Operationalizing the Social Change Model

1. Operationalizing the Social Change Model Findings from a National Study of Leadership * Association for the Study of Higher Education November 2007 * John P. Dugan, Assistant Professor, Loyola University Chicago Kristan Cilente, Senior Coordinator, University of Maryland Sponsored by the C. Charles Jackson Foundation, National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs, University of Maryland, ACPA Educational Leadership Foundation, & NASPA Foundation  MSL/ NCLP, 2007

2. Abstract This study examines college outcomes associated with the social change model of leadership development (Higher Education Research Institute, 1996) using a representative sample of more than 50,000 participants from 52 institutions across the United States. Students report highest scores on the leadership construct of commitment and lowest scores on the construct of change. Female students report greater levels of competence than their male peers on seven of the eight leadership measures. Additional results are examined by race and sexual orientation.

3. Theoretical Framework: The Social Change Model Change

4. Conceptual Framework The conceptual model for the study was an adapted version of Astin’s (1991) IEO college impact model. Inputs controlled for what a student brings to college (e.g., demographics, pre-college experiences, pre-college attitudes) and environments examined aspects of the collegiate experience (i.e., distal aspects such as the type of institution as well as proximal aspects such as amount of involvement, leadership training, mentoring, and discussions of socio-cultural issues) that predicted theoretically grounded leadership outcomes. An adapted IEO format was used given the research was cross-sectional with retrospective questions capturing data for pre-college variables.

5. Research Questions This study specifically addressed the following questions: • How do students score nationally on eight theoretically grounded measures of leadership designed to operationalize the social change model? • What is the relationship between various demographic variables (e.g., race, gender, sexual orientation) and student scores across the eight leadership measures?

6. Method • Web-based survey administration • Instrument draws largely on a revised version of the Socially Responsible Leadership Scale (Tyree, 1998) • Alphas ranged from high of .83 on Commitment to a low of .76 on Controversy with Civility

7. Final Sample The final sample for this study is comprised of 50,378 cases with a return rate of 37% • Descriptive features of the sample include the following: • Even distribution across class standing • 24% transfer students (n = 12,300) • 15% first generation college students (n = 7,181) • Mean age was 21 years old (SD = 4.78) • 28% identified as students of color (n = 14,262) • Females (62%, n = 30,960) slightly overrepresented compared to males (38%, n = 19,183) • 3% identified as lesbian, gay, or bisexual (n = 1,700) • 43 identified as transgendered

8. Overall findings Students reported high scores on the value of Commitment (m = 4.24) and low scores on the value of Change (m = 3.75). Participants reported neutrality approaching agreement (i.e., scores hovered around a four which is the equivalent of agreement) across the majority of the SCM values.

9. Differences by Gender The MANOVA with gender as the independent variable revealed statistically significant mean differences. Independent sample t tests showed statistically significant mean differences across all of the dependent variables with women reporting higher scores than their male peers on all scales except Change. Men scored significantly higher than women on the Change scale although the effect size was trivial (np2 = .001). Effect sizes indicated a magnitude of difference worth consideration for the following: Congruence (F = 397.28, p < .01, np2 = .01), Commitment (F = 545.10, p < .01, np2 = .01), Collaboration (F = 396.13, p < .01, np2 = .01), Common Purpose (F = 355.91, p < .01, np2 = .01), and Controversy with Civility (F = 459.08, p < .01, np2 = .01).

10. Differences by Race Follow-up tests showed statistically significant mean differences across all of the dependent variables. The following scales show a magnitude of difference worth consideration: Consciousness of Self (F = 110.180, p < .01, np2 = .01), Congruence (F = 68.64, p < .01, np2 = .01), Commitment (F = 62.04, p < .01, np2 = .01), Controversy with Civility (F = 63.52, p < .01, np2= .01), Citizenship (F = 45.89, p < .01, np2 = .01), and Change (F = 69.71, p < .01, np2 = .01). Highlights from these results include: • African American/ Black students reported significantly higher mean scores than White students on Consciousness of Self, Controversy with Civility, Citizenship, and Change. • Asian Americans scored significantly lower than all racial categories on Consciousness of Self. They scored significantly lower than peers in all categories except Native Americans on: Congruence, Commitment, Controversy with Civility, Citizenship, and Change.

11. Differences by Sexual Orientation The sexual orientation variable was collapsed into the following categories: Heterosexual, Gay or Bisexual, and Rather Not Say. The analysis revealed statistically significant mean differences based on sexual orientation. However, follow-up tests were not conducted given the effect size was determined to be trivial and significance likely a result of power (Cohen, 1988).

12. Implications Overall • The descriptive data collected from this study provide a national normative database representing theoretically derived outcomes useful for institutional benchmarking. • Descriptive scores across leadership outcomes suggest ample room for student development that can be targeted by institutional interventions.

13. Implications Gender • Findings related to gender support previous research on women and leadership (Astin & Leland, 1991; Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Engen, 2003; Eagly, Karau, & Makhijani, 1995; Helgesen, 1990) that suggest a female “leadership advantage.” • Findings may also be useful in the process of refuting persistent stereotypes regarding women’s capacity for leadership (Eagly & Carli, 2003).

14. Implications Race • Efficacy research notes the importance of meaningful experiences and affirmations in establishing realistic self-efficacy for any phenomena (Bandura, 1997). Results for African American and Black students can be used to combat persisting, negative stereotypes regarding leadership capacity. • Future research should focus on both disaggregating data by ethnicity to examine findings and conducting conditional analyses to examine if influences associated with race hold in the presence of control variables. Conditional analyses also provide opportunities to examine unique predictors for individual populations.

15. Implications Sexual Orientation • Although significant differences were not found based on sexual orientation, this data contributes to establishing a body of literature for a population that is historically understudied (Longerbeam, Inkelas, Johnson, & Lee, 2007). • Future research should examine within group differences for LGB students, given existing studies typically treat the population homogenously.

16. For Further Information Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership http://www.nclp.umd.edu John P. Dugan, jdugan1@luc.edu Kristan Cilente, kcilente@umd.edu Susan R. Komives, komives@umd.edu