1. Understanding Our Reactions to Diversity The “Moral” Lab ~ Jen Wright, Brandi McCulloch, Chelsie Hess, Jerry Cullum, & Nick Schwab University of Wyoming Department of Psychology narvik@uwyo.edu

2. Study of Diversity Interest in studying diversity has steadily increased in the last 30 years Some researchers argue that diversity is a “good thing” (Cox & Blake, 1991, McLeod, Lobel, & Cox, 1996) Others worry that diversity can have deleterious effects (Jackson, et al., 1991, Krauthammer, 1995)

3. Breaking Diversity Down Haidt, et al. (2001) argued that effects of diversity depend upon both Type of diversity Demographic factors; political, social, or moral issues; personal activities and interests Context of diversity Where diversity is encountered: close proximity (or high contact) vs. at a distance (low contact)

4. Haidt’s findings Participants were More supportive of demographic and personal diversity than socio-sexual or politico-moral diversity Less supportive of all forms of diversity when in close proximity (“high contact”) People are generally more willing to endorse and recognize the benefits of diversity when it involves demographic factors and personal interests

5. Current Study Eliot Turiel (1975, 1983) People tend to break authority and obligation into three domains: Personal Social/Conventional Moral Accordingly, people should view issues of diversity as falling into one of these three domains.

6. Methods 99 participants from Intro to Psychology research pool (38 males, 61 females) Demographic information Parent’s annual income Mother’s and Father’s education level Ethnicity Religious affiliation (past/present) Strength of religious beliefs Political orientation (conservative to liberal) Year in school

7. Methods Participants were Given examples of 20 different types of diversity E.g. Abortion, gun control, recycling, cheating on exams, exercise, tattoos and body piercing, drinking age, marijuana Asked to classify each type by “locus of authority” – i.e. who determines right or wrong [‘PSM Rating’] Personal, Social, or Moral

8. Methods Participants were asked to rate (on an 8 pt Likert scale) how much diversity they felt comfortable with in other’s attitudes about the 20 types of diversity 0 = Minimum diversity (exactly the same attitudes as you) 7 = Maximum diversity (extremely diverse and opposite from your own) E.g. Attitudes about sexual promiscuity; attitudes about abortion.

9. Methods Ratings occurred in six different contexts Attitudes of fellow university students In university (low contact) Attending the same seminar (med. contact) As potential roommate (high contact) Attitudes of professors In university (low contact) Teaching seminar (med. contact) As potential advisor (high contact)

11. Results – Within-Subjects Analysis of ‘PSM rating” and “Context” Main effects PSM Rating predicted tolerance of diversity across all contexts Student: F(2,85)=37.0, p<.001, η 2 =.47; Professor: F(2,85)=27.9, p<.001, η 2 =.40) Context predicted tolerance of diversity across all PSM Ratings Student: F(2,85)=35.7, p<.001, η 2 =.46; Professor: F(2,85)=4.18, p=.02, η 2 =.09) Interaction PSM x Context significantly interacted for Student only (F(4,83)=3.59, p=.01, η 2 =.15)

15. Results – Discriminant Analysis Political Views predicted PSM ratings for Abortion: Λ =.9, p =.008 Marijuana: Λ =.884, p =.003 Homosexual Marriage: Λ =.913, p =.014 Mother’s Education predicted PSM ratings for Tattoos: Λ =.927, p =.007 Date Rape: Λ =.896, p =.006 Father’s Education predicted PSM ratings for Marijuana: Λ =.806, p =.001 Sexual Promiscuity: Λ =.913, p =.015 Gender predicted PSM ratings for Eating cats & dogs: Λ =.898, p =.006

16. Discussion Participants were most tolerant of diversity in those issues they rated as personal least tolerant of diversity in those issues they rated as moral most tolerant of diversity in the low contact (university) context least tolerant of diversity in the high contact (roommate/advisor) context Especially true for roommate context

17. Discussion Tolerance for diversity was lowest overall in potential roommates. The same interaction was not found in the high contact context of potential advisors. Participants were generally less tolerant of diversity in professors than in students (with the exception of potential roommates).

18. Discussion Participant’s political orientation (conservative to liberal), father’s and mothers’ education, and gender were predictive of how they rated certain issues: Abortion, marijuana, homosexual marriage, sexual promiscuity, tattoos, date rape, and eating cats & dogs

19. Evidence for Relativism? According to moral relativists, relativism is necessary to promote tolerance of diversity. Two forms of relativism Cultural (right/wrong decided by society) Subjectivism (right/wrong decided by person) These map onto our “personal” and “social” rating categories We found that there was a higher level of tolerance for diversity across all contexts for those issues rated as personal or social than for those rated moral.

20. Evidence for Relativism? But…couldn’t this just be the “freshman effect”? Stay tuned for further research…..