Citation
Student incivility in the classroom from a faculty perspective

Material Information

Title:
Student incivility in the classroom from a faculty perspective race and gender differences in perception, attribution, effect, and response
Creator:
Rudolph, Mary Chavez
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xvii, 186 leaves : ; 28 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
College students -- Conduct of life -- United States ( lcsh )
College discipline -- United States ( lcsh )
College teachers -- Attitudes -- United States ( lcsh )
Classroom environment -- United States ( lcsh )
Sex differences in education -- United States ( lcsh )
Ethnic attitudes -- United States ( lcsh )
Classroom environment ( fast )
College discipline ( fast )
College students -- Conduct of life ( fast )
College teachers -- Attitudes ( fast )
Ethnic attitudes ( fast )
Sex differences in education ( fast )
United States ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 179-186).
General Note:
School of Education and Human Development
Statement of Responsibility:
by Mary Chavez Rudolph.

Record Information

Source Institution:
|University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
|Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
63757229 ( OCLC )
ocm63757229
Classification:
LD1193.E3 2005d R82 ( lcc )

Full Text
STUDENT INCIVILITY IN THE COLLEGE CLASSROOM FROM A FACULTY
PERSPECTIVE: RACE AND GENDER DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTION,
ATTRIBUTION, EFFECT, AND RESPONSE
by
Mary Chavez Rudolph
B.A., University of Colorado at Boulder, 1984
M.A., University of Colorado at Denver, 1992
A thesis submitted to the
University of Colorado at Denver
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Educational Leadership and Innovation
2005


2005 by Mary Chavez Rudolph
All rights reserved.


This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree by
Mary Chavez Rudolph
has been approved
by
Donna Chrobot-Mason


Chavez Rudolph, Mary (Ph.D., Educational Leadership and Innovation)
Student Incivility in the College Classroom from a Faculty Perspective: Race and
Gender Differences in Perception, Attribution, Effect, and Response
Thesis directed by Associate Professor Carmen Braun Williams
ABSTRACT
Many educators claim there is a relationship between increasing incivility in
the college classroom and increasing diversity of faculty and students in higher
education. The current study investigates differences between male and female
faculty and differences between Faculty-of-Color and Caucasian faculty in
perceptions, attributions, effects of student incivility, and differences in coping
response to student incivility. A Web-based questionnaire was utilized to collect
data from 402 faculty members from 37 states. The results of this study indicate
that female faculty find all student incivility behaviors to be more offensive than
male faculty find them. Caucasian and male faculty members indicated they
perceive that ambiguous behaviors (behaviors that are ambiguous in regards to
whether the uncivil behavior is directed toward the instructor) occur more
frequently in their classrooms than do Faculty-of-Color and female faculty. The
study found that female faculty members were more likely than male faculty, and
Faculty-of-Color were more likely than Caucasian faculty to attribute student
incivility to student prejudice and bias. Faculty-of-Color are slightly more likely to
have more intense feelings in response to all types of uncivil behaviors than are
Caucasian faculty. Female faculty members have more intense feelings of
IV


intimidation than male faculty. Faculty-of-Color reported that they were more
likely to confront students and seek social support than Caucasian faculty reported
when coping with a student incivility incident. Female faculty reported they were
more likely to confront students and seek organizational support than Caucasian
faculty reported when coping with a student incivility incident. However, for
coping response only, the ethnic and gender differences were not found to be
statistically significant. The results of this study indicate that faculty diversity (i.e.,
gender, ethnicity, age) does indeed play a role in how faculty perceive the
offensiveness and frequency of student incivility, the attributions faculty make
about the causes of student incivility, the effects of student incivility on faculty
emotion, and faculty response to student incivility. This study provides a greater
understanding as to how, as the diversity of faculty increases, the experiences of
student incivility vary depending on the characteristics of the faculty members
experiencing student incivility.
This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidates thesis.
recommend its publication
Signed
Carmen Braun
illiams
!
i
V


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Carmen Williams for being my advisor, facilitator,
advocate, and friend. I appreciate all of the support and encouragement, as well as
guidance I have received from all of my committee members Alan Davis, Donna
Chrobot-Mason, and Joseph Lasky. I would also like to acknowledge the most
supportive boss and mentor that anyone could have the good fortune to know,
Thomas Sebok. I thank you all for hanging in there with me for all these years. I
owe a special debt of gratitude to Nanci Avitable, the statistician who helped me
through one of the most difficult aspects of this project. Thank you Nanci, for your
patience and guidance. I also wish to thank Scott Hall for his generosity in building
the website and data base for my faculty questionnaire and Lauretta Ruybal for her
assistance in the final formatting of the dissertation.
In order to complete a project of this magnitude and also have a loving
family one must have a family that is patient, supportive, and loves unconditionally.
This describes my husband, Stephen Rudolph, and my daughter Christina I thank
you both for the gift of time. I dedicate this dissertation to my husband and
daughter as well as to the rest of my family.


I thank my parents, Joseph and Tita Chavez, my Grandparents, Gus and
Stella, and my father-in-law, Leonard, for their belief in me and their commitment
to all the people in their lives. Thanks Mom, for all of your support and
encouragement, thanks Dad for being such an inspiration. I thank my sisters, Josie,
Carol, and Lisa, and my brother, Bob, for being my best friends throughout life. I
thank my aunts and uncles and cousins for always being a part of my life and
providing such security and love and making me feel as though there was never a
problem too large or a challenge too great to overcome.


CONTENTS
Figures.......................................................xiv
Tables........................................................xv
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................1
Student Incivility and Diversity..........................3
Theoretical Framework.....................................4
Research Questions and Methodology........................5
Organization of the Dissertation..........................6
2. LITERATURE REVIEW............................................7
Introduction..............................................7
Student Incivility........................................8
Language and Definition for Student Incivility.....8
Uncivil Student Behaviors..........................8
Student Incivility and Conflict...................10
Perceptions of Student Incivility........................12
Faculty/Student Roles in the Classroom............13
Gender Differences in Perception..................14
Vlll


Ethnicity: Within Group Differences......................14
Ethnicity: Between Group Differences.....................17
Summary Perception.....................................19
Attributions about Student Incivility...........................20
Nature of Students.......................................22
Nature of Higher Education, the Classroom, and the
Course...................................................24
Instructor Behaviors: Student Resistance and
Classroom Incivility.....................................26
Female Faculty and Faculty-of-Color and
Attribution Ambiguity....................................30
Summary Attributions...................................31
Effects of Student Incivility on Targets and the Organization..34
Effects of Student Incivility on Targets.................34
Self-Protective Effects of Stigma........................36
Negative Effects of Coping with Perceived
Prejudice................................................37
Low Social Power and Stress..............................38
Summary Effects of Student Incivility on Targets.......39
Effects of Incivility on Organizations...................41
Summary Effects on the Organization....................42
Responses to Student Incivility.................................42
IX


Ambiguity of Intent................................43
Problems with Responding to Student Incivility.....43
No Systemic Response...............................44
Coping with Student Incivility.....................45
Social Power and Response to Incivility............46
Summary Coping and Response to Student Incivility.... 47
Chapter Summary..........................................49
3. METHODOLOGY..................................................50
Introduction.............................................50
Study Sample.............................................51
Sample Demographics................................51
Missing Data.......................................54
Questionnaire............................................54
Pilot Study..............................................55
Methodological Limitations of the Study..................56
Measures.................................................56
Dependent Measures.................................57
Independent Measures...............................61
Moderating Variables...............................61
Data Analyses Procedures.................................63
Chapter Summary..........................................64


4. RESULTS........................................................66
Introduction...............................................66
Refinement of Measures..............................67
Perceptions of Student Incivility..........................77
Level of Offensiveness..............................77
Gender and Ethnic Differences in Perception of Level
of Offensiveness....................................78
Moderating Variables................................78
Perceptions of Frequency of Student Incivility......81
Gender and Ethnic Differences in Perceptions of
Frequency of Uncivil Behaviors......................86
Moderating Variables................................86
Faculty Attributions for Student Incivility................90
Gender and Ethnic Differences in Attributions of
Student Incivility..................................93
Moderating Variables................................94
Effects of Student Incivility on the Individual and on the
Organization...............................................98
Emotional Response to Student Incivility in
the Classroom.......................................98
Gender and Ethnic Differences in Intensity of Emotional
Response to Student Incivility in the Classroom.....99
Moderating Variables...............................110
Effects on the Organization Job Satisfaction.....113
XI


Coping Response to Student Incivility in the Classroom......114
Gender and Ethnic Differences in Coping Response
to Student Incivility in the Classroom................117
Moderating Variables..................................119
Critical Incident............................................119
Student Incivility Behaviors Described by Faculty.....127
Attributions for Student Incivility...................129
Feelings in Reaction to the Student Incivility Incident... 131
Response to the Student Incivility Incident...........132
Chapter Summary..............................................134
5. DISCUSSION.......................................................138
Summary of the Problem.......................................138
Summary of Methodology.......................................139
Summary and Discussion of Findings...........................140
Perceptions of Offense of Student Incivility..........141
Perceptions of Frequency of Student Incivility........143
Faculty Attributions of the Causes of Student Incivility. 144
Effects of Student Incivility: Emotional Response
to Student Incivility.................................146
Effects of Student Incivility on the Organization.....150
Coping Response to Student Incivility.................150


Conclusions
152
Limitations....................................153
Recommendations for Future Study...............155
Recommendations for Practice and Theory........156
APPENDIX
A. DISCLOSURE AND CONSENT STATEMENT AND FACULTY
QUESTIONNAIRE.....................................158
B. FACULTY LISTERVES WHERE SURVEY WAS POSTED........177
REFERENCES
179


FIGURES
Figure
1 Gender by critical incident behavior category for feelings
of Intimidation.........................................................110
i
I
)
i
XIV


TABLES
Table
1 Demographics of Study Sample.......................................53
2 Factor Analysis Loading for Faculty Perceptions of
Offensiveness of Student Incivility................................69
3 Factor Analysis Loading for Faculty Attributions
for Student Incivility.............................................71
4 Factor Analysis Loading for Faculty Feelings in Reaction
to the Student Incivility Incident.................................72
5 Factor Analysis Loading for Coping Response to the
Student Incivility Incident........................................75
6 Frequencies of Perceived Levels of Offensiveness of
Uncivil Behaviors..................................................80
7 Mean Scale Scores for Offensiveness of Uncivil Behaviors as
Perceived by Faculty by Ethnicity by Gender........................82
8 Analysis of Variance for Offensiveness of Uncivil Behavior as
Perceived by Faculty...............................................83
9 Mean Scale Scores for Offensiveness of Uncivil Behaviors as
Perceived by Faculty by Gender.....................................84
10 Frequencies of the Perceived Frequency of Uncivil Behaviors........85
11 Mean Scale Scores for Frequency of Uncivil Behaviors as
Perceived by Faculty...............................................87
XV


12 Analysis of Variance for Frequency of Uncivil Behavior as
Perceived by Faculty....................................................88
13 Mean Scale Scores for Frequency of Uncivil Behaviors as
Perceived by Faculty by Gender and Ethnicity............................89
14 Frequencies of Faculty Attributions for Student Incivility..............91
15 Mean Scale Scores for Attributions Faculty Make about
Student Incivility......................................................95
16 Analysis of Variance for Attributions Faculty Make about
Student Incivility......................................................97
17 Frequencies of Feelings in Reaction to the Student
Incivility Incident....................................................100
18 Mean Scale Scores for Intensity of Faculty Feelings in Reaction
to the Student Incivility Incident by Behavior Category................101
19 Mean Scale Scores for Intensity of Faculty Feelings in Reaction
to the Student Incivility Incident.....................................104
20 Mean Scale Scores for Intensity of Faculty Feelings after
Student Uncivil Incident by Ethnicity..................................105
21 Analysis of Variance for Intensity of Feelings in Reaction to the
Student Incivility Incident Ethnicity ...............................106
22 Analysis of Variance for Intensity of Feelings in Reaction to the
Student Incivility Incident Gender...................................108
23 Frequencies of Coping Response to the Student Incivility Incident.......115
24 Mean Scale Scores of Coping Response in Reaction to the Student
Incivility Incident by Behavior Category...............................120
25 Analysis of Variance for Coping Response to the Student Incivility
Incident Gender and Ethnicity........................................121


26 Mean Scale Scores for Coping Response to Student
Incivility Incident.....................................................123
27 Mean Scale Scores for Coping Response to the Student Incivility
Incident by Gender......................................................124
28 Mean Scale Scores for Coping Response to the Student Incivility
Incident by Ethnicity ..................................................125
B1 Faculty Listserves Where Survey was Posted..................................177


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Disrespectful behavior, incivility, and misconduct by college students in the
college classroom are a topic of discussion and a concern for faculty and
administrators in higher education. Concern about student incivility comes from a
belief that incivility by one student or by many students has the potential to severely
compromise the effectiveness of the classroom instruction and learning (Amada,
1999; Carbone, 1999; Holton, 1999). The potential effects of student incivility on
faculty are also a concern. Kuhlenschmidt (1999) found that instructors experience
strong negative emotional reactions to student incivility and that instructors felt
anxious and upset even when reflecting upon past personal experiences with student
incivility. Robert Boice (1998), one of the few educational researchers on the topic
of classroom incivilities, states,
In related studies, where I tracked new faculty longer, these traumatic events
(Cl) [Classroom Incivility] and resulting impressions of undergraduates as
adversaries were among the few early turning points that derailed careers.
The faculty at midcareer who display the most depression and
l


oppositionalism seem to suffer most from long-standing patterns of student
disapproval. ((Boice, 1998, p. 364)
Another vantage point for looking at the issue of classroom incivility is the
research that has been conducted about incivility in the workplace the classroom is
one of the primary workplaces for most faculty. Pearson, Anderrson, and Wegner
(2001) propose that lesser forms of workplace aggression are more prevalent and
costly for organizations than the aggressive and violent behaviors that have recently
prompted much scholarly interest.
To operationally define lesser forms of aggression, as well as to determine
the implications for employees and organization, Pearson, Anderrson, and Wegner
(2001) conducted a qualitative study. Based on the results of their study they offer
the following definition of workplace incivility, Workplace incivility is low-
intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of
workplace norms for mutual respect Uncivil behaviors are characteristically rude
and discourteous, displaying a lack of regard for others (p. 1397). This is the
operational definition used for incivility in this thesis.
In regards to implications for employees, Pearsons, Anderrsons, and
Poraths (2000) results corroborate what the educational incivility researchers
found. Incivility in the workplace impacts its targets cognition and affect
negatively and can lead to absenteeism, reduced commitment, and termination of
employment
2


Student Incivility and Diversity
Educators claim there is a relationship between increasing incivility in the
college classroom and increasing diversity of faculty and students in higher
education (Amada, 1999; Anderson, 1999; Holton, 1995a; Schneider, 1998). A
prediction in the literature is that incivility and conflict will continue to increase as
academia, and all other organizations, becomes more diverse (Amada, 1999;
Anderson, 1999; Holton, 1995a; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1996; Schneider,
1998).
Along with gender and ethnic diversity of students and faculty come
differences in values, beliefs, and assumptions that can become sources of conflict.
Amada (1992) suggests incivility is a reflection of cultural differences that manifest
themselves in terms of behavior, speech, hygiene, and dress. Holton (1995a)
suggests that racial and gender discrimination are significant elements of the
conflicts in higher education today. The relationship between diversity and
incivility is not clear and there are those who suggest that a greater understanding is
needed. Aquino, Bennett, Shapiro, & Kim (2002) suggest, "The reality of
workplace diversity and globalization makes it important for organizational
researchers to understand how employees' responses to offenses might be influenced
by surface-level characteristics like gender and ethnicity" ( p. 3).
3


One of the expected contributions of the proposed study is that it will
provide a better understanding of the relationship between diversity of faculty and
student incivility through empirical research. Most of what has been written about
this possible relationship is speculative and anecdotal; therefore, an empirical study
is needed. This study is interested in between-group faculty differences in
perceptions of the offensiveness of student incivility, perceptions of the incidence of
student incivility, attributions made about student incivility, and effects and
response to student incivility.
The other expected contribution of this study is that it will provide a
comprehensive review of the current literature on the topic. With a better
understanding of the phenomenon of classroom student incivility, through a
multidisciplinary perspective, a comprehensive conceptual framework can emerge
from which strategies and skills for managing student incivility can be developed.
Theoretical Framework
The three bodies of literature that directly address, or relate to, the topic of
classroom incivility are the conflict and disruption in higher education literature; the
instructional and faculty development literature; and the workplace aggression and
incivility literature. Educators (Amada, 1999; Holton, 1995a; Holton, 1999)
interested in conflict and disruption in higher education attend to the many possible
sources of student incivility such as the nature of the college classroom and higher
4


education today, the nature of students today, and the nature of faculty. These
practitioners look most closely at the instructors conflict management strategies
and abilities. Instructional and faculty development researchers and theorists have
conducted empirical research to understand better how instructor teaching behavior
impacts student incivility (Boice, 1996; Kearney, Plax, Hays, & Ivey, 1991). The
organizational psychologists and organizational development academicians
interested in workplace aggression and incivility, focus more closely on the power
dynamics, and other dynamics, of the individuals involved in uncivil interactions
and the effects on the targets (Pearson et al., 2000; Pearson et al., 2001). These three
bodies of literature provide a framework for exploring the role that perception,
attribution, effects, response, and ethnic and gender diversity play in regards to
coping with student incivility in the college classroom. A thorough review of the
literature will be provided in chapter two.
Research Questions and Methodology
The present study is an attempt to analyze ethnic and gender group
differences in the pattern of perceptions of frequency of student incivility, perceived
offensiveness of student incivility behaviors, attributions made about student
incivility, affective and coping response to student incivility, and job-related
outcomes. Questionnaires assessing experiences of student incivility in the
classroom as well as general perceptions about student incivility was administered
5


to faculty members on campuses across the United States. Data was analyzed by
utilizing descriptive and inferential statistical methods.
Organization of the Dissertation
Chapter one introduces the dissertation questions and methods. Chapter two
provides a review of the literature that is associated with incivility. Chapter three
describes the methodology of the study, including all instruments and methods of
data analysis. The findings from the analysis of the data can be found in Chapter
four. Chapter five summarizes the findings, discusses implications of the study for
practice, and includes recommendations for further study.
6


CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
This chapter reviews contemporary literature regarding student incivility in
the college classroom. The chapter begins with a discussion of the language that
has been utilized to describe student incivility and the behaviors broadly perceived
to be uncivil in the classroom. The chapter includes four sections: Perceptions of
Student Incivility, Attributions about Student Incivility, Effects of Student Incivility
on Targets and the Organization, and Coping Responses to Student Incivility. Each
section provides a review of the literature related to that topic and then concludes
with the specific research question and hypotheses suggested by the literature and
examined in this dissertation.
7


Student Incivility
Language and Definition for Student Incivility
Educators describe the negative behaviors exhibited by students in the
college classroom as disruptive, disrespectful, rude, insulting, misconduct,
insubordination, intimidation, and so forth. The word used most often by educators
to describe the negative behaviors exhibited by students is uncivil (Boice, 1996;
Boice, 1998; Carbone, 1999; Kuhlenschmidt, 1999; Richardson, 1999; Tiberius &
Flak, 1999). As stated in chapter one, the definition developed by Pearson,
Anderrson, and Wegner (2001) for incivility will be utilized in this dissertation,
Workplace incivility is low-intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to
harm the target, in violation of workplace norms for mutual respect. Uncivil
behaviors are characteristically rude and discourteous, displaying a lack of regard
for others (p. 1397).
Uncivil Student Behaviors
Most of the uncivil behaviors exhibited by students are fairly low-level,
passive-aggressive types of behaviors. Richardson (1999) discusses the findings of
educational researchers and states, .. .college students would rather avoid open and
aggressive confrontations with their teachers because passive resistance strategies
generally work better for them and because students are conditioned socially to
8


passive classroom roles (p. 85). However some educators suggest that uncivil
types of behaviors can be violent (Tiberius & Flak, 1999, p. 3).
In his book, Coping with Misconduct in the College Classroom, Gerald
Amada (1999) provides a chapter identifying common disruptive classroom
behaviors. Amada provides the following examples: grandstanding; sleeping in
class; prolonged chattering; excessive lateness; poor personal hygiene; overt
inattentiveness; eating, drinking, gum chewing, smoking; carrying pagers and
beepers; passing notes; unexcused exits from class; verbal or physical threats, to
students or faculty; and disputing the instructors authority and expertise. This is
quite a continuum of behaviors. Some are fairly mild (e.g., gum chewing), which
many instructors would not judge to be uncivil. Others are rather extreme (e.g.,
physical threats), which most instructors would judge to be very uncivil. The
determination by an instructor, of whether a behavior is uncivil or not, is very
subjective. Amada (1999) advises instructors to look to college and university
codes of student conduct for assistance in identifying unacceptable student
behaviors in the classroom.
Although the majority of the negative behaviors exhibited by students are
mild in nature, Alison Schneider (1998) describes behaviors that most faculty would
find very offensive. She provides examples of students shouting out obscenities in
the classroom, making harassing phone calls and leaving faculty offensive voice
mails, and being so disruptive in class the instructor is not able to teach. Schneider
9


suggests that students are becoming more uncivil and professors are losing control
of the classroom. Schneider acknowledges a contrasting point of view, that
students are not becoming more uncivil, by citing historian Kathy Franklin.
Kathy Franklin, a historian of undergraduate life, states that students have
always made mischief in universities. Ms. Franklin recounts the Bread and Butter
rebellion at Yale University in the 1820s when students threw food at professors in
the dining hall and beaned them with plates and silverware.
In a chapter about conflict in higher education titled, Its Nothing New! A
History of Conflict in Higher Education, Susan Holton (1995b) also recounts
situations where students behaved uncivilly toward faculty in the classroom: In
medieval times they [students] were forbidden to shout, hiss, make noise, throw
stones in class or deputize ones servants to do so (p. 13). Apparently, the types of
uncivil behaviors exhibited by students in the classroom have changed over the
years, and the claim that the frequency of student incivility has increased is
anecdotal.
Student Incivility and Conflict
Susan Holton (1995b) discusses many other negative situations that involve
students and professors, but she seems to be talking more about serious conflict,
rebellions, and even riots, rather than the student incivility in the classroom that is
the topic of this dissertation. Student incivility can lead to conflict, for example,
10


when a professor has internal conflict about how to cope with student incivility or
when a professor responds to student incivility by confronting a student and a
conflict ensues between the professor and the student. There are also occasions
when a student behaves uncivilly and a professor is not offended so conflict does
not ensue.
I wish to differentiate between student incivility and the constructive conflict
that may even be facilitated by professors in the classroom because the literature
often blurs incivility and conflict. Johnson, Johnson, and Smith (1996) discuss the
positive side of conflict, providing a case for creating academic controversy in the
classroom. Professors ask students to research and prepare a position about a
particular topic, present and advocate for their position, and then the professor
facilitates a discussion in which students refute the opposing position and rebut
attacks on their own position. Johnson, Johnson, and Smith believe that this
practice is an important and powerful instructional procedure. Whether an
instructor purposefully encourages conflict within the classroom or not, conflict is a
natural part of higher education. Blake, Mouton, and Williams (1981) state,
Conflict is inevitable in a setting where people have different points of view and
freedom of expression is encouraged (p. 5). They go on to discuss the importance
of dealing with conflict in a constructive maimer.
When conflict and incivility are connected, the same conflict management
strategies can be utilized. Holton (1995c) states that conflict will not disappear from
ll


the academy, and should not, because it can be a positive force towards change.
When student incivility leads to conflict, is it an indication that change is needed in
the classroom? Change of what or whom? Change in the students? Change in the
institution? Change in the instructor? When student incivility leads to conflict in
the classroom, it is likely that the individual asking these questions is the instructor.
The instructors perceptions of incivility matter greatly, they affect how the
instructor responds and determine the overall effect on students in the classroom.
Perceptions of Student Incivility
Because perception is the process by which the brain constructs an internal
representation of the outside world (Bourne & Ekstrand, 1979, p. 67), this internal
representation is the basis of our behavior. We do not directly know or experience
the outside world because human beings filter and interpret our experience in order
to construct meaning and order, thus creating perceptions. Thus, although two
people may experience the same situation, the interpretations made by the two
individuals may vary greatly.
As mentioned earlier, some educators have claimed that there is a
relationship between increasing incivility in the college classroom and increasing
diversity of faculty and students in higher education. What does diversity have to
do with student incivility? It is very possible that prejudice and discrimination play
an important role, along with other factors. The first factor to be examined in this
12


dissertation is perception. The following section will review the literature related
to varying perceptions of negative behaviors based on differences, such as
inhabiting different roles in the situation, gender, ethnicity, and racial identity.
Facultv/Student Roles in the Classroom
One of the possible sources of conflict in the classroom is that students and
instructors have different perceptions, beliefs, and assumptions about what
constitutes appropriate and inappropriate behavior. Hanson (2000) researched
differences between faculty and student perceptions of student incivility and found
that, indeed, students and instructors have different perceptions about incivility in
the classroom. Hanson (2000) found two significant differences in faculty and
students perceptions of college students incivilities. Faculty found loud, non-class
relevant discussion and laughter to be significantly more disruptive than students
perceived them to be. Faculty also felt that non-class relevant behaviors such as
reading a newspaper, using a cell phone, or working on other materials were more
disruptive than students did.
These differences in perception of classroom incivility by faculty and
students could be a reflection of the differences in age of faculty and students. For
example, generational differences based on the socialization of a particular age
group regarding appropriate and inappropriate behavior could be the basis for
differing perceptions of incivility. Kearney, Plax, Hays and Ivey (1991) suggest
13


that students are expected to assume a role of conciliation, cooperation, and
submission, but that a number of students are reluctant to do so and fail to concede
to the teachers right to assume a power role.
Gender Differences in Perception
There have been other fields of study, such as sexual harassment, in which
researchers have looked to perception to assist in developing an empirical
definition (Fitzgerald & Shullman, 1993) of offensive behaviors. Many researchers
asked individuals what they perceive to be sexual harassment and the cumulative
responses eventually resulted in the institution of legal criteria for determining
whether sexual harassment has occurred. It is interesting to note that the researchers
found a perceptual gender gap (i.e., women are more likely than men to view
harassing types of behaviors as offensive). This finding has been very stable in the
harassment literature and thus, at least in some judicial circuits, the standard for
determining whether sexual harassment has occurred is called the reasonable
woman standard.
Ethnicity: Within Group Differences
Since the 1950s (Bruner, 1957) social psychologists have theorized that our
perceptions are influenced by our experiences, our environment, and our attitudes.
This explains why different people perceive and react very differently to the same
14


stimulus event. There are studies that examine variables such as individual
differences and situational differences that affect perceptions of prejudice, sexual
harassment, and racial harassment. These studies are especially comparable and
relevant to the topic of student incivility because they are also interested in within-
group and between-group differences in perceptions and response to negative
feedback and negative behaviors.
Operario and Fiske (2001) argued that ethnic identity influences perceptions
of prejudice and their research findings supported their argument. Operario and
Fiske (2001) utilized two conflicting hypotheses to investigate how a personal
characteristic, ethnic identity, moderates perceptions of prejudice. The first
hypothesis they turned to is the personal/group discrimination discrepancy (PGD)
hypothesis, theorized by Crosby in 1982, that members of stigmatized groups
concede that prejudice does occur to members of their group, but that prejudice does
not occur to them personally.
Next, Operario and Fiske turned to Major and Crockers (1993) theory that
stigmatized individuals attribute particularly ambiguous, negative feedback to
prejudice whenever that feedback can have race-based explanations this has been
called stigma vulnerability. Major and Crocker posit that stigmatized individuals
attribute negative feedback to prejudice because it serves to preserve their self
esteem by attributing negative feedback to something out of ones control.
Although, the PGD theory posits that the stigmatized individual is less suspicious of
15


prejudice and the stigma vulnerability phenomenon posits that the individual is
more suspicious of prejudice, especially when there is ambiguity about the behavior,
the end result of both theories is the minimization of the impact of prejudice on
stigmatized individuals. Stigma vulnerability does not affect all stigmatized
individuals equally. Gilbert (1998) cites studies that found that some stigmatized
individuals are more likely to see prejudice against their group as an explanation for
negative outcomes.
Operario and Fiske (2001) posited that by investigating individual
differences among stigmatized individuals it was possible to account for within-
group variability in perceptions and response to prejudice. The individual difference
they suggest would moderate the differences in perceptions of prejudice is ethnic
identity (the extent to which one identifies with, and derives meaning from their
ethnic group). Operario and Fiske utilized Luhtanen and Crockers (1992, June) 7-
point instrument to measure ethnic identity.
Operario and Fiskes findings supported their hypothesis that ethnic identity
moderates perceptions of prejudice. They found that high identifiers (i.e.,
individuals who identified strongly with their ethnic group) showed less PGD they
perceived increased personal vulnerability to prejudice and discrimination than low
identifiers who showed the most PGD. High identifiers also expressed more
suspicion that behavior, exhibited by a trained research confederate, was prejudicial
especially when the behavior was subtle whereas low identifiers (i.e., individuals
16


who neither affiliate nor derive much meaning from their group) expressed
suspicion about the confederate only when prejudice was more obvious.
It is important to note that Operario and Fiske didnt think that within-group
variability of perceptions could be completely explained by individual differences.
They cited studies (e.g., Ruggiero & Major, 1998) that found that perceptions of
prejudice were also affected by the situation. Situational factors included the
availability of social support and the status of the group perceiving prejudice.
Operario and Fiske suggest that research examining multiple perspectives and
variables (i.e., Person X Situation) would provide new insights. Operario and
Fiskes study also supported previous arguments (e.g., Cose, 1993) that subtle forms
of racism can be even more aggravating and psychologically aversive for targets
than obvious forms of racism. This finding is especially relevant to the issue of
incivility because often incivility in the classroom is very subtle and covert. If an
instructor perceives incivility to be a reflection of racism and prejudice then the
experience may be more difficult to deal with, behaviorally and psychologically,
than more obvious forms of racism.
Ethnicity: Between Group Differences
Aquino, Bennettt, Shapiro, and Kim (2002) discuss how the domestic
workforce is becoming increasingly diverse in terms of race and gender. Aquino et
al. (2002) are interested in how this diversification of the workforce will affect
17


peoples perceptions and responses to workplace offenses, given that it is possible
that the offensive person will be dissimilar in terms of race, ethnicity, or gender.
Aquino et al. allude to the possibility that perception of rudeness and offense are
culturally influenced. This possibility, along with Aquinos findings that perceived
similarity to the offender will likely influence how victims respond (e.g., forgive or
retaliate) poses problems for the workplace.
It is suggested in the literature (Anderson, 1999; Holton, 1995b;
Kuhlenschmidt & Layne, 1999; Schneider, 1998) that there is a link between
incivility and conflict in the classroom and the increasing ethnic and gender
diversity of students and instructors, and that this is a reflection of cultural
differences. Kuhlenschmidt and Layne (1999) suggest that instructors contend with
cultural differences exhibited by a highly diverse student body, particularly in larger
classes. They state that with cultural and economic diversity, Varied values and
customs concerning the appropriateness of classroom behavior need to be addressed
by the instructor, particularly in larger classrooms where there may be a highly
diverse student body. Different cultures have different standards concerning
lateness or when it is appropriate to speak, for example (p. 53). The possible
outcome is that there are varied perceptions, beliefs, and assumptions about what
constitutes appropriate and inappropriate behavior in the classroom based on
cultural differences.
18


Summary Perception
In the previous section on perception, examples were given to assert that
diversity plays a role in perception, particularly perceptions of negative experiences.
Hanson (2000) found that students and instructors had differing perceptions about
what constitutes incivility in the classroom. Unfortunately, we do not know how a
difference in roles affected the differences in perception, but many guesses could be
made (e.g, differences in age, generation, interests, etc.). Researchers (see
Fitzgerald, 1993) found that there were different perceptions about what constitutes
sexual harassment based on gender. Operario and Fiske (2001) found that
differences in ethnic identity affected perceptions of prejudice. Educators (Amada,
1999; Holton, 1995b; Kuhlenschmidt & Layne, 1999) suggest that cultural
difference plays a role in the issue of student incivility because behaviors are
perceived differently by different people.
The exploratory questions, related to faculty perceptions of student
incivility, in this dissertation, which come from a review of the literature are:
1. What uncivil student behaviors are perceived to be most offensive/disruptive to
faculty?
2. What is the nature and extent of similarities and differences between male and
female faculty and between Faculty-of-Color and Caucasian faculty in
perceptions of offensiveness of uncivil behaviors?
19


3. Is there within group differences in perception of student incivility? Just as
Operario and Fiske (2001) found that ethnic identity affects perceptions of
prejudice, will ethnic and gender identity moderate perceptions of student
incivility?
4. How frequently do student uncivil behaviors occur in the classroom, as
perceived by faculty?
5. What is the nature and extent of similarities and differences between male and
female faculty and between Faculty-of-Color and Caucasian facility in
perceptions of frequency of uncivil behaviors?
Other variables, not of direct interest in this study (i.e., academic rank, years of
college teaching experience, and age), but might be plausibly related to the
dependent variable (perceived offensiveness of negative student behaviors), will
also be collected and examined.
Attributions about Student Incivility
Attribution theory is concerned with the underlying intentions someone
makes about another persons behavior. Fritz Heider (1958) initiated attribution
theory by observing that individuals develop thoughts and theories about why others
behave in a certain manner. These theories help individuals make sense of why
others behave in the ways they do and also help individuals predict future behavior
from that person. This process helps people attempt to make sense of others
20


behavior and thus create order for themselves. The attributions we make about
another persons behavior affect how we respond to that person (Bourne &
Ekstrand, 1979).
Attributional explanations for another persons negative behavior can be
internally focused or externally focused. For example, an instructor might attribute
negative behavior exhibited by a student to an internal cause and think, Im not an
effective teacher, therefore the student is behaving badly. Alternatively, an
instructor may make attributions that are externally focused and think, Students
these days are not respectful of instructors and of fellow students. The type of
attribution made has important implications for the instructors affect, self-esteem,
self-evaluations, motivation, and interpersonal strategies (Major & Crocker, 1993).
Perceptions about behaviors that constitute student incivility are very
subjective, and attributions about the causes of student incivility are just as
subjective. In the previous section about perception it was hypothesized that
perceptions of incivility are affected by gender and ethnic difference. The following
section provides the many attributions about student incivility cited in the current
literature and presents a theory that directly relates to diversity and attribution of
negative behaviors, and then asks whether attributions are also affected by gender
and ethnic diversity.
21


Nature of Students
The literature cites many attributions for student incivility that relate directly
to students: students mental and physical health, and deficiencies; a consumer
attitude towards education; the differences related to how students learn and faculty
teach; and the emotional stress of leaving family and friends.
Student Mental Health. Many educators suggest that it is the nature of
students entering higher education today that is at the source of incivility. Levine
and Cureton (1998) claim that students are coming to college overwhelmed and
more damaged than in the past (p. 15). A study they conducted found that there is a
rise in eating disorders, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, gambling, and suicide attempts -
and classroom disruption. As a consequence colleges are expanding their
counseling and psychological services. Amada (1992) believes that more students
with schizophrenia, manic-depression, and personality disorders are coming to our
campuses and that classroom incivility is linked to legislative changes that have
facilitated the retention and treatment of clients in their communities.
Consumer Attitude. Students today also have a consumer attitude towards
education (Schneider, 1998) with a focus on convenience, quality, service and cost
(Levine & Cureton, 1998). This is due to a change in the demographics of students
in which more students are older, part-time, and working, and therefore paying for
their education (Levine & Cureton, 1998). An increase in working students is partly
due to a shift in federal and state policy from college costs being the responsibility
22


of the public and parents to making students responsible for the financial burden of
college (Marchese, 1996). This consumer attitude of college students contributes to
students treating faculty as if faculty work for the students. Students make larger
demands of faculty because they believe they should have a voice in what they
receive for their money (Marchese, 1996).
Student Learning and Faculty Teaching. Another issue that has caused
frustrations between faculty and students is a growing gap between how students
learn best and how faculty teach. In a study conducted by Schroeder (as cited by
Levine & Cureton, 1998) it was found that students perform best in a learning
situation characterized by direct, concrete experience, moderate-to-high degrees of
structure, and a linear approach to learning... whereas, three-quarters of faculty
prefer the global to the particular; are stimulated by the realm of concepts, ideas,
and abstractions (p. 17).
Physical Health. Kuhlenschmidt and Lane (1999) list a myriad of reasons
that cause college students to exhibit difficult behavior in the classroom -
explanations that are student focused and others that relate to the classroom and
instruction. They point to the many physical reasons that could cause a student to
behave badly in the classroom. College students ingesting legal and illegal
medications, drugs, and other substances; illnesses caused by students not eating
and sleeping properly; fatigue caused by students trying to keep up with the
pressures of academics and possibly working part-time and full-time jobs to pay for
23


college. When Levine and Cureton asked students at the University of Colorado at
Boulder for the best adjective to describe this generation, the most common choice
was tired (1998).
Kuhlenschmidt and Lane (1999) also discuss the emotional challenges for
young college students such as loss of family, loss of friends, and general
immaturity. The researchers suggest that an understanding of the reasons for
problem behavior can help an instructor gain perspective and therefore respond
more effectively to classroom incivility.
Nature of Higher Education, the Classroom, and the Course
Incivility in Society. There are those who believe that student incivility is
not only due to changes in college students but also due to changes in society and
the classroom. Richard Hebein (1999) says that our society is becoming
increasingly uncivil and that the campus merely reflects the larger society. This
claim that society is becoming more uncivil was substantiated in a poll of the
American public, presented in U.S. News and World Report, in which 90% of
respondents perceived incivility as a serious problem (Marks, 1996, April 22).
Informality of Organizations. Pearson, Andersson, and Porath (2000) ask
the question, Why is rudeness on the rise? Their particular area of study is the
workplace, and one of the explanations their study participants cite for increasing
rudeness is the decreasing formality of organizations. Organizations have created
24


flatter organizational structures and have adapted more relaxed, informal norms for
interaction and behavior. Pearson et al. (2000) suggest there are fewer obvious cues
as to what constitutes proper behavior, and without the trappings of formality,
employees may not be able to discern acceptable behavior from unacceptable
behavior.
Large Classrooms. Carbone (1999) maintains that incivility is more likely in
the large lecture classes that are common in higher education todaybecause of their
size and the anonymity they afford. Karp and Yoels (1998) agree and believe that
larger classes lead students to feel anonymous and less involved and incivilities are
more likely to occur. Studies by Boice (2000) demonstrated that about half of the
large survey courses he observed showed chronic and demoralizing patterns of
classroom incivility; fewer were seen in smaller classes (p. 97).
Large classes are just one factor contributing to students incivility. As
mentioned above, students today are much more consumer-oriented; many more
students pay for their education than in past years and attend college because they
believe that a college degree is needed to obtain a lucrative career. Many of todays
college students are much more focused and career-oriented than previous
generations and have less patience for required courses that they perceive not to
relate to their degree or their future career (Levine & Cureton, 1998; Schneider,
1998). Required courses outside a students major and courses with a great deal of
25


controversial subject matter are more likely to have greater levels of student
incivility (Schneider, 1998).
Lack of Support from Administration. Administrators may be contributing
to incivility in the classroom by not supporting faculty. Students are not likely to be
punished for misbehavior in the classroom (Schneider, 1998). Therefore faculty,
particularly non-tenured faculty, are reticent to report students or request assistance.
Not only do faculty believe it unlikely that students will be held accountable, but
they also fear they will be perceived to be incompetent at handling a classroom
(Amada, 1999).
Instructor Behaviors: Student Resistance and
Classroom Incivility
Researchers have found evidence to suggest that faculty play a role in
classroom incivility. Many studies have been conducted (Boice, 1996; Kearney et
al., 1991; Plax & Kearney, 1992) by observing the behaviors of instructors and at
the same time tracking the classroom incivilities of students. The studies show that
faculty behaviors affect student behaviors, including student classroom incivility.
A large body of literature exists that demonstrates a relationship between the
behavior of teachers and the behavior of students. Teacher behaviors influence
student achievement, feedback, time spent on-task, classroom order, student affect,
good work habits, social skills, independence(Keamey et al., 1991). Although this
26


body of literature exists, the focus on student misbehavior was always on students
rather than on the instructor. Kearney et al. (1991) focused on instructor behaviors
that could act as antecedents for student misbehaviors.
Burroughs, Kearney, and Plax (July, 1989) identified student resistant
behaviors. Some behaviors utilized by students to resist the teacher include refusing
to do homework or to engage in group tasks, talking out-of-tum, and not attending
lecture. Burroughs et al. (July, 1989) found that students attributions for their
resistant behaviors fell in two dimensions. Teacher-Owned reflected the students
perception that the teacher is behaving inappropriate or inconsistent with student
expectations so the students hold the teacher responsible for their resistance.
Student-Owned reflected the dimension that students hold themselves responsible
for their own resistant behavior. In the same study, Burroughts et al, (July, 1989)
found that college students attributions of either Teacher-Owned or Student-Owned
resistance were influenced by nonverbal immediacy behaviors of the teacher.
Immediacy behaviors are the extent to which a teacher communicates verbal and
nonverbal signals of warmth, friendliness, liking, and approachability. Examples of
nonverbal behaviors include smiles, eye contact, and forward leans. If a teacher
exhibits immediacy behaviors, the student is less likely to hold the teacher
responsible for their own resistance.
In a two-year study, Kearney, Plax, Hays, and Ivey (1991) identified and
confirmed 28 categories of teacher misbehavior as perceived by students. The
27


teacher misbehavior categories could be reduced to three factors: Teacher
Incompetence, Offensiveness, and Indolence. Given that students do perceive
faculty to misbehave and use these perceptions to justify their own resistance,
Kearney et al. (1991) posit that teacher misbehaviors can serve as antecedents to
student problems in the classroom, including student disruptions.
Robert Boice was also very interested in how faculty behavior affects
student behavior particularly student classroom incivility. Boice (1996) knew of
faculty incivilities, such as distancing themselves from students via fast-paced, non-
involving lectures; surprising students with test items and grades students had not
prepared for or anticipated. Boice also knew of student incivility so decided to test
his theory that students and teachers are partners in generating classroom incivility.
In a five-year study, Boice visited large (enrollment over 100) college
classrooms and measured the amount of classroom incivility with a ten item rating
system that included rating background noise, student attentiveness, and student
note-taking. Boice also noted particular kinds of student incivility, such as students
conversing loudly, students confronting teachers with sarcastic comments or
disapproving groans, and the presence of classroom terrorists. Boice also asked
students to rate a variety of items that indicated the worth of the teaching for the
day, the immediacy of the teacher, the clarity and the organization of the material
presented, and the degree to which the students seemed involved. Boice found that
student ratings of teaching were negatively related to levels of classroom incivility,
28


and also found that novice teachers had lower levels of immediacies and higher
levels of classroom incivilities than expert teachers. The hopeful news Boice found
was that he could coach novice teachers for a semester in immediacy skills (i.e., use
of smiles, eye contact, forward leans and use of positive enforcers rather than
negative or punitive enforcers) and levels of classroom incivility would go down.
Boice made several observations based on this study. One, classroom
incivility mattered deeply and he could see astonishing differences between
classrooms with a lot of classroom incivility and those without Two, faculty who
experienced high levels of classroom incivility were traumatized and demoralized,
and that learning to deal with classroom incivility can make or break professorial
careers. Three, a pattern of problematic classroom incivility seemed to be set in the
first few days of class. Classes with higher levels of classroom incivility in the first
few days had high levels of classroom incivility throughout the semester, whereas
classes with lower levels of classroom incivility the first few days had lower levels
of classroom incivility throughout the semester. Boice states (2000) that the most
important point of his study is overlooked, Teachers were the most crucial
initiators of classroom incivility (p. 98), but that those teachers who modeled a
regimen of immediacy behaviors showed clear, reliable reduction in the levels of
classroom incivility.
29


Female Faculty and Facultv-of-Color and
Attribution Ambiguity
Given Boices theory that instructors who lack immediacy skills are more
likely to experience higher levels of classroom incivility and given the anecdotal
information that female faculty and Faculty-of-Color experience higher levels of
classroom incivility (Schneider, 1998) one could deduce that they have lover levels
of immediacy skills. Another explanation is the possibility that female faculty and
Faculty-of-Color are treated more negatively by students no matter how the faculty
behave, due to prejudice and discrimination. And finally, another possibility is that
female faculty and Faculty-of-Color are less likely to attribute student incivility to
their own behavior and thus less likely to increase their level of immediacy
behaviors. A phenomenon called attribution ambiguity could be a factor in this last
possibility.
There is a large body of research that indicates that members of stigmatized
groups, such as ethnic minority groups, are treated more negatively and often
perceived more negatively than those who are not stigmatized (Major & Crocker,
1993). Major and Crocker (1993) define stigmatized individuals as individuals
who, by virtue of their membership in a particular social group, or by their
possession of particular characteristics, are targets of negative stereotypes, are
vulnerable to being labeled as deviant, and are devalued in society (p. 345).
Stigmatized individuals are aware of the stereotyping that occurs and have difficulty
30


determining whether negative outcomes they encounter are due to prejudice, or
personal behavior, or attributes.
As mentioned above, attribution theory states that people try to make sense
of others behavior by making attributions about the behavior. Major and Crocker
(1993) found that when stigmatized individuals receive negative treatment (or
positive treatment), they are more likely to be ambiguous about the cause of their
treatment. The researchers called this attributional ambiguity of stigma. Not only are
stigmatized individuals uncertain about how to attribute negative behaviors, but
show a consistent tendency towards seeing others behavior towards them as being
affected by their stigma (Major & Crocker, 1993). As mentioned earlier, this
tendency for socially stigmatized individuals to make attributions of prejudice when
experiencing negative outcomes especially when the situation is ambiguous has
been referred to as stigma vulnerability (Gilbert, 1998). Stigma vulnerability
theory predicts that stigmatized individuals will attribute negative treatment to
something that is external rather than attributing negative outcomes to personal
merit.
Summary Attributions
The previous section provided a review of the literature related to the
attributions made about student incivility in the classroom. The attributions were
grouped into categories: student incivility attributed to students (mental and physical
31


health, consumer attitude, focused on career); student incivility attributed to
instructors (teaching effectiveness and years of experience); student incivility
attributed to differences between students and instructors; and student incivility
attributed to the size of classes and the nature of higher education today. Literature
was presented about the attributional ambiguity experienced by members of
stigmatized groups who have historically been the victims of stereotypes and
prejudice. Historical prejudice causes members of stigmatized groups to be
ambiguous when making attributions about negative behavior they have received.
The tendency for stigmatized individuals to attribute negative behaviors towards
their stigma is called stigma vulnerability. A stigmatized individual will be
uncertain about whether the negative treatment is warranted by something they did
or the negative treatment is due to prejudice. By definition, the intent of student
incivility is ambiguous, and for female faculty, Faculty-of-Color, and other
stigmatized faculty members, making attributions about student incivility may be
even more complex because of a phenomenon called attribution ambiguity.
The exploratory questions for this dissertation, related to the preceding
review of the literature are the following:
1. What are faculty most likely to attribute the cause of student incivility in
the college classroom?
32


2. Are faculty more likely to make attributions about student incivility that
are extraneous to their own teaching effectiveness, or do they attribute
student incivility to their own behavior?
3. What is the nature and extent of similarities and differences between the
causes to which male and female faculty attribute uncivil behaviors and
between the causes to which Faculty-of-Color and Caucasian faculty
attribute uncivil behaviors?
4. Will ethnic and gender identity moderate instructor attributions of
student incivility?
Due to attributional ambiguity of stigma (i.e., the tendency for stigmatized
individuals to be ambiguous when making attributions about negative behavior),
and stigma vulnerability (i.e., the tendency for stimatized individuals to attribute
negative behaviors towards their stigma), I hypothesize that Faculty-of-Color are
more likely to attribute student incivility to external factors (e.g., nature of students
and/or nature of the classroom and institution) rather than internal factors (e.g.,
nature of the instructor).
HI: Faculty-of-Color and female faculty are more likely to attribute
student incivility to external factors than are majority faculty.
33


Effects of Student Incivility on Targets and the Organization
As mentioned in chapter one, an important reason for conducting a study
about incivility in the college classroom is to discern whether incivility affects the
other students in the classroom, the instructor, and the effectiveness of the
classroom instruction and learning. Although these are important areas of study,
they are beyond the scope of this dissertation, which is limited to effects of student
incivility on the instructor and on the organization, as well as instructor perceptions,
attributions, and response to student incivility. Given that the source of data for this
dissertation is faculty their perceptions, their attributions they will also be asked
to report the emotions they experience when they encounter student incivility in
their classroom. Following is a description of the psychological effects of student
incivility for faculty and rationale for those effects. Also, the organizations in
which faculty work are affected by student incivility, because of the effects on
faculty so a discussion of how organizations are affected is included.
Effects of Student Incivility on Targets
There are psychological effects for the targets of student incivility. Feelings
of anger, anxiety, and fear are common for instructors who experience classroom
incivility (Amada, 1999; Boice, 1998; Kuhlenschmidt & Layne, 1999). Many
factors make classroom incivility psychologically damaging.
34


First, the ambiguity of intent of classroom incivility makes it difficult for
faculty to understand and predict future behavior of students who have behaved
badly. This ambiguity causes targets to experience confusion, fear, or even a sense
of panic (Pearson et al., 2000).
Second, new faculty do not learn how to identify student incivility, or deal
with disruptive behavior when they are preparing for a professorial career. In
addition, they do not hear that colleagues experience student incivility, or receive
published or verbal advice from experienced faculty (Amada, 1999; Boice, 1996;
Richardson, 1999). This lack of information about classroom incivility and
acknowledgment by colleagues that incivility occurs in the classroom makes new
faculty believe their experience with classroom incivility is unique. Boice (1996)
found that new faculty who are experiencing classroom incivility became relieved
after open conversation about the frequent occurrence of incivility.
Third, words and deeds conveying disrespect can cause psychological harm
to the target (Pearson et al., 2000) and, by definition, incivility is a violation of
norms for mutual respect (Pearson et al., 2001). Given that faculty are not prepared
for the likelihood of experiencing classroom incivility, they consider uncivil
behavior as outside the norm and the ivory tower experience envisioned by some
faculty causes them to be shocked and morally offended when confronted with
disruptive behavior (Amada, 1999, p. 20). Kathy Franklin, an educator and historian
of undergraduate life, believes that the professors of today receive less respect than
35


professors of the previous generation and therefore are particularly insulted by the
conduct of students (as cited in Schneider, 1998).
Boice (1998) states that classroom incivility can be a turning point for new
faculty that can eventually ruin careers. New faculty spend much of their time
preparing for teaching, and when they experience classroom incivility they feel as if
they have failed at teaching, which Boice believes leads to a loss of self-efficacy
that transfers to research and professional networking. He also believes that when
female and other new faculty, who feel marginalized to begin with, experience
classroom incivility they too often abandon a professorial career. Like attributions,
understanding the effects of classroom incivility on female faculty and Faculty-of-
Color are a bit more complex than understanding the effects of classroom incivility
on white, male faculty.
Self-Protective Effects of Stigma
Due to attributional ambiguity experienced by stigmatized individuals,
stigmatized faculty members may actually be protected from some of the negative
affect (e.g., depression, anxiety, humiliation, or anger) associated with student
incivility. Major and Crocker (1993) propose that the stigmatized may be buffered
from the negative affective and self-evaluative implications of negative feedback
because they can attribute negative treatment to an external cause prejudice. This
hypothesis is consistent with theories of emotion that posit when individuals
36


attribute negative outcomes to internal factors they are more likely to experience
lower self-esteem and more negative affect than when external attributions are made
about negative outcomes (see Major & Crocker, 1993).
Negative Effects of Coping with Perceived Prejudice
Contradicting the theory that stigmatized individuals are buffered from
psychoemotional stress because of stigma vulnerability are many studies (see
Gilbert, 1998) that posit that the mere effort of coping with perceived prejudice can
create psychoemotional stress. Due to the ambiguity of intent of student incivility
and to stigma vulnerability (i.e., the tendency to make attributions of prejudice when
experiencing negative outcomes), it is possible that some female faculty and
Faculty-of-Color will consider that prejudice is the cause of the student incivility. It
is possible that the experience will be more psychoemotionally stressful for female
faculty and Faculty-of-Color than for their white, male counterparts.
It may not be a matter of the level of stress that differs for female faculty and
Faculty-of-Color but the type of emotion that differs. Luhtanen, Blaine, and
Crocker (1991) found that by attributing negative feedback to prejudice, stigmatized
individuals experienced feelings of helplessness and depression although self-
esteem did not suffer. This phenomenon may be akin to the learned helplessness
phenomenon events outside ones personal control may undermine the belief that
greater personal effort will lead to better outcomes (Seligman, 1974).
37


Low Social Power and Stress
Cortina, Magley, and Lim (2002) discuss social power theory and its relation
to workplace incivility. Individuals that have less social power appraise events as
more threatening. Traditionally, femaleness and ethnic minority status have
conferred less sociocultural power. Cortina et al. relied on social power theories to
hypothesize that Employees who work at lower job levels, perceive lower job
security, and are female and/or ethnic minority will appraise uncivil behaviors as
more stressful (p. 7).
Cortina et al. (2002) administered surveys to over 1,600 employees (the final
sample included 1167 respondents). The respondents were asked to rate the
frequency of their experiences of disrespectful, rude, or condescending behaviors
from superiors or coworkers and the degree to which they had experienced a list of
negative responses (e.g., embarrassed, annoyed, offended, etc.). The participants
self-reported their gender and ethnic background, their job level, and their perceived
job security. Their findings indicated that only one target variable emerged as a
significant predictor of stress from uncivil behavior being an ethnic minority
employee. The other indicators of social power job level, job security, and gender
- did not relate to incivility appraisals.
j
38


Summary: Effects of Student Incivility on Targets
Due to the nature of student incivility, particularly the ambiguity of intent,
student incivility is stressful to the college instructor. Instructors can personalize
the disruptive behavior, feeling as if they somehow caused the behavior
(Kuhlenschmidt & Layne, 1999). This internal attribution can lead to feelings of
failure as a teacher. On the other hand, the instructor can do the opposite make
external attributions (i.e., the student is completely to blame) even when it is
possible that the instructor has exhibited behaviors that have served as antecedents
to the students misbehavior. External attribution may serve to protect the
instructors self-esteem but it is possible that these external attributions can lead to
different types of emotional stress such as depression and feelings of helplessness.
These negative emotions can have an impact on occupational, psychological, and
physical health (Gilbert, 1998; Lim & Cortina, 2002).
The exploratory questions for this dissertation, related to the preceding
review of the literature, are the following:
1. What is the emotional response of faculty when they experience student
incivility in the college classroom?
2. What is the nature and extent of similarities and differences between
male and female faculty and between Faculty-of-Color and Caucasian
faculty in emotional response to uncivil behaviors?
39


3. Will ethnic and gender identity moderate attributions of student
incivility?
Based on Major and Crockers (1993) theory that stigmatized individuals
may be buffered from some of the negative affective and self-evaluative
implications of negative feedback, and Cortina, Magley, and Lims (2002) findings
that ethnic minority employees find incivility more distressing than majority
employees, as well as Gilberts (1998) hypothesis that the effect of coping with
perceived prejudice can create psychological stress, I offer the following competing
hypotheses:
H2a: Overall, female faculty will find student incivility less emotionally
distressing than male faculty and Faculty-of-Color will find student
incivility less emotionally distressing than Caucasian faculty?
H2b: Overall, female faculty will find student incivility more emotionally
distressing than male faculty and and Faculty-of-Color will find
student incivility more emotionally distressing than Caucasian
faculty.
Also,
H3: Female faculty and Faculty-of-Color will experience fewer
feelings of self-depreciation but experience more feelings of
helplessness and depression in response to student incivility.
40


Effects of Incivility on Organizations
Just as there are effects to individuals impacted by student incivility, there
are effects to the organization in which the individuals work. Pearson, Andersson,
and Porath (2000) have studied incivility in the workplace and their studies
indicated that incivility impacts organizations negatively as well as individuals. The
researchers found that when individuals experience incivility, their commitment to
the organization is reduced. Targets of incivility often lost work time because of
worry about incivility, and to avoid the instigator. Possibly the greatest impact to
the organization is turnover. In nearly one-half of the cases of workplace incivility,
Pearson et al. found that the target contemplated changing jobs, and in 12% of the
cases the target terminated employment. Researchers in higher education also find
that incivility can impact the enthusiasm of faculty and the commitment to the
organization.
Boice (1996), one of the few researchers of classroom incivilities, tracked
faculty and found that faculty experiences of classroom incivility and resulting
impressions of undergraduates as adversaries were among the few early turning
points that derailed careers (p. 478). Boice studied faculty at midcareer and found
that depressed and oppositional faculty suffered most from patterns of student
disapproval (1998).
It is not surprising that researchers find a relationship between teachers job
satisfaction and satisfaction with working with students. Cohen (1973) conducted a
41


survey of faculty at two-year colleges and found that satisfaction was substantially
associated with in-class student-related activities. Braskamp, Fowler, and Ory
(1982) found that associate and full professors at a major research university
reported that their greatest sense of accomplishment resulted from teaching and
working with students.
Summary Effects on the Organization
The literature regarding the effects of incivility on the organization suggest
that incivility can lead to lower job satisfaction, which can possibly lead to job
turnover (Pearson et al., 2000) and career abandonment (Boice, 1996). Based on
this literature I offer the following hypothesis:
H4: I predict that job satisfaction is negatively related to offensiveness of
student incivility in the classroom.
Responses to Student Incivility
Responding to student incivility can be tricky because of the ambiguity of
intent of student incivility and because of the varying perceptions regarding what
constitutes student incivility. Also, college and university codes of conduct seldom
assist faculty when it comes to student incivility therefore instructors have different
ways of dealing with student incivility. An instructor may respond to student
incivility in an external way, by confronting a student and demanding that the
42


behavior desist or a faculty member may cope with the student incivility internally,
by dealing with their own emotions in response to the incivility. The following
section provides a review of what the literature has to say about these issues.
Ambiguity of Intent
It can be difficult to discern whether a student is intentionally challenging
the instructors authority and knowledge or is sincerely confused and frustrated
about something the instructor has presented and the student is not communicating
very well. Pearson, Anderson, & Wegner (2001) discuss how easy it is for the
perpetrator to deny, bury intent, or ignore the effect of incivility that is fairly low-
level what did I say to set you off? I didnt mean... Cant you take a joke? Due
to the nature of student incivility, instructors may be reticent to respond to student
incivility in an external manner (i.e., confront the student) due to a fear of creating
more tension. In addition to the ambiguity of student incivility, there are a host of
other reasons that instructors are reticent to respond to student incivility in an
external manner.
Problems with Responding to Student Incivility
Avoidance. Amada (1999) suggests that instructors avoid responding to
student incivility because of the following instructor fears: fears of harming a
psychologically fragile student; fears that a student is volatile and dangerous; fear
43


that an uncivil student will sue the instructor; fear of not being liked by a student
because the instructor disciplined the student. He states that instructors believe that
students will interpret the instructors permissiveness as kindness and generosity
and therefore respond commensurately. Instead, Amada posits that students will
interpret the instructors inaction as fear, irresoluteness, naivete, or indifference
toward the students misconduct. Given these many sources of instructor doubt and
indecision, when responding to student incivility, avoidance is likely.
Higher Education Politics. As mentioned earlier in the chapter, Amada
(1999) believes that instructors, particularly non-tenured, find themselves in a
Catch-22 situation (i.e., when they report an incidence of classroom incivility, the
administrators may presume that the instructor provoked the disruption through
malice or ineptitude or minimize the incident). Responding to student incivility is
difficult, especially given the few college or university codes outlining a process for
responding to student incivility.
No Systemic Response
Most colleges and universities have codes of conduct to address student
misbehavior, but these codes address serious behaviors such as illegal activities and
activities that could jeopardize the safety of other students. Codes of conduct
seldom address the appropriateness or inappropriateness of behaviors in the
classroom. One possible reason is that different instructors have different beliefs
44


and assumptions about what is appropriate and inappropriate. If the code of conduct
does not create the norms for classroom behavior than what or who does?
Educators (Amada, 1999; Carbone, 1999; Kuhlenschmidt & Layne, 1999; Petersen
Brooke, 1999.) suggest that the instructor should be proactive by creating the norms
for classroom behavior. Faculty should state their behavioral expectations for the
classroom and explicitly state which behaviors the instructor perceives to be rude
and disrespectful in the class syllabus and also discuss them on the first day of class.
Unfortunately, when the instructor has not been proactive in dealing with student
incivility, or the proactive measures have not worked, the instructor is forced to
cope with student incivility in the classroom.
Coping with Student Incivility
Lazarus and Folkman (1984) define coping as constantly changing
cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage specific external and/or internal demands
that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person (p. 141).
Cognitive appraisal is an evaluative process focusing on meaning and significance.
The two main evaluative issues of appraisal are, Am I in trouble or being benefited,
now or in the future, and in what way? and What if anything can be done about
it? The cognitive processes intervene between the encounter and the reaction.
Coping serves two overriding functions: managing the problem (i.e.,
problem-focused coping) and regulating the emotional response to the problem (i.e.,
45


emotion-focused coping) (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Emotion-focused forms of
coping are more likely to be used when an appraisal has been made by the
individual that nothing can be done to modify harmful, threatening, or challenging
environmental conditions. An individual would more likely utilize a problem-
focused form of coping when conditions have been appraised as amenable to
change. Cortina, Magley, and Lim (2002) also posit that an individuals response to
incivility relates to the individuals appraisal of their own impact on the situation.
Social Power and Response to Incivility
Cortina et al. (2002) suggest that not only does social power and social
location affect how the target of incivility feels (e.g., more or less threatened) but
also how the target responds. Individuals with less social power will assess that
their behavior will not have an impact on the situation. This is supported by Major
& Crockers (1993) and Gilberts (1998) assertion that external attributions of
negative outcomes (i.e., I didnt do anything to warrant the negative behavior
towards me.) can affect motivation because this leads to a belief that the negative
outcomes are outside ones control. Therefore there is no use in trying harder to
produce positive outcomes. Stigmatized individuals are more likely to make
external attributions of negative outcomes.
46


Summary Cooing and Response to Student Incivility
Responding to student incivility can be difficult for university faculty due to
the ambiguity of intent of student incivility, the absence of systemic processes for
responding to student incivility, the political nature of higher education, and
instructor fears related to responding to student incivility. Both cognitive and
behavioral strategies are required to cope with incivility. Cortina et al. (2002)
support the contention that coping with incivility is rather complex by pointing to
past coping research (e.g. Holahan, Moos, & Schaefer, 1996) possibly more so for
female faculty and Faculty-of-Color. Individuals utilize a variety of coping
strategies sometimes approach-oriented and sometimes avoidance-oriented,
engaging in trial-and-error approaches to coping. The end result is not only inter-
individual variance to responding to student incivility but intra-individual variance.
Cortina, et al., hypothesize that the response will vary depending on the
characteristics of the uncivil incident (e.g., how offensive and disruptive the uncivil
incident was perceived by the instructor) and also depend upon the social-power of
the target and of the instigator. The results of their study partially supported this
hypothesis and suggest that situational influences on incivility coping are powerful.
The coping and appraisal research that has been conducted in the area of
incivility (e.g. Cortina et al., 2002)) has occurred in the workplace more
specifically in a single large organization. The work of Cortina et al. was a seminal
work in incivility appraisal and coping. A goal of this dissertation study is to build
47


upon the work of Cortina et al. by examining a different type of organization
(colleges and universities), and to possibly yield additional insights into how
targeted individuals (e.g., faculty members) cope and respond to student incivility.
The exploratory questions for this dissertation, related to the preceding
review of the literature are as follows:
1. How do faculty cope with student incivility?
2. What is the nature and extent of similarities and differences between
male and female faculty and between Faculty-of-Color and Caucasian
faculty in coping response to uncivil student behaviors?
3. Will ethnic and gender identity moderate instructor coping responses to
student incivility?
In this study, I have provided the following hypothesis: female faculty and
Faculty-of-Color are more likely to attribute student incivility to external factors
(HI) and thus having more feelings of helplessness in student incivility situations
(H3). I have also provided a social theory suggesting that lower status individuals
will expect their behavior to be inconsequential. In addition, given this theory and
hypothesis, I hypothesize that female faculty and Faculty-of-Color will utilize more
of the emotion-focused or internally-focused strategies and fewer of the problem-
solving, externally focused strategies.
48


H5: Female faculty and Faculty-of-Color will utilize more emotion
focused coping skills, and fewer problem-solving coping skills, than
will male faculty and Caucasian faculty.
Chapter Summary
Some of the literature suggests that student incivility is on the rise (Amada,
1999; Schneider, 1998) and that female faculty and Faculty-of-Color seem to
experience the brunt of this behavior by students, but there is very little empirical
evidence to aid in the corroboration and understanding of this phenomenon. I have
provided a theoretical framework for student incivility from the educational
literature about conflict and disruption in higher education, from the instructional
development literature (i.e., teaching pedagogy), and from the workplace aggression
and incivility in the organizational literature. These bodies of literature provide a
background for the role that perception, attribution, effects, response, and diversity
play in regards to coping with student incivility. Given the important role that they
do play in regard to coping with student incivility, this dissertation study attempts to
ascertain the nature and extent of similarities and differences between male and
female instructors, and Caucasian faculty and Faculty-of-Color, in their perceptions,
attributions, effects, and response to student incivility.
49


CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to investigate the phenomenon of student
incivility in the college classroom from a faculty perspective. As stated in chapter
one, much of what has been written about the relationship between student incivility
in the college classroom and increasing diversity of academia has been
unsubstantiated; therefore an empirical study is needed. The research questions are
the following: (a) What is the nature and extent of instructors experience (i.e.,
perceptions of offensiveness, perceptions of frequency, attributions, emotional
response, and coping response) with student incivility in their classrooms? (b) Are
there differences in instructors experience with student incivility depending on the
instructors gender and ethnicity? (c) Does Ethnic Identity, Gender Identity, and
Age play a role as a moderator in the relationships between the dependent variables
(experience with student incivility perceptions, attributions, feelings, and
response) and the independent variables (gender and ethnicity)?
50


The design of this study is correlational seeking explanatory relationships
with survey data. Descriptive and inferential statistics are used to analyze the data.
As the focus of this study is instructors experience of student incivility in the
classroom, it will be important to gain a sense of what that experience has been,
with the understanding that the experience may be similar or different for a diverse
group of instructors. A questionnaire was utilized to collect data regarding which
behaviors are perceived to be most offensive to faculty, as well as the faculty
perceptions of frequency of uncivil student behaviors. The questionnaire was also
utilized to find out about the attributions faculty make about student incivility, the
effects of student incivility on the faculty member and on the organization, and the
coping responses utilized by faculty when dealing with student incivility.
Study Sample
Sample Demographics
A request to participate in my dissertation study was posted to college and
university faculty listserves throughout the United States. Respondents came from
thirty-seven of the fifty states with the largest group coming from Minnesota (21%),
Ohio (10%), Michigan (6%), and Colorado (6%). The majority of the respondents
come from the central United States (41%) and from the eastern (36%) United
States. Although questionnaires from an ethnically diverse population of faculty
51


were desired, only faculty members located in the United States were selected to be
study participants. Fifty-four questionnaires were completed by individuals who
provided zip codes outside the United States. These questionnaires were not
utilized although the data were retained for future review. Questionnaires
completed by individuals outside the United States, all questionnaires with a
significant amount of data missing (60 or more items), and questionnaires missing
the gender or ethnicity data were discarded. Eliminating these questionnaires
resulted in a sample of402.
The majority of the study participants were Caucasian/White (74.6%) and
female (69.7%). African Americans made up 15.7% of the study population with
Asian Americans (4.2%), Chicano/Latino/Hispanic Americans (3.5%), and Native
Americans (1.5%) making up the remainder of the Faculty-of-Color sample
population. Males made up a little less than a third (30.3 %) of the sample
population. The average age for Caucasian/White faculty was 46.28, and the
average age for Faculty-of-Color was 40.96 with an average age for the entire
sample being 44.94. Sixty-two percent of the sample were tenured or tenure-track
faculty members, with the remaining being Lecturer / Honorarium / Instructor /
Adjunct / Term faculty (27.9%) and Graduate Teaching Assistants (9.2%).
Although there was quite a bit of variability in the years of experience the faculty
reported, the majority (30.3%) had 16-plus years of experience. See Table 1 for a
listing of the demographic information collected in this study.
52


Table 1
Demographics of Study Sample
Caucasian FacuItv-of-Color Total
Male Female Male Female
Ethnicity
African American / Black 13 50 63
Asian American 7 10 17
Caucasian / White 93 207 300
Chicano / Latino / Hispanic 6 8 14
Native American 2 4 6
Mixed 1 0 1
Other 1 1
Total 93 207 29 73 402
Academic Rank
Tenured / Tenure Track 54 126 19 51 250
Lecturer / Instructor 32 65 5 10 112
Graduate Teaching Asst. 6 16 5 10 37
Total 92 207 29 71 399
Years of Experience
16 + years 36 68 6 12 122
11 -15 years 19 37 1 9 66
7-10 years 14 32 5 18 69
4-6 years 14 36 8 14 72
0-3 years 10 34 9 19 72
Total 93 207 29 72 401
53


Missing Data
The survey is made up of 116 total questions. It has two major parts and
several distinct sections make up the two parts. Approximately 39 individuals
completed almost all of the questions in the first part of the questionnaire but did not
complete any of the second part. These 39 surveys were retained for data analysis
but were missing at least 49 items.
In order for a valid score to be computed for an individual variable, it was
determined that an individual had to complete 75% of the items that make up that
variable. The mean of the scores, making up that variable, was substituted for
missing responses. Participants whose missing data exceeded these limits on one or
more scales were dropped from analysis involving these scales.
Questionnaire
An electronic questionnaire was utilized for this study. The disclosure and
consent statement for this study and the faculty questionnaire can be found in
Appendix A. The questionnaire was available on the Internet for approximately
three months.
Permission was obtained to post a request to participate e-mail in my
dissertation study on 16 faculty listserves (see Appendix B for the list of faculty
listserves). The listserves are communication venues for regional and national
faculty associations to convey association business to their members and to facilitate
54


communication among members. My e-mail postings on the association listserves
directed faculty to access an on line electronic questionnaire and provided a link to
that questionnaire. Although the request to participate e-mails were posted by the
researcher to 16 listserves the e-mail was sent to several other faculty listserves, and
the questionnaire was completed by its members, because the posting was
forwarded to additional listserves by study participants.
Five hundred ninety-seven respondents logged on and completed some
portion of the survey. The pilot study participants reported that it took
approximately 20 minutes to complete the survey.
Pilot Study
A pilot study was conducted with a small number (10) of select instructors.
The primary purpose of a pilot study was to obtain information about the
questionnaire for possible improvement (e.g., provide clarification of specific
items). A few pilot participants suggested that the categories of uncivil behaviors
on the survey be broken down because the grouping of behaviors made answering
some of the questions difficult. The researcher knew that this problem could arise
but decided to group similar categories of uncivil behaviors in order to keep the
number of survey questions manageable. There were no changes made to the
questionnaire after receiving feedback from the pilot participants.
55


Methodological Limitations of the Study
It may be argued that faculty most likely to complete the survey are those
faculty who have had very negative experiences with incivility. For this reason an
attempt was made to determine whether the faculty members who participated in the
study are representative of the entire faculty on the listserve by asking participants
to identify the listserve, or other method, from which they learned of the study.
Unfortunately very few study participants (33%) completed this survey item,
therefore it is difficult to know whether the individuals who chose to complete the
survey are representative of the sample population.
This study uses a correlational design so a limitation of this study is that one
must be very careful in inferring that there is a causal relationship between the
dependent and independent variables. Also, results from this study may only be
generalized to similar settings and populations. In particular, inferences from this
study should not be made to instructors in countries outside the United States
because of demographic and cultural differences.
Measures
Instructors perceptions, attributions, affective response, and job satisfaction,
as well as coping response to student incivility are the dependent variables and
gender and ethnicity of the instructors are the independent variables. Relationships
between the independent and dependent variables will be examined to determine
56


whether instructors have similar experiences in regards to student incivility, and to
determine if the nature of the experience is similar for similar groups of instructors.
Age, ethnic identity, and gender identity are considered moderators in the present
study.
Dependent Measures
Student Incivility. The Student Classroom Incivility Measure (SCIM-F, Part
A) (see Hanson, 2000) was adapted to assess perceived offensiveness of classroom
incivility. Hanson (2000) reported a .79 alpha reliability for this instrument. In the
present study, the SCIM yielded a coefficient alpha of .78, with sub-scale alphas of
.71 for Ambiguous, .66 for Challenging, and .82 for Intimidating. (Please see
Appendix A, items cOl. through cl 1., for the Student Classroom Incivility Measure
-SCIM).
Based on a current literature review, particularly the findings of Robert
Boice (2000) in which he rank ordered the classroom incivilities found to be most
disturbing to both students and faculty, I adapted the SCIM-F. Three items were
added to the measure: physical intimidating behaviors, verbal intimidating
behaviors and one open-ended other (please describe) item. I took using cell
phone, pagers out of the Non-class relevant behaviors to create a separate item.
Also, listening to a Walkman or wearing headphones and eating in class were
added to the non-class relevant behaviors category. The purpose of this adaptation
57


was to separate out the audible non-class relevant behaviors and the non-audible
non-class relevant behaviors.
The SCIM was also used in this study to access facultys perceptions of the
frequency of uncivil behaviors in their classrooms. (See Appendix A, items dOl.
through dll., for the Student Classroom Incivility Measure (SCIM) frequency
questions.)
Faculty Attributions for Student Incivility. I developed a 16-item
instrument, based on the literature review, to assess faculty attributions for student
incivility (FASI). The items are designed to assess the causes to which faculty
attribute student incivility (e.g., the nature of higher education and the classroom
today, the nature of students today, the nature of the instructor, the nature or
characteristics of the course). The measure also has one Other (please describe)
open-ended item. Faculty members were instructed to indicate on a four-point scale
how descriptive the item is in stating, in general, to what they attribute the causes of
student incivility. Factor analysis of the FACI suggested three sub-scales with sub-
scale alphas of .78 for Instructor, .71 for Education Today, and .59 for Student
Prejudice / Bias. (Please see Appendix A, items eOl. through el5. for the Faculty
Attributions for Incivility measure.)
Critical Incident. Respondents were asked to recall a critical incident in
which student incivility occurred in their classroom and they were offended and/or
felt it was disruptive to the class. They were then asked to write a two- or three-
58


sentence description of the offense and how it affected the faculty member and/or
the class. (Please see Appendix A, item gOl. for the Critical Incident measure.)
Effects of Incivility. The Feelings Scale (Swan, 1997) was utilized to assess
the affective response of faculty subsequent to a critical uncivil incident.
Respondents were asked to indicate on a five-point scale the extent to which they
experienced negative feelings (e.g., annoyance, embarrassment, humiliation,
helpless, etc.) in reaction to the student incivility they experienced. (Please see
Appendix A, items iOl through il5 for the Critical Incident Feelings Scale.) Swan
(1997) reported coefficient alphas of .91 and .93 on two separate administrations of
the measure. In the present study, the Feelings Scale yielded a coefficient alpha of
.89, with sub-scale alphas of .82 for Directed at Self, .83 for Directed at Others, and
.87 for Intimidating.
Response to Incivility. Faculty coping responses were assessed via a 19-
item instrument adapted from the Coping with Harassment Questionnaire (CHQ;
Fitzgerald, 1990). This scale assesses internally and externally focused coping
strategies. Fitzgerald developed the CHQ to assess ways in which women respond
to workplace sexual harassment The scale has been used to measure responses to
other types of interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace (Cortina et al., 2002).
The five internally focused strategies are detachment, denial, relabeling, illusory
control, and endurance. The five externally focused strategies are avoidance,
assertion/confrontation, institutional/organizational relief, social support and
59


appeasement. The CHQ is composed of 50 items, five statements for each strategy.
Examples of statements are, I told myself it wasnt really important, I blamed
myself for what happened, I let him know I didnt like what he was doing. In
order to reduce the size of the instrument I selected two items from each strategy
that related most to student incivility. Respondents indicated on a 5-point scale how
accurately the item is in stating how they behaved during and after the student
incivility critical incident. (Please see Appendix A, items jOl. through jl9 for the
Coping with Harassment Questionnaire.) Fitzgerald reported internal consistency
coefficients in the mid-.70s. In the present study I adapted the measure by choosing
19 of the original 50 CHQ items. Principal component factor analysis of the CHQ,
forcing it to one factor, proved that a total score for this measure is not appropriate
for use in analysis. A factor analysis of the adapted CHQ yielded six factors with
sub-scale alphas of .81 for Support, .71 for Ignore, .87 for Confront, .62 for Illusory
Control, .69 for Humor, and .56 for Avoidance.
Job Satisfaction and Job Withdrawal. Satisfaction with work, present pay,
opportunities for promotion, supervision, and people at work was measured with the
eight-item abridged version of the Job Descriptive Index called the Job in General
(Balzer et al., 2000). Respondents indicated on a Yes/No /? scale how well a word
or phrase (e.g., good, excellent, poor) describes their work. The Coefficient alpha
estimates exceeded .90 (Total N=356). (Please see Appendix A, items bOl. through
b08. for the Job in General measure.) Respondents indicated on a four-item scale
60


their satisfaction with teaching, their desire and intentions to quit their job, and the
likelihood leaving academia would occur in the near future. (Please see Appendix
A, items b09. through bl2., for the Job Withdrawal scale.)
Independent Measures
The independent variables in this study, gender and ethnicity, were collected
in a brief demographic section at the beginning of the survey. Individuals who self
identified as African American/Black, Asian American, Chicano/Latino/Mexican-
American/Hispanic American and Native American were combined to create the
variable Faculty-of-Color. Several variables that were not of direct interest in this
study (i.e., academic rank, college teaching experience, age, and residency status)
but might be plausibly related to the dependent variable were also collected and
examined.
Moderating Variables
Racial and Gender Identification. The four-item Identity sub-scale from
Luhtanen and Crockers (1992, June) Self-Esteem Scale was modified to measure
racial and gender identification. The original items were intended to measure
respondents identity with social groups. It was modified in this study to assess
identity strength with respondents ethnic and gender group. An example of one of
the items from this scale is as follows: In general, belonging to my ethnic group is
61


an important part of my self-image. Responses were measured on a seven-point
Likert-type scale ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree.
Luhtanen and Crocker (1992, June) report standardized coefficient alphas
ranging from .74 to .86. In the present study, the Gender Identity scale yielded a
coefficient alpha of .83 and the Ethnic Identity scale yielded a coefficient alpha of
.83. (Please see Appendix A, items fDl. through f04., for the Ethnicity Identity
scale and items f05. through f.08. for the Gender Identity scale.)
Age. The predictor variables in this study, gender and ethnicity, are
considered the independent variables in this study. There are several variables that
are not of direct interest in this study (i.e., academic rank, college teaching
experience, and age) but might be plausibly related to the dependent variable,
therefore information about each of these variables was collected from respondents
and examined. Results from a one-way ANOVA and Scheffes Multiple
Comparison post hoc analyses at the .05 level showed significant relationships
between age and academic rank. As age increased, academic rank increased in level
(Teaching Assistants, Mage= 31.97; Lecturer/Instructor, Mage = 44.15;
Tenured/Tenure Track, Mage 47.41). The same relationship was shown to be
significant with age and years of college teaching experience. As years of teaching
experience increased so did age (0-3 years of teaching experience, M^ = 34.58; 4-6
years, Mage= 39.37; 7-10 years, Mage= 43.61; 11-15 years, Mage = 47.47; 16+ years,
62


Mage= 54.24). For this reason age was used as a surrogate for the other two
variables. Age was considered a moderator in the present study.
Data Analysis Procedures
In addition to the basic analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) assumptions of
normality and homogeneity of variance, the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)
assumes that the covariates are reliably measured, that there is a linear relationship
between the covariates and the dependent variable and that the within cell regression
lines are parallel (i.e., homogeneity of regression) (Glass & Hopkins, 1984).
ANOVA and ANCOVA procedures are considered to be robust to violations of
normality and homogeneity of variance. However in the case of homogeneity with
unequal ns, when larger variances are associated with the larger ns, the ANOVA is
considered to be conservative. When the larger ns are associated with the smaller
variances, the results are considered to be liberal. When violating the homogeneity
of regression assumption the results of the analysis may be difficult to interpret.
The studys analyses were done in stages. The moderators, age, ethnic
identity, and gender identity, were examined to determine if they had significant
relationships with the dependent variables being considered. The initial analysis of
variance done for each moderator included a term that tested for parallel slopes. If
the slopes were found to be non-parallel, then the ANOVA was run adjusting for
63


this condition; if not an ANCOVA was performed. If the ANCOVA showed that
the moderator was not significant, a two-factor ANOVA was conducted.
To measure homogeneity of variance, Bartlett-Box Fs and cell variances
were obtained. Harris (1975), as reported by Tabachnick and Fidell (1989),
indicates that for two-tailed test, when sample sizes are unequal, the ratio of the
largest to smallest should not be greater than 4:1. The ratio between largest and
smallest variance should be no greater than approximately 20:1. Gross violations to
these checks may require different procedures. Generally, in this study, the ratio of
the smallest to largest sample size in this project is about 7:1; however in the
analyses involving the critical incident categories the ratio of smallest to largest is
19:1. Although this ratio is less than the 20:1 maximum ratio suggested by
Tabachnick and Fidell (1989), the results of these analyses should be interpreted
cautiously.
Chapter Summary
Chapter three begins by reiterating the research questions examined in this
study, and the design of the study is presented. The demographics of the study,
including the sample participants geographic distribution, ethnic and gender
breakdown, and other sample characteristics are provided. The data collection
procedures are included, as well as a description of the questionnaire utilized for this
study. The instruments utilized to measure the independent, dependent, and
64


moderating variables are described in chapter three. Finally, the data analyses
procedures are presented.
t
65


CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Introduction
The results of the data analyses are presented in this chapter. The chapter
begins by presenting the results of the factor analysis of each of the measures
utilized in this study to further refine the dependent variables. The first set of
questions in this study relate to faculty perceptions of offensiveness and faculty
perceptions of frequency of student incivility; faculty attributions about the cause of
student incivility; the effects of student incivility on faculty and on the organization;
and faculty response to student incivility. Each section in chapter four (following
the presentation of the results of the factor analyses) begins by providing the data
and the results of the data analyses that addressed these questions then presents the
data and results relating to the second set of questions in the study. The second set
of questions in the study relates to similarities and differences in perceptions,
attributions, effects, and response to student incivility based on gender and ethnicity.
The data and results relating to the moderating variables is then provided. The
!
66


chapter concludes with quotes from faculty about the student incivility incident they
described in the critical incident portion of the survey.
Refinement of Measures
There were several measures utilized in this study: Student Classroom
Incivility Measure (SCIM), Faculty Attributions for Student Incivility (FASI), the
Feelings Scale, and the Coping with Harassment Questionnaire (CHQ). Since I
developed the FASI, and altered the other measures, I performed Principal
Component Factor Analysis on the measures in order to further refine the measures
and hence the dependent variables. The resulting factor structure and reliability of
the revised measure as well as the reliability of the sub-scales will be reported for
each measure. To facilitate the interpretation of the factor analysis, varimax rotation
was done and only items loading at greater than .50 were retained on a factor.
Additional information about the appropriateness of performing factor analysis on
the data set was obtained by the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling
Adequacy and a Bartletts Test of Sphericity.
Student Classroom Incivility Measure. Factor analysis of the measure
yielded a three-factor solution accounting for 59.8 % of the measures variance (see
Table 2). The five behaviors that loaded on the first factor, Ambiguous Behaviors,
are all behaviors that are ambiguous in regards to whether the behavior is directed
toward the instructor. Three behaviors loaded on the second factor, Challenging
67


Behaviors. These behaviors do involve the instructor and may be seen to challenge
the instructor. The third factor, Intimidating Behaviors, was made up of two items
physically intimidating behaviors and verbally intimidating behaviors. Each
participant received an overall score of perceived offensiveness for all of the
behaviors and also received a score for each of the sub-scales: Ambiguous,
Challenging, and Intimidating Behaviors.
68


Table 2
Factor Analysis Loading for Faculty Perceptions of Offensiveness of Student Incivility
(Student Classroom Incivility Measure)________________________________________
Uncivil Behaviors Ambiguous Non-class relevant discussions, laughter .59 Unprepared for class, and disinterested .60 Non-class relevant behaviors eating, sleeping, reading newspapers .73 Using cell phones, pagers .68 Late-arriving, early departing .61 Challenging Intimidating
Challenge instructor with statements, questions Counterproductive questions, monopolizing, .73
pontificating .76
Demanding make-up exams, extended dead-lines .72
Physically intimidating .90
Verbally intimidating .86
Reliability (Cronbachs Alpha) .71 .66 .82
69


Faculty Attributions for Student Incivility. The Faculty Attributions Scale
yielded a four-factor solution accounting for 58.7 % of the measures variance (see
Table 3). All of the items in this scale are possible causes for student incivility in
the classroom. The four items loading on the first factor, Instructor, describe
negative behaviors exhibited by instructors in the classroom such as lacking
immediacy behaviors, teaching uninterestingly, rushing through material, behaving
offensively, and describe instructor annoying behaviors like being tardy, and
returning papers late. The second factor, Education Today, contained three items
that point to the state of education and students today, which include informality of
higher education, students being apathetic and consumer oriented, and students
being disruptive because of a lack of consequences. The third factor, Student Bias,
includes two items: students are prejudicial and discriminatory towards women
faculty and Faculty-of-Color, and students are discriminatory towards instructors
who have characteristics such as being small or having a soft voice. Item one on the
questionnaire (incivility is likely to occur in large lecture classes) and item two on
the questionnaire (student psychological and physical reasons) loaded together
making up the fourth factor. This factor was dropped because the reliability of this
scale was extremely poor. Item number fourteen I do not know to what to
attribute student incivility was dropped from analysis because it was skipped by 65
respondents.
70


Table 3 Factor Analysis Loading for Faculty Attributions for Student Incivility
Education Student Bias/
Attributions Instructor Today Prejudice
Instructor lacks immediacy behaviors .68
Instructor teaching behaviors .78
Instructor offensiveness .77
Other Instructor behaviors .82
Informality of higher education .80
Students are apathetic consumer oriented .80
No consequences for student incivility .77
Students are prejudicial and discriminatory towards
Women and faculty-of-color .86
Instructor characteristics (small, shy, soft voice) .74
Reliability (Cronbachs Alpha) .78 .74 .67
71


Table 4 Factor Analysis Loading for Faculty Feelings in Reaction to the Student Incivility incident
Feelings Internalize Externalize Intimidation
Uncomfortable .59
Confused .68
Embarrassed .74
Ashamed .69
Humiliated .67
Depressed .63
Annoyed .78
Angry .83
Disappointed .65
Insulted .76
Disgusted .71
Intimidated .69
Afraid .89
Threatened .87
Reliability (Cronbachs Alpha) .82 .83 .89
72


Feelings Scale. The Feelings Scale yielded a three-factor solution
accounting for 63.5% of the measures variance (see Table 4). The six items
loading on the first factor, Directed at Self, include uncomfortable, confused,
embarrassed, ashamed, humiliated, and depressed all feelings that would indicate
that the uncivil student incident caused the faculty member to internalize negative
feelings toward self. The second factor, Directed at Others, contained five items:
annoyed, angry, disappointed, insulted, and disgusted. These feelings would
indicate that the negative feelings were directed towards the students. The third
factor, Intimidating, contained four items that would indicate that the instructor felt
intimidated, afraid, threatened, and helpless. Helpless was removed from this scale
because the reliability of the scale improved without the item.
Coping with Harassment Questionnaire. The Coping with Harassment
Questionnaire is made up of internally and externally focused strategies individuals
employ when responding to stressful situations, such as harassment. The internally
focused strategies involve attempts to manage the thoughts and emotions associated
with the harassment and the externally focused strategies are problem-solving
focused. Principal Component Factor Analysis of the Coping with Harassment
Questionnaire revealed a six-factor solution accounting for 62.5% of the measures
variance (see Table 5). The four items loading on the first factor, Support, are all
externally focused strategies in which the faculty member seeks social support
and/or organizational relief. The second factor, Ignore, is make up of five internally
73


focused strategies including denial, endurance, and detachment all strategies that
basically ignore the uncivil behavior. Two items loaded on the third factor,
Confront, and are externally focused strategies that include assertion/confrontation
types of behaviors in response to uncivil behaviors. The fourth factor, Illusory
Control, is made up of two items that are both internally focused, illusory control
(i.e., the faculty member attempts to gain a sense of control by taking responsibility
for the uncivil behavior) type strategies. The fifth factor, Humor, is the only factor
to include one external and one internal strategy an appeasement behavior and a
detachment behavior. Both items suggest the faculty member would use humor to
deal with uncivil behaviors. Two of the four items that loaded on the sixth factor,
Avoidance, were externally focused strategies that suggest the faculty member
would deal with the uncivil behavior with avoidance behaviors. These two items
were used for the Avoidance sub-scale.
Subsequent analysis utilized the factors, presented above, to represent the
dependent variables in the questions and hypotheses listed below. The remainder of
the chapter is organized by the questions and hypotheses offered in this thesis, along
with the data used to test each, and the relevant statistical analyses.
This thesis is primarily interested in the relationship between gender and
ethnicity and a variety of dependent variables, such as perceptions of offensiveness
of student incivility, attributions made about student incivility, affective response to
student incivility, and coping response to student incivility.
74


Table 5
Factor Analysis Loading for Coping Response to the Student Incivility Incident
(Coping with Harassment Questionnaire)
Faculty Coping Behaviors Support Ignore Confront
1 reported him/her/them .83
1 talked to someone about what happened .75
1 asked someone for advice .74
1 found out where to report him/her/them and did it .82
1 told myself it wasnt really important .50
1 just ignored the whole thing .74
1 tried to forget the whole thing .56
1 just put up with it .68
1 just blew it off and acted like 1 didnt care .66
1 let the student(s) know 1 didnt like what he/she/they was doing .90
1 made clear to him/her/them that they were out of line .86
Reliability (Cronbachs Alpha) .81 .71 .87
j
75


Table 5 (continued) Factor Analysis Loading for Coping Response to the Student Incivility Incident (Coping with Harassment Questionnaire)
Faculty Coping Behaviors Illusory Control Humor Avoidance
1 blamed myself for what happened .78
1 figured it wouldnt have happened if 1 had behaved
differently .79
I just joked around with him/her/them and hoped
that would be the end of it . 86
I made light of the situation .78
I stayed away from the students) as much as possible .70
I arranged things so that I wouldnt have to deal with him/her/them. .72
Reliability (Cronbachs Alpha) .62 .69 .56
The independent variables, ethnicity and gender, are often thought of as categorical
variables but thinking of these variables in this way is very simplistic. It is possible
that the extent that an individual identifies with his or her ethnicity or gender would
moderate the relationship between the independent and dependent variable. It was
76


also possible that age could play a moderating role. For this reason the second step
in the analyses was to determine if there was a relationship between the moderating
variables (age, ethnic identity, and gender identity) and the dependent variables. In
situations where a relationship was found between the moderating and dependent
variable an ANCOVA was run controlling for the moderating variable and the
analysis of variance controlling for the moderating variable was reported. To
examine the relationship further a Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient
was obtained.
Perceptions of Student Incivility
Level of Offensiveness
The first question posed in this thesis related to perceptions of student
incivility was What uncivil student behaviors are perceived to be most
offensive/disruptive to faculty? Faculty respondents were instructed to utilize the
adapted SCIM-F to rate the offensiveness level (1= not offensive, 2=somewhat
offensive, 3=offensive, 4=very offensive) of a list of student uncivil behaviors (see
Table 6).
The overall means demonstrate that faculty find Intimidating Behaviors to be
most offensive (M = 3.82, SD = .049). Faculty perceive Ambiguous Behaviors to be
the second most offensive set of behaviors (M = 3.09, SD = .55), with using cell
77


phone, pagers and non-class relevant behaviors such as sleeping, and reading
newspapers highest on the list. Challenging Behaviors were found by faculty to be
the least offensive (M = 2.46, SD = .75).
Gender and Ethnic Differences in Perceptions of
Level of Offensiveness
The second question posed in this thesis was What is the nature and extent
of similarities and differences between male and female faculty and between
Faculty-of-Color and Caucasian faculty in perceptions of offensiveness of uncivil
behaviors? A review of the mean offensiveness scores (Table 7) indicate that
females find all behaviors more offensive than males, and that female Faculty-of-
Color find all behaviors more offensive than white, female faculty members.
However, the results of the ANOVA (see Table 8) only indicate a statistically
significant gender difference for each of the scales rating offensiveness of uncivil
behaviors, but not a significant difference for ethnicity (see Table 9 for gender
means and standard deviations).
Moderating Variables
For the ANOVA for offensiveness of Intimidating Behaviors, Gender
Identity was found to be a significant moderator (see Table 8), therefore the analysis
for Intimidating Behaviors was controlled for Gender Identity with non-parallel
78


slopes. The slopes were found to be non-parallel indicating that the relationship was
different among the four faculty groups (i.e., female, white faculty; male, white
faculty; female Faculty-of-Color; and male Faculty-of-Color).
79


Table 6
Frequencies of Perceived Levels of Offensiveness of Uncivil Behaviors
Not Somewhat Very
Uncivil Behaviors Offensive Offensive Offensive Offensive Total
n % n % n % n % n %
Intimidating Behaviors
Physically intimidating 8 2.0 3 .8 22 5.5 366 91.7 399 100
Verbally intimidating 7 1.8 9 2.3 50 12.5 333 83.5 399 100
Ambiguous Behaviors
Non-class relevant discussions, laughter
10 2.5 72 18.0 130 32.5 188 47.0 400 100
Unprepared for class, disinterested
32 8.0 155 38.8 147 36.8 66 16.5 400 100
Non-class relevant behaviors - eating, sleeping,
reading newspapers 11 2.7 43 10.7 102 25.4 245 61.1 401 100
Using cell phones 5 1.3 34 8.5 85 21.3 275 68.9 399 100
Late-arriving, departing 42 10.5 153 38.2 142 35.4 64 16.0 401 100
Challenging Behaviors
Challenge instructor with statements, questions
109 27.2 126 31.4 104 25.9 62 15.5 401 100
Counterproductive questions, monopolizing, pontificating
42 10.5 176 44.1 135 33.8 46 11.5 399 100
Demanding make-up exams, extended dead-lines
60 15.1 131 33.0 106 26.7 100 25.2 397 100
80


The significant relationships found between Gender Identity and Intimidating
Behaviors were for white, female faculty (r = .15, p < .05, n = 204) and for female
Faculty-of-Color (r = .24,p < .05, n = 72). This suggests that female faculty
members with higher gender identity are more likely to be offended by intimidating
behaviors.
Perceptions of Frequency of Student Incivility
Faculty were asked to rate how frequently (i.e., never, occasionally, every
week, every day) the items on the list of uncivil behaviors (SCIM-F) occurred in
their classroom. Faculty reported that intimidating behaviors occur least frequently.
Using cell phones and non-class relevant behaviors were also reported to occur very
infrequently. Late arriving and early departing behaviors occurred most frequently.
Challenging statements and questions, non-class relevant discussions and laughter,
and demanding make-up exams or extended deadlines were rated highly in the
occasionally category (see frequency Table 10).
The overall means demonstrate that faculty members find Ambiguous
Behaviors to occur most frequently (M = 2.22, SD = .51). Faculty perceive
Challenging Behaviors to occur second most frequently (M = 1.95, SD = .45), with
using cell phone, pagers and non-class relevant behaviors such as sleeping, and
reading newspapers highest on the list. Intimidating behaviors were found by
81


faculty to occur least often (M = 1.17, SD = .39). The frequency of all behaviors
was reported to occur occasionally (M = 1.93, SD = .37).
Table 7
Mean Scale Scores for Offensiveness of Uncivil Behaviors as Perceived by Faculty
by Ethnicity by Gender
Caucasian / White Faculty
Uncivil Mean Standard Dev. SamDie size
Behaviors Female Male Female Male Female Male
Ambiguous 3.10 2.96 .53 .57 206 93
Challenging 2.45 2.34 .73 .69 203 92
Intimidating 3.85 3.75 .46 .61 204 93
All Behaviors 3.05 2.93 .45 .47 206 93
Faculty-of-Color
Uncivil Mean Standard Dev. SamDie size
Behaviors Female Male Female Male Female Male
Ambiguous 3.24 3.06 .55 .64 73 29
Challenging 2.73 2.29 .76 .86 72 28
Intimidating 3.87 3.74 .34 .64 72 29
All Behaviors 3.22 2.97 .46 .59 72 29
Note: Scale 1 = Not Offensive, 2 = Somewhat Offensive, 3 = Offensive, 4 = Very Offensive
82


Table 8
Analysis of Variance for Offensiveness of Uncivil Behavior as Perceived by Faculty
Source df F Partial n2 P
Ambiguous Behaviors
Gender 1 5.10* .01 .02
Ethnicity 1 2.94 .01 .09
Gender X Ethnicity 1 0.07 .00 .79
Challenging Behaviors
Gender 1 8.66** .02 .00
Ethnicity 1 1.53 .00 .22
Gender X Ethnicity 1 3.17 .01 .08
Intimidating Behaviors controlling for Gender Identity with non-parallel slopes
Gender 1 4.29* .01 .04
Ethnicity 1 1.70 .00 .19
Gender X Ethnicity 1 2.61 .01 .11
All Behaviors
Gender 1 10.05** .03 .00
Ethnicity 1 2.96 .01 .09
Gender X Ethnicity 1 1.37 .00 .24
*p < .05. **p<.01.
83