can learn the content of a diversity training program (expectation component of self-efficacy), (b) diversity training participants believe that diversity training will lead to a particular outcome such as better job performance, decreased job stress, or increased cultural competence (instrumentality or outcome efficacy component of self-efficacy), and (c) diversity training participants value these outcomes (valence). In the present study general self-efficacy will be used to measure expectancy and instrumentality. Cultural self-efficacy will also be used to measure expectancy. The degree to which employees agree that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence will also be used to measure instrumentality. Finally, employees’ self-reported importance given to

PAGE 18

9 cultural competence will be used to measure the valence component of the expectancy theory of motivation. Hypotheses and Research Questions The following hypotheses will be investigated with diversity training participants (i.e., employees at the Burger King Corporation) as research participants: 1. Among participants, at pre-training, levels of cultural self-efficacy as measured by the Self-Efficacy Scale for Cultural Competence (SESCC), levels of general self-efficacy as measured by the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES), and levels of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence as measured by the Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire (IVQ) will be significant predictors of receptivity to diversity as measured by the Receptivity to Diversity Index (RDI) and receptivity to diversity management as measured by the Receptivity to Diversity Management Index (RDMI). 2. Among participants, differences in levels of cultural self-efficacy from pre-training to post-training as measured by the Self-Efficacy Scale for Cultural Competence (SESCC), differences in levels of general self-efficacy from pre-training to post-training as measured by the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES), and differences in levels of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence from pre-training to post-training as measured by the Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire (IVQ) will significantly predict (a) the amount of difference from pre-training to post-training in receptivity to diversity as measured by the Receptivity to Diversity Index (RDI) and (b) the amount of difference in receptivity to diversity management as measured by the Receptivity to diversity Management Index (RDMI). 3. Among participants, levels of cultural self-efficacy as measured by the Self-Efficacy Scale for Cultural Competence (SESCC), general self-efficacy as measured by the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES), and levels of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence as measured by the Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire (IVQ) will be positively and significantly associated with diversity knowledge assessment scores as measured by the Mutual Respect Through Understanding Differences Knowledge Questionnaire (MRKQ) at pre-training and at post-training. 4. Receptivity to diversity as measured by the Receptivity to Diversity Index (RDI) and receptivity to diversity management as measured by the Receptivity to Diversity Management Index (RDMI) at pre-training will be positively and significantly associated with the amount of change in diversity knowledge as assessed by scores on the Mutual Respect Through Understanding Differences Knowledge Questionnaire (MRKQ) from pre-training to post-training.

PAGE 19

10 In addition to the above hypotheses, the following research question will be explored: 1. Are there significant differences in receptivity to diversity, receptivity to diversity management, cultural self-efficacy, general self-efficacy, and the level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence in association with gender, race/ethnicity, and age?

PAGE 20

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW For this review, empirical studies and research findings cited in the major works of the organizational, training, and psychology literature were examined. Other studies were identified through an extensive literature search and cross-referencing of cited studies. This chapter is organized in 4 major sections. The first section briefly reviews the content and objectives of diversity training. The second section briefly reviews the evaluation outcome studies of diversity training research. The third section reviews the various models of the expectancy theory of motivation. More specifically, the aforementioned section will review literature on the valence, force (valence-expectancy) and valence-instrumentality-expectancy models of motivation. This section will also review and discuss the instrumentality (cultural competence) and expectancy (self-efficacy) measures used in the present investigation. The fourth and final section reviews the literature on receptivity to diversity. Content and Objectives of Diversity Training Organizations implement diversity training with the main objective of increasing the abilities and cultural competence of their employees. Plummer (1998) states, “the most recent emphasis of diversity training has been on providing employees with the skills necessary to negotiate an increasingly diverse work environment” (p. 183). In addition, awareness has become one of the most common goals of diversity training efforts. Other diversity training topics include communication skills, empowerment, and diversity within teams. Such training also involves discussing “unspeakable” fears of 11

PAGE 21

12 being racist, sexist and offensive. Participants are also often asked to share parts of themselves that they normally pretend not to notice such as their sex and their feelings of alienation. As a consequence, “many of the thoughts and feelings on the topic have not been critiqued except by others who were similar to themselves” (Linday, 1994, p.20). Furthermore, the major focus on awareness in diversity training has caused many companies to experience backlash to their diversity program efforts (FaxForum, 1994). Backlash against diversity training arises due to trainees’ feelings of forced participation, anger, shame, and a felt sense of an invasion of privacy. Individuals who experience these feelings are most likely to perceive diversity training efforts as an ineffective practice. Therefore, it seems important to address receptivity to diversity of potential training participants before attempting to conduct diversity training and before the implementation of diversity management initiatives in organizations. Evaluation Outcomes of Diversity Training The controversial rhetoric espoused about the effectiveness of diversity training programs is inconclusive as the results of research findings on evaluation outcomes of diversity training programs are mixed (Bendick, Egan, & Lofhjelm 1998; Noe & Ford, 1992; Rhynes & Rosen, 1994). Supporters of such training programs argue in favor of their educational value (Cox, 1994; Thomas, 1990), while critics view diversity initiatives as ineffective, counterproductive or harmful practices (Hemphill & Haines, 1997; Lynch, 1997). That being said, it has become increasingly important to evaluate diversity training programs and the factors that cause them to succeed or fail. When this training is offered by companies and similar organizations, these factors include cost, reinforcement of group stereotypes among employees (Rynes & Rosen, 1994, 1995); possibility of post-training participant discomfort (Rynes & Rosen, 1994); increased legal liabilities for the

PAGE 22

13 company (Delikat, 1995); devaluation of employees who are perceived as “culturally different” (Bergen, Soper, & Foster, 2002; DeAngelis, 1995; Gardenswartz & Row, 1996); and perceived disenfranchisement or backlash by White male employees (D’Souza, 1996; Lynch, 1994; Rynes & Rosen, 1994). A large proportion of the research on evaluation outcomes of diversity training has concentrated on self-reported perceived training success. Rynes & Rosen (1994) conducted a ground-breaking study in this research area using a sample from members of the Society for Human Resource Management. This study examined the effectiveness of diversity training programs and what factors account for differential training success. They found that 73% of respondents indicated that they believe that the typical employee leaves diversity training with positive attitudes toward diversity. In contrast, only 9% of the respondents believed that the typical trainee enters with favorable attitudes. Similarly, 68% of the respondents believed that the typical employee is skeptical prior to training, whereas only 7% of the respondents reported general skepticism after training. They also found that the length of training and amount of post-training evaluations and follow-up were two significant predictors of overall success as measured by self-reported evaluations. These findings indicate that some of the differences in reported success of diversity training are associated with characteristics of the training itself. In addition, Rynes and Rosen argue that “statistically, the most important of these [training characteristics] was whether or not the training was mandatory for managers” (p. 70). In other words, diversity training programs with upper management support have been viewed as more successful than training programs that have only been delivered at the supervisory and middle management levels. “Indeed, top management support was the

PAGE 23

14 single most important predictor of training success—more important than any characteristics of the training itself” (Rynes & Rosen, 1994, p.72). Other research findings on diversity training outcomes indicate that diversity training made a significant difference in changing participants’ attitudes, perceptions, and knowledge (Tan, Morris, & Romero, 1996). More specifically, the self-reported ratings of participants’ levels of awareness, knowledge, readiness, and experiences in nine measurable outcomes before and after diversity training workshops revealed significant increases in the following areas: knowledge of diversity issues; knowledge of barriers to change; readiness to value diversity; and knowledge on identifying and preventing stereotypes and prejudices in the workplace. Bendick et al. (1998) found similar results with moderate effects of perceived positive outcomes of diversity training by survey respondents. Despite the reported positive change in trainees’ attitudes, perceptions, and knowledge that occur as a result of experiencing diversity training, the literature suggests that there may be negative ramifications subsequent to participating in diversity training as well. For example, Delikat (1995) argues that resulting negative repercussions of diversity training efforts that are specifically geared toward increasing diversity awareness are workplace polarization, or stressing differences rather than unity, and exacerbating problems that may already exist among employees. These consequences often occur when there are inconsistencies within training sessions. More specifically, MacDonald (1993) argues that such consequences are likely to occur when attendees are told that it is unacceptable to base their actions on how they believe members of a particular group will react; yet in the same training, they are also told that they must learn

PAGE 24

15 to judge individual behavior as an expression of racial, sexual and cultural differences (i.e., they must stereotype). It is evident that these apparent contradictions can lead to costly ramifications and counterproductive responses to diversity training programs. The long-term success of training has also been examined in determining the effectiveness of diversity training programs. Rynes & Rosen (1994) found that the most common indicators of long-term success were reduced grievances and lawsuits, increased diversity in hiring and promotion outcomes, increased employee self-awareness of biases, and increased consultation of human resources specialists on diversity related issues. In 1995, Rynes and Rosen conducted a field survey that explored the factors that influence employees’ perceptions regarding the success of diversity training. Results revealed that perceived training success was strongly associated with top management support for diversity, mandatory attendance of managers, long-term evaluation of training results, managerial rewards for increasing diversity, and a broad inclusive definition of diversity in the organization. In summary, survey research predominates the literature on evaluation outcomes of diversity training. Objective empirical research on this topic is currently limited. Nonetheless, the existing survey research provides us with a mixed view of the effectiveness of diversity training. Landmark surveys suggest that characteristics of diversity training programs and managerial support for diversity training influence employees’ perceptions of training success. In addition, there is overwhelming support for the contention that diversity training influences employee’ perceptions of increased self-awareness, self-knowledge, and skills as it pertains to diversity issues.

PAGE 25

16 Review of Expectancy Theories Expectancy-type models have been firmly established as a dominant framework for research on work-related motivation (Connolly, 1976). However, several authors (Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, & Weick, 1970; Galbraith & Cummings, 1967; Graen, 1969; House, 1971; Porter & Lawler, 1968) have offered modifications, extensions, and revisions of the original expectancy formulation presented by Vroom (1964). The central hypothesis of expectancy theories is that, in certain decision domains, individuals choose between available alternatives based on their evaluations of the anticipated future consequences of each alternative. In other words, work motivation is treated as a choice between either alternative levels of work effort or alternative levels of work performance. Connolly (1976) asserts that in order to test this hypothesis for a particular population and setting, one must: (1) measure the value (valence, importance, attractiveness, desirability, or utility) associated with each outcome; (2) measure the individual’s perception of a linkage between selection of action and attainment of outcome, which reflects a measure of instrumentality; (3) specify a set of outcomes which the individual is to choose; (4) specify a set of available action alternatives; and (5) specify a decision rule that includes which action will be chosen, in light of the value and instrumentality chosen with each action. Several theorists (Galbraith & Cummings, 1967; Graen, 1969; House, 1971; Porter & Lawler, 1968) in the work motivation area have examined two expectancy-type models. The first model predicts the level of effort exerted by individuals, treating levels of work performance as outcomes, which are often referred to as “first level” outcomes. The second model predicts the valence of the first-level outcome from an individual’s perceived association with a set of second level outcomes that result from first level

PAGE 26

17 outcomes. For example, choosing to exert more work effort may be seen as associated with an increased production level, which in turn is associated with increased earnings, which acquire value. As a result serial interconnectedness occurs in the process of considering the outcome of a choice to engage in a particular activity. Valence Model of Motivation Vroom’s (1964) original development of the expectancy theory of motivation is comprised of two related models, the valence model and the force model. The valence model attempts to capture the perceived attractiveness, or value, of an outcome by aggregating the attractiveness of all associated resultant outcomes. More specifically, this model asserts that an individual’s preference for a particular outcome is positively related to the individual’s perceived valence of alternative outcomes. The valence of a particular outcome is a positive function of the sum of the products of the individual’s perceived strength of his or her affective orientation (positive or negative) toward the outcome (i.e., second level outcome valences such as pay, promotion, etc.) and her or his perception of the instrumentalities for obtaining the second-level outcomes. Some research evidence suggests that a more parsimonious model than the full valence model described above may be at least equally effective in predicting preferences and anticipated satisfaction. For example, Hackman and Porter (1968) found that the number of second-level outcomes, such as pay, promotion, etc., used in testing the valence and force models may be abridged without reducing the prediction accuracy of the model. This finding has also been supported by several other studies. For example, Rosenberg (1965) found that potentially reducing the number of outcomes used in testing the valence model may even improve the prediction accuracy of the model. In addition, some researchers (Mitchell & Knudsen, 1973; Sheridan, Slocum, & Richard, 1974) have

PAGE 27

18 suggested that weighing the instrumentality measures by second level outcome valence measures adds little prediction accuracy to the valence and force models. Based on these findings, it stands to reason that using one secondary outcome level (i.e., pay, promotion, etc.) as opposed to multiple secondary outcome levels may not improve the prediction accuracy of the valence component of the motivation model. Teas (1981) implemented a study that modified the full valence model in 4 different ways. More specifically, Teas examined the valence model’s ability to predict job preference and anticipated job satisfaction. First, he altered the model in which only the extremely valent second-level outcomes were used. A second model used only extrinsic second level outcomes, and a third used only intrinsic second-level outcomes. Finally, the fourth modified model consisted of the sum of the unweighted instrumentalities. Data collected from 2 group interviews on a sample of 45 students was used to test the 4 modified models. Findings indicated that strong support exists for the ability of the full valence model to predict job preference and anticipated job satisfaction. In addition, the results suggest that the predictive validities for the high valence, intrinsic valence, and instrumentality models are nearly identical to the predictive validity of the original model. Overall, results provided strong support for the traditional force model and several alternatives. However, no evidence was found suggesting that any of the alternative models presented were superior to the traditional valence model. To further investigate the useful application of the valence model of expectancy theory of motivation, Geiger and Cooper (1996) examined students’ motivation to put forth academic effort. “Specifically, this study examined the effect of three potential motivating influences on students’ perceptions of the attractiveness of academic success

PAGE 28

19 and their decisions to exert academic effort” (p. 114). Using a within-persons design, they found that valence decisions were more influential than expectancy of improved grades in determining a student’s effort levels. More specifically, the valence model was found to accurately predict individuals’ valence decisions, while the expectancy component was found to accurately predict students’ effort level decisions. They also found that increases in effort due to increased expectancy of success rose at a marginally declining rate. This finding indicates that raising a student’s expectations of improving their course grade may be most beneficial for those students perceiving a very far-reaching initial possibility of an increased grade. In reference to the proposed study, this finding suggests that high expectancies of diversity training outcome may be positively associated with receptivity to diversity and knowledge of diversity training content. Expectancy-Valence Model of Motivation The expectancy-valence model of motivation, which is also known as the force model was designed to predict behavioral choices. This model presents that motivational force (i.e., behavioral manifestation of motivation) acts by associating the expectancy of resultant outcomes and their individual valences (value). More specifically, the force model posits that the force acting upon an individual to engage in an activity is a function of the sum of the products of the valences (value) of all outcomes and the expectancies that the activity will lead to the attainment of these outcomes. The valence component of the model has been used to predict the individuals’ preferences and anticipated satisfaction with respect to behavioral choices (Mitchell, 1974). The theory then predicts that the individual will choose to perform the activity having the weakest negative or the strongest positive force. The force model is more comprehensive than the valence model

PAGE 29

20 in that it includes both the valence and expectancy components associated with work motivation. Valence-Instrumentality-Expectancy Model The valence-instrumentality-expectancy model of motivation is the most all-encompassing modification of Vroom’s original expectancy theory. In addition, this model is more comprehensive than either the valence or expectancy-valence model alone and it includes all components contained in both models. Therefore, this model will be used as the theoretical framework for examining the variables in the proposed investigation. According to the valence-instrumentality-expectancy model, the motivation of an individual, or the force toward some specific behavior is a linear composite function of the individual’s valence, instrumentality, and expectancy perceptions with respect to behavioral alternatives. More specifically, the valence or the anticipated satisfaction (i.e., value) is used as the evaluative outcome dimension that individuals use when making choice decisions about a particular action (Miner & Dacher, 1973). In other words, the effort exerted by a worker towards a specific performance goal is defined as being a function of (1) his or her belief that he can perform as required (2) his or her belief that if he or she does perform he or she will be rewarded and (3) the anticipated value that he or she attaches to the forthcoming reward. All 3 factors are individuals’ expectations of converting effort (i.e. behavioral manifestation of motivation) into performance, performance leading to rewards, and rewards leading to satisfaction, hence the label ‘expectancy’ theory. According to this theory, the expectancy is a function of an individual’s ability, skills and knowledge; therefore, as these capabilities increase, expectancy increases as well. Instrumentality is defined as an individual’s belief that performance of the task will

PAGE 30

21 be rewarded or that the nonperformance will be punished. The combination of expectancy (i.e., efficacy expectation) and instrumentality (i.e., outcome efficacy) equate to the traditional conceptualization of self-efficacy. Finally, the anticipated value that a worker attaches to an outcome is called the valence. The more a person needs or prefers an outcome, the more positive the valence. According to this theory, expectancy, instrumentality, and valence perceptions precede motivation. The more motivated an individual, the more effort he or she will expend in attempting to complete the task. Performance is the level of accomplishment that results from the expenditure of effort. Outcomes represent any and all consequences that the individual experiences in the situation. These consequences may or may not be a result of an individual’s performance. An individual’s perceptions of expectancy, instrumentality and valence are not static. Therefore, it stands to reason that levels of expectancy, instrumentality and valence will change from pre to post diversity training. In addition, the relationship between performance and outcomes influences future perceptions of instrumentality. Similarly, the degree to which the outcomes fulfill the needs of an individual determines the individual’s level of satisfaction. Applying this logic to the proposed study, it stands to reason that those individuals who are more receptive to diversity are likely to be more satisfied with diversity training than those individuals who are less receptive with diversity training. Furthermore, McFillen and Maloney (1988) stated that the satisfaction experienced from a particular outcome affects the valence an individual attaches to those outcomes in the future. Therefore, an individual’s work experience determines his or her future levels of motivation. Based on this reasoning, it is logical to hypothesize that exposure to diversity training will influence an individual’s receptivity to diversity.

PAGE 31

22 Several studies (Balwin & Ford, 1988; Erez, 1979; Farr & Middlebrooks, 1990; Tannenbaum, Mathieu, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 1991; Williams, Thayer, & Pond, 1991) have substantiated the validity of the valence-instrumentality-expectancy framework of motivation and its utility for predicting the occupational choice behaviors and training motivation of individuals. For example, Scoggin, Miller, Harper and Carskadon (1988) tested the hypothesis that supervisors would be able to use the valence-instrumentality-expectancy principles of expectancy theory to increase the motivational level of their subordinates. Using a sample of 40 supervisors (20 attended a training on the aspects of the expectancy theory; 20 supervisors received no training), results indicated that the expectancy theory training had no measurable positive effect on changing the motivational levels of subordinates. However, findings also indicated that those supervisors trained in expectancy theory were perceived as being more capable of providing knowledge about how the subordinates could perform their job to increase their chance of obtaining rewards they would value than those supervisors who were not trained in expectancy theory. Erez (1979) conducted another study that used the valence-instrumentality-expectancy model of motivation to examine the motivational determinants of participants’ willingness to enroll in a retraining course for commissioned rank. This study also examined the independent contribution of each motivational component. More specifically, Erez hypothesized that (1) the expectancy of success significantly increases the explained variance of the criterion variable beyond that explained by VI, (2) VI, or the preference for a second career, significantly effects willingness to be retrained and (3) the interaction of expectancy of success multiplied by the summation of valence and

PAGE 32

23 instrumentality significantly increases the explained variance of the criterion variable beyond the additive effects of components VI and E. The sample consisted of 95 ratings selected at random from a population of 750 individuals who underwent individual structured interviews. Results indicated that expectancy or the probability that the act will result in the outcome was the only predictor of success from the motivational model. Mathieu, Tannenbaum and Salas (1992) conducted yet another study that used the valence-instrumentality-expectancy framework for examining training motivation. More specifically, these authors adopted an approach that examined trainees’ perceptions that doing well in a program would lead to better job performance and consequently to valued outcomes. The authors stated that “this approach is particularly useful because it permits the integration of both individual and situational variables as they related to trainees’ perceptions of various valence-instrumentality-expectancy components (Farr & Middlebrooks, 1990)” (Mathieu, Tannenbaum, & Salas, 1992, p. 829). They in turn developed and tested a model that links situational and individual variables to individuals’ training motivation. Using their model and a sample of 106 university employees, Mathieu et al. hypothesized that individual and situational characteristics would influence the motivation of participants in a training program, which in turn was hypothesized to influence the extent to which they learned the content of a course. Specifically, these authors presented 5 hypotheses: (1) trainees’ career planning and job involvement (i.e., individual antecedent characteristics) would relate positively to their training motivation (2) individuals who nominated themselves for the training (trainees’ choice) would perceive a greater instrumentality for the program and report higher

PAGE 33

24 training motivation than those who were assigned by other methods (3) if trainees believe that learning a new skill will not be instrumental in gaining valued outcomes because their job performance is constrained, they will not be motivated to perform well in training (4) trainees who are highly motivated will learn more than those who are less motivated and (5) the relationship between training motivation and learning would be stronger for individuals who reacted positively to the program studied than for those who did not respond as positively. Mathieu, Tannenbaum and Salas found no support for any of the hypothesized antecedents (job involvement and career planning) of individuals’ training-related motivation. However, perceived situational constraints did have a marginally significant, negative impact on trainees’ motivation. A significant positive association was also found for the influence of education on learning. Finally, these authors found support for the role of reactions to training as a moderator of the relationship between training motivation and learning. “The implications of this finding are that reactions are important for training effectiveness, but not in and of themselves. The best results were observed when trainees were both motivated to do well and reacted positively to the program” (p. 843). Although these findings indicate that the model presented by these authors was not supported, their findings support the use of the valence-instrumentality-expectancy model for understanding training motivation, as it is more comprehensive than the valence and expectancy-valence models of motivation. Their findings also suggest that there may be a relationship between employees’ training evaluations (i.e. training reactions) and training outcome (e.g., increased receptivity to diversity).

PAGE 34

25 Henson (2001) conducted a study using the expectancy theory of motivation to predict academic performance of 150 male undergraduate students. The students completed questionnaires on various expectancy beliefs that included valence, expectancy, and instrumentality components of the expectancy theory of motivation. Measures of ability were also assessed. As predicted by the expectancy model, findings indicated that the variance in performance accounted for by the interaction of the expectancy and ability variables was more than either variable alone. In addition, a surprising finding indicated that ability accounted for a larger portion of the variance than the expectancy variable. Henson proposed that one explanation for the lack of power of the expectancy variables is that most of the subjects were freshman. He also cautioned that due to sample limitations these findings are limited in its ability to be generalized to other populations. Overall, although the findings of this study support the expectancy theory, the findings also suggest that ability may enhance the expectancy model (Pringle & Madison, 1995). This finding was also supported by previous research conducted by Lawler & Suttle (1973), which found significant positive correlations between individual role perceptions and ability measures and various valence-instrumentality-expectancy components and composites. Henson’s findings may also be due, at least in part, to the synonymous relationship between ability and the expectancy component of the expectancy theory of motivation. Research design issues with expectancy theory research. A considerable amount of empirical research findings on the valence and force models have often supported the use of both theories for examining work motivation (Dachler & Mobley, 1973; Hackman & Porter, 1968; Jones, 1971; Mitchell & Knudsen, 1973). However, confusion with

PAGE 35

26 interpretation of the findings is a paramount concern due to inconsistencies in the operationalization of constructs and the use of inappropriate research design in several studies (Teas, 1981). Mitchell (1974) conducted a thorough appraisal of the research on the force and valence models. His findings note that several sources of confusion exist including whether within-subject or between-subject analysis is used. Between subjects analysis predominates the empirical tests of the valence and force models; however, these models are designed to predict an individual’s preferences and choices for various alternative behaviors. Therefore, critics (Arnold, 1981) argue that within-subject analysis procedures are more appropriate for applying the valence and force models. In other words, valid tests of the model must employ the single subject as the unit of analysis. Despite the inaccurate design of expectancy theories, several studies (Matsui & Ohsuka, 1978; Parker & Dyer, 1976) that have employed within-subjects designs have generally supported the expectancy theory. Therefore, based on the appropriateness and support found for using the expectancy theory with within-subjects designs, the proposed investigation will also use a within-subjects design as opposed to a between-subjects design for examining the influence of motivational factors on receptivity to diversity. In summary, the literature on the expectancy theory of motivation suggests overwhelming support for the applicability of this theory in understanding diversity training outcome. In addition, some researchers have suggested that developing a better understanding of participants’ training-related motivation would provide useful insights into a neglected area related to training effectiveness (Campbell, 1988; Latham, 1988; Noe, 1986). Overall the research on expectancy models, indicate that the applicability of the valence-instrumentality-expectancy framework of the expectancy theory may be more

PAGE 36

27 comprehensive and consequently a better model than the valence or expectancy-valence models for understanding training outcome. In addition, research findings suggest that the expectancy component of the valence-instrumentality-expectancy framework may account for the most variance in training or performance outcome. Self-Efficacy Theory The expectancy and instrumentality components of the expectancy theory of motivation are similar to the efficacy expectations and outcome expectations of Bandura’s self-efficacy theory. Bandura’s (1977) theory of self-efficacy is often used to understand and predict behaviors. This theory posits that behavior change and maintenance are a function of both expectations about one’s ability to execute the behavior (efficacy expectations) and expectations that engaging in a particular behavior will lead to a desired outcome (outcome expectations). In addition, self-efficacy theory specifies that effective functioning require that individuals develop the competencies and skills needed to execute the target behavior (Evans, 1989). Bandura (1982) describes perceived self-efficacy as a person’s judgments of their capability to execute the specific actions that are required to deal with prospective situations. Hence, people are prone to engage in tasks that they feel they can accomplish successfully and avoid those that they doubt they can perform successfully. Bandura (1982; 1991; 1993) discusses the impact of self-efficacy on motivation in terms of the social cognitive theory. This theory proposes that an individual’s perceptions of self-efficacy influences the decisions she or he makes, the amount of effort she or he put forth in accomplishing tasks and goals, his or her level of perseverance when faced with challenges, the types of tasks he or she takes on, his or her level of stress experienced in demanding situations, the positivity or negativity of thought patterns and

PAGE 37

28 level of vulnerability to depression. In other words, perceptions of efficacy influence how people behave, self-motivate, and feel (Bandura, 1993). The expectancy theory of motivation is more comprehensive than the self-efficacy theory in that it includes both self-efficacy and the value component of motivation. Expectancy Measure Experience has been identified as the most influential source of efficacy information for an individual (Jinks & Morgan, 1999). In addition, experience affects both efficacy and expectations. For example, a student may feel very confident about her knowledge of a certain subject but because she believes that the professor does not like her she might have a low expectation outcome. On the other hand, a student might believe that the professor is a fair grader but does not believe in her skills and ability to do well on an exam. Additionally, once established, enhanced self-efficacy generalizes to other situations, with the strongest effects occurring in activities that are most similar to those in which self-efficacy has been improved. In other words, if an individual’s self-efficacy is high in one domain, his or her self-efficacy is likely to be high in another similar domain. Therefore, general-self efficacy will be assessed in the present investigation as a measure of expectancy. Additionally, Bandura asserts that self-efficacy measures should be developed that are specific to the particular target behavior. Therefore, various psychometric instruments have been developed in order to assess self-efficacy for various types of behaviors (Chung & Elias, 1996; Hays & Ellickson, 1990; Lorig, Ung, Chastain, et al., 1989; Saha, Komaromy, & Koepsell, 1999; Thato, S., Hanna, K., & Rodcumdee, 2005). Consistent with this research, a self-efficacy scale that assesses one’s perception of his or her ability to learn and acquire the knowledge, skills,

PAGE 38

29 and awareness that are needed to be culturally competent was be developed by the primary researcher for the purposes of this study. Bandura theorizes that individuals develop general anticipation regarding cause and effect based on their experiences. Furthermore, he suggests that individuals develop particular beliefs about their ability to cope with situation specific constructs (Bandura, 1982). If self-efficacy theory were applied to the study of employees’ beliefs about diversity, it would be logical to predict that employees with higher levels of self-efficacy would be likely to demonstrate greater receptivity to diversity after diversity training. Self-efficacy and performance. The existing literature on academic self-efficacy and academic performance supports the link between these two variables. For example, Schunk (1981) showed that efficacy accounted for significant increments of children’s academic gain in mathematics. In addition, Schunk (1983) reported that “ a heightened sense of efficacy sustains task involvement and results in greater achievement” and “lower percepts of efficacy lead to less persistence and lower achievement” (p.92). This finding highlights the link between self-efficacy and motivation. Other research (Jinks & Morgan, 1996) found significant relationships between elementary students’ perceptions of self-reported grades and self-efficacy. This finding supports the contention that self-efficacy does not simply predict future behavior but individuals with more efficacious beliefs makes things happen (Bandura, 1989). Furthermore, the finding that individuals with more efficacious beliefs are likely to make things happen has been supported by research as well (Pintrich & Degroot, 1990; Pintrich, Roeser, & DeGroot, 1994; Skinner, 1985). Scholars explain that it seems intuitive and likely that “students with high self-efficacy will try different strategies and

PAGE 39

30 persevere while students who doubt their ability will give up a learning process if early efforts do not result in perceived success” (Jinks & Morgan, 1999, p. 224). Although perceived self-efficacy is a critical self-referent factor that influences the interrelationship between knowledge and performance, Jinks and Morgan (1999) report that the motivation to try and to persevere is also affected by outcome expectation. Moreover, both perceived self-efficacy and outcome expectation are critical elements that are learned perceptions that affect student motivation. Connell’s (1990) process model of motivation and Pintrich and Schrauben’s (1992) social cognitive model of achievement motivation predominate the literature that underscores the importance of self-efficacy and learning outcomes. Connell’s process model of motivation posits that perceived social context (e.g., organizational environment, school environment, managerial support) directly influences psychological characteristics. Thus, self-efficacy directly influences a student’s level of engagement or disengagement in academic tasks. A student’s level of cognitive, behavioral, and affective disengagement or engagement is instrumental in determining task performance and learning outcome (i.e., grades). Connell, Helpern-Felsher, Clifford, Crichlow and Usinger’s (1995) examination of perceived competence or the belief that one can achieve academic success (i.e., academic self-efficacy) and learning outcomes demonstrate that self-efficacy is a critical variable that influences school engagement. Pintrich and Schrauben’s social cognitive model of achievement motivation was developed in response to cognition only models of academic learning, which do not take into account the role of motivation in learning. According to this model, environmental factors (i.e., characteristics of the task), students’ beliefs about themselves, and the task at

PAGE 40

31 hand shape students’ motivation and cognition with regard to an academic endeavor. This model assumes that this motivational process is situation-specific and not a trait of the individual. Pintrich and his colleagues proposed that students’ motivational beliefs are comprised of three components: expectancy, value, and affect. The expectancy component includes students’ perceptions of self-efficacy and control. With this logic, students who believe they can perform a task successfully and feel in control of their own learning should demonstrate more cognitive engagement in a task than students who believe that they cannot perform a task successfully. Much of the academic achievement motivation research demonstrates the importance of self-efficacy in determining success in school-related behaviors (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990; Schunk, 1984; Zimmerman, Bandura, & Martinez-Pons, 1992). Research findings indicate that students who reported higher academic self-efficacy in a given class were more likely to utilize cognitive problem-solving strategies and were more likely to persist at tasks that they considered to be boring or challenging (Pintrich & DeGoot, 1990). In contrast to previous studies (Schunk, 1985), Pintrich and DeGoot’s study also revealed that self-efficacy had an indirect impact on performance, operating through its relation with engagement variables to predict academic success. These researchers postulated that this indirect relationship may be a consequence of using global outcome measures of academic performance such as grades rather than assessments of more specific cognitive skills. Another study conducted by Lane and Lane (2001) examined the predictive effectiveness of self-efficacy in an academic setting. Using a sample of 76 postgraduate students who completed a questionnaire that assessed efficacy expectations toward

PAGE 41

32 competencies that underlie performance on th e course, these researchers found that selfefficacy to cope with the demands of the course predicted 11.5% of performance. Overall, this research provide s support that self-efficacy most directly impacts academic engagement (i.e. motivation), which in turn, influence learning outcomes. Instrumentality Measure All of the within-subjects studies con ducted using the expectancy theory of motivation have obtained direct self-reports of su bjects’ valences and expectancies of attaining outcomes as a result of engaging in alternative actions. Cons istent with previous research on the expectancy theory of motiv ation, the proposed investigation will also obtain self-reported measures of instrumentality and valence. More specifically, cultural competence was chosen as the measure of instrumentality for the proposed investigation based on the premise that the main objective of diversity training is to increase the cultural competence of employees. Therefore, the discussion that follows is included because of its relevance to the proposed investigation. The literature on cultural competence primarily derives from the healthcare and counseling disciplines. Cultural competence, is defined by Cross, Bazron, Dennis, and Isaacs (1989) as a set of congruent behaviors, a ttitudes, and policies that come together in a system, agency, or among professionals a nd enables that system, agency, or those professionals to work effectively in cross-cu ltural situations. These authors assert that operationally defined, cultural competence is the integration a nd transformation of knowledge about individuals and groups of people into specific st andards, policies, practices, and attitudes used in appropriate cultur al settings to increase the quality of care.

PAGE 42

33 From the healthcare perspective, the cultural competency literature is vast, and approaches to implementation tend to distinguish between organizations and the providers in an organization. Moreover, “a new trend in the literature suggests that using cultural competency in a focused or strategic way can be a helpful adjunct to the quality improvement process” (HIV/AIDS Bureau, 2000, p. 5). More specifically, cultural competence improves the quality of care that practitioners provide to clients and patients. For example, a recent study of HIV-positive sexual males found that care seeking, utilization of HIV antiretroviral therapy, and adherence is associated with culturally competent providers (Schilder, Kennedy, & Goldstone, 2001). Cultural competency has also been identified as a critical solution in attempting to eliminate disparities in health outcomes (Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, 1999). Research suggests that differences between patients and providers affect the patient-provider relationship (Eisenberg, 1979). It has also been found that there is a direct relationship between how patients feel about the quality of the patient-provider relationship and patient satisfaction, adherence, and subsequent health outcomes (Gerbert, Love, Caspers, et al., 1999; Saha, Komaromy, Koepsell, et al., 1999). Applying this logic to an organizational context, it stands to reason that cultural competence may influence the subordinate-supervisor relationship, coworker relationships, job satisfaction, job stress, and organizational commitment. Furthermore, Goldsmith (2000) asserts that making a commitment to culturally competent management is one part of an organization’s respect for the diversity of its workforce. The respect for diversity aspect of Goldsmith’s argument suggests that cultural competence may be related to receptivity to diversity.

PAGE 43

34 Another burgeoning area of healthcare research on cultural competence is self-perceived cultural competence. Shapiro, Hollingshead and Morrison (2002) conducted a study that surveyed residents’ perceptions of competent cross-cultural doctor-patient communication. Participants were 57 first, second, and third year family medicine and internal medicine residents who completed a questionnaire that assessed cross cultural skills and attitudes relevant to clinical practice. Findings indicated that residents perceived themselves as fairly competent in the use of culturally competent communication techniques. In addition, their findings suggest that residents from both majority and minority cultural backgrounds regard cross-cultural issues similarly in respect to its significance in cross-cultural communication and techniques. More specifically, physicians tended to exhibit a general positive perception of the importance of sociopolitical issues in patient care. Despite this, Shapiro et al. assert that “as a group, residents tended to favor general communication techniques and were less likely to engage in more culture-specific techniques, despite the latter being considered key elements of effective cross cultural communication (Scott, 1997)” (p. 329). In respect to training, most cross-cultural curricula emphasize the importance of learner self-awareness and communication skills. However, the literature suggests that residents were least interested in programs that incorporated such training. In addition, Shapiro et al. (2002) found that “almost 40% of the sample expressed resentment that cross-cultural training would cut into limited curricular time” (p. 329). These learner reservations were similar to those reported by Culhane-Pera, Like, Levensohn-Chialvo and Loewe (2000) in a study that examined multicultural curriculum. Moreover, this finding may be explained by resistance to learning and fear of openly dealing with

PAGE 44

35 discrimination (Nunez, 2000). Shapiro et al.’s study supports the use of cultural competence as a measure of instrumentality and alludes to the critical significance of examining receptivity to diversity and training evaluations. Multicultural counseling competence. Most research on cultural competence in the counseling literature stems from the development of the multicultural counseling competencies. The multicultural counseling competencies are rooted in the guidelines and competencies articulated by Sue, Arrendondo and McDavis (1992). These guidelines focused on three major areas: (a) a counselor’s knowledge and understanding of her or his own worldviews and the worldviews of culturally different clients; (b) a counselor’s beliefs and attitudes about racial and ethnic minorities; and (c) appropriate skills for working with minority clients. These standards were then further developed into 3 subdivided areas: (1) knowledge of culturally diverse worldviews; (2) awareness of values, biases, and personal limitations; and (3) development of appropriate and culturally sensitive interventions strategies (Sue, Arrendondo, & McDavis, 1992). These standards have recently been endorsed by the American Psychological Association (1990; 2003). Based on these competencies, multicultural counseling competence has been generally defined as a counselor’s cultural knowledge, skills and awareness in effectively treating and implementing interventions for culturally diverse clients (Pope-Davis & Ottavi, 1994; Sodowsky, Taffe, Gutkin, & Wise, 1994; 1998). The novelty and complexity of multicultural competence has led researchers to develop diverse methods of quantifying, qualifying, and examining this construct that now subsumes the counseling literature. In respect to research methodology, the primary mode in which these studies are conducted is analogue methodology. This research

PAGE 45

36 method involves client, supervisor, self, and peer evaluations. More specifically, a counseling scenario (real or simulated) is presented to counselors or raters who will then evaluate the counselor’s multicultural competence. A more qualitative approach, portfolios, is also often used to assess multicultural competence. The portfolio method involves a collection of work that demonstrates a person’s efforts, progress, and achievements in a given domain. Perceived cultural competence among counselors. Another facet of multicultural counseling competence that has received considerable attention in the counseling psychology literature is the self-perceived multicultural counseling competence when working with minority clients among counselors. Allison, Crawford, Echemendia and Knepp (1994) conducted a nationwide survey that requested respondents to rate their perceived competence for working with clients form various cultural/minority groups. Based on a sample of 259 graduates from clinical and counseling psychology programs, results indicated that 96.5% of respondents reported that they were “very competent” or “extremely competent” when counseling White clients. In contrast, only 37.5% of respondents reported that they were “very competent” or “extremely competent” when counseling Black clients. Finally, results revealed that 34.8%, 15.8% and 7.7% of the respondents reported that they were “very competent” and “extremely competent” when counseling gay, Asian American, and Native American clients, respectively. The above survey findings provide evidence that counselors may experience differential competence when working with various ethnic minority groups. Results are particularly astounding for the perceived vulnerabilities that White counselors report when counseling ethnic minority clients. In addition, Allison et al.’s (1994) study further

PAGE 46

37 corroborates and distinguishes the perceived cultural competence of counselors that is associated with specific ethnic groups (i.e., Whites, Blacks, Native Americas, gays, and Asian Americans). Therefore, the perceived vulnerabilities that counselors experience when counseling clients from ethnic groups that differ from their own suggests that cultural competence may be a desirable endeavor for counselors who interact with culturally diverse clients. Applying this logic to an organizational context would suggest that as an organization grows increasingly diverse, the need and desire for cultural competence among employees may also intensify. Receptivity to Diversity Soni (2000) developed a Theoretical Model of Receptivity to Diversity (MRD). This model presents that three factors (race and gender identity, prejudice and stereotyping, and interpersonal relationships) influence receptivity to diversity and receptivity to diversity management initiatives. This model attempts to integrate diversity climate components, such as identity structures, prejudice, and stereotyping. Receptivity to diversity among employees refers to their perceptions regarding the salience of diversity and their attitudes (positive or negative) toward diversity. On the other hand, receptivity to diversity management among employees refers to their level of support (active, neutral, or resistant) for diversity management initiatives implemented by their employer (Soni, 2000). Soni argues that organizational readiness or receptivity is an important and necessary condition for diversity management initiatives to be undertaken. Furthermore, she asserts that “an important empirical question, then, is to determine the extent to which members of an organization espouse its formally pronounced value of diversity” (p.396). The receptivity or readiness of organizational members to support diversity may depend

PAGE 47

38 on whether they perceive its outcomes to be negative or positive. In other words, employees’ perceptions of diversity may depend on whether there is a basis for increased organizational problem-solving capacity or a source of greater interpersonal conflict (Adler, 1991). Furthermore, the assertion that one needs to consider the positive or negative evaluation of outcomes as it pertains to the implementation of diversity management initiatives, such as diversity training, supports the notion that one may need to consider the valence and instrumentality components associated with diversity training outcomes. In other words, the valence and instrumentality components of motivation may play a critical role in determining employees’ perceived success of diversity training and diversity training outcomes (e.g., increased cultural sensitivity). In an attempt to examine receptivity to diversity and intercultural competence, Koskinen and Tossavainen (2003) conducted a study that explored the process of intercultural competence in British undergraduate nursing exchange students who studied in Finland. The findings indicated that there were not only students who demonstrated extensive intercultural competence, but also students who were unable to overcome the culture shock and the language barrier sufficiently to allow the intercultural learning process to be initiated. In other words, they found that students interested in learning about cultural differences (i.e., receptivity to diversity) assumed an insider role in the care teams, while the students who lacked an ability to face the differences remained outsiders throughout their stay. The more receptive students adjusted well to the stress caused by the intercultural immersion and became insiders of the care teams in their placements. In contrast, the less receptive students remained outsiders in the Finnish clinical and community teams. This result is discrepant with the previous findings on British

PAGE 48

39 exchange students, which found that all exchange students gained significantly from foreign exchange experiences and highly recommended similar training experiences for enhancing cultural competence in respect to healthcare (Thompson, Boore, & Deeny, 2000; Williamson, 1994). Based on this finding, it is logical to reason that individuals who are more receptive to diversity will likely be more open to or highly motivated about diversity training and learning about cultural issues than individuals who are less receptive to diversity. Receptivity to diversity has also been examined in the college population. Baker (1999) found that master’s students who are more receptive to diversity tended to show more initiative and to engage in more networking, more empathetic behavior, and more self-control. Research also indicates that individual differences may be associated with receptivity to diversity (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sandford, 1950; Baker, 1999; Rubin, 1967). More specifically, receptivity to diverse others is closely related to self-acceptance. Rubin (1967) found that there is an association between self-acceptance and the tendency to either stereotype or accept others. “In other words, as individuals accept themselves more fully, they let go of their prejudices and stereotypes of others and hold the possibility of multiple truths” (Baker, 1999, p. 36). Therefore, receptivity to diversity may be a critical variable in determining training outcome (e.g., reduced stereotyping behaviors). Soni (2000) conducted a study that sought to examine the influence of employee race/ethnicity and gender identity, associated stereotyping and prejudice, and the nature of interpersonal relations on acceptance of diversity and support for diversity-management initiatives. In her investigation, she examined the hypothesis that the three

PAGE 49

40 aforementioned variables have a significant influence on receptivity to diversity in the workplace. Using a cross sectional survey of 160 supervisors and 350 nonsupervisory employees, Soni found that minority women face more barriers and bias than their White females and minority male counterparts. In addition, 25% women and 58% of minorities reported that their race and gender identities have a negative effect on their treatment, compared to 14% of White males. Overall, women and minorities see the organizational climate as less supportive, inclusive, and encouraging for themselves than compared to the climate for White males. Consistent with previous research findings (Kossek & Zonia, 1993), Soni also found that women and minorities consistently show greater support for diversity compared to their White male counterparts despite the finding that 75% or more of the participants thought diversity was salient in terms of its presence in the organization. Furthermore, 83% of minorities reported that they are open to diversity training, compared to 58% of White males. Statistically significant differences by race and gender in the level of support for diversity and diversity management were also consistently found as well. More specifically, 56% of White females, 68% of minority males, and 71% of minority females reported high receptivity to diversity, compared to 29% of White males. Race discrepant perceptions of diversity in the workplace among employees have also been reported (Alderfer, Alderfer, Bell, & Jones, 1992; Soni, 2000). Alderfer et al. found that blacks evaluated a race relations workshop more favorably than Whites. In addition, further analyses revealed that, while the workshop generally had favorable effects for participants, the groups most likely to show unfavorable consequences were

PAGE 50

41 White male first level managers younger than 41 years and White female first level managers older than 40 years. These findings suggest that minorities may be more receptive to diversity and diversity management initiatives than their white counterparts. Overall, the empirical research on receptivity to diversity is sparse and limited. In addition, the existing research suggests that employees vary in how receptive they are to diversity management initiatives implemented by their respective managers despite the finding that diversity is salient. Based on such findings, it is logical to presuppose that the varying perceptions that employees have about the salience of diversity may present a perplexing challenge for the effective implementation of diversity training. Furthermore, research findings suggest that race may be associated with employees’ perceptions of diversity training and their receptivity to diversity. Receptivity to Diversity Training After attempting to conduct a review of the existing studies that most closely approximates the proposed investigation, (i.e., review of the literature on employees’ receptivity to diversity and training effectiveness), only one unpublished work, a dissertation, was found. Using a training evaluation model, Law (1998) sought to design and implement a replicable cultural diversity training program and to objectively evaluate that training program. Because trainee attitudes may affect receptivity to training, subjects levels of ethnic identification was also assessed to determine if it predicted reactions to the training, the amount of material learned during training, and the amount of self-reported behavior change that occurred as a result of the training. As a result of administering questionnaires that assessed trainees’ reactions to the program, learning, and a self-reported behavior change, Law found that the cultural diversity training program significantly improved performance on the learning measure, which assessed

PAGE 51

42 knowledge about cultural diversity issues. Ethnic identification remained stable for White and African American participants across sessions and was not significantly related to any of the evaluation measures. Law’s study differs from the current proposed investigation in that this study will attempt to examine the motivational components that may influence receptivity to diversity and employees’ evaluations of diversity training, while Law’s investigation concentrated on evaluating a diversity training program. Summary Training research published in 1992 concluded that “although training for diversity has increased in popularityno systematic empirical research regarding the effectiveness of diversity programs has been published” (Noe & Ford, 1992, p. 345). Given the increasing development and implementation of diversity training as part of employees’ job training programs in organizations and the surrounding ambiguity about the effectiveness of diversity training and the effects of receptivity to diversity on diversity training outcomes, the purposes of this present study are as follows: 1) to examine the motivational variables [i.e., general self-efficacy, cultural self-efficacy, and level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence] as predictors of participants receptivity to diversity prior to and following diversity training 2) to examine among participants in a diversity training, the association between receptivity to diversity and diversity training participants’ knowledge of diversity training content prior to and following diversity training and 3) to examine the association between demographic variables (i.e., ethnicity/race, gender, and age) and the following variables: self-efficacy, cultural self-efficacy, level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural

PAGE 52

43 competence and importance given to cultural competence, receptivity to diversity management, and receptivity to diversity.

PAGE 53

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Participants Participants for this study were recruited from the Burger King Corporation in Miami, Florida. Of the 250 employees invited to participate in the study, 199 (80%) employees completed the questionnaire assessment packet prior to the diversity training (51 employees declined from participating in the study). Of the 199 participants, 172 (86%) participants completed the questionnaire assessment packet both prior to and after diversity training. The demographic characteristics of the 27 participants who only completed the questionnaire assessment packet prior to the diversity are similar to the participants who completed the questionnaire assessment packet both prior to and following the diversity training. In other words, there were no distinguishing characteristics between the participants who only completed the questionnaire assessment packet prior to the diversity training and those who completed the questionnaire assessment packet both prior to and following the diversity training. Of the 172 (69%) participants who completed the questionnaire assessment packet both prior to and after diversity training, 85 (49.4%) of the participants were male and 87 (50.6%) of the participants were female. Participants’ ages ranged from 21 to 64 with a mean age of 42.4 years. Ninety-six (55.8%) participants identified themselves as Caucasian/White American, not Hispanic, 47 (27.3%) identified themselves as Latino(a)/Hispanic American, 10 (5.8%) identified themselves as African-American/Black, 9 (5.2%) identified themselves as Asian, Asian American/Pacific 44

PAGE 54

45 Islander, or Oriental, 5 (2.9%) participants identified themselves as Other, 4 (2.3%) participants identified themselves as Mixed/parents are from 2 different groups, and 1 (.6%) participant identified him or herself as Native American/American Indian. In terms of education level, 4 (2.3%) of the participants reported that they have a vocational/trade degree, 7 (4.1%) of the participants reported that they have some graduate school education, 8 (4.7%) of the participants reported that they have a high school diploma/GED, 38 (22.1%) of the participants reported that they have some college education, 47 (27.3%) of the participants reported that they have a graduate degree, and 68 (39.5%) of the participants reported that they have a college degree. In terms of religious orientation, 4 (2.3%) of the participants identified themselves as Agnostic, 5 (2.9%) of the participants identified themselves as Muslim, 7 (4.1%) of the participants identified themselves as Jewish, 13 (7.6%) of the participants identified themselves as Baptist, 18 (10.5%) participants identified themselves as Other, 23 (13.4%) of the participants identified themselves as Protestant, 31 (18%) of the participants reported that they have no religious preference, and 71(41.3%) of the participants identified themselves as Catholic. In terms of marital status, 1 (.6%) participant reported that they are separated, 6 (3.5%) of the participants reported that they are single, never been married, 3 (1.7%) participants reported that they are widowed, 3 (1.7%) of the participants reported their marital status is Other, 13 (7.6%) of the participants reported that they are divorced, 21 (12.2%) of the participants reported that they are single, and 123 (71.5%) of the participants reported that they are married. In terms of annual income, 1 (.6%) participant reported an annual income between $20,000-$30,000, 2 (1.2%) of the participants did not

PAGE 55

46 report and annual income, 3 (1.7%) of the participants reported an income between $30,0001 and $40,000, 13 (7.6%) of the participants reported an income between $50,001 and $60,000, 19 (11%) of the participants reported an income between $40,001 and $50,000, and 134 (77.9%) of the participants reported an income of over $60,000. In terms of job position, 3 (2%) of the participants were Vice Presidents, 13 (8%) participants were Analysts, 16 (%) of the participants were Directors, 65 (38%) of the participants were Other, and 75 (44%) of the participants were Managers. Participants’ years with the organization ranged from <1 to 35 years with a mean of 10.7 years. Participants’ years of experience in administration ranged from 0 to 35 years with a mean of 11.1 years. Participants’ years of direct experience also ranged from 0 to 35 years with a mean of 8.6 years. Two (1.2%) of the participants did not report the extent to which they are involved with the analysis or formation of agency policy, 6 (3.5%) participants reported that they are “Very Much” involved with the analysis or formation of agency policy, 28 (16. 3%) of the participants reported that they “Sometimes” are involved with the analysis or formation of agency policy, 28 (16.3%) of the participants reported that they are “Very Rarely” involved with the analysis or formation of agency policy, and 108 (62.8%) of the participants reported that they are “Not at all” involved with the analysis or formation of agency policy. In terms of the number of cultural awareness/competence workshops or conferences attended in the past, 56 (32.6%) of the participants reported that they attended 0 cultural awareness/competence workshops or conferences, 82 (47.7%) of the participants reported that they attended 1 to 3 cultural awareness/competence workshops or conferences, 21 (12.2%) of the participants reported that they attended 4 to 6 cultural

PAGE 56

47 awareness/competence workshops or conferences, 7 (4.1%) of the participants reported that they attended 7 to 9 cultural awareness/competence workshops or conferences, and 6 (3.5%) of the participants reported that they attended 10 or more cultural awareness/competence workshops or conferences. Finally, 157 (91.3%) of the participants reported that the diversity training was mandatory, and 15 (8.7%) of the participants reported that the training was not mandatory. The demographic characteristics of the participants in this study were both representative and nonrepresentative of the employees at the Burger King Corporation. In terms of gender composition, of the 944 Burger King Corporation employees, 449 (48%) of the employees are female and 495 (52%) are males. In terms of race/ethnic composition, 5% of the employees are Asian American, 8% of the employees are African-American, 27% of the employees are Hispanic American, and 60% of the employees are Caucasian/White American. In terms of job position, 39 (4%) of the employees are Vice President/Executives, 93 (10%) are Directors, 383 (41%) are Managers, 246 (26%) are Analyst, and 183 (19%) are Nonexempt employees. In the present study White Americans are overrepresented whereas African Americans and Asian Americans are underrepresented. Furthermore, Analyst and Vice President/Executives are underrepresented while Directors are overrepresented in this study. The demographic characteristics of the Burger King Corporation employees’ income, religion, marital status and education level are unavailable; therefore, it is unknown whether the sample of this study is representative of the Burger King Corporation employees’ in terms of income, religion, marital status, and education level.

PAGE 57

48 Instruments Participants were given an assessment battery prior to and following the diversity training they received from The Champion Services Group Inc., a local human resources and management consulting firm in Miami, FL. The assessment battery consists of the following measures: (1) Demographic Questionnaire; (2) Cultural Self-Efficacy Scale; (3) Receptivity to Diversity Index; (4) Receptivity to Diversity Management Index; (5) Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire; (6) Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale-Short Form; (7) Mutual Respect Through Understanding Differences Knowledge Questionnaire and (8) General Self-Efficacy Scale. More detailed descriptions of these measures are provided below and each may be found in the appendices. The Demographic Questionnaire (DQ) (see appendix B) was developed by the primary researcher in order to obtain information about participants’ age, gender, race, ethnicity, marital status, education level, religious orientation, average annual income, job position and experience (i.e., years with organization, years of experience in administration, and years of experience in direct service). This questionnaire also includes questions about the the extent to which respondents are invovled with the analysis or formation of organization policies and the number of cultural awareness/competence workshops or conferences they have attended and whether the training was mandatory or not. The Receptivity to Diversity Survey. (RDS) (Soni, 2000) is a 42-item self-report survey designed to measure different dimensions of diversity. The items in each dimension were combined to create 4 indexes. These indexes include: Receptivity to Diversity (RDI), Receptivity to Diversity Management (RDMI), Perceived Discrimination (PDI), and Interpersonal Relations/Job Satisfaction Index (JSI). The mean

PAGE 58

49 of the responses to items on each index are calculated in order to obtain index scores. Item responses range from 1=Strongly Disagree to 5=Strongly Agree such that higher scores indicate higher levels of receptivity to diversity. Due to its relevance, only the Receptivity to Diversity and Receptivity to Diversity Management indexes will be used for the purposes of the present study. The RDI is a 10-item index (see appendix C) to assess the extent to which respondents are receptive to diversity. The RDMI is a 10-item index (see appendix D) to assess the extent to which respondents are receptive to diversity management initiatives. The mean of the responses to items on each index are calculated in order to obtain index scores. Item responses range from 1=Strongly Disagree to 5=Strongly Agree such that higher scores indicate higher levels of receptivity to diversity and receptivity to diversity management. Alpha coefficients yielded for the indexes ranged from .8 to .9 for all indexes, indicating a moderate to high level of internal consistency. There is no validity data reported on this measure. A sample item from the receptivity to diversity index is: “I work with people who are different from me in their race and gender identity.” A sample item from the receptivity to diversity management index is: “The responsibility for creating diversity rests primarily with senior leadership.” The Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire. (IVQ) (see appendix E) was developed by the primary investigator for use in the present research. The IVQ items are based on Sue, Arrendondo, and McDavis’ (1992) cultural competency domains. This questionnaire was designed to obtain a measure of instrumentality as measured by the level to which respondents agree that diversity training increases cultural competence. This questionnaire was also designed to obtain a measure of valence as measured by the

PAGE 59

50 level to which respondents’ value cultural competence. This measure consists of 16-items, which are divided into 2 sections that ask questions about the degree to which respondents’ agree that diversity training will increase cultural competence and the degree to which they value cultural competence. The Instrumentality Section (TIS) of IVQ contains 8 items that assess respondents’ level of agreement that diversity training will help them acquire the knowledge, skills, awareness, behaviors and sensitivity (i.e., cultural competence) they need to interact more effectively with culturally diverse coworkers. A sample item from this section is: “Diversity training will help me acquire the awareness I need to interact more effectively with culturally diverse coworkers.” The Valence Section (TVS) of the IVQ contains 8 items that ask about the extent to which respondents agree that acquiring the awareness, knowledge, skills, behaviors and sensitivity necessary for effective cross-cultural interactions in the workplace is important to them. A sample item from this section is: “Acquiring the necessary knowledge I need to be culturally sensitive is important to me.” The mean of the responses to items on each section are calculated in order to obtain section index scores and a mean of all items are calculated in order to obtain a total IVQ score. Each of the items have 5 response choices, ranging from 1=Strongly Disagree to 5=Strongly Agree. Higher instrumentality scores indicate higher level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence. Higher valence scores indicate a higher level of importance given to cultural competence. Higher IVQ total scores indicate a higher level of agreement that diversity training will lead to the increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence. Reliability data on the TIS and TVS was obtained in the current study. Results yielded an Alpha

PAGE 60

51 coefficient of .97 and .97 for the TIS and TVS, respectively, at pre-training, and an Alpha coefficient of .95 and .96 for the TIS and TVS, respectively, at post-training. Reliability of the total IVQ was also obtained in the present study and an Alpha coefficient of .97 was obtained for the IVQ at both pre-training and post-training, indicating that this measure is reliable. The General Self-Efficacy Scale (SES; Sherer, Maddux, Mercadante, Prentice-Dunn, Jacobs, & Rogers, 1982) (see appendix I) is a self-report measure designed to assess self-efficacy expectancies in areas such as social skills or vocational competence. The scale is comprised of 23-items, which are subdivided into two subscales: the general self-efficacy subscale consisting of 17 items and a 6-item social self-efficacy subscale. However, only the general self-efficacy subscale will be used for the purposes of the present study. The items on the general self-efficacy subscale focus on three areas: (a) persistence in the face of adversity, (b) willingness to initiate behavior, and (c) willingness to expend effort in completing a behavior. Respondents rate their agreement with each item on a 14-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1=Strongly Disagree to 14=Strongly Agree. A generalized self-efficacy score is obtained by summing the scores on the first 17 items. A sample item from this scale is: “If I can’t do a job the first time, I keep trying until I can.” Coefficients alpha for the General Self-Efficacy Scales is .86, indicating that this scale is reliable for use in basic research. Construct validity was demonstrated by correlating the scale with measures of various personality constructs including the Internal-External Control Scale, the Ego Strength Scale, the Interpersonal Competency Scale, and a Self-esteem scale. The correlations obtained were in the appropriate direction and were moderate in magnitude.

PAGE 61

52 However, the magnitude of the correlations indicated that the SES assesses a distinct construct (Sherer et al., 1982). The Self-Efficacy Scale for Cultural Competence (SESCC) (see appendix G) was developed by the primary investigator for the current research. Using the domain specifications of the guide for constructing self-efficacy scales, the primary researcher developed a self-report measure designed to assess self-efficacy expectancies in the area of learning and acquiring the necessary skills, knowledge, awareness to be culturally competent. Specifically, the domain specializations include: (1) knowledge of the determinants governing the activity domain (2) specification of which aspects of personal efficacy should be measured and (3) links to contributing behavioral factors over which people can exercise some control. Based on these specifications the scale is comprised of 5 items that focus on two areas. The first 3 items assess respondents’ ability to learn and acquire the knowledge, skills and behaviors that are necessary to be culturally competent. Respondents rate their ability on the aforementioned items on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1=Not Well at all to 7=Very Well. A sample item from this section is: “How well can you acquire the necessary awareness to become culturally competent?” The last 2 items assess how much respondents can do to promote and make their department a culturally competent and culturally sensitive work environment. Respondents rate their ability on the aforementioned items on a 9-point Likert scale ranging from 1=Nothing to 7=A Great Deal. A sample item from this section is: “How much can you do to make your department a culturally sensitive work environment?” The mean of the responses to all of the items are calculated in order to obtain a total cultural self-efficacy score. Reliability data on the SESCC was obtained from the current sample.

PAGE 62

53 Results yielded an Alpha coefficient of .85 and .86 at pre-training and post-training, respectively, indicating that this measure is reliable. The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale-Short Form (MCSD-S; Strahan & Gerbasi, 1972) (see appendix F) is a 20-item scale that was used to measure the degree to which participants responded to the assessments in a socially desirable manner. The Short-Form is based on the original 33-item instrument developed by Crowne & Marlowe (1960). The Kuder-Richardson 20 (KR-20) reliability coefficients for the short version were comparable to those of the original version (KR-20=.83 for college females and .78 for college males). Studies revealed that Pearson correlations between the original version and the short version were as high as .98, indicating adequate construct validity for the short version (Fraboni & Copper, 1989; Strahan & Gerbasi, 1972). Respondents are asked to mark “True” or “False” to ten items keyed in the true direction and ten items keyed in the false direction. Scores range from 0 to 20 with higher scores indicating a high need for approval. The Mutual Respect Through Understanding Differences Knowledge Questionnaire (MRKQ) (see appendix H) is a 12-item knowledge questionnaire developed by the primary researcher in order to obtain an objective measure of what participants know about diversity as it relates to the content of the experienced diversity training. This measure also serves as a manipulation check. More specifically, this questionnaire contains items that assess the major objectives and critical points of the experienced diversity training. Respondents indicate yes or no to each statement presented. Correct responses are scored as 1 and incorrect responses are scored as 0. Response scores are summed for a total MRKQ, such that higher scores indicate higher knowledge of the

PAGE 63

54 diversity training content. A sample item from this questionnaire is: “Diversity only includes gender and race.” Procedure The purpose and procedures of the study were explained to the Chief Executive Officer of the Burger King Corporation and permission to conduct the present study was obtained from the appropriate administrators prior to recruiting participants. Institutional Review Board approval for this study was then obtained from the University of Florida. The purpose for and procedures of the study were then explained to the instructors of the Burger King Corporation diversity training program. The instructors consisted of 3 White males, 1 African American male, 1 African American female, 1 Hispanic female, and 2 White females. The diversity training instructors were informed that the purpose of the study is to determine the factors that influence diversity training outcomes. The diversity training instructors were then given written directions on what diversity training participants should be told at the beginning of each training session and the procedure for the collection of questionnaire packets. Instructors were then given directions verbally to inform diversity training participants at the beginning of each training about a research opportunity that they were invited to voluntarily participate in. On the day of the training, the diversity training instructors informed trainees about a research opportunity and invited trainees to participate in the study. The diversity training instructors informed trainees that the purpose of the study is to determine the factors that influence diversity-training outcomes. They were told that the questionnaire packets consist of 8 forms (see Appendices B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I), which should take approximately 15 minutes to complete. The content of the packets was then described and they were told that they will be required to fill out questionnaire packets on 2 separate

PAGE 64

55 occasions, at the beginning of the diversity training program and 3-weeks following the diversity training via the internet. Trainees were informed that the packets contain questions regarding themselves, their feelings, and the diversity training content that they will experience. Trainees were assured that all information provided will be used exclusively for research purposes and will remain completely confidential. They were also told that there would be no monetary reward for participating in this study and their participation was not mandatory but voluntary. The diversity training instructors then notified the participants of the proper procedures regarding the consent form. More specifically, the participants were told that the informed consent forms will be collected separately from their questionnaires and will therefore be unidentifiable with their responses. They were also instructed to generate a personal identification code that consists of the first 3 letters of their mother’s maiden name and the last 4 digits of their best friend’s phone number as outlined on the demographic data questionnaire. They were instructed that they would also be asked to record this identification code for the post assessment packet as well; therefore, they will need to remember their personal identification code. In addition, they were informed that their decision to participate or not to participate in the study would not affect their job (course outcome) in any way. After the purpose and procedures involved in the study were explained, trainees who would like to participate in the study as indicated by a show of hands was administered the pre-assessment questionnaire packets. Trainees who did not want to participate in the study as indicated by a show of hands were escorted in the hall where they were allowed to take a coffee break. The trainees who wanted to participate in this

PAGE 65

56 study were then told that they would complete the pre-assessment questionnaire packets at that time. They were instructed to read and complete the informed consent form and to return the consent forms separately from the post assessment packet to the instructor when they were finished completing the assessment packet. They were told to read the instructions at the top of each page and to follow them carefully. They were also encouraged to answer the questions as honestly as possible and to choose the responses that best describe how they feel and behave. They were also told that they will receive an email via the company’s list serve in 3 weeks with an address link to a secured website that contains the post-assessment questionnaire battery instructing them to complete the post-assessment questionnaire packet. Employees were also told they would be given paid time to complete the post-assessment packets via the internet. Intervention The Champion Services Group Incorporated conducted the diversity training for the present research. More specifically, the chief executive officer and several senior consultants developed and designed a customized diversity training program specific to the needs of the Burger King Corporation. The training was based on themes that the upper management team of the Burger King Corporation identified as critical topics that they felt needed to be addressed in relation to diversity issues. The training took place over 12 one-day (8 hour) workshops and included the following topics: Cultural Diversity; Communicating with Culturally Diverse Others; Race and Ethnic Relations; Racism and Sexism. There were 12-15 different employees in each workshop. The method of instruction included both lecture format and small group/seminar type instruction. Participants were given training manuals that included the above topics and videotape instruction.

PAGE 66

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS This chapter discusses the descriptive data and results of the analyses to test the hypotheses and research question of interest in this study. The original research plan was to apply these analyses only to the data obtained from all participants as a group. However, because there was a relatively large number of Hispanics as well as White Americans who participated in this study, the data analyses to test the hypotheses and research question were also conducted separately for these racially different groups as post hoc analyses. Conducting the data analyses separately by race is consistent with the Difference Model approach to analyzing data (Oyemede & Rosser, 1980) and culturally sensitive research practices (Ogbu, 1985). The Difference Model approach to analyzing data supports recognizing cultural differences when investigating the social behavior of different ethnic groups by examining factors in the behavior of different ethnic groups in separate analyses. In so doing, the different opportunities that may be available to different ethnic groups are considered, and ethnic differences in behaviors and in the factors influencing the behaviors can be determined. The results are divided into five major parts. First, the descriptive data for all of the major variables in the study are reported. Second, the results of a preliminary correlation analysis applied to all the variables in the study will be discussed to assess the degree of relationship between the dependent variables. Third, the results of the statistical analyses used to test the hypotheses are discussed. Next, the results of the statistical analyses used 57

PAGE 67

58 to examine the research question are discussed. Finally, the results of post hoc analyses are reported. Descriptive Data for All Major Variables Table 4-1 presents the mean, norm mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum scores for the following variables in this study at both pre and post training: receptivity to diversity as measured by the Receptivity to Diversity Index (RDI); receptivity to diversity management as measured by the Receptivity to Diversity Management Index (RDMI); agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence as measured by the Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire (IVQ), cultural self-efficacy as measured by the Self-Efficacy Scale for Cultural Competence (SESCC), general self-efficacy as measured by the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES), diversity knowledge assessment scores as measured by the Mutual Respect Through Understanding Differences Knowledge Questionnaire (MRKQ), and scores on the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale-Short Form (MCSDS). A paired samples t-test was conducted to determine if there were significant differences from pre-training to post-training in participant’s mean scores on the Receptivity to Diversity Index, Receptivity to Diversity Management Index, Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire, Self-Efficacy Scale for Cultural Competence, General Self-Efficacy Scale, and Mutual Respect Through Understanding Differences Knowledge Questionnaire. The results of the paired samples t-test, presented in Table 4-2, indicated that participants’ mean scores on the aforementioned scales at post-training were significantly higher than their mean scores on the aforementioned scales at pre-training. More specifically, the above findings suggest that the participants in this study

PAGE 68

59 scored significantly higher at post-training than at pre-training on: receptivity to diversity, t(171)=-4.488, p<.001, diversity knowledge assessment, t(171)=-6.682, p<.001, receptivity to diversity management, t(171)=-2.618, p<.05, level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence, t(171)=-5.529, p<.001, cultural self-efficacy, t(171)=-5. 829, p<.001, and general self-efficacy, t(171)=2.176, p<.005. Table 4-1. Descriptive Data for All Major Variables in this Study VARIABLES RDI RDMI GSES IVQ MRKQ SESCC MCSDS Pre-Training M 3.13 3.00 67.74 3.85 9.16 6.02 13.55 SD .313 .303 12.35 .660 1.83 1.10 4.17 Maximum 4.10 3.80 132.00 5.00 6.00 7.80 20.00 Minimum 2.10 2.30 35.00 1.25 12.00 3.00 .00 Post-Training M 3.24 3.01 69.48 4.09 10.06 6.41 13.99 SD .298 .306 14.65 .563 1.26 1.03 4.19 Maximum 4.00 3.90 151.00 5.00 12.00 7.80 20.00 Minimum 2.50 2.30 38.00 1.19 6.00 1.40 .00 Norm Mean 3.80 3.30 68.34 NA NA NA 10.04 _____________________________________________________________________ Note. NA indicates data is not available. RDI=Receptivity to Diversity; RDMI=Receptivity to Diversity Management; GSES=General Self-Efficacy Scale; IVQ=Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire; MRKQ=Mutual Respect Through Understanding Knowledge Questionnaire; SESCC=Self-Efficacy Scale for Cultural Competence; MCSDS=Marlowe Crowne Social Desirability Scale-Short Form. A normative mean for the MCSDS-Short Form was obtained from Loo and Thorpe’s (2000) confirmatory factor analysis study of different versions of the Marlowe Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Based on a sample of 232 participants, the researchers found the mean score on this scale to be 10.04 (SD=3.41). The MCSDS-Short Form mean score for the participants in the current study at both pre training (M=13.54, SD=4.16) and post training (M=13.99, SD=4.19) was higher than the norm obtained in Loo and

PAGE 69

60 Thorpe’s study, suggesting that participants generally responded in a highly socially desirable manner; however, not more than one standard deviation above the mean. Table 4-2. Paired Sample t-test Results for the Variables of Interest in this Study from Pre-training to Post-training Paired differences df M SD t Sig. Pair (2-tailed) ________________________________________________________________________ RDI 171 -.107 .313 -4.488 .000 RDMI 171 -.051 .256 -2.618 .010 IVQ 171 -.237 .563 -5.529 .000 GSES 171 -1.738 10.475 -2.176 .031 SESCC 171 -.396 .892 -5.829 .000 MRKQ 171 -.396 .892 -5.829 .000 _____________________________________________________________________ Note: N =172; RDI=Receptivity to Diversity; RDMI=Receptivity to Diversity Management; GSES=General Self-Efficacy Scale; IVQ=Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire; MRKQ=Mutual Respect Through Understanding Knowledge Questionnaire; SESCC=Self-Efficacy Scale for Cultural Competence. Results of a Preliminary Correlation Analysis between All of the Variables in this Study Table 4-3 presents the results of the preliminary Pearson Correlation analysis between all the variables in this study at pre-training and Table 4-4 presents the results of the preliminary Pearson Correlation analysis between all the variables in this study at post-training. A preliminary Pearson Correlation analysis was performed to examine the relationships between social desirability (as measured by the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale-Short Form; MCSDS) and each of the variables of interest in this study at both pre-training and post-training. This procedure was done to determine if any of the ratings on the variables of interest were influenced by the tendency to give socially desirable responses. Results revealed that at both pre-training and post-training, there was

PAGE 70

61 a weak significant inverse association between the MCSDS and The Mutual Respect Through Understanding Differences Knowledge Questionnaire scores (MRKQ) (r=-.201, p=.008 and r=-.187, p=.014, respectively). Given these results, social desirability was controlled for in the analyses that were performed to test the hypotheses that included the Mutual Respect Through Understanding Differences Knowledge Questionnaire scores. Table 4-3. Results of the Preliminary Pearson Correlation Analysis Between All the Variables in this Study at Pre-Training MCSDS IVQ GSES SESCC MRKQ RDMI RDI ________________________________________________________________________ MCSDS -----.093 -.091 -.051 .201** .039 -.133 IVQ .093 ------.118 .166* .044 .264** .132 GSES -.091 -.118 ------.134 .004 .003 .122 SESCC -.051 .166* -.134 -----.132 .002 .017 MRKQ -.201** .044 -.091 .132 -----.044 .098 RDMI .039 .264** .003 .002 .044 -----.223** RDI -.133 .132 .122 .017 .098 .223** -----________________________________________________________________________ N =172; *p<.05, **p<.01. RDI=Receptivity to Diversity; RDMI=Receptivity to Diversity Management; GSES=General Self-Efficacy Scale; IVQ=Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire; MRKQ=Mutual Respect Through Understanding Knowledge Questionnaire; SESCC=Self-Efficacy Scale for Cultural Competence; MCSDS=Marlowe Crowne Social Desirability Scale-Short Form. Several other significant associations among the variables were also found. A moderate to high significant positive association was found between the valence section of the Instrumentality/Valence scale (TVS) and the instrumentality section of the Instrumentality/Valence scale (TIS) at both pre-training (r=.609, p=.000) and post-training (r=.699, p=.000), indicating that these subsections are measuring a similar construct. Given the above finding, the total IVQ scale score was used to obtain a total

PAGE 71

62 instrumentality and valence score rather than one separate score for instrumentality and one separate score for valence to test the hypotheses in this study. Therefore, the total IVQ scale score measures one construct, participants’ level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence (i.e., the instrumentality-valence construct). Table 4-4. Results of the Preliminary Pearson Correlation Analysis Between All the Variables in this Study at Post-Training MCSDS IVQ GSES SESCC MRKQ RDMI RDI ________________________________________________________________________ MCSDS -----.027 .005 .043 -.187* .083 -.046 IVQ .027 -----.054 .322** .198** .214** .159* GSES .005 .054 ------.150 -.079 .043 .314** SESCC .043 .322** -.150 -----.034 -.019 -.104 MRKQ -.187* .198* -.079 .034 ------.103 -.035 RDMI .083 .214** .043 -.019 -.103 -----.205** RDI -.046 .159* .314** -.104 -.035 .205** -----________________________________________________________________________ N =172; *p<.05,**p<.01. RDI=Receptivity to Diversity; RDMI=Receptivity to Diversity Management; GSES=General Self-Efficacy Scale; IVQ=Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire; MRKQ=Mutual Respect Through Understanding Knowledge Questionnaire; SESCC=Self-Efficacy Scale for Cultural Competence; MCSDS=Marlowe Crowne Social Desirability Scale-Short Form. A positive significant weak association was also found between cultural self-efficacy as measured by the Self-Efficacy Scale for Cultural Competence (SESCC) and scores on the Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire at both pre-training (IVQ) (r=.166, p=.030) and post-training (r=.322, p=.000). This correlation indicates that at both pre-training and post-training, the higher participants’ level of cultural self-efficacy, the higher their level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence. A weak significant positive

PAGE 72

63 association was also found between receptivity to diversity management as measured by Receptivity to Diversity Management Index (RDMI) and scores on the IVQ at both pre-training (r=.264, p=.000) and post-training (r=.214, p=.005). This correlation indicates that at both pre-training and post-training, the more receptive participants are to diversity management, the greater their level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence. A weak significant positive association was found between receptivity to diversity and scores on the IVQ at post-training (r=.159, p=.038). This correlation indicates that at post-training, the higher participants’ level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence, the more receptive they are to diversity. A weak significant positive association between receptivity to diversity and general self-efficacy was also found at post-training (r=.314, p=.000). This correlation indicates that at post-training, the higher participants’ general self-efficacy, the higher their level of receptivity to diversity. Finally, results revealed a weak significant positive association between MRKQ scores and IVQ scores at post-training (r=.198, p=.009). This correlation indicates that at post-training, the higher participants’ level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence, the higher their diversity knowledge assessment scores. Finally, a weak significant positive association was found between scores on the Receptivity to Diversity Index and Receptivity to Diversity Management Index at both pre-training (r=.223, p=.003) and post-training (r=.205, p=.007). This correlation indicates that the higher participants’ level of receptivity to diversity, the higher their

PAGE 73

64 level of receptivity to diversity management. These results also suggest that although these measures are distinct they are measuring a similar construct. A preliminary Pearson Correlation analysis was also conducted between the dependent variables in this study and the following demographic variables: gender, education, income, number of years in the organization, number of years in administration, and the number of diversity workshops previously attended. Results revealed a weak significant negative correlation between social desirability and education at both pre-training (r=-.249, p=.001) and post-training (r=-.242, p=.001). This correlation indicates that the higher participants’ education, the lower their social desirability. A weak significant negative correlation was also found between social desirability and income at pre-training (r=-.172, p=.025). This correlation indicates that the higher participants’ income, the lower their social desirability at pre-training. Results also revealed a weak significant positive correlation between receptivity to diversity and income at both pre-training (r=.163, p=.033) and post-training (r=.183, p=.017). This correlation indicates that the higher participants’ income, the higher their receptivity to diversity at both pre-training and post-training. Results revealed a weak significant negative correlation between knowledge assessment scores and the number of years in the organization at post-training (r=-.158, p=.039). This correlation indicates that the higher participants’ years in the organization, the lower their diversity knowledge assessment scores at post-training. A weak significant positive correlation between knowledge assessment scores and education was also found at pre-training (r=.189, p=.013). This correlation indicates that the higher

PAGE 74

65 participants’ diversity knowledge assessment scores, the higher their education at pre-training. A weak significant negative correlation was found between experience in administration and cultural self-efficacy at post-training (r=-.158, p=.039). This correlation indicates that the higher the number of years participants experience in administration, the lower their cultural self-efficacy at post-training. Results also revealed a weak significant positive correlation between experience in administration and level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence at pre-training (r=.208, p=.007). This correlation indicates that the higher the number of years participants experience in administration, the higher level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence at pre-training. Finally, a weak significant positive correlation between experience in administration and general self-efficacy at post-training (r=.175, p=.023) was found. This correlation indicates that the higher the number of years participants experience in administration, the higher their self-efficacy at pre-training. No significant correlations were found between any of the dependent variables in this study and the number of diversity workshops previously attended. Hypothesis 1 Results from the Analysis to Test Hypothesis One Hypothesis 1 stated that among participants, at pre-training, levels of cultural self-efficacy as measured by the Self-Efficacy Scale for Cultural Competence (SESCC), levels of general self-efficacy as measured by the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES), levels of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and

PAGE 75

66 importance given to cultural competence as measured by the Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire (IVQ) will be significant predictors of receptivity to diversity as measured by the Receptivity to Diversity Index (RDI) and receptivity to diversity management as measured by the Receptivity to Diversity Management Index (RDMI). Two multiple regressions were performed to test this hypothesis. In the first multiple regression model, receptivity to diversity management was the criterion variable, and pre-training levels of cultural self-efficacy, general self-efficacy, and agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence were predictor variables. Additionally, the number of previous workshops attended was controlled due to the relatively large number of participants (65%) who reported prior experience with diversity training. Results indicated that the number of previous workshops attended, cultural self-efficacy, general self-efficacy, and agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence accounted for 8% of the variance in receptivity to diversity management (F(4, 167)=3.610, p<.01). There was only one significant predictor in this model. Level of agreement that diversity training will lead to cultural competence and importance given to increased cultural competence made a unique contribution to the variance in receptivity to diversity management (=.274, p<.01); however, the unique contributions of the number of previous workshops attended, self-efficacy and cultural self-efficacy were non-significant. Specifically, higher levels of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence predicted higher receptivity to

PAGE 76

67 diversity management. These results provided partial support for this hypothesis. The above findings are summarized in Table 4-5. In the second multiple regression model, receptivity to diversity was the criterion variable, and pre-training levels of cultural self-efficacy, general self-efficacy, and agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence were predictor variables. Additionally, the number of previous workshops attended was used as a control variable. This model was not found to be significant, F(4, 167)=1.625, p=.170). Thus, the predictor variables under investigation do not appear to be associated with receptivity to diversity. These results provide no support for this hypothesis. Hypothesis 2 Results from the Analysis to Test Hypothesis Two Hypothesis 2 stated that among participants, differences in levels of cultural self-efficacy from pre-training to post-training as measured by the Self-Efficacy Scale for Cultural Competence (SESCC), differences in levels of general self-efficacy from pre-training to post-training as measured by the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES), and differences in levels of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence from pre-training to post-training as measured by the Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire (IVQ) will significantly predict (a) the amount of difference from pre-training to post-training in receptivity to diversity as measured by the Receptivity to Diversity Index (RDI) and (b) the amount of difference from pre-training to post-training in receptivity to diversity management as measured by the Receptivity to Diversity Management Index (RDMI).

PAGE 77

68 Table 4-5. Summary of the Multiple Regression Model Predicting Receptivity to Diversity Management from Pre-Training Cultural Self-Efficacy, General Self-Efficacy, and Instrumentality/Valence Source df R 2 F p value Model 4 .08 3.610 .008* Predictor Variables F p value Pre-Training Instrumentality/Valence .274 13.092 .000* Pre-Training Cultural Self-Efficacy -.033 .185 .668 Pre-Training General Self-Efficacy .034 .204 .652 Number of Workshops Attended -.085 1.311 .254 Note. Instrumentality/Valence=level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence. *p<.01. The difference from pre-training to post-training scores on each of the independent and dependent variables were computed and a Multiple Regression Analysis was then performed to test this hypothesis. It is important to note that, negative changes in scores were recoded as 0 to eliminate the difficulty of distinguishing the directionality of change. However, 15 (9%) participants experienced lowered cultural self-efficacy, 10 (6%) participants experienced lowered levels of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence, and 12 (7%) participants experienced lowered general self-efficacy. Finally, 21 (12%) of the participants experienced lowered receptivity to diversity and 18 (10%) participants experienced lowered receptivity to diversity management. In the first multiple regression model, differences from pre-training to post-training in levels of receptivity to diversity management as measured by the RDMI was the criterion variable, and differences from pre-training to post-training in levels of cultural self-efficacy as measured by the Self-Efficacy Scale for Cultural Competence (SESCC), general self-efficacy as measured by the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES), and agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and

PAGE 78

69 importance given to cultural competence as measured by the Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire (IVQ) were predictor variables. Additionally, the number of previous workshops attended was used as a control variable. Results indicated that differences from pre-training to post-training in cultural self-efficacy, general self-efficacy, agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence, and the number of previous workshops attended accounted for 6% of the variance in the difference in receptivity to diversity management from pre-training to post-training (F(4, 167)=2. 808, p<.05). There was only one significant predictor in this model. Difference in general self-efficacy from pre-training to post-training made a unique contribution to the variance in the differences in receptivity to diversity management from pre-training to post-training (=.203, p<.01); however, the unique contribution of the number of previous workshops attended, differences in general self-efficacy from pre-training to post-training and differences in cultural self-efficacy from pre-training to post-training were non-significant. Specifically, higher differences in general self-efficacy from pre-training to post-training predicted higher differences in receptivity to diversity management from pre-training to post-training. These results revealed partial support for this hypothesis. These findings are summarized in Table 4-6. In the second multiple regression model, differences from pre-training to post-training in levels of receptivity to diversity as measured by the RDI was the criterion variable, and differences from pre-training to post-training in levels of cultural self-efficacy as measured by the Self-Efficacy Scale for Cultural Competence (SESCC), general self-efficacy as measured by the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES), and

PAGE 79

70 agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence as measured by the Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire (IVQ) were predictor variables. Table 4-6. Summary of the Multiple Regression Model Predicting Difference in Receptivity to Diversity Management from Difference in Cultural Self-Efficacy from Pre-Training to Post-Training, Difference in General Self-Efficacy from Pre-Training to Post-Training, and Difference in Instrumentality/Valence from Pre-Training to Post-Training Source df R 2 F p value Model 4 .063 2.808 .027* Predictor Variables F p value Difference in IVQ .130 2.956 .087 Difference in SESCC -.083 1.217 .272 Difference in GSES .203 7.193 .008** Number of Workshops Attended .059 .608 .437 Note. The difference means the difference from pre-training to post-training scores on the IVQ=Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire, SESCC=Self-Efficacy Scale for Cultural Competence, and GSES=General Self-Efficacy Scale. *p<.05, **p<.01. Additionally, the number of previous workshops attended was used as a control variable. Results indicated that differences from pre-training to post-training in cultural self-efficacy, general self-efficacy, and agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence, and the number of previous workshops attended accounted for 8% of the variance in the difference from pre-training to post-training in receptivity to diversity (F(4, 167)=3.484, p<.01). There was only one significant predictor in this model. Difference from pre-training to post-training in general self-efficacy made a unique contribution to the variance in the difference from pre-training to post-training in receptivity to diversity (=.265, p<.01); however, the unique contribution of the number of previous workshops attended, difference from pre-training to post-training in general self-efficacy and differences from

PAGE 80

71 pre-training to post-training in cultural self-efficacy were non-significant. Specifically, higher differences in general self-efficacy from pre-training to post-training predicted higher differences in receptivity to diversity from pre-training to post-training. These results revealed partial support for this hypothesis. These findings are summarized in Table 4-7. Hypothesis 3 Results from the Analysis to Test Hypothesis Three Hypothesis 3 stated that among participants, levels of cultural self-efficacy as measured by the Self-Efficacy Scale for Cultural Competence (SESCC), general self-efficacy as measured by the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES), and levels of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence as measured by the Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire (IVQ) will be positively and significantly associated with diversity knowledge assessment scores as measured by the Mutual Respect Through Understanding Differences Knowledge Questionnaire (MRKQ) at pre-training and at post-training. Two partial correlations, a pre-training partial correlation and a post-training partial correlation, were performed to test this hypothesis. Socially desirable responding was controlled for in the pre-training partial correlation and both pre-training diversity knowledge assessment scores and socially desirable responding were controlled for in the post-training partial correlation. Results revealed that there was no significant positive association between participants’ level of cultural self-efficacy and diversity knowledge assessment scores at pre-training (r=.124, p=.105). Results also indicated that there was no significant positive association between level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased

PAGE 81

72 cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence and diversity knowledge assessment scores at pre-training (r=.064, p=.407). Table 4-7. Summary of the Multiple Regression Model Predicting Difference in Receptivity to Diversity from Difference in Cultural Self-Efficacy from Pre-Training to Post-Training, Difference in General Self-Efficacy from Pre-Training to Post-Training, and Difference in Instrumentality/Valence from Pre-Training to Post-Training Source df R 2 F p value Model 4 .055 3.484 .009* Predictor Variables F p value Difference in IVQ .077 1.062 .304 Difference in SESCC -.051 .474 .492 Difference in GSES .265 12.475 .001* Number of Workshops Attended .053 .502 .480 Note. Difference refers to the difference from pre-training to post-training scores on the IVQ=total Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire scores, SESCC=Self-Efficacy Scale for Cultural Competence, and GSES=General Self-Efficacy Scale. *p<.01. Finally, results revealed no significant positive association between general self-efficacy and diversity knowledge assessment scores at pre-training (r=-.015, p=.847). However, a weak significant positive association was found between level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence and diversity knowledge assessment scores at post-training (r=.214, p=.005). Finally, no significant positive association was found between cultural self-efficacy and diversity knowledge assessment scores at post-training (r=.053, p=.491) nor between general self-efficacy and diversity knowledge assessment scores at post-training (r=-.084, p=.279). Therefore, minimal support was provided for this hypothesis. The above findings are summarized in Table 4-8.

PAGE 82

73 Table 4-8. Relationship Between Cultural Self-Efficacy and Knowledge Assessment Scores; Between Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire Scores and Knowledge Assessment Scores; and Between General Self-efficacy and Knowledge Assessment Scores at Pre-training and Post-Training MRKQ at Pre-Training MRKQ at post-training Cultural Self-Efficacy SESCC .124 .053 Instrumentality/Valence IVQ .064 .214* General Self-Efficacy GSES -.015 -.084 N =172; *p<.01. SESCC=Self-Efficacy Scale for Cultural Competence; IVQ=Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire; and GSES=General Self-Efficacy Scale. Hypothesis 4 Results from the Analysis to Test Hypothesis Four Hypothesis 4 stated that receptivity to diversity as measured by the Receptivity to Diversity Index (RDI) and receptivity to diversity management as measured by the Receptivity to Diversity Management Index (RDMI) at pre-training will be positively and significantly associated with the amount of change in diversity knowledge as assessed by scores on the Mutual Respect Through Understanding Differences Knowledge Questionnaire (MRKQ) from pre-training to post-training. The difference in Mutual Respect Through Understanding Differences Knowledge Questionnaire scores from pre-training to post-training was computed and then a partial Pearson Correlation was performed to test this hypothesis. Results revealed that there was no significant positive association between receptivity to diversity at pre-training and the amount of change in diversity knowledge questionnaire scores from pre-training to post-training (r=-.107, p=.163). Results also revealed that there was no significant positive association between receptivity to diversity management at pre-training and the amount of change in diversity

PAGE 83

74 knowledge questionnaire scores from pre-training to post-training (r=-.006, p=.936). Therefore, the above findings failed to support this hypothesis. Results from the Analysis to Examine Research Question One Research question one is as follows: Are there significant differences in receptivity to diversity, receptivity to diversity management, cultural self-efficacy, general self-efficacy, and the level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence in association with gender, age, and ethnicity? Due to the small number of racial/ethnic groups other than Hispanic and White American, the racial ethnic group was collapsed into 3 groups in order to make group comparisons: White American (n=96), Hispanic (n=47), and Other (n=28). The Other racial/ethnic category included the following racial/ethnic groups: African American (n=10), Asian American (n=9), Native American (n=4), Mixed; parents are from two different groups (n=4) and Other (n=5). Additionally, in order to make age group comparisons, age was collapsed into 4 groups: 18-28 years (n=10), 29-39 years (n=53), 40-50 years (n=74), and over 50 years (n=33). A 3 x 4 x 3 multivariate analysis of variance was performed on five dependent variables: receptivity to diversity, receptivity to diversity management, cultural self-efficacy, general self-efficacy, and level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence. The independent variables were gender, age, and race/ethnicity. Using Wilk’s Lambda, results of the pre-training MANOVA revealed a non-significant interaction and non-significant main effects for gender, F(5, 159)=1.522, p=.186; race/ethnicity, F(10, 318)=.702, p=.723; or age, F(5, 159)=1.247, p=.290. Results also revealed a non-significant interaction and non-significant main effects for

PAGE 84

75 gender, F(5, 159)=2.047, p=.075; race/ethnicity, F(10, 318)=1.007, p=.437; or age, F(5, 159)=.617, p=.687 at post-training. Post Hoc Analyses Descriptive Statistics for Hispanic and White American Participants in this Study Table 4-9 and Table 4-10 present the mean, standard deviation, and minimum and maximum scores for the following variables in this study at both pre-training and post-training for the Hispanic participants and the White American participants in this study: receptivity to diversity as measured by the Receptivity to Diversity Index (RDI), receptivity to diversity management as measured by the Receptivity to Diversity Management Index (RDMI), level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence as measured by the Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire (IVQ), general self-efficacy as measured by the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES), cultural self-efficacy as measured by the Self-Efficacy Scale for Cultural Competence (SESCC), diversity knowledge assessment scores as measured by the Mutual Respect Through Understanding Differences Knowledge Questionnaire (MRKQ), and participants’ scores on the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale-Short Form (MCSDS). Using the data from Hispanic participants, a paired samples t-test was conducted to determine if there were significant differences from pre-training to post-training in Hispanic participant’s mean scores on the Receptivity to Diversity Index, Receptivity to Diversity Management Index, Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire, Self-Efficacy Scale for Cultural Competence, General Self-Efficacy Scale, and Mutual Respect Through Understanding Differences Knowledge Questionnaire. The results of the paired samples t-test, indicated that Hispanic participants’ scored significantly higher at post-training

PAGE 85

76 than at pre-training on: receptivity to diversity, t(46)=-2.215, p<.05, level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence, t(46)=-2.685, p<.05, diversity knowledge assessment, t(46)=-3.146, p<.01, and cultural self-efficacy, t(46)=-3. 950, p<.001. No significant changes from pre-training to post-training were revealed for general self-efficacy, t(46)=-3. 950, p=1.780, p=.082 nor receptivity to diversity management, t(46)=-1.219, p=.229. Table 4-9. Descriptive Data for All Major Variables in this Study for Hispanic Participants VARIABLES RDI RDMI GSES IVQ MRKQ SESCC MCSDS Pre-Training M 3.09 3.00 68.53 3.86 9.13 5.94 14.90 SD .362 .268 12.86 .587 1.03 1.19 3.90 Maximum 4.10 3.60 132.00 5.00 7.00 7.80 19.00 Minimum 2.40 2.50 48.00 2.56 11.00 3.60 5.00 Post-Training M 3.23 3.04 71.94 4.02 10.02 6.37 15.23 SD .341 .295 19.17 .566 1.42 .994 3.99 Maximum 4.00 3.60 151.00 2.69 12.00 7.80 20.00 Minimum 2.50 2.50 48.00 5.00 6.00 4.80 5.00 Norm Mean 3.80 3.30 68.34 NA NA NA 10.04 ________________________________________________________________________ Note. NA indicates data is not available. RDI=Receptivity to Diversity; RDMI=Receptivity to Diversity Management; GSES=General Self-Efficacy Scale; IVQ=Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire; MRKQ=Mutual Respect Through Understanding Knowledge Questionnaire; SESCC=Self-Efficacy Scale for Cultural Competence; MCSDS=Marlowe Crowne Social Desirability Scale-Short Form. Using the data from White American participants, a paired samples t-test was conducted to determine if there were significant differences from pre-training to post-training in Hispanic participant’s mean scores on the Receptivity to Diversity Index, Receptivity to Diversity Management Index, Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire, Self-Efficacy Scale for Cultural Competence, General Self-Efficacy Scale, and Mutual Respect Through Understanding Differences Knowledge Questionnaire.

PAGE 86

77 Table 4-10. Descriptive Data for All Major Variables in this Study for White American Participants VARIABLES RDI RDMI GSES IVQ MRKQ SESCC MCSDS Pre-Training M 3.14 3.01 67.43 3.86 9.24 6.04 12.71 SD .269 .319 11.40 .587 1.20 1.04 4.17 Maximum 4.00 3.80 103.00 5.00 11.00 7.80 20.00 Minimum 2.40 2.30 35.00 2.56 6.00 3.40 .00 Post-Training M 3.23 3.07 68.60 4.02 9.97 6.42 13.29 SD .272 .308 11.63 .566 1.24 1.09 4.22 Maximum 3.90 3.90 103.00 2.69 7.00 7.80 20.00 Minimum 2.60 2.30 38.00 5.00 12.00 1.40 .00 Norm Mean 3.80 3.30 NA NA NA NA 10.04 ____________________________________________________________________ Note. NA indicates data is not available. RDI=Receptivity to Diversity; RDMI=Receptivity to Diversity Management; GSES=General Self-Efficacy Scale; IVQ=Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire; MRKQ=Mutual Respect Through Understanding Knowledge Questionnaire; SESCC=Self-Efficacy Scale for Cultural Competence; MCSDS=Marlowe Crowne Social Desirability Scale-Short Form. The results of the paired samples t-test, indicated that White American participants’ scored significantly higher at post-training than at pre-training on: receptivity to diversity, t(95)=-3.364, p<.01, level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence, t(95)=-4.363, p<.001, diversity knowledge assessment, t(95)=-4.344, p<.001, cultural self-efficacy, t (95)=-3. 809, p<.001, and receptivity to diversity management, t(95)=-2. 337, p<.001. No significant changes from pre-training to post-training were revealed for general self-efficacy t(95)= -3. 809, p=.251. Results of the Preliminary Correlation Analyses Applied to All of the Variables in this Study Using Data from Hispanic Participants A preliminary Pearson Correlation analysis was performed to examine the relationships between social desirability as measured by the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale-Short Form (MCSDS) and each of the variables of interest in this study at both pre-training and post training. This analysis was performed to determine if any of

PAGE 87

78 the ratings on the variables of interest were influenced by the tendency to give socially desirable responses. At pre-training, results revealed a significant inverse association between receptivity to diversity and social desirability for the Hispanic participants (r=.376, p=.009). This finding indicates that the higher participants receptivity to diversity, the lower their social desirability. Results also revealed a weak significant inverse association between social desirability scores and scores on the Mutual Respect Through Understanding Differences Knowledge Questionnaire at pre-training (r=-.330, p=.023). This finding indicates that the lower participants’ social desirability scores, the higher their diversity knowledge assessment scores at pre-training. Given these results, social desirability was controlled for in the analyses that were performed to test the hypotheses that included receptivity to diversity and knowledge assessment scores at pre-training. Finally, a significant positive association was found between Hispanic participants’ level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence and scores on the Mutual Respect Through Understanding Differences Knowledge Questionnaire at pre-training (r=.445, p=.002). This finding indicates that the higher Hispanic participants’ level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence, the higher their diversity knowledge assessment scores at pre-training. At post-training, several significant associations among the variables were also found for Hispanic participants. A weak significant positive association between receptivity to diversity and receptivity to diversity management was found (r=.307, p=.036). This finding indicates that the higher Hispanic participants’ level of receptivity

PAGE 88

79 to diversity, the higher their level of receptivity to diversity management at post-training. Results also revealed a significant positive association between receptivity to diversity and general self-efficacy (r=.484, p=.001). This finding indicates that higher levels of receptivity to diversity were associated with higher levels of general self-efficacy for Hispanic participants at post-training. Results of the Preliminary Correlation Analyses Applied to All of the Variables in this Study Using Data from White American Participants Several significant relationships among the variables were found for White American participants in this study. At pre-training, results revealed a weak significant positive association between level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence and receptivity to diversity management (r=.267, p=.009). This finding indicates that the higher participants’ level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence, the more receptive they are to diversity management at pre-training. Results also revealed a weak significant inverse association between level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence and general self-efficacy (r=.240, p=.018). This finding indicates that the lower White American participants’ level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence, the higher their level of general self-efficacy at pre-training. Finally, results revealed a weak significant positive association between receptivity to diversity and receptivity to diversity management (r=.202, p=.048) for White Americans. This finding indicates that higher levels of receptivity to diversity were associated with higher

PAGE 89

80 levels of receptivity to diversity management at pre-training for White American participants. At post-training, for White American participants, a significant positive association was found between receptivity to diversity and general self-efficacy (r=.231, p=.023). This finding indicates that the higher participants’ general self-efficacy, the more receptive they are to diversity at post-training. Results also revealed a significant inverse association between cultural self-efficacy and general self-efficacy (r=-.225, p=.028) at post-training. This finding indicates that the higher White American participants cultural self-efficacy, the lower their level of general self-efficacy at post-training. Finally results revealed a significant inverse association between diversity knowledge assessment scores and social desirability scores at post training (r=-.271, p=.008). This finding indicates that the higher White American participants’ diversity knowledge assessment scores, the lower their social desirability. Given these results, social desirability was controlled for in the analyses that were performed to test the hypotheses that included the Mutual Respect Through Understanding Differences Knowledge Questionnaire scores at post-training. Hypothesis 1 Results from the Analysis to Test Hypothesis One for Hispanic and White American Participants Separately by Race/Ethnicity Hypothesis 1 stated that among participants, at pre-training, levels of cultural self-efficacy as measured by the Self-Efficacy Scale for Cultural Competence (SESCC), and levels of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence as measured by the Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire (IVQ), and levels of general self-efficacy as measured by the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES) will be significant predictors of receptivity to diversity as

PAGE 90

81 measured by the Receptivity to Diversity Index (RDI) and receptivity to diversity management as measured by the Receptivity to Diversity Management Index (RDMI). Two separate multiple regressions were performed to test hypothesis one using the data from Hispanics and two separate multiple regressions were performed using the data from White American participants. In the first multiple regression model applied to the data from Hispanic participants, receptivity to diversity management was the criterion variable, and pre-training levels of cultural self-efficacy, general self-efficacy, and agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence were predictor variables. Additionally, the number of workshops previously attended was used as a control variable. This model was not found to be significant, F(4, 42)=.727, p=.579). Thus, the predictor variables under investigation do not appear to influence receptivity to diversity management among Hispanic participants. In the second multiple regression model applied to the data from Hispanic participants, receptivity to diversity was the criterion variable, and pre-training levels of cultural self-efficacy, general self-efficacy, agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence, and the number of workshops previously attended were predictor variables. This model was not found to be significant, F(4, 42)=1.195, p=.327). Thus, the predictor variables under investigation do not appear to influence receptivity to diversity among Hispanic participants. In the first multiple regression model applied to the data from White American participants, receptivity to diversity management was the criterion variable, and pre

PAGE 91

82 training levels of cultural self-efficacy, general self-efficacy, agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence, and the number of workshops previously attended were predictor variables. This model was not found to be significant, F(4, 91)=1.858, p=.125). Thus, the predictor variables under investigation do not appear to influence receptivity to diversity management among White American participants. In the second multiple regression model applied to the data from White participants, receptivity to diversity was the criterion variable, and pre-training levels of cultural self-efficacy, general self-efficacy, and agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence were predictor variables. This model was not found to be significant, F(4, 91)=1.265, p=.290). Thus, the predictor variables under investigation do not appear to influence receptivity to diversity among White American participants. Hypothesis 2 Results from the Analysis to Test Hypothesis Two for Hispanic and White American Participants Separately by Race/Ethnicity Hypothesis 2 stated that among participants, differences in levels of cultural self-efficacy from pre-training to post-training as measured by the Self-Efficacy Scale for Cultural Competence (SESCC), differences in general self-efficacy from pre-training to post-training as measured by the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES), and differences in levels of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence from pre-training to post-training as measured by the Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire (IVQ) will significantly predict (a) the amount of difference from pre-training to post-training in receptivity to diversity as

PAGE 92

83 measured by the Receptivity to Diversity Index (RDI) and (b) the amount of difference from pre-training to post-training in receptivity to diversity management as measured by the Receptivity to Diversity Management Index (RDMI). The differences from pre-training to post-training scores on each of the independent and dependent variables were computed and two separate Multiple Regression analyses were then performed to test this hypothesis. It is important to note that negative changes in scores were recoded as 0 to eliminate the difficulty of distinguishing the directionality of change. In the first multiple regression model applied to the data from Hispanic participants, differences from pre-training to post-training in levels of receptivity to diversity management as measured by the RDMI was the criterion variable, and differences from pre-training to post-training in levels of cultural self-efficacy as measured by the Self-Efficacy Scale for Cultural Competence (SESCC), general self-efficacy as measured by the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES), and agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence as measured by the Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire (IVQ) were predictor variables. Additionally, the number of workshops previously attended was used as a control variable. This model was not found to be significant, F(4, 42)=1.177, p=.335). Thus, the predictor variables under investigation do not appear to influence receptivity to diversity management. In the second multiple regression model applied to the data from Hispanic participants, differences from pre-training to post-training in levels of receptivity to diversity as measured by the RDI was the criterion variable, and differences from pre-training to post-training in levels of cultural self-efficacy as measured by the difference in

PAGE 93

84 Self-Efficacy Scale for Cultural Competence (SESCC), general self-efficacy as measured by the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES), and agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence as measured by the Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire (IVQ) were predictor variables. Additionally, the number of workshops previously attended was used as a control variable. This model was not found to be significant, F(4, 42)=2.039, p=.106). Thus, the predictor variables under investigation do not appear to influence receptivity to diversity. In the first multiple regression model applied to the data from White American participants, differences from pre-training to post-training in levels of receptivity to diversity management as measured by the RDMI was the criterion variable, and differences from pre-training to post-training in levels of cultural self-efficacy as measured by the Self-Efficacy Scale for Cultural Competence (SESCC), general self-efficacy as measured by the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES), and agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence as measured by the Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire (IVQ) were predictor variables. Additionally, the number of workshops previously attended was used as a control variable. This model was not found to be significant, F(4, 91)=1.197, p=.318). Thus, the predictor variables under investigation do not appear to influence receptivity to diversity management among White American participants. In the second multiple regression model applied to the data from White American participants, differences from pre-training to post-training in levels of receptivity to diversity as measured by the RDI was the criterion variable, and differences from pre-training to post-training in levels of cultural self-efficacy as measured by the Self

PAGE 94

85 Efficacy Scale for Cultural Competence (SESCC), general self-efficacy as measured by the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES), agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence as measured by the Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire (IVQ) were predictor variables. Additionally, the number of workshops previously attended was used as a control variable. This model was not found to be significant, F(4, 91)=1.269, p=.288). Thus, the predictor variables under investigation do not appear to influence receptivity to diversity among White American participants. Hypothesis 3 Results from the Analysis to Test Hypothesis Three for Hispanic and White American Participants Separately by Race/Ethnicity Hypothesis 3 stated that among participants, levels of cultural self-efficacy as measured by the Self-Efficacy Scale for Cultural Competence (SESCC), levels of general self-efficacy as measured by the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES), and levels of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence as measured by the Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire (IVQ) will be positively and significantly associated with diversity knowledge assessment scores as measured by the Mutual Respect Through Understanding Differences Knowledge Questionnaire (MRKQ) at pre-training and at post-training. Two partial correlations, a pre-training partial correlation and a post-training partial correlation, were performed to test this hypothesis. Socially desirable responding was controlled for in the pre-training partial correlation and both pre-training diversity knowledge scores and socially desirable responding were controlled for in the post-training partial correlation.

PAGE 95

86 For the Hispanic participants, at pre-training, results of the partial correlation revealed a weak significant positive association between cultural self-efficacy and diversity knowledge assessment scores (r=.314, p=.033). Results also revealed a weak significant positive association between levels of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence and diversity knowledge assessment scores (r=.402, p=.006) at pre-training. Finally, results revealed no significant positive association between general self-efficacy and diversity knowledge assessment scores for Hispanic participants at pre-training (r=-.138, p=.362). However, no significant findings were found for White American participants. Specifically, results revealed no significant positive association between cultural self-efficacy and diversity knowledge assessment scores (r=.032, p=.761); between levels of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence and diversity knowledge assessment scores (r= -.082, p=.427); or between general self-efficacy and diversity knowledge assessment scores for White participants (r=-.047, p=.649). At post-training, for Hispanic participants, results of the correlation revealed no significant associations between cultural self-efficacy and diversity knowledge assessment scores (r=-.118, p=.438); between levels of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence and diversity knowledge assessment scores (r=.170, p=.264); nor between general self-efficacy and diversity knowledge assessment scores (r=-.177, p=.245). In contrast to Hispanic participants, for White American participants, at post-training, results of the partial Pearson Correlation revealed a weak significant positive association between

PAGE 96

87 levels of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence and diversity knowledge assessment scores (r=.347, p=.001). However, results revealed no significant positive association between cultural self-efficacy and diversity knowledge assessment scores (r=.177, p=.089); or between general self-efficacy and diversity knowledge assessment scores at post-training for White American participants (r=-.096, p=.359). These results are summarized in Table 4-11. Table 4-11. Relationship Between Cultural Self-Efficacy and Knowledge Assessment Scores; Between Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire scores and Knowledge Assessment Scores; Between General Self-Efficacy and Knowledge Assessment scores at Pre-training and Post-Training MRKQ scores at Pre-training MRKQ scores at Post-training Hispanics Cultural Self-Efficacy SESCC .314* -.118 Instrumentality/Valence IVQ .402** .170 General Self-Efficacy GSES -.138 -.177 White Americans Cultural Self-Efficacy SESCC .032 .177 Instrumentality/Valence IVQ .082 .347** General Self-Efficacy GSES -.047 -.096 n=47 for Hispanics and n=96 for White Americans; *p<.05, **p<.01. SESCC=Self-Efficacy Scale for Cultural Competence; GSES=General Self-Efficacy Scale; IVQ= Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire.

PAGE 97

88 Hypothesis 4 Results from the Analysis to Test Hypothesis Four for Hispanic and White American Participants Separately by Race/Ethnicity Hypothesis 4 stated that receptivity to diversity as measured by the Receptivity to Diversity Index (RDI) and receptivity to diversity management as measured by the Receptivity to Diversity Management Index (RDMI) at pre-training will be positively and significantly associated with the amount of change in diversity knowledge as assessed by scores on the Mutual Respect Through Understanding Differences Knowledge Questionnaire (MRKQ) from pre-training to post-training. The differences in Mutual Respect Through Understanding Differences Knowledge Questionnaire scores from pre-training to post-training were computed and then a partial correlation controlling for socially desirable responding was performed to test this hypothesis. For Hispanic participants, results of the partial correlation revealed that there was no significant positive association between receptivity to diversity at pre-training and the amount of change in diversity knowledge questionnaire scores from pre-training to post-training (r=-.085, p=.573). Results also revealed that there was no significant positive association between receptivity to diversity management at pre-training and the amount of change in diversity knowledge questionnaire scores from pre-training to post-training (r=.006, p=.967). For White American participants, similar results were found. More specifically, results revealed that there was no significant positive association between receptivity to diversity at pre-training and the amount of change in diversity knowledge questionnaire scores from pre-training to post-training for White American participants (r=-.091, p=.382). Results also revealed no significant positive association between receptivity to diversity management at pre-training and the amount of change in diversity

PAGE 98

89 knowledge questionnaire scores from pre-training to post-training for White American participants (r=.038, p=.717). Results from the Analyses to Examine the Research Question Using the Data from Hispanic Participants and White American Participants in Separate Analyses Research question one is as follows: Are there significant differences in receptivity to diversity, receptivity to diversity management, cultural self-efficacy, general self-efficacy, the level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence in association with gender, race/ethnicity, and age? Based on the results of a preliminary correlation analyses between all of the dependent variables, using the data from Hispanic participants, five separate Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) on the pre-training data and a Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) and two separate ANOVAs on the post-training data were performed to test this research question. Using the data from White American participants, a Multivariate Analyses of Variance (MANOVA) and a separate ANOVA were performed on the pre-training data, and a Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) and two separate ANOVAs were performed on the post-training data to test this research question. The analyses from the data using Hispanic participants differ from the analyses using the data from White American participants because the results of the separate preliminary correlation analyses revealed that different variables were correlated with each other among Hispanic and White American participants. For Hispanic participants, the independent variables in the first pre-training ANOVA were gender and age. The dependent variable was receptivity to diversity. Results of the ANOVA revealed non-significant effects for gender, F(1, 44)=.012, p=.914 and age F(1, 44)=3.313, p=.076. The independent variables in the second pre

PAGE 99

90 training ANOVA were gender and age. The dependent variable was cultural self-efficacy. Results of the ANOVA also revealed non-significant univariate effects for age, F(1, 44)=.612, p=.438 and gender, F(1, 44)=.095, p=.759. The independent variables in the third pre-training ANOVA were gender and age. The dependent variable was receptivity to diversity management. Results of the ANOVA revealed non-significant univariate effects for age, F(1, 44)=.955, p=.334 and gender, F(1, 44)=1.859, p=.180. The independent variables in the fourth pre-training ANOVA were gender and age. The dependent variable was general self-efficacy. Results of the ANOVA revealed non-significant univariate effects for age, F(1, 44)=.879, p=.354 and gender, F(1, 44)=.546, p=.464. The independent variables in the fifth pre-training ANOVA were gender and age. The dependent variable was the level of agreement that participating in diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence. Results of the ANOVA also revealed non-significant univariate effects for age, F(1, 44)=.250, p=.620 and gender, F(1, 44)=.118, p=.732. On the pre-training data from White American participants, a 2 x 4 multivariate analysis of variance was performed on four dependent variables: receptivity to diversity, receptivity to diversity management, general self-efficacy, and level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence. The independent variables were gender and age. Using Wilk’s Lambda, results of the pre-training MANOVA for White American participants revealed non-significant interaction effects and non-significant main effects for gender, F(4, 89)=.472, p=.756 and age, F(4, 89)=.772, p=.546. A pre-training ANOVA was also performed to test the research question using the data from White American participants.

PAGE 100

91 The independent variables in the ANOVA were gender and age, and the dependent variable was cultural self-efficacy. Results of the ANOVA also revealed non-significant univariate effects for gender, F(2, 92)=.049, p=.826 and age, F(2, 92)=.001, p=.979. A post-training 2 x 4 MANOVA was performed to test the research question using the data from Hispanic participants. The independent variables in the post-training MANOVA were gender and age. The dependent variables were receptivity to diversity, receptivity to diversity management, and general self-efficacy. Using Wilk’s Lambda, results of the post-training MANOVA revealed non-significant interaction effects and non-significant main effects for gender, F(3, 42)=2.269, p=.094 and age, F(3, 42)=.751, p=.528. Two separate post-training ANOVAs were also performed to test the research question for Hispanic participants. The independent variables in the first ANOVA were gender and age. The dependent variable was cultural self-efficacy. Results of the ANOVA revealed non-significant univariate effects for age, F(1, 44)=1.515, p=.225 and gender, F(1, 44)=.086, p=.771 at post-training for Hispanic participants. The independent variables in the second ANOVA were gender and age. The dependent variable was the level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence. Results of the ANOVA also revealed non-significant univariate effects for age, F(1, 44)=.151, p=.700 and gender, F(1, 44)=1.841, p=.182 at post-training for Hispanic participants. A post-training 2 x 4 MANOVA was performed to test the research question using the data from White American participants. The independent variables in the post-training MANOVA were gender and age. The dependent variables were receptivity to diversity, cultural self-efficacy, and general self-efficacy. Using Wilk’s Lambda, results

PAGE 101

92 of the post-training MANOVA revealed non-significant interaction effects and non-significant main effects for gender, F(3, 90)=1.240, p=.300 and age, F(3, 90)=.153, p=.927 for White American participants. Two separate post-training ANOVAs were also performed to test the research question for White American participants. The independent variables in the first ANOVA were gender and age. The dependent variable was receptivity to diversity management. Results of the ANOVA revealed non-significant univariate effects for age, F(1, 92)=.845, p=.360 and gender, F(1, 92)=.164, p=.686 at post-training for White American participants. The independent variables in the second ANOVA were gender and age. The dependent variable was the level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence. Results of the ANOVA also revealed non-significant univariate effects for age, F(1, 92)=.337, p=.563 and gender, F(1, 92)=.357, p=.552 at post-training for White American participants. Table 4-12 and 4-13 present the mean of the variables under investigation by age and ethnicity/race and gender, respectively.

PAGE 102

93 Table 4-12. Mean by Age for All the Major Variables in this Study Pre-Training _________ ____Post-Training VARIABLES RDI RDMI GSES IVQ MRKQ SESCC Age 18-28yrs. Pre-Training M 3.10 2.95 64.30 3.44 9.20 5.72 SD .386 .276 10.90 .639 1.14 1.63 Post-Training M 3.20 3.17 67.90 3.97 9.60 6.00 SD .371 .374 10.21 .567 1.35 1.44 Age 29-39yrs. Pre-Training M 3.19 3.06 68.58 3.86 9.13 6.10 SD .301 .280 14.01 .587 1.24 1.15 Post-Training M 3.27 3.00 70.56 3.88 9.92 6.50 SD .289 .268 15.97 .763 1.13 .972 Age 40-50yrs. Pre-Training M 3.09 2.98 69.20 3.79 9.13 5.88 SD .282 .331 11.32 .689 1.03 1.05 Post-Training M 3.23 3.08 71.61 3.86 9.86 6.38 SD .362 .282 16.18 .587 .556 .992 Age 51yrs. & Over Pre-Training M 3.16 2.93 64.03 3.91 9.30 5.95 SD .293 .260 8.32 .712 1.21 1.20 Post-Training M 3.21 2.98 67.48 3.93 9.88 6.02 SD .257 .239 13.19 .517 1.19 1.10 Note. Ages18-28 n=10yrs.; Ages 29-39yrs. n=53; Ages 40-50yrs. n=74; Ages 51yrs. & Older n=33. RDI=Receptivity to Diversity; RDMI=Receptivity to Diversity Management; GSES=General Self-Efficacy Scale; IVQ=Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire; MRKQ=Mutual Respect Through Understanding Knowledge Questionnaire; SESCC=Self-Efficacy Scale for Cultural Competence; MCSDS=Marlowe Crowne Social Desirability Scale-Short Form.

PAGE 103

94 Table 4-13. Mean by Race/Ethnicity and Gender for the All Major Variables in this Study Pre-Training _________ ____Post-Training M SD M SD Ethnicity Hispanic SESCC 5.94 1.19 6.37 .994 MRKQ 9.13 1.03 10.02 1.42 GSES 68.53 12.86 71.94 19.17 RDI 3.09 .362 3.23 .341 RDMI 3.00 .268 3.04 .295 IVQ 3.86 .587 4.02 .566 White American SESCC 6.04 1.04 6.42 1.09 MRKQ 9.24 1.20 9.97 1.24 GSES 67.43 11.40 68.69 11.63 RDI 3.14 .269 3.23 .272 RDMI 3.01 .319 3.07 .308 IVQ 3.86 .587 4.02 .566 Other SESCC 6.04 1.19 6.46 .885 MRKQ 8.97 1.35 10.41 .983 GSES 67.48 14.75 68.38 15.29 RDI 3.17 .369 3.27 .311 RDMI 3.01 .313 3.04 .321 IVQ 4.03 .631 4.26 .493 Gender Male SESCC 6.11 1.05 6.55 .892 MRKQ 9.32 1.06 10.13 1.21 GSES 68.00 11.26 70.60 14.29 RDI 3.14 .326 3.24 .304 RDMI 2.96 .284 3.02 .318 IVQ 3.80 .702 4.05 .562 Female SESCC 5.93 1.14 6.28 1.14 MRKQ 9.01 1.28 9.99 1.31 GSES 67.48 13.39 68.38 14.99 RDI 3.12 .302 3.22 .292 RDMI 3.05 .317 3.09 .291 IVQ 3.89 .618 4.12 .565 Note. RDI= Females n=87, Males n=85; White American n=96, Hispanic n=47, Other n=28. Receptivity to Diversity; RDMI=Receptivity to Diversity Management; GSES=General Self-Efficacy Scale; IVQ=Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire; MRKQ=Mutual Respect Through Understanding Knowledge Questionnaire; SESCC=Self-Efficacy Scale for Cultural Competence; MCSDS=Marlowe Crowne Social Desirability Scale-Short Form.

PAGE 104

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION The purpose of this chapter is to summarize and interpret the results of this study. The results are presented in five sections. First, the descriptive data are discussed. Second, the results regarding the 4 hypotheses are discussed. Third, the results regarding the research question will be addressed. Next, results regarding the post hoc analyses are discussed. Finally, limitations of the present study, implications for counseling psychologists, and directions for future research are addressed. Results Regarding the Descriptive Data Sixty-seven percent of the participants in this study reported that they previously attended 1-10 or more cultural awareness/competence workshops, indicating that many of the participants in this study had been previously exposed to and knowledgeable about diversity issues. Therefore, the number of cultural awareness/competence workshops previously attended was controlled for where appropriate in the analyses used to test the hypotheses in this study. This exposure and knowledge are further indicated by the relatively high baseline mean score on the diversity knowledge assessment (i.e., M=9.16, SD=1.83 out of a possible score of 12) of the participants in this study. It is noteworthy to mention that the participants in this study generally responded in a highly socially desirable manner; however, social desirability was only significantly inversely associated with the diversity knowledge assessment. This finding suggests that the participants in this study are very sensitive to responding to diversity issues in a nonsocially desirable manner. Additionally, the aforementioned finding implies that it 95

PAGE 105

96 may prove fruitful to acknowledge and address the sensitive nature of learning about diversity issues and the desire for trainees to respond to discussions and assessments about diversity in a socially desirable manner during diversity training with the intention of emphasizing the need for trainees to respond to diversity training assessments in accordance with what they are taught and in a nonsocially desirable manner. In general, participants in this study scored in the moderate range on measures of receptivity to diversity, receptivity to diversity management, cultural self-efficacy, level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence, and general self-efficacy. Result also revealed that on average participants scored significantly higher at post-training than at pre-training on measures of receptivity to diversity, receptivity to diversity management, cultural self-efficacy, level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence, diversity knowledge assessment, and general self-efficacy. However, despite the findings that participants’ mean scores on the aforementioned measures significantly increased after participating in diversity training, the lack of a control group in this study does not allow for definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of the diversity training as it relates to the aforementioned increases from pre-training to post-training in the variables of interest in this study. Hypothesis 1 Results Regarding Hypothesis 1 Consistent with the expectancy theory of motivation, hypothesis 1 stated that among participants, at pre-training, levels of cultural self-efficacy as measured by the Self-Efficacy Scale for Cultural Competence (SESCC), levels of general self-efficacy as

PAGE 106

97 measured by the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES), and levels of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence as measured by the Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire (IVQ) will be significant predictors of receptivity to diversity as measured by the Receptivity to Diversity Index (RDI) and receptivity to diversity management as measured by the Receptivity to Diversity Management Index (RDMI). Results of this study lent partial support to hypothesis 1. Specifically, cultural self-efficacy, general self-efficacy, level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence, and the number of workshops previously attended were found to predict 8% of the variance in receptivity to diversity management. Furthermore, level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence made a unique contribution to the variance accounted for in receptivity to diversity management; however, cultural self-efficacy and general self-efficacy did not make unique contributions to the variance in receptivity to diversity management. Results also revealed no significant results when examining levels of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence, general self-efficacy, and cultural self-efficacy as predictors of receptivity to diversity. The above findings from the analyses to test hypothesis 1 are only partially consistent with Vroom’s (1964) expectancy theory of motivation (ETM) and therefore it may not be a useful framework for understanding receptivity to diversity or receptivity to diversity management. As previously mentioned, applying the ETM to this study

PAGE 107

98 suggests that learning is most likely to occur when (a) diversity training participants believe they can learn the content of a diversity training program (i.e., expectation component of the ETM) as measured by the general and cultural self-efficacy scales in this study, (b) trainees’ believe that participating in diversity training will lead to a particular outcome such as increased cultural competence (i.e., instrumentality component of the ETM) as measured by the Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire in this study, and (c) trainees value these outcomes (i.e., valence component of the ETM) as measured by the Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire in this study. Given that the findings in this study indicated that the level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence (i.e., instrumentality and valence components of the ETM) were significant predictors of receptivity to diversity management, results indicate that the instrumentality and valence components of the ETM significantly predicted diversity training participant’s receptivity to the management of diversity. Thus, it appears that in the present study, participants with higher levels of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence were likely to be more receptive to the management of diversity. However, the finding that cultural self-efficacy and general self-efficacy (i.e., the expectancy component of the ETM) were not significant predictors of receptivity to diversity management is unexpected. Additionally, the finding that cultural self-efficacy, level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence (i.e., instrumentality and valence components of the ETM), and general self-efficacy (i.e., the expectancy component of the ETM) were not significant

PAGE 108

99 predictors of receptivity to diversity is surprising and unexpected. Thus, the overall findings to hypothesis 1 suggest that the expectancy component of the ETM is not a significant predictor of receptivity to diversity management. These findings also suggest that the expectancy, valence, and instrumentality components of the ETM are not significant predictors of receptivity to diversity and therefore these findings are inconsistent with the expectancy theory of motivation. The findings of the analyses to test hypothesis 1 are, in part, relatively intuitive since receptivity to diversity management assesses the degree to which individuals are receptive to the management of diversity in his or her respective organization, which often includes the implementation of diversity training programs. Moreover, the Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire asks about a specific diversity initiative, diversity training, and respondents’ receptivity to this particular intervention. The above findings have implications for the development and design of diversity training. Specifically, results suggest that including content or objectives in diversity training that highlight the rewards of participating in diversity training will likely enhance participants’ receptivity to diversity management. It is important to note that the above implications should be interpreted with caution as the amount of variance (8%) accounted for by the level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence, general self-efficacy, number of workshops previously attended, and cultural self-efficacy in receptivity to diversity management was extremely small. This finding suggests that another unknown variable such as the level of acculturation or the length and type of exposure experienced by trainees to diversity

PAGE 109

100 initiatives that are implemented by management may be contributing to the variance accounted for in receptivity to diversity management. As previously mentioned, the finding that the expectancy component of the ETM does not significantly predict diversity training outcome (i.e., receptivity to diversity and receptivity to diversity management) and the finding that the valence, instrumentality, and expectancy components of the ETM do not significantly predict receptivity to diversity are surprising and inconsistent with the ETM and previous research (Teas, 1981; Vroom, 1964), which consistently found that all of the components of the ETM contribute to learning outcome. In summary, hypothesis 1 was partially supported by the present study. Furthermore, the results of the present study do not support the efficacy of the ETM as a model for predicting receptivity to diversity or receptivity to diversity management. Hypothesis 2 Results Regarding Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 2 stated that among participants, differences in levels of cultural self-efficacy from pre-training to post-training as measured by the Self-Efficacy Scale for Cultural Competence (SESCC), differences in general self-efficacy from pre-training to post-training as measured by the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES), and differences in levels of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence from pre-training to post-training as measured by the Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire (IVQ) will significantly predict (a) the amount of difference from pre-training to post-training in receptivity to diversity as measured by the Receptivity to Diversity Index (RDI) and (b) the amount of difference

PAGE 110

101 from pre-training to post-training in receptivity to diversity management as measured by the Receptivity to Diversity Management Index (RDMI). Results of the present study lent partial support to hypothesis 2. Specifically, differences from pre-training to post-training in cultural self-efficacy, general self-efficacy, level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence, and number of workshops previously attended accounted for 6% of the variance in the amount of change from pre-training to post-training in receptivity to diversity management. Furthermore, differences from pre-training to post-training in general self-efficacy made a unique significant contribution to the variance accounted for in the amount of change from pre-training to post-training in receptivity to diversity management; however, differences from pre-training to post-training in cultural self-efficacy and level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence did not make significant contributions to the variance in the amount of change from pre-training to post-training in receptivity to diversity management. Results to hypothesis 2 also revealed that differences from pre-training to post-training in cultural self-efficacy, general self-efficacy, agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence, and the number of workshops previously attended accounted for 8% of the variance in the amount of change from pre-training to post-training in receptivity to diversity. Furthermore, differences from pre-training to post-training in general self-efficacy made a unique significant contribution to the variance accounted for in the amount of change from pre-training to post-training in receptivity to diversity; however, differences from

PAGE 111

102 pre-training to post-training in cultural self-efficacy and level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence did not make significant contributions to the variance in the amount of change in receptivity to diversity. The above findings are partially consistent with the expectancy theory of motivation (ETM) such that the findings of this study indicate that positive changes in general self-efficacy (i.e., expectancy component of the ETM) or the general belief that one can perform a specific task from pre-training to post-training predicted positive changes from pre-training to post-training in learning outcome (i.e., amount of change from pre-training to post-training in receptivity to diversity and receptivity to diversity management). Thus, it appears that in the present study, participants with higher levels of change in general self-efficacy from pre-training to post-training were likely to have higher levels of change in their receptivity to diversity and receptivity to diversity management from pre-training to post-training. However, the finding that differences from pre-training to post-training in cultural self-efficacy and level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence (i.e., expectancy, instrumentality, and valence components of the ETM) were not significant predictors of the amount of change from pre-training to post-training in learning outcome (i.e., receptivity to diversity and receptivity to diversity management) is unexpected and inconsistent with the ETM. These results suggest that differences from pre-training to post-training in cultural self-efficacy and level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence do not significantly predict the amount of

PAGE 112

103 change from pre-training to post-training in learning outcome. Therefore, the overall results of this study suggest that the ETM does not appear to be a useful model for explaining the amount of change from pre-training to post-training in receptivity to diversity or receptivity to diversity management. The finding that the amount of changes in general self-efficacy from pre-training to post-training predicted the amount of changes in both receptivity to diversity and receptivity to diversity management from pre-training to post-training can be interpreted using Bandura’s (1982) self-efficacy theory, which suggests that self-efficacy determines how much effort an individual exerts when executing a task. Applying self-efficacy theory to the current study, it would be expected that positive changes in self-efficacy from pre-training to post-training would predict positive changes in an individual’s effort level, which ultimately impacts learning outcome as exhibited by the changes in receptivity to diversity and receptivity to diversity management from pre-training to post-training. Moreover, the findings from testing hypothesis 2 suggest that enhancing the general self-efficacy of participants in diversity training may result in positive changes in learning outcome as measured by the difference from pre-training to post-training in receptivity to diversity and receptivity to diversity management in this study. It is important to note that the above significant findings should be interpreted with caution as the amount of variance accounted for by the 3 predictor variables in the investigated dependent variables was extremely small. Similar to the results of the analyses to test hypothesis 1, this finding suggests that another unknown variable may be contributing to the variance accounted for in the amount of change from pre-training to post-training in receptivity to diversity and receptivity to diversity management.

PAGE 113

104 In summary, hypothesis 2 was minimally supported by the present study. Furthermore, the results of the present study do not support the efficacy of the ETM as a model for predicting the amount of change from pre-training to post-training in receptivity to diversity or receptivity to diversity management. Hypothesis 3 Results Regarding Hypothesis 3 Hypothesis 3 stated that among participants, levels of cultural self-efficacy as measured by the Self-Efficacy Scale for Cultural Competence (SESCC), general self-efficacy as measured by the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES), and level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence as measured by the Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire (IVQ) will be positively and significantly associated with diversity knowledge assessment scores as measured by the Mutual Respect Through Understanding Differences Knowledge Questionnaire (MRKQ) at pre-training and at post-training. Results of this study lent minimal support to hypothesis 3. At pre-training, none of the relationships under investigation in this hypothesis were significant; however, at post-training, one relationship under investigation in this hypothesis was significant. Specifically, pre-training analyses to test hypothesis 3 indicated that there were no significant positive associations between cultural self-efficacy and diversity knowledge assessment scores or between general self-efficacy and diversity knowledge assessment scores. Results of the pre-training analysis also revealed no significant positive association between diversity knowledge assessment scores and level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence.

PAGE 114

105 Post-training analyses to test hypothesis 3 revealed a weak significant positive association between diversity knowledge assessment scores and level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence. However, no significant positive association was found between cultural self-efficacy and diversity knowledge assessment scores or between general self-efficacy and diversity knowledge assessment scores. The overall results of the analyses to test hypothesis 3 suggest that the valence, instrumentality, and expectancy components of the ETM are not significantly associated with pre-training diversity knowledge assessment scores. In addition, the results of post-training analyses indicate that the expectancy component (as measured by the General Self-Efficacy Scale and the Self-Efficacy Scale for Cultural Competence in this study) of the ETM is not significantly associated with diversity knowledge assessment scores at post-training; however, there is a positive significant association between level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence (i.e., instrumentality and valence components of the ETM) and diversity knowledge assessment scores at post-training. A possible explanation for the findings that none of the investigated associations under investigation were significant at pre-training but that levels of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence was significantly positively associated with diversity knowledge assessment scores at post-training is that exposure to the diversity training may mediate the relationship between the variables of interest. Specifically, the mere exposure to diversity training may have influenced participants’ level of agreement that diversity

PAGE 115

106 training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence (i.e., instrumentality and valence components of the ETM), which impacted their attention to training content and the resulting association with diversity knowledge assessment scores at post-training. However, the mere exposure to diversity training does not necessarily dictate the relationship between cultural self-efficacy and general self-efficacy. Moreover, the finding that both cultural self-efficacy and general self-efficacy were not positively associated with learning outcome is not consistent with the self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1982). The above findings however, are partially consistent with the expectancy theory of motivation in that none of the components of the ETM are associated with learning outcome at pre-training. However, at post-training, the level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence (i.e., instrumentality-valence component of the ETM) was significantly positively associated with learning outcome. A possible explanation for the absence of a significant positive relationship between general self-efficacy and diversity knowledge assessment scores and between cultural self-efficacy and diversity knowledge assessment scores is that the specificity of which the measures used to assess general and cultural self-efficacy did not accurately reflect the content of the diversity training as assessed by the diversity knowledge assessment questionnaire. Therefore, participants’ perception of their ability to acquire the knowledge, skills, and awareness to be culturally competent did not associate with their performance on a given diversity knowledge assessment. The above findings suggest that an accurate reflection of the content of the diversity training as it relates to

PAGE 116

107 self-efficacy is necessary for trainees to precisely assess their ability to acquire the specific knowledge and skills taught in diversity training. Hypothesis 4 Results Regarding Hypothesis 4 Hypothesis 4 stated that receptivity to diversity as measured by the Receptivity to Diversity Index (RDI) and receptivity to diversity management as measured by the Receptivity to Diversity Management Index (RDMI) at pre-training will be positively and significantly associated with the amount of change in diversity knowledge as assessed by scores on the Mutual Respect Through Understanding Differences Knowledge Questionnaire (MRKQ) from pre-training to post-training. Results indicated that there was no significant positive association between receptivity to diversity and change in diversity knowledge assessment scores from pre-training to post-training. Results also revealed no significant positive association between receptivity to diversity management and change in diversity knowledge assessment scores from pre-training to post-training. Therefore, no support was provided for this hypothesis. These results suggest that there may not be a significant relationship between receptivity to diversity and diversity knowledge assessment scores or between receptivity to diversity management and diversity knowledge assessment scores. These findings also suggest that diversity training may not need to be customized in accordance with trainees’ level of receptivity to diversity, as there is no significant association between receptivity to diversity and the learning outcome of diversity training. The lack of a significant positive relationship between receptivity to diversity at pre-training and change in diversity knowledge assessment scores from pre-training to post-training and between receptivity to diversity management at pre-training and change

PAGE 117

108 in diversity knowledge assessment scores from pre-training to post-training may be due, at least in part, to the relatively high scores on the diversity knowledge assessment at baseline (M=9.16, SD=1.83 out of a possible score of 12 at pre-training; M=10.06, SD=1.26 out of a possible score of 12 at post-training), which resulted in little room for change in diversity knowledge assessment scores from pre-training to post-training. Another possible explanation for the above finding is that the diversity knowledge assessment may not have been valid and or the training may have been too elementary for the participants in this study and therefore, the expected positive significant associations among the variables of interest were not obtained. Results from the Analysis to Examine Research Question One Research question one is as follows: Are there significant differences in receptivity to diversity, receptivity to diversity management, cultural self-efficacy, general self-efficacy, the level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence in association with gender, age, and ethnicity? Results of the analyses to test the research question revealed that there were no significant differences in any of the variables under investigation in association with gender, age, or ethnicity. However, ethnic and gender-related differences have been reported in receptivity to diversity and receptivity to diversity management (Soni, 2000). Therefore, the findings of the present study contradict the ethnic and gender-related differences found in receptivity to diversity and receptivity to diversity management by Soni. It should be noted, however, that the number of participants in this study from ethnic groups other than White Americans were small, which render the comparisons between racial groups unreliable. There were especially small numbers of African American participants (N=10) and Asian American participants (N=9). Therefore, results

PAGE 118

109 of the analyses to test the research question should be considered in light of the fact that both African Americans and Asian Americans were underrepresented in the present study sample. Results From the Post Hoc Analyses Due to the relatively larger number of Hispanic and White Americans among the participants in this study, their data was also analyzed separately from each other as post hoc analyses. Analyzing the data in this manner is consistent with the difference model (Oyemede & Rosser, 1980) approach to analyzing data and consistent with culturally sensitive research practices (Ogbu, 1985). The Difference Model approach advocates recognizing cultural differences when investigating the social behavior of different ethnic groups by examining factors in the behavior of different ethnic groups in separate analyses. In so doing, the different opportunities that may be available to different ethnic groups are considered, and ethnic differences in behaviors and in the factors influencing the behaviors can be determined. Results of the analyses to test hypothesis 1 separately by race/ethnicity revealed no significant findings. Specifically, among Hispanic and White American participants, general self-efficacy (i.e. expectancy component of the ETM), cultural self-efficacy (i.e. expectancy component of the ETM), agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence (i.e., instrumentality and valence components of the ETM) were not found to be significant predictors of receptivity to diversity or receptivity to diversity management. Thus, results suggest that the expectancy, instrumentality, and valence components of the ETM do not significantly predict receptivity to diversity or receptivity to diversity management among Hispanic or White American participants. These findings also suggest that no

PAGE 119

110 cultural differences exist among Hispanic and White American participants when examining the motivational factors that influence diversity training outcome. The above findings from the analyses to test hypothesis 1 using only the data of the participating Hispanics and White Americans are both consistent and inconsistent with the findings when this analysis used the data of all of the participating ethnic groups. Specifically, general self-efficacy, cultural self-efficacy, level of agreement that participating in diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence, and the number of workshops previously attended were not found to be significant predictors of receptivity to diversity when the data was analyzed separately by race/ethnicity or when this analysis used the data of all of the participating ethnic groups. Additionally, the above findings are consistent with the results from the analyses using the data of all of the participating ethnic groups such that general self-efficacy and cultural self-efficacy were not found to be significant predictors of receptivity to diversity management. In contrast, when using the data of all of the participating ethnic groups, significant results were found when examining level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence as a predictor of receptivity to diversity management; however, significant findings were not found when analyzing the data separately by race/ethnicity. The aforementioned inconsistent finding may be due, at least in part, to the reduced sample size of White American (n = 96) and Hispanic (n = 47) participants when analyzing the data separately by race/ethnicity. Therefore, the reduction in sample size did not provide the necessary power to detect a significant effect with regard to the amount of variance accounted for in

PAGE 120

111 receptivity to diversity management. Consequently, when the sample size was increased through combining the participants from all ethnic groups, a significant effect was obtained. When tested separately by race/ethnicity, results of the analyses to test hypothesis 2 revealed no significant findings. Specifically, differences from pre-training to post-training in general self-efficacy (i.e., expectancy component of the ETM), level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence (i.e., instrumentality and valence components of the ETM), and general self-efficacy (i.e., expectancy component of the ETM) from pre-training to post-training were not found to be significant predictors of the amount change from pre-training to post-training in receptivity to diversity or receptivity to diversity management when tested separately by race/ethnicity. These findings indicate that among Hispanic and White American participants, changes in the instrumentality, valence, and expectancy components of the ETM from pre-training to post-training do not significantly predict changes in diversity training outcome (i.e., amount change from pre-training to post-training in receptivity to diversity or receptivity to diversity management). These findings suggest that no cultural differences exist among Hispanic and White American participants when examining the changes from pre-training to post-training in the motivational factors that influence changes in diversity training outcome from pre-training to post-training. The above findings from the analyses to test hypothesis 2 using only the data of the participating Hispanic and White American participants are both consistent and inconsistent with the findings when this analysis used the data of all of the participating

PAGE 121

112 ethnic groups. Specifically, differences from pre-training to post-training in general self-efficacy and cultural self-efficacy were not found to be significant predictors of the amount of change from pre-training to post-training in receptivity to diversity or receptivity to diversity management when tested separately by race/ethnicity or when tested using the data of all of the participating ethnic groups. Additionally, when hypothesis 2 was tested using the data of all of the participating ethnic groups, results revealed that the differences from pre-training to post-training in general self-efficacy significantly predicted the amount of change from pre-training to post-training in receptivity to diversity and receptivity to diversity management; however, significant findings were not found when analyzing the data separately by race/ethnicity. The aforementioned inconsistent finding may also be due to the reduced sample size that was obtained when analyzing the data separately by race/ethnicity. Results of hypothesis 3 revealed mixed results for Hispanic and White American participants. Among Hispanic participants, the pre-training analyses to test hypothesis 3 indicated that there was a significant weak positive association between: (a) cultural self-efficacy and diversity knowledge assessment scores and (b) level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence and diversity knowledge assessment scores. No other investigated relationships were found to be significant at pre-training for Hispanic participants. Among White American participants, the pre-training analysis to test hypothesis 3 revealed no significant relationships among the variables examined. In addition, among Hispanic participants, the post-training analyses to test hypothesis 3 revealed no significant relationships among the variables examined. However, among White

PAGE 122

113 American participants, results revealed a weak significant positive association between level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence and diversity knowledge assessment scores. No other significant associations among the variables examined were found at post-training for White American participants. In sum, the findings resulting from testing hypothesis 3 suggest some cultural differences in the motivational variables that are associated with diversity knowledge assessment questionnaire scores at pre-training and at post-training. Results revealed that there is a significant weak positive relationship between the (a) valence, instrumentality, and expectancy components of the ETM and (b) learning outcome (as measured by the diversity knowledge assessment scores) at pre-training; however, none of the components of the ETM were associated with learning outcome at post-training for Hispanic participants. In contrast, for White American participants, results indicated that none of the components of the ETM were positively associated with diversity knowledge assessment questionnaire scores at pre-training; however, at post-training, there was a weak significant positive relationship between the instrumentality and valence components of the ETM and learning outcome as measured by the diversity knowledge assessment for White American participants. The findings to hypothesis 3, when tested separately among White American participants were consistent with the findings when using the data of all of the participating ethnic groups. However, when the data was tested separately among Hispanic participants, the findings were inconsistent with the results obtained when using the data of all of the participating ethnic groups. The findings suggest that cultural self

PAGE 123

114 efficacy and level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence may be significantly positively associated with diversity knowledge assessment scores prior to diversity training for Hispanic Americans; however, no relationship among these variables exist for White Americans. It is important to note that the weak significant associations that were found between the variables examined among Hispanic participants limit the implications of the above ethnic group related findings. When tested separately by race/ethnicity, results of hypothesis 4 revealed no significant findings among Hispanic or White American participants. Specifically, results indicated that there was no significant positive association between receptivity to diversity and change in diversity knowledge assessment scores from pre-training to post-training. Results also revealed no significant positive association between receptivity to diversity management and change from pre-training to post-training in diversity knowledge assessment scores among Hispanic and White American participants. When tested separately by race/ethnicity, results of hypothesis 4 yielded findings that were consistent with the results when tested using the data of all of the participating ethnic groups. Due to the consistency between the results that were found when using the data of all of the participating ethnic groups and when using only the data of the Hispanic and White American participants in the analyses to test hypothesis 4, similar implications of the findings are applicable. Specifically, the above results suggest that there may not be a significant association between receptivity to diversity and change in diversity knowledge

PAGE 124

115 assessment scores or between receptivity to diversity management and change in diversity knowledge assessment scores. The lack of a significant positive association between receptivity to diversity at pre-training and change in diversity knowledge assessment scores from pre-training to post-training and between receptivity to diversity management at pre-training and change in diversity knowledge assessment scores from pre-training to post-training among Hispanics and White Americans may be due to the relatively high scores on the diversity knowledge assessment at baseline (M=9.13, SD=1.03 out of a possible score of 12 at pre-training for Hispanic participants; M=10.02, SD=1.42 out of a possible score of 12 at post-training for Hispanic participants; M=9.24, SD=1.20 out of a possible score of 12 at pre-training for White American participants; M=9.97, SD=1.24 out of a possible score of 12 at post-training for White American participants), which resulted in little room for change in diversity knowledge assessment scores from pre-training to post-training. Additionally, the training may have been too elementary for the participants in this study or the diversity knowledge assessment may not have been valid and therefore, the expected positive significant associations among the variables of interest were not obtained. Results of the research question also revealed no significant differences in receptivity to diversity, receptivity to diversity management, cultural self-efficacy, general self-efficacy, and the level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence in association with gender or age among Hispanic or White American participants. The above findings suggest no cultural variation in the above variables for age or gender

PAGE 125

116 differences among Hispanic and White American participants. When tested separately by race/ethnicity, results of the research question yielded findings that were consistent with the results when analyzed using the data of all of the participating ethnic groups. Overall, the results that were found when examining the data separately by race/ethnicity and when analyzing the data of all of the participating ethnic groups were similar. Therefore, the findings to the hypotheses and research question in this study suggest no support for the use of the difference model to examine potential differences among Hispanic Americans and White Americans as it relates to examining the motivational factors that influence receptivity to diversity and receptivity to diversity management. In sum, the findings in this study suggest that the expectancy theory of motivation may not be useful for understanding the motivational variables that influence receptivity to diversity. This finding may be due, at least in part, to an inaccurate application of this theory to the current research, as the more traditional applications of the expectancy theory of motivation is used for predicting the occupational choice behaviors and training motivation of individuals. In other words, the expectancy theory of motivation may not be able to predict receptivity to diversity. Another possible explanation for the above finding is that the expectancy, valence, and instrumentality components of the expectancy theory of motivation may not have been assessed accurately, as most of the measures in this study were created specifically for the purpose of this research. Limitations of the Current Research One limitation of the present study is the sample that was used. The majority of the participants in the study were White American, middle aged (ages 39 and 40 years), and from Miami, Florida. Additionally, the sample was recruited from one organization and

PAGE 126

117 did not represent a culturally diverse group. Given these characteristics of the sample, the statistical reliability and generalizability of the present results are limited. These limitations underscore the importance of replicating the findings with a larger, more culturally diverse sample that is normally distributed in terms of age and ethnicity. The results of the study are also limited by the use of self-reported measures and the inability to examine change in behavior as it relates to the skills learned in the diversity training. Moreover, 65% of the participants in this study reported prior experience with diversity training and therefore, the majority of the participants were knowledgeable about diversity issues prior to participating in the diversity training. This limitation was addressed by using the number of previous workshops as a control variable where appropriate in each of the hypotheses. Another limitation of the study is the use of correlation analyses to examine the hypotheses, as correlation analysis does not allow for causality-based conclusions. Additionally, several weak correlations and extremely small variance accounted for by the predictor variables in the investigated dependent variables limit the interpretation of the results and therefore the results of this study should be interpreted with caution. The remainder of the limitations revolves around the design of and measurements used in this study. Specifically, the inability to obtain a control group does not allow for examining the influence that the diversity training may have had on the variables of interest in this study. Furthermore, due to the absence of a control group, the effectiveness of the diversity training remains unknown. Because the participants in this study were only exposed to 8 hours of diversity training, the likelihood of the occurrence of attitudinal

PAGE 127

118 and behavioral changes is minimal and therefore this presents another limitation. Exposure to several diversity training sessions would have addressed this limitation. Another design limitation of the present study is the inability of the primary investigator to design and conduct a theory based diversity training for the participants in this study, as the diversity training that was developed by the Champion Services Group, Inc. was based on themes outlined by the organization that needed to be addressed and not on any particular theoretical model or framework. Designing a theory based diversity training would allow for the development of more valid and accurate diversity training assessments. The final design limitation of this study was the inability to control for inconsistencies within the various diversity training sessions, as the training sessions were not standardized in its administration or consistently conducted by the same instructors. Thus, the lack of standardized administration may have influenced the consistency of training content experienced by participants, which may have ultimately influenced their learning outcome or diversity knowledge assessment scores at post-training. One measure related limitation of this study is the undesirable effect of the repeated administration of the same assessment packet. Participants may have felt compelled to provide similar responses on their assessments instead of basing their responses on their present perceptions and feelings. A longer period of time between the readminstration of assessments would have been an effective way of addressing this limitation. An additional instrument related weakness is that all of the participants completed the assessments in the same order. This may have influenced responses to the items via an

PAGE 128

119 ordering effect. Counter balancing would have been an effective way of addressing this possible limitation. A final limitation of this study was the characteristics of both the Self-Efficacy Scale for Cultural Competence and the Valence/Instrumentality Questionnaire that were developed by the primary researcher for the purposes of this study due to the lack of existence of such measures. No normative, reliability or validity data were previously established that assessed the cultural self-efficacy or valence/instrumentality constructs with corporate employees; however, the Self-Efficacy Scale for Cultural Competence and the Instrumentality/Valence Questionnaire proved to have good internal consistency and may be useful for the development of future similar measures. In addition, the assessment for cultural self-efficacy consisted of only five questions as minimally recommended in the Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales. Therefore, using a minimal number of items to assess cultural self-efficacy may have obscured the true variation that may be present in participants’ perception about their ability to learn cultural competence. Implications for Future Research The findings of this study have several implications in terms of directions for future research. First, the limitations of the present research need to be addressed in future investigations. Specifically, future research with larger, more ethnically diverse samples that are normally distributed in terms of age and ethnicity would allow for a more adequate assessment of the differences in the variables of interest among employees of different ages and ethnic backgrounds. The dearth of literature regarding the factors that influence receptivity to diversity and diversity training outcome in employees warrant future investigation in this area. Additionally, examination of the effects of diversity training on receptivity to diversity

PAGE 129

120 and receptivity to diversity management may prove fruitful future research. Because there is no existing model for the prediction of diversity training outcome, motivational models of expectancy are generically applied. Therefore, further research is also necessary for the development of new theoretical models to assist with the prediction of training outcome and receptivity to diversity. The findings of the present study suggest that research to further explore the relationship between general self-efficacy and receptivity to diversity within an organizational setting may also prove to be fruitful. Implications of Findings for Counseling Psychologists The prevalent use of diversity training programs as an intervention to prevent the problems that manifest with a diverse workforce, speculation about the effectiveness of such programs, and the increasing backlash to diversity training all underscore the need for an empirical understanding of the effectiveness of diversity training programs. Because counseling psychologists possess extensive training and knowledge of multicultural competence, they are uniquely positioned to implement research-based evaluations of diversity training programs. Furthermore, the leadership role assumed by counseling psychologists in the recent development of the guidelines on multicultural education, training, research, practice, and organizational change for psychologists by the American Psychological Association (2003) makes them especially suitable for conducting research on the effectiveness of diversity training programs. The present study was a theoretically grounded examination of the motivational factors that influence receptivity to diversity, receptivity to diversity management, and diversity knowledge assessment scores prior to and following diversity training. Training in multicultural competence and assessing this competence may render counseling psychologists helpful in addressing the topic of the present research. Therefore, the

PAGE 130

121 findings of the present study support expanding counseling psychologists’ roles as researchers and consultants to include educators on how to develop effective diversity training programs. For example, the results of the present study indicated that the level of agreement that diversity training will lead to increased cultural competence and importance given to cultural competence predicted diversity training participants’ receptivity to diversity management. These findings imply that counseling psychologists may be able to assist with designing diversity training programs that emphasize the rewards of participating in diversity training. In so doing, the emphasis on the rewards of diversity training may increase diversity training participants’ receptivity to diversity management and thereby decrease the likelihood of backlash to the diversity initiatives, particularly diversity training, that are often implemented by management in the workplace. Counseling psychologists can also provide education to upper management in organizations on the motivational factors that influence receptivity to diversity and receptivity to diversity management. For example, results of the present study suggest that positive changes in diversity training participants’ general self-efficacy from pre-training to post-training predicted positive changes in receptivity to diversity and receptivity to diversity management from pre-training to post-training. Due to counseling psychologists’ knowledge of multicultural competence in organizations, their commitment to both client-centered and diversity sensitive counseling approaches, the above finding suggest that as consultants, counseling psychologists may be uniquely positioned to implement interventions within organizations that attempt to increase the general self-efficacy of employees and thereby increase diversity training participants’

PAGE 131

122 receptivity to diversity and receptivity to diversity management from pre-training to post-training. Conclusions In conclusion, while the present study has several limitations, its findings both deviate from and coincide with previous research. Results of the present study suggest that the expectancy theory of motivation (ETM) may not be a useful framework for understanding the motivational factors that influence receptivity to diversity or receptivity to diversity management. Additionally, the findings in this study suggest that diversity training may not need to be modified in accordance with diversity training participants’ level of receptivity to diversity in order to enhance the knowledge acquired from diversity training. The findings also provide support for developing diversity training programs that include highlighting the rewards of diversity training for diversity training participants. This may in turn reduce the backlash to and skepticism about the implementation of diversity training within organizations. If the findings of the present study are replicated using larger and more diverse samples, support will be provided for the development of new theoretical models to assist with the prediction of receptivity to diversity and diversity training outcome.

PAGE 132

APPENDIX A INFORMED CONSENT FORM The purpose of this consent form is to request your permission to participate in a study to determine the factors that influence diversity-training outcomes. This research is being conducted by Chanelle Richards, a doctoral student in Counseling Psychology at the University of Florida. If you consent to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete several questionnaires, which you will complete at the beginning of your diversity training program. In addition, 3 weeks following the diversity training you will receive an email addressed to the company’s list serve asking you to complete follow up questionnaires on a secure website. There will be 6 brief questionnaires in all and it should take about 15 minutes to complete them. These questionnaires contain questions about your feelings and thoughts regarding diversity issues and diversity training. All of the information that you provide will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. You will not have to put your name on any of the questionnaires but you will be asked to generate your own personal identification number composed of the first 3 letters of your mother’s maiden name and the last 4 digits of your best friend’s phone number. The following precautions will secure the confidentiality of your responses over the internet: 1) You will not be asked to include your name with the questionnaires but you will be required to input your previously generated personal identification number. 2) Questionnaire data will be downloaded from the secure website via secure connection to the Psychology Department at the University of Florida, where it will be accessed only by my research colleagues and assistants. Participation in this study is completely voluntary. Your decision to participate or not to participate in this research will not harm the outcome of your diversity training instruction in any way, and you will not receive compensation for your participation in this research. The informed consent form will be kept separately from your questionnaires and will therefore be unidentifiable with your responses. You may decide to withdraw your research participation at any time without penalty. There are no anticipated risks for participants in this study. Results of the study will be available to participants when the study is completed. Your individual responses will not be identified. The study may benefit participants by increasing awareness regarding the importance of diversity issues and diversity training outcomes. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this study, please contact Chanelle Richards or Dr. Carolyn M. Tucker at (352) 392-0601 Ext. 260 or via email at chanelle@ufl.edu . Any questions about your rights as a research participant may be addressed to the University of Florida 123

PAGE 133

124 Institutional Review Board, P.O. Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250. Please sign below if you will voluntarily participate in this study. I, ______________________________________, voluntarily agree to participate in this (Print Name) research. _____________________________________ __________________ (Signature) (Date)

PAGE 134

APPENDIX B DEMOGRAPHIC DATA QUESTIONNAIRE Instructions: Please provide the requested information by circling or writing in your answer in the lines provided. The following personal identification code allows you to keep your responses anonymous but allows the survey to be matched in the future. Personal Identification Code: First 3 letters of your mother’s maiden name: __ __ __ Last 4 digits of your best friend’s phone number: __ __ __ __ Your Age: _______ Your Gender: Male Female Education level: Your Nationality: ___________________________ Some High School or less High School Diploma/GED Vocational/Trade School Some College College Degree Some gradate school Graduate degree Please Mark all those that apply for your Race/Ethnicity: African-American/Black Asian, Asian American/Pacific Islander Caucasian/ White American, European, not Hispanic Chicano(a)/ Mexican American Latino(a)/ Hispanic American Native American/American Indian Mixed; parents are from two different groups Other (please specify):________________________ 125

PAGE 135

126 Religious Affiliation Jewish Atheistic Muslim Baptist Protestant (please specify) _______________________ Buddhist No Preference Catholic Other (please specify)_________________ Hindu Marital/Partnered Status Married Divorced Separated Single, Never Been Married Single Widowed Other (please specify)___________________________ Average Annual Income (please circle one): Less than $20,000 Between $40, 001 and $50,000 Between $20,000 and $30,000 Between $50,001 and $60,000 Between $30,001 and $40,000 Over $60,000 Position and Experience: Position: ____________________________ Years with the organization: _________________________ Years of experience in administration: ________________ Years of experience in direct service: _________________ To what extent are you involved with the analysis or formation of agency policy? Very much Sometimes Very Rarely Not at all How many cultural awareness/competence workshops or conferences have you attended? None 1 to 3 4 to 6 7 to 9 10 or more Is diversity training mandatory at your job? Yes No

PAGE 136

APPENDIX C RECEPTIVITY TO DIVERSITY INDEX Instructions: Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements based on the following scale: 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 1. I work with people who are different from me in their race and gender identity. 2. Most people in this organization seldom think about their attitude on diversity. 3. The concept of diversity should not be emphasized in the workplace. 4. Greater representation of persons from diverse racial and gender groups make it more comfortable for me to work at this organization. 5. Diverse employees bring new perspectives to the organization. 6. Focusing on diversity will only benefit women and minorities. 7. White males are concerned about reverse discrimination in this organization. 8. Cultural differences cause conflict in this organization. 9. The organization’s top administrators clearly communicate their version about diversity. 10. I would welcome information about working effectively in a diverse workforce. 127

PAGE 137

APPENDIX D RECEPTIVITY TO DIVERSITY MANAGEMENT INDEX Instructions: Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements based on the following scale: 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 1. The responsibility for creating diversity rests primarily with senior leadership. 2. Increased diversity will require the organization to invest more resources in teaching employees how to deal with cultural differences. 3. All employees can benefit from effective diversity management. 4. Diversity management is necessary for tapping into the contributions of all employees. 5. The organization does not do enough to address various diversity issues. 6. This organization is spending too much time and money on diversity issues. 7. Diversity management is the current terminology for affirmative action. 8. Attention to diversity management is necessary due to the perceptions of discrimination by women and minorities. 9. The organization administration “practices what it preaches” about diversity management. 10. Most managers in the organization set a positive example of how to effectively manage diversity. 128

PAGE 138

APPENDIX E THE INSTRUMENTALITY/VALENCE QUESTIONNAIRE Instructions: Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements based on the following scale: 1=Strongly Disagree 3=Somewhat Agree 5=Strongly Agree 2=Disagree 4=Agree 1 2 3 4 5 1. Diversity training will help me acquire the awareness I need to interact more effectively with culturally diverse coworkers. 2. Diversity training will help me acquire the necessary knowledge I need to be culturally sensitive to others at work. 3. Diversity training will help me acquire the necessary skills I need to be culturally sensitive to others at work. 4. Diversity training will help me acquire the behaviors that are necessary for effective cross-cultural interactions at work. 5. Diversity training will prepare me to be more culturally competent. 6. Diversity training will help me acquire the knowledge that is necessary for effective cross-cultural interactions at work. 7. Diversity training will prepare me to be more culturally sensitive. 8. Diversity training will help me acquire the awareness I need to be culturally sensitive to others at work. 9. Acquiring the awareness I need to interact more effectively with culturally diverse coworkers is important to me. 129

PAGE 139

130 10. Acquiring the necessary knowledge I need to be culturally sensitive to others at work is important to me. 11. Acquiring the necessary skills I need to be culturally sensitive to others at work is important to me. 12. Acquiring the behaviors that are necessary for effective cross-cultural interactions at work is important to me. 13. Becoming more culturally competent is important to me. 14. Acquiring the knowledge that is necessary for effective cross-cultural interactions at work is important to me. 15. It is important for me to have effective crosscultural interactions at work. 16. Becoming culturally sensitive is important to me.

PAGE 140

APPENDIX F MARLOW CROWNE SOCIAL DESIRABILITY SCALE-SHORT FORM Directions: For each of the following statements, please fill in where you consider the statement to be True (T) or False (F). 1. I never hesitate to go out of any way to help someone in trouble. T F 2. I have never intensely disliked someone. T F 3. I sometimes feel resentful when I don’t get my way. T F 4. I like to gossip at times. T F 5. There have been times when I felt like rebelling against people T F in authority even though I knew they were right. 6. I can remember “playing sick” to get out of something. T F 7. There have been occasions when I took advantage of someone. T F 8. I’m always willing to admit it when I make a mistake. T F 9. I always try to practice what I preach. T F 10. I sometimes try to get even, rather than forgive and forget. T F 11. When I don’t know something I don’t at all mind admitting it. T F 12. I am always courteous, even to people who are disagreeable. T F 13. At times I have really insisted on having things my way. T F 14. There have been occasions when I felt like smashing things. T F 15. I would never think of letting someone else be punished for my T F wrong doings. 16. I never resent being asked to return a favor. T F 17. I have never been irked when people expressed ideas very different T F from my own. 131

PAGE 141

132 18. There have been times when I was quite jealous of the good fortune T F of others. 19. I am sometimes irritated by people who ask favors of me. T F 20. I have never deliberately said something to hurt someone’s feelings. T F

PAGE 142

APPENDIX G SELF EFFICACY SCALE FOR CULTURAL COMPETENCE Directions: Please indicate your opinions about each of the statements below by filling in the appropriate circle. 1. How well can you learn the necessary knowledge to become culturally competent? Not well at all Not to Well Pretty Well Very Well 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. How well can you learn the skills/behaviors to be culturally competent? Not well at all Not to Well Pretty Well Very Well 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. How well can you acquire the necessary awareness to become culturally competent? Not well at all Not to Well Pretty Well Very Well 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. How much can you do to make your department a culturally sensitive work environment? Nothing Very Little Some influence Quite A Bit A Great Deal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 5. How much can you promote cultural competence in your department at the Burger King Corporation? Nothing Very Little Some influence Quite A Bit A Great Deal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 133

PAGE 143

APPENDIX H KNOWLEDGE QUESTIONNAIRE Directions: Please circle the best response. True False 1. Diversity makes good business sense. 2. Diversity only includes race and gender. 3. The Diversity Action Counsel (DAC) at Burger King helps the Burger King Corporation ensure a multicultural workplace of employees from many ethnic Groups. 4. A major advantage of diversity is that it helps sustain a competitive advantage, reduce employee turnover, and promotes mutual respect. 5. Discrimination is an attitude. 6. Everyone is subjected to biased treatment. 7. We all have preconceived notions about others, we stereotype and are stereotyped against. 8. Self-disclosure is important because it facilitates communication. 9. People who are aware of and concerned about their prejudices and biases, are on the way to eliminating them. 10. The first step to handling diversity conflict in the workplace involves confrontation. 11. Your beliefs create attitudes. 12. Diversity Change Agents act like role models and promote the use of diversity. 134

PAGE 144

APPENDIX I GENERAL SELF-EFFICACY SCALE Instructions: Please rate each of the following items on the following 14-point scale where 1=Strongly Disagree and 14=Strongly Agree. 1. When I make plans, I am certain I can make them work. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 2. One of my problems is that I cannot get down to work when I should. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 3. If I can’t do a job the first time, I keep trying until I can. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 4. When I set important goals for myself, I rarely achieve them. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5. I give up on things before completing them. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 6. I avoid facing difficulties. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 135

PAGE 145

136 7. If something looks too complicated, I will not even bother to try it. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 8. When I have something unpleasant to do, I stick to it until I finish it. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 9. When I decide to do something, I go right to work on it. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 10. When trying to learn something new, I soon give up if I am not initially successful. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 11. When unexpected problems occur, I don’t handle them well. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 12. I avoid trying to learn new things when they look too difficult for me. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

PAGE 146

REFERENCES Adler, N. J. (1991). International dimensions of organizational behavior. Boston: PWS-Kent Publishing Company. Adorno, T., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D., & Sanford, R. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper & Row. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (1999). Providing care to diverse populations: State strategies for promoting cultural competency in health systems. Workshop summary, User Liaison Program. Retrieved on May 5, 2004, from http://www.ahrq.gov/new/ulp/ulpcultr.htm Alderfer, C. P, Alderfer, C. J., Bell, E. L. & Jones, J. (1992). The race relations competence workshop: Theory and results. Human Relations, 45(12), 1-17. Allison, K. W., Crawford, I., Echemendia, L. R., & Knepp, D. (1994). Training in clinical and counseling psychology revisited. American Psychologist, 49, 792-296. American Psychological Association. (1990). Ethical principles revised. The APA Monitor, 21, 28-32. American Psychological Association (2003). Guidelines on multicultural education, training, research, practice, and organizational change for psychologists. American Psychologist, 58, 377-402. Arnold, H. J. (1981). A test of the validity of the multiplicative hypothesis of expectancy-valence theories of work motivation. Academy of Management Journal, 24(1), 128-141. Baker, A. C. (1999). Receptivity to racial and ethnic diversity. Psychological Reports, 84(1), 35-42. Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41, 63-105. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147. 137

PAGE 147

138 Bandura, A. (1989). Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived self-efficacy. Developmental Psychology, 25, 729-35. Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248-287. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-148. Bendick, M., Egan, M. L., & Lofhjelm, S. M. (1998). Workforce diversity training: From anti-discrimination compliance to organizational development. Human Resource Planning, 10-24. Bergen, C. W., Soper, B., & Foster, T. (2002). Unintended negative effects of diversity management. Public Personnel Management, 31(2), 239-251. Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4 th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 193-281). New York: Oxford University Press. Carnevale, A. & Stone, S. (1994). Diversity beyond the golden rule. Training & Development, 22-39. Campbell, G. P., Dunnette, M. C., Lawler, E. E., & Weick, K. E. (1970). Managerial behavior, performance and effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill. Campbell, J. P. (1988). Training design for performance improvement. In J. P. Campbell & R. J. Campbell (Eds.). Productivity in Organizations (pp. 177-216). San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Chung, H. & Elias, M. (1996). Patterns of adolescent involvement in problem behaviors: Relationship to self-efficacy, social competence, and life events. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24(6), 771-784. Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310-357. Connell, J. P., Helpern-Felsher, B. L., Clifford, E., Crichlow, W., & Usinger, P. (1995). Hanging in there: behavioral, psychological, and contextual factors affecting whether African American adolescents stay in high school. Journal of Adolescent Research, 10(1), 41-63. Connolly, T. (1976). Some conceptual and methodological issues in expectancy models of work performance motivation. Academy of Management Review, 37-46. Cox, T. (1994). Cultural diversity in organizations. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler Publishers.

PAGE 148

139 Cross, T., Bazron, B., Dennis, K., & Isaacs, M. (1989). Towards a culturally competent system of care, Vol. 1. Washington, D. C. Georgetown University Child development Center, CASSP Technical Assistance Center. Culhane-Pera, K. A., Like, R. C., Levensohn-Chialvo, P., & Loewe, R. (2000). Multicultural curricula in family practice residencies, Family Medicine, 32, 167-173. Dachler, H. P., & Mobley, W. H. (1973). Construct validation of an instrumentality-expectancy-task-goal model of work motivation—Some theoretical boundary conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, 58, 397-418. DeAngelis, T. (1995). Ignorance plagues affirmative action. American Psychological Association Monitor. Retrieved on January 6, 2004, from www.apa.org/monitor/may95/affirm.html . Decenzo, A., & Silhanek, B. (2002). Human relations: Personal and professional development (3 rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NY: Prentice Hall. Delikat, M. (1995). The legal dangers in diversity. Corporate Board, 169, 11-17. DiversityInc, (2003, March/April). Factoids. DiversityInc. Vol. 2(2), 20-21. D’Souza, D. (1996). Beyond affirmative action. Chief Executive, 119, 44-48. Eisenberg, J. M. (1979). Sociologic influences on medical decision making by clinicians. Annual Intern Medicine, 90, 957-964. Erez, M. (1979). Expectancy theory prediction of willingness to be retrained: The case of ratings’ advancement in the Israeli merchant navy. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52, 35-40. Evans, R. (1989). Albert Bandura: The man and his ideas-a dialogue. New York: Praeger. Far, J., & Middlebrooks, C. (1990). Enhancing motivation to participate in professional development In S L Willis & S.S. Dubin (Eds.). Maintaining professional competence, pp. 195-213. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. FaxForum Results. (1994). Is diversity training necessary? Training & development. Retrieved on December 2003, from http://faxforum.org/diversity/feb94/htm . Fichten, C.S., Spector, I., Amsel, R., Creti, L., Brender, W. & Libman, E. (1998). Sexual self-efficacy scale Form E: Erectile functioning. In C.M. Davis, W.L. Yarber, R. Bauserman, G. Schreer, & S.L. Davis (Eds.). Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp. 534-537). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

PAGE 149

140 Fraboni, M., & Cooper, D. (1989). Further validation of three short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Scale of Social Desirability. Psychological Reports, 65(2), 595-600. Gailbraith, J., & Cummings, L. L. (1967). An empirical investigation of the motivational determinants of task performance: Interactive effects between instrumentality-valence and motivation-ability. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 2, 237-257. Gardenswartz, L., & Row, A. (1996). Incorrect assumptions that sabotage your diversity promotion efforts. Managing Diversity. Retrieved February 2003, from www.jalmc.org/incor-as.htm . Geiger, M. A., & Cooper, E. A. (1996). Cross-cultural comparisons: Using expectancy theory to assess student motivation. Issues in Accounting Education, 11(1), 113-129. Gerbert, B., Love, C., Caspers, N., et al. (1999). Making all the difference in the world: how physicians can help HIV-seropositive patients become more involved in their healthcare. AIDS Patient Care, 13, 29-39. Goldsmith, O. (2000). Culturally competent health care. The Permanente Journal, 1-7. Grean, G. (1969). Instrumentality theory of work motivation: Some experimental results and suggested modifications. Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, 53, 1-25. Hackman, J. R., & Porter, L. W. (1968). Expectancy theory predictions of work effectiveness. Organizational behavior and Human Performance, 3, 417-426. Hays, R. D., & Ellickson, P.L. (1990). How generalizable are adolescents’ beliefs about prodrug pressures and resistance self-efficacy? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20(4), 321-340. Hemphill, H., & Haines, R. (1997). Discrimination, harassment, and the failure of diversity training. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Henson, R. (2001). Expectancy beliefs, ability, and personality in predicting academic performance. The Journal of Educational Research, 41-66. HIV/AIDS Bureau (2001, August). HRSA care action. Health Resources and Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, 1-8. House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321-228.

PAGE 150

141 Jinks, J., & Morgan, V. L. (1996). Students’ sense of academic efficacy and achievement in science: A useful new direction for research regarding scientific literacy? The Electronic Journal of Science Education, 1(2), 1-10. Retrieved May 6, 2003, from http://unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/jinksmor.html Jinks, J. & Morgan, V. L. (1999). Children’s perceived academic self-efficacy: An inventory scale. The Clearing House, 224-230. Jones, (1971). The nature of measurement. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.). Educational Measurement, 2 nd ed. Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education. Koonce, R. (2001, December). Redefining diversity. Training & Development, 22-29. Koskinen, L., & Tossavainen, K. (2003). Benefits-problems of enhancing students’ intercultural competence. British Journal of Nursing, 12(6), 369-377. Kossek, E. E., & Zonia, S. C. (1993). Assessing diversity climate: A field study of reactions to promote diversity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(1), 61-81. Lane, J., & Lane, A. (2001). Self-efficacy and academic performance. Social Behavior and Personality, 29(7), 687-694. Latham, G. P. (1988). Human resource training and development. In M. R. Rosenzweig L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 39, 545-582. Palo Alto, CA. Annual Reviews. Law, Dana. (1998). An evaluation of cultural diversity training programs. Dissertation Abstracts International: Sec. B. Lawler, E. E., & Suttle, J. L. (1973). Expectancy theory and job behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 49, 482-503. Lindsay, C. (1994). Things that go wrong in diversity training conceptualization and change with ethnic identity models. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 7(6), 18-33. Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, edited by Michael D. Dunnette. Chicago: Rand McNally. Loo, R., & Thorpe, K. (2000). Confirmatory factor analysis analyses of the full and short versions of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. The Journal of Social Psychology, 140, 628-635. Lorig K, Brown B.W., Ung E, Chastain R, Shoor S, Holman. (1989). HR, development and evaluation of a scale to measure the perceived self-efficacy of people with arthritis. Arthritis and Rheumatism , 32(1), p.37-44.

PAGE 151

142 Lynch, F. R. (1994). Workforce diversity: PC’s final frontier? National Review, 46, 32-35. Lynch, F. (1997). The diversity machine. The drive to change the “White Male” workplace. New York: Free Press. MacDonald, H. (1993). Cashing in on affirmative action: The diversity industry. New Public, 209, 22-25. Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Salas, E. (1992). Influences of individual and situational characteristics on measures of training effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 36(4), 828-847. Matsui, T., & Ohtsuku, Y. (1978). Within-person expectancy theory as a within-person behavioral choice model for sales activities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 764-767. McFillen, J. M., & Maloney, W. F. (1988). New answers and new questions in construction worker motivation. Construction Management and Economics, 6, 35-48. Miner, J. B., & Dachler, H. P. (1973). Personnel attitudes and motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 24, 379-402. Mitchell, T. R., & Knudsen, B. W. (1973). Instrumentality theory predictions of students attitudes toward business and their choice of business as an occupation. Academy of Management Journal, 16, 41-51. Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Expectancy models of job satisfaction, occupational preference and effort: A theoretical, methodological, and empirical appraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 1053-1077. Noe, R. A. (1986). Trainees’ attributes and attitudes: Neglected influences on training effectiveness. Academy of Management Review, 11, 736-749. Noe, R. A. (2002). Employee training and development. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Noe, R. A., & Ford, J. K. (1992). Emerging issues and new directions for training research. Ferris, G. & Rowland, K. (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 10, 345-384. Nunez, A. E. (2000). Transforming cultural competence into cross-cultural efficacy in women’s health education, Academic Medicine, 76, 1071-1080. Ogbu, J. U. (1985). A cultural ecology of competence among inner-city Blacks. In M. B. Spencer, G. K. Brooks, and W. R. Allen (Eds.). Beginnings: The Social and Affective Development of Black Children (pp 45-66). Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum.

PAGE 152

143 Oyemade, U., & Rosser, P. (1980). Development in Black children. Advances in Behavioral Pediatrics, 1, 153-179. Parker, D. F., & Dyer, L. (1976). Expectancy theory as a within-person behavioral choice model: An empirical test of some conceptual and methodological refinements. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 17, 97-117. Peters, L. H., & O’Connor, E. J. (1980). Situational constraints and work outcomes: The influences of frequently overlooked construct. Academy of Management Review, 5, 391-397. Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 333-40. Pintrich, P. R., & Schrauben, B. (1992). Students’ motivational beliefs and their cognitive engagement in classroom academic tasks. In D. H. Schunk, & J. L. Meece (Eds.), Students Perceptions in the Classroom (pp. 149-183). Hillside, New Jersey Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Pintrich, P. R., Roeser, R. W., & DeGroot, A. M. (1994). Classroom and individual differences in early adolescents’ motivation and self-regulated learning. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14(2), 139-161. Plummer, D. L. (1998). Approaching diversity training in the year 2000, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 50(3), 181-189. Pope-Davis, D. B., & Ottavi, T. M. (1994). Examining the association between self-reported multicultural counseling competencies and demographic variables among counselors. Journal of Counseling and Development, 72, 651-654. Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood, IL: Irwin. Pringle, C. D., & Madison, J. (1995). Ability and role clarity as enhancers of the expectancy theory model. Psychological Reports, 76(2), 522-564. Rosenberg, J. (1965). Cognitive structure and attitudinal affect. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53, 367-372. Rubin, I. (1967). The reduction of prejudice through laboratory training. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 3, 29-50. Rhynes, S. & Rosen, B. ( 1994, October). What makes diversity programs work? HR Magazine, 39 (10), 67-73. Rhynes, S., & Rosen, B. (1995). A field survey of factors affecting the adoption and perceived success of diversity training. Personnel Psychology, 48, 247-271.

PAGE 153

144 Saha, S., Komaromy, M., Koepsell, T. D. (1999). Evidence on patient-doctor communication. Cancer Prevention Control, 3, 25-30. Schilder, A. J., Kennedy, C., & Goldstone, I. L. (2001). Being dealt with as a whole person. Care seeking adherence: the benefits of culturally competent care. Social Science Medicine, 53, 1643-1659. Schunk, D. H. (1981). Modeling and attributional effects on children’s achievement: A self-efficacy analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 93-105. Schunk, D. H. (1983). Progress self-monitoring: Effects on children’s self-efficacy and achievement. Journal of Experimental Education, 51, 89-93. Schunk, D. H. (1984). Self-efficacy and classroom learning. Psychology in The Schools, 22(2), 208-223. Scoggin, A., Miller, D. I., Harper, J., & Carskadon, T. (1988). The development, implementation and evaluation of a supervisory training program using the expectancy theory of motivation. Journal of Human Behavior, 25(1), 43-47. Scott, C. J. (1997). Enhancing patient outcomes through an understanding of intercultural medicine: guidelines for the practitioner, Maryland Medical Journal, 46, 175-180. Sears, D. (1988). Symbolic racism. In Eliminating Racism, Katz & Taylor Ed., New York: Plenum. Sherer, M., Maddux, J.E., Mercadante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R.W. (1982). The self-efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51, 663-671. Sheridan, J. E., Slocum, J. W. Jr. & Richard, M. D. (1974). Expectancy theory as a lead indicator of job behavior. Decision Sciences, 5, 507-522. Shapiro, J., Hollingshead, J., Morrison, E. M. (2002). Self-perceived attitudes and skills of cultural competence: A comparison of family medicine and internal medicine residents. Short Communications, 327-329. Skinner, E. (1985), Action, control judgments, and the structure of control experience. Psychological Review, 92(1), 39-58. Sodowsky, G. R., Kuo-Jackson, P. Y., Richardson, M. F., & Corey, A. T. (1998). Correlates of self-reported multicultural counseling competencies: Counselor multicultural social desirability, race, social inadequacy, locus of control racial ideology, and multicultural training. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 256-264. Soni, V. (2000). A twenty-first-century reception for diversity in the public sector: a case study. Public Administration Review, 60(5), 395-408.

PAGE 154

145 Strahan, R., & Gerbasi, K. C. (1972). Short, homogeneous versions of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28(2), 191-193. Sue, D. W., Arrendondo, P., & McDavis, R. J. (1992). Multicultural counseling competencies: A call to the profession. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70, 477-486. Tan, D. L., Morris, L., & Romero, J. (1996). Changes in after diversity training. Training & Development, 54-55. Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, I. A. (1991). Meeting trainees’ expectations. The influence of training fulfillment on the development of commitment, self-efficacy, and motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 759-769. Teas, R. K. (1981). A within-subject analysis of valence models of job preference and anticipated satisfaction. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 54, 109-124. Thato, S., Hanna, K., & Rodcumdee, B. (2005). Translation and validation of the condom self-efficacy scale with Thai adolescents and young adults. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 37 (1), 36-45. Thomas, R. (1990). From affirmative action to affirming diversity. Harvard Business Review, 107-117. Thompson, K., Boore, J., & Deeny, P. (2000). A comparison of an international experience for nursing students in developed and developing countries. International Journal of Nursing, 37(16), 481-492. Veroff, J., Douvan, E., & Kulka, R. A. (1981). The inner American: A self-portrait from 1957 to 1976. New York: Basic Books. Vroom, V. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley. Williams, T. C., Thayer, P. W., & Pond, s. B. (1991). Test of a model of motivational influences on reactions to training and learning. Paper presented at the 6 th annual Conference of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St. Louis. Williamson, J. (1994). Erasmus cultural exchanges in Europe. British Journal of Nursing, 3(21), 1124-1128. Zimmerman, B.J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 663-676

PAGE 155

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Chanelle Rymanda Richards was born in Georgetown, Guyana, on October 26, 1978. At the age of one year, she and her family moved to Brooklyn, New York. After graduating from Shell Bank Junior High School in 1992, she moved to Queens, New York, where her parents still reside. She then attended Springfield Gardens High School in Queens, New York, and graduated in 1996. Upon graduation from high school, she immediately attended Cornell University and obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree in psychology in the year 2000. She was accepted to the counseling psychology doctoral program at the University of Florida in 2000 where she earned a Master of Science degree in psychology in 2002. She then went on to complete her clinical psychology internship at the Mt. Sinai Services at Elmhurst Hospital Center in New York City in 2005. 146