Diversity and the Influence of Friendship Groups in College

Anthony Lising Antonio

The Review of Higher Education, Volume 25, Number 1, Fall 2001, pp. 63-89
(Article)

Published by Johns Hopkins University Press

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2001.0013

For additional information about this article

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/30135

Access provided by University of South Dakota (27 Jun 2018 11:49 GMT)
ANTONIO / Diversity and Friendship Groups 63

The Review of Higher Education

Fall 2001, Volume 25, No. 1, pp. 63–89
Copyright © 2001 Association for the Study of Higher Education
All Rights Reserved (ISSN 0162-5748)

Diversity and the

Influence of Friendship
Groups in College
Anthony Lising Antonio

As we enter a new millennium, American higher education continues to

experience rapid racial and ethnic diversification in the student body. De-
mographic projections indicate that increasing ethnic and racial diversity
will continue beyond the year 2000 (Justiz, 1994; Levine & Associates, 1989).
On some campuses, the pace of demographic change has been nothing short
of dramatic. At the University of California, for example, White students1
still represented over 70% of all undergraduates as late as 1984. Just six
years later in 1990, however, the White student proportion had dropped to
less than 60% of all students (University of California, 1991) and only 46%
of first-time freshmen (CPEC, 1995).
American higher education has also experienced a fair amount of criti-
cism and discussion of late, coincident with the increasing racial diversifi-

Anthony Lising Antonio is Assistant Professor of Education and Assistant Director of the
Stanford Institute for Higher Education Research at Stanford University. His research fo-
cuses on access and equity in higher education, diversity, and multiculturalism in college,
and peer group influence. He presented a previous version of this paper at the annual meet-
ing of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, November 1999, at San Antonio,
Texas. Address queries to him at the School of Education, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
94305-3084; telephone: (650) 723-4053; fax (650) 725-3936; aantonio@stanford.edu.
1
White and other students who were not American Indian, African American, Chicano,
Latino, Asian American, or Filipino.
64 THE REVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION FALL 2001

cation of the student body. In the 1980s and 1990s, race, ethnicity, and cul-
tural diversity became central points of contention throughout the entire
curriculum (Botstein, 1991), and racial issues began to be recognized in all
facets of American higher education (Altbach, 1991). Observers renewed
their interest in the issues of free speech on campus, faculty hiring and evalu-
ation, and student conduct, this time in the forms of racially motivated
hate speech, the racial composition of faculty, and incidents of racism on
campus (Altbach & Lomotey, 1991; Dalton, 1991; Hively, 1990). Despite
the amount of national attention being given to these issues, there contin-
ues to be a lack of research, particularly empirical research, on some of the
most basic questions with regard to the development of college students in
these multicultural contexts.
For example, higher education leaders typically have embraced the grow-
ing diversity of their campuses, asserting that a racially diverse student body
is necessary for preparing students to be efffective citizens in a multicultural
society (e.g., Rudenstine, 1996; Young, 1995). Critics of the university, on
the other hand, point to reports of increasingly tense racial climates on
campus and racial self-segregation among students; they maintain that such
racially “balkanized” environments produce students with greater levels of
racial intolerance and ethnocentrism than when they entered college
(D’Souza, 1991; Sowell, 1989). These rather polarized views on what could
be termed the “civic” outcomes of college in a multicultural environment
coexist, in part, because of our limited knowledge of student development
in a racially diverse setting.
Whether the issue under contention is hate speech, an ethnic studies re-
quirement, or faculty hiring practices, the education and development of
students lies in the resolution of these issues. Consequently, alongside these
important dialogues stands a continuing deliberation over the outcomes of
a college education, particularly as they relate to demographic realities. Per-
haps the most relevant of these outcomes in this context is the preparation
of students as citizens and leaders in society. Although the training of civic
leaders for society has been a goal of colleges since colonial times (Rudolph,
1965), the realities of contemporary America demand that citizens be ca-
pable of negotiating a culturally diverse society (Rudenstine, 1996). Unfor-
tunately, data on the effectiveness of today’s colleges in producing such
citizens is sparse. The general purpose of this study is to contribute empiri-
cal data to questions regarding the developmental aspect of student experi-
ences on a multicultural campus and to specifically address the impact of
racial diversity on racial understanding, cultural awareness, and interracial
interaction.
ANTONIO / Diversity and Friendship Groups 65

P REVIOUS R ESEARCH
One group of researchers published a report in the early 1990s that viv-
idly described student experiences with racial diversity at UC Berkeley. In
the process, they coined a term for a phenomenon that has received an in-
ordinate amount of attention by scholars, pundits, and the national me-
dia—balkanization (Duster, 1991). Balkanization, or the tendency for
students to group themselves racially on campus, has received such intense
attention, in part, because it shatters idyllic conceptions of multicultural
race relations. Citing Duster’s findings, conservative commentators like
Dinesh D’Souza (1991) concluded that the multicultural campus experi-
ence is marked by self-segregation and leads to increased ethnocentrism
and racial intolerance. Duster, in contrast, cited group affinity, cultural pride,
ethnic identity development, and academic, social, and professional sup-
port as just some of the benefits experienced by students of color within
campus ethnic enclaves.
Both Duster and D’Souza speculated about the impact of a diverse cam-
pus on students in college, commenting specifically about the presence of
racial and ethnic enclaves. Only limited empirical data, however, directly
support either Duster’s optimistic hopes or D’Souza’s disparaging claims.
And in a time when affirmative action in the name of diversity is being
called into question around the nation, speculation continues while essen-
tial questions concerning the impact of the multicultural campus on stu-
dents remain largely unanswered.
Many of these questions linger because early work has been somewhat
one-dimensional while more recent research on diversity has been rather
broad. Previous studies that have addressed the ethnic and racial diversity
of campus environments have generally focused on the African American
experience in predominantly White institutions but not the college campus
as a multicultural whole (Allen, 1992; Allen, Epps, & Haniff, 1991; Fleming,
1984; Gurin & Epps, 1975). Before the 1980s, there was little specific re-
search interest in whether college students frequently interacted across race,
developed awareness of American ethnic cultures, or left college with stron-
ger commitments to racial understanding. Accordingly, in their compre-
hensive review of college impact literature since the late 1960s, Pascarella
and Terenzini (1991) make no mention of any previous studies of those
outcomes.
A few recent works have addressed the impact of diversity in college from
multiple perspectives. In reviewing these studies, Smith et al. (1997) and
Milem and Hakuta (2000) found that exposure to cultural diversity in the
curriculum, racial diversity in the student body and among faculty, and
social, cultural, and political diversity in race dialogues and cultural work-
shops contribute to greater openness to diversity, higher levels of intellec-
66 THE REVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION FALL 2001

tual engagement, increases in complex thinking, and increased motivation.

A handful of studies has specifically addressed the impact of interracial in-
teraction and its role in developing of cultural awareness and racial under-
standing.
Astin (1993), in a multi-institutional study of college impact, broadly
explored the educational benefits that students accrue from interacting
across race. Holding precollege characteristics constant, he found that so-
cializing with someone of a different race was associated with increases in
cultural awareness, commitment to racial understanding, and commitment
to the environment. Furthermore, Astin found cross-race socialization posi-
tively correlated with higher levels of academic development and greater
satisfaction with college.
Hurtado, Dey, and Treviño (1994), who were primarily interested in the
issue of self-segregation on campus, identified the precollege and college
factors associated with interracial interaction. They found that, controlling
for student background and institutional characteristics, interracial inter-
action was predicted by student involvement in various activities but that
those activities varied across race. For example, interracial interaction was
associated with involvement in residence hall advising for Chicano students
while it was associated for White students with participation in ethnic stu-
dent organizations. In essence, their study underscores the importance for
college students of increasing interracial interaction, a finding confirmed
by Hurtado, Carter, and Sharp (1995).
Chang’s (1996) multi-institutional study of interracial interaction indi-
cated that, in general, greater racial diversity in the student population leads
to greater frequency of socialization across race. In addition, he found that
socialization across race was associated with discussing racial issues in col-
lege, taking ethnic studies courses, attending racial/cultural awareness work-
shops, promoting racial understanding, and believing in the power of
individuals to change society. These associated behaviors and attitudes,
Chang found, directly enhance student retention, college satisfaction, intel-
lectual self-concept, and social self-concept.
The authors summarized above pointed out two important limitations
to their studies. First, since they were unable to pretest cross-race interac-
tion, they suspected that interaction patterns established prior to college
might have biased the results. Second, none of the studies could specify the
racial or ethnic identity of the individuals with whom students were inter-
acting. Since balkanization debates portray students of color segregating
themselves from White students, it is important to differentiate interaction
across race by students of color with White students versus other students
of color of a different race or ethnicity.
An additional limitation of each of these studies is that we know very
little about the nature of interracial interaction. Institutional studies of cam-
ANTONIO / Diversity and Friendship Groups 67

pus diversity have described interracial interactions that are close, others
that are strained, and still others that are quite casual on their multicultural
campuses (e.g., Duster, 1991; UCMI, 1989). The Astin and Chang studies
measured interracial interaction somewhat vaguely, in terms of the frequency
a student has “socialized with someone of a different race/ethnicity” in col-
lege. The Hurtado et al. studies used an improved measure—the frequency
of interracial dating as well as dining, rooming, and studying with someone
of a different race/ethnicity. Though an improvement over Astin and Chang,
even the measures of Hurtado and her colleagues (with the exception of
interracial dating) could not determine whether interracial interactions are
fleeting and occasional, sustained over time, or characterized by any sig-
nificant degree of trust or affect. In other words, these studies provide only
limited insight whether interracial interaction leads to interracial friend-
ship and fail to address what has been recognized as one of the most influ-
ential change agents on campus—student peer and friendship groups (Astin,
1993; Feldman & Newcomb, 1969).
The development of cultural awareness and increased commitment to
racial understanding are outcomes that speak to Harvard President Neil
Rudenstine’s (1996) argument that diversity enhances civic life by instilling
tolerance and mutual respect in students. In a multiple-institution study,
Astin (1993) found that students who engaged in “diversity activities” in
college—discussing racial issues, socializing with someone of a different
race, participating in campus protests, attending racial or ethnic workshops,
and taking women’s or ethnic studies courses—reported greater gains both
in their level of cultural awareness and in their commitment to racial un-
derstanding. This comprehensive list of activities suggests that cultural
awareness and racial understanding depend on varied types of student in-
volvement; however, the first two activities also emphasize the importance
of interpersonal interactions. Milem’s (1994) study of racial understanding
among White students mirrors these results. Like the studies reviewed above,
however, Astin’s and Milem’s studies do not detail the nature of those inter-
personal interactions. Astin also found that campus peer environments high
in materialism and status-seeking had negative effects on cultural aware-
ness while having peers of higher socioeconomic status levels contributed
to greater gains in racial understanding.
Previous studies have also been constrained methodologically. Each of
these studies have been guided by a tradition of college impact literature
that has moved away from single-institution studies of interpersonal influ-
ence toward multi-campus designs that operationalize the student’s social
environment in terms of an entire student body. This methodological para-
digm has contributed tremendously to our understanding of the effects of
college and, in particular, to our recognition of the peer group’s impor-
tance in student development (Astin, 1993; Feldman & Newcomb, 1969;
68 THE REVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION FALL 2001

Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). At the same time, however, this tradition has
tended to draw attention away from studies of actual peer group interac-
tion and influence in college, which the field has not seen in thirty years.
In summary, each of these relatively recent studies emphasizes a connec-
tion between student outcomes concerning diversity/multiculturalism and
student-student interactions. Furthermore, they suggest that the context of
these interactions is important. These studies also raise several questions
about friendship groups, interracial interaction, and the issue of student
balkanization. First, to what extent does socialization within a friendship
group differ from the campus-wide experiences and interactions described
by these more macroscopically focused studies? On larger campuses, does
the interpersonal environment of the friendship group insulate or mediate
the experiences and influences of multicultural college campuses? The im-
plication here is that interactions within friendship groups differ qualita-
tively from interactions with peers and associates because of the greater
degree of emotional closeness and, therefore, salience of the interaction
(Cohen, 1983). Second, previous studies have not controlled for precollege
experiences with diversity, particularly interracial interaction. How impor-
tant are those previous contexts of socialization? Are students from racially
homogeneous neighborhoods more or less likely to engage in cross-racial
interactions in college? Do they maintain close friendships across race? This
point is especially important in balkanization debates because of the claim
that the racial and ethnic diversity of college environments causes students
to self-segregate. Arguments made from this perspective fail to consider
students’ precollege behaviors and orientations. Lastly, in a multicultural
environment, what does cross-racial interaction mean? Going on a few dates?
Having frequent serious conversations about racial issues? Previous studies
have shown that many of these behaviors are associated with one another,
but it is still unclear whether these activities are sustained by, or merely
correlated with, substantial cross-race interaction.
Simplistic images of a racially balkanized campus sketch a lack of inter-
racial interaction, with students retreating into their racially and ethnically
homogeneous sets of friends. Consequently, the need for empirical data on
college friendship groups is clear. The purpose of this study was to gather
data on friendship groups at a single institution and provide a more in-
depth understanding of the nature and impact of interpersonal interaction
on a diverse campus. This study sought to answer two major questions:
1. To what extent do students perceive racial balkanization on a diverse
campus, and to what extent do their closest friendships reflect balkanization?
2. How influential are these friendship groups in students’ development
of racial understanding, cultural awareness, and interracial interaction?
ANTONIO / Diversity and Friendship Groups 69

D ATA /M ETHODS
Because of the complexity of this topic, I limited data collection to a
population of college students attending a single, large, racially diverse in-
stitution—the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)—whose un-
dergraduates were then approximately 40% white, 35% Asian American,
16% Latino, and 6% African American. During the 1996–1997 school year
I surveyed third-year students who had been surveyed as part of the Coop-
erative Institutional Research Program’s (CIRP) annual freshman survey in
1994. The new instrument collected specific information about experiences
within the friendship group, descriptions of the group’s characteristics, and
the group’s racial composition. I also asked respondents to list the names of
fellow students whom they identify as those “with whom you spend most
of your time and consider to be your best friend(s) at UCLA.” With a two-
wave mail administration of the survey to 2,222 students, I achieved a re-
sponse rate of 31%. I dropped four surveys from the sample because of
insufficient or suspect data, yielding a final sample of 677 respondents.
I next retrieved freshman data for individuals whom the respondents
identified as friendship group members. Most of these students had also
participated in the annual freshman surveys. This data allowed me to
operationalize measures of friendship group characteristics as aggregates
of the freshman data for the members of each identified friendship group.
These group aggregates (described below) included measures of academic
ability, socioeconomic status, social activism, social self-confidence, and
materialism. Because it was not possible to obtain 1994 freshman data for
all friendship group members, I retained only those respondents with suffi-
cient friendship group data for analyses involving aggregated friendship
group measures. (For a complete description of the analysis of missing fresh-
man data and the computation of group aggregates, see Antonio, 1998). In
these analyses, the sample size was approximately 400 students. Sample sizes
differ due to a more limited number of respondents with complete friend-
ship group data and listwise deletion of cases in the regression routines.
In all analyses, I applied weights to the data to compensate for
nonresponse bias in the sample. Using the extensive precollege data avail-
able for both respondents and nonrespondents (taken from the 1994 CIRP
freshman survey), I performed a regression analysis to predict the prob-
ability of responding to the follow-up survey based on those data. Borrow-
ing a procedure described by Astin and Molm (1971), I used those
probabilities to calculate weighting factors such that the data of respon-
dents who appeared most similar to nonrespondents in terms of precollege
characteristics (i.e., respondents with lower probabilities of responding)
received larger weights. I also normalized the weights to reflect the actual
sample size of the respondents (n = 677).
70 THE REVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION FALL 2001

I used multiple regression to assess the relative influence of friendship

group characteristics on engaging in interracial interaction outside the
friendship group, students’ commitment to racial understanding, and gains
in cultural awareness. For all equations, I entered independent variables in
three discrete blocks, in accordance with the college impact and socializa-
tion models of Astin (1984) and Weidman (1989). Weidman conceptual-
izes the major influences on student change in college as (a) precollege or
student background characteristics, (b) the academic and social normative
context of an institution, and (c) the impact of parental and noncollege
reference groups. Astin’s conception is similar but emphasizes the central
importance of student involvement (behaviors) in assessing how students
change in college. I used a blocked-entry method to control for background
variables and appropriate pretests before estimating relationships with the
friendship group variables. I entered an additional block of behavioral mea-
sures into the regression equations last to test for relationships with in-
volvement activities outside of the friendship group. For additional
information on the regression model variables, see the Appendix with ac-
companying Tables 1 and 2, and the description below.

V ARIABLES
I derived the three outcome variables from the follow-up survey. (See
Table 1.) The first outcome was a measure of Interracial Interaction. Previ-
ous studies have not determined whether students interacted across race
with good friends or with acquaintances on campus. In this study, data on
the racial composition of students’ friendship groups already provide one
indication of cross-racial interaction that is defined as interaction with a
“best friend.” The purpose of this dependent variable, therefore, was to dis-
tinguish interaction outside of students’ friendship groups.
In other words, students who identify friendship groups (best friends
with whom they interact with most often) that are not racially homoge-
neous are by definition interacting frequently with students of a different
race/ethnicity. In the same way, students in racially homogeneous friend-
ship groups would logically interact less frequently across race if we assume
that they spend much of their time with their friendship group. This por-
trait captures exactly the image of the so-called “ethnic enclave.” This study
sought to collect empirical data on whether the friendship group serves as
an enclave and discourages interracial interaction outside of the confines
of the group.
Interracial Interaction measures how frequently respondents have dated,
studied with, discussed racial issues with, and taken time to learn more
about someone of a different race/ethnicity with students outside of their
friendship group. The sum of responses to these four items served as a mea-
ANTONIO / Diversity and Friendship Groups 71

TABLE 1
OUTCOME MEASURES
Variable Description

Interracial Interaction
(a= .706) Composite measure of activities outside of
friendship groupa:
-Dated someone of a different race/ethnicity
-Studied with someone of a different race/
ethnicity
-Discussed racial issues with someone of a
different race/ethnicity
-Took extra time to learn more about someone
of a different race/ethnicity
Cultural Awareness
(a = .774) Composite measure of self-changeb in:
-Cultural awareness and appreciation
-Desire to learn about different people/cultures
-Understanding of problems faced by different
people
Promoting Racial Understanding Importance of “helping to promote racial
understanding”c

a
3-point scale, “not at all” to “frequently.”
b
5-point scale, “much weaker” to “much stronger.”
c
4-point scale, “not important” to “essential.”

sure of Interracial Interaction. Since an identical pretest was not available

for Interracial Interaction, I created a post-hoc pretest on the follow-up
survey by asking students to describe the racial and ethnic makeup of their
friendship group prior to attending college. Students who identified a ra-
cial context that included only their own race/ethnicity were scored as 1 =
“Low.” Those who identified an additional racial group besides their own
were scored as 2 = “Moderate.” Finally, respondents who cited at least two
racial groups other than their own and those who checked “mixed” were
scored as 3, defined as having had “High” opportunities for cross-racial in-
teraction prior to entering college. As a background variable, this measure
also enhanced the analytical model by providing some control over the self-
selection bias that I assumed was present in the relative degree of diversity
in students’ friendship groups.
The second outcome measure addresses the contention that students on
multicultural campuses, particularly students of color, segregate themselves
socially and as a result become more ethnocentric (D’Souza, 1991). I devel-
72 THE REVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION FALL 2001

oped a new measure of Cultural Awareness for this study to assess the valid-
ity of that hypothesis. A “self-change” question on the follow-up survey
asked students to rate how much they have changed on a number of per-
sonal qualities since their freshman year. I selected three items from that
question and created a composite variable to measure changes in Cultural
Awareness. One drawback to this outcome is that no matching pretest was
administered in the 1994 CIRP freshman survey. Previous researchers, how-
ever, have found modest validity with measures of this type (Anaya, 1992;
Astin, 1993).
The last outcome measure replicates earlier research (Astin, 1993; Milem,
1994) and was intended to measure students’ attitudes toward racial dy-
namics. The measure assessed the importance students place on “helping
to promote racial understanding.” This question was identically pretested
in the 1994 CIRP freshman survey.
I chose the first block of independent variables as (a) controls for
precollege characteristics shown to be correlated to the three outcome vari-
ables in the studies cited above, and (b) individual-level controls for friend-
ship-group-level variables to eliminate self-selection effects (Burstein, 1980;
Cohen, 1983). Precollege variables include gender, race (White/student of
color), and composite measures of socioeconomic status (SES) and Aca-
demic Ability. Three additional composite measures of individual value
orientations (Social Self-confidence, Social Activism, and Materialism and
Status) correspond to analogous group-level measures. I derived these mea-
sures from an exploratory factor analysis of student values performed on
the freshman data.
The variable of primary interest among friendship group variables is
Friendship Group Diversity. Using the racial and ethnic composition infor-
mation supplied by respondents, I defined degrees of racial diversity by the
percentage of the largest racial or ethnic group represented in the friend-
ship group:
1. Homogeneous—the largest racial/ethnic group makes up 100% of the
friendship group
2. Predominantly one race/ethnicity—the largest racial/ethnic group
makes up 75–99% of the friendship group
3. Majority one race/ethnicity—the largest racial/ethnic group makes up
51–74% of the friendship group
4. No majority—the largest racial/ethnic group makes up 50% or less of
the friendship group
I applied these definitions only to friendship groups consisting of two or
more students, eliminating friendship groups consisting of just one best
friend. Because the number of “best friends” that respondents could iden-
tify on the follow-up survey was limited to seven, the measure of Friend-
ship Group Diversity was not truly continuous but discretely continuous.
ANTONIO / Diversity and Friendship Groups 73

Therefore, I used an ordinal scale (1 = “homogeneous,” to 4 = “no major-

ity”) to avoid the somewhat artifactual distinctions between, for example, a
group where 4 of 5 (80%) students were of the same race/ethnicity and a
group where 6 of 7 (86%) were of the same race/ethnicity. Note that since
larger friendship groups are theoretically more likely to be racially/ethni-
cally diverse from a probabilistic standpoint, I included the size of friend-
ship groups as a friendship group variable to control for this possible
confound.2
It is important to note that I operationalized Friendship Group Diver-
sity on the basis of ethnicity. In other words, the eight Asian American and
two Latino ethnic groups were not collapsed into broad, singular catego-
ries. This methodological decision primarily impacts Asian American stu-
dents, since the various Asian ethnic groups together compose over 40% of
the sample. I based this decision on the results of the pilot study conducted
for this research in which I found that, on the UCLA campus, Asian Ameri-
can students do distinguish between specific Asian American ethnicities in
their friendship selection; and furthermore, those distinctions sometimes
surfaced in the form of intergroup stereotypes (Antonio, 1996).
I derived the five remaining friendship group measures from freshman
data. They are group-level aggregates of SES, Academic Ability, Social Self-
confidence, Social Activism, and Materialism and Status. On these aggre-
gated friendship group measures, I did not include characteristics of the
student respondent in the group average. This method assumes that the
friendship group measures represent the interpersonal environment, ex-
clusive of the student, and also reduces problems of collinearity that occur
when individual scores are used in the creation of aggregated group-level
variables.
The final block of independent variables recognizes research that em-
phasizes the mediating role of behavior and student-student interaction in
socialization (Astin, 1984; Weidman, 1989). Five dichotomous measures of
involvement activities were included in this block. Drawing from Astin
(1993), Milem (1994), Springer et al. (1996), and Pascarella et al. (1996), I
incorporated into the model four “diversity activities” (taking ethnic or
women’s studies courses, participating in an ethnic student organization,
and/or taking a cultural awareness workshop), membership in Greek orga-
nizations, and commuting regularly to campus because of their demon-
strated associations with the three outcome variables. Finally, to contrast
the influence of best friends with socialization agents outside of the friend-
ship group, I chose two additional measures of student interaction. The
first was a composite measure of discussing issues of difference and diver-
2
The calculated correlation between friendship group size and diversity turned out to be
insignificant (r=0.6, p=.16).
74 THE REVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION FALL 2001

sity with students outside of the friendship group, and the second was the
measure of interracial interaction described above (used only in the analy-
ses of Cultural Awareness and Promoting Racial Understanding).

L IMITATIONS
Two factors limit the scope of this study. Perhaps the most important is
the decision to operationalize diversity in the friendship group by ethnicity.
An alternate definition that collapses Asian American and Latino ethnic
groups into their broader respective categories significantly affects whether
a friendship group is considered to be “homogeneous” or more or less “di-
verse.” I carefully considered the population and the social, cultural, and
political context of the study before deciding not to collapse ethnic groups
into umbrella categories. The approach taken in this study, which I recom-
mend for future studies, included completing a pilot study focused on un-
derstanding how members of the target population define diversity,
homogeneity, race, and ethnicity, and on an assessment of the social environ-
ment’s racial and ethnic organization. As the environments we study be-
come more diverse, these assessments of meaning become more and more
critical in our attempts to conduct research that most closely reflects people’s
experiences. Because quantitative studies, in particular, will always be flawed
in this respect to some degree, it is particularly important to constantly
refine methodologies and explore new ones. All of the results in this study
rest upon the exact manner in which friendship group diversity was
operationalized.
The results presented here are also limited to the context of a single insti-
tution. I selected this institution as a research site because of its diverse
student body, its participation in the CIRP Freshman Survey, and its repu-
tation as a diverse campus. The findings of this study may not be generaliz-
able to other institutions, even institutions with similar diversity in its
undergraduate student body. Because the study was not multi-institutional,
it was also not possible to incorporate other environmental factors (the
campus racial climate, for example) that are likely to be important in stud-
ies of campus diversity.

R ACIAL B ALKANIZATION AND THE D IVERSITY

OF F RIENDSHIP G ROUPS

Table 2 displays the data on the racial/ethnic diversity of friendship groups.

Overall, just 17% or about one in six students reported having racially and
ethnically homogeneous friendship groups. Homogeneous groups consid-
erably outnumber groups with predominantly one race or ethnicity, how-
ever, and together the two types of groups account for over one-quarter of
ANTONIO / Diversity and Friendship Groups 75

TABLE 2
RACIAL/ETHNIC DIVERSITY OF FRIENDSHIP GROUPS
Percentage of
Men Women Total
(n=303) (n=335) (n=638)

Homogenous 18.5 15.8 17.1

Predominantly one race/ethnicity 10.2 9.0 9.6
Majority one race/ethnicity 26.7 28.4 27.6
No majority 44.6 46.9 45.8

Notes: Data shown are weighted. No statistically significant relationships with “gender” were found.

the sample. The most common friendship group is racially and ethnically
mixed; no racial or ethnic group constitutes a majority. Almost half the
sample (46%) described friendship groups of this type. Men and women
do not appear to differ on the degree of racial diversity in their friendship
groups.
Table 3 describes the ethnic and racial makeup of friendship groups for
nine separate racial/ethnic groups. Because most of the groups in the table
did not yield statistically significant distributions with respect to Friend-
ship Group Diversity, it was not possible to ascertain a reliable relationship
between racial makeup and student race/ethnicity for those groups. Afri-
can American students are the most likely to report racially/ethnically ho-
mogeneous friendship groups, and correspondingly, they are the least likely
to have friendship groups that lack any majority racial or ethnic group.
Nearly one in three White students also report having racially homoge-
neous friendship groups, although this result is not surprising, since White
students constitute by far the most numerous of all nine groups on the
UCLA campus.
Japanese American and Filipino students, on the other hand, are the least
likely of all groups in the sample to have a homogeneous set of best friends
and the most likely to report the most racially and ethnically diverse friend-
ship groups. A majority of Chinese American students (54%) also identi-
fied a diverse set of students as their best friends on campus.
The preceding results clearly indicate that, at the level of student friend-
ship groups, racial and ethnic balkanization is not a dominant, overall cam-
pus characteristic. Among a particular group of students, African Americans,
same-race friendships may be much more common, but generally the data
 76
TABLE 3
FRIENDSHIP GROUP DIVERSITY BY RACE/ETHNICITY
Percentage Among

Group White African Mexican Other Chinese East Japanese Korean Filipino
Diversity Am. Am. Latino Am. Indian Am. Am.
n=205 n=19 n=59 n=38 n=114 n=15 n=15 n=63 n=33

Homogeneous 28.3 41.1 8.5 10.5 12.3 26.7 6.7 15.9 9.1
Predominantly
one race/ethnicity 9.8 10.5 6.8 39.5 6.1 6.7 0.0 14.3 3.0
Majority one
race/ethnicity 29.3 21.1 35.6 15.8 28.1 13.3 13.3 36.5 18.2
No majority 32.7 26.3 49.2 34.2 53.5 53.3 80.0 33.3 69.7
Significance
levela ** * ns ns ns ns ns ns *

Note: Data shown are weighted.

a
Statistical significance of the chi-square distribution of “group diversity” across the specific racial/ethnic group:
**p <. 01
*p < .0
THE REVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION

ns = nonsignificant
FALL 2001
ANTONIO / Diversity and Friendship Groups 77

TABLE 4
STUDENT VIEWS ON RACIAL BALKANIZATION AT UCLA
Percentage amonga
Men Women Total
(n=311) (n=366) (n=677)

Students on campus are predominantly

clustered by race/ethnicity** 95.8 90.4 92.9
Students rarely socialize across
racial lines** 58.3 46.3 51.9

Notes: Data shown are weighted. Statistically significant relationships with “gender” indicated by
**p < .01
a
Students who “agree strongly” or “agree somewhat”

show campus-wide diversity among friendships. Perceptions of ethnic and

racial clustering among other students, however, may not necessarily show
a similar pattern. Table 4 shows that this is precisely the case. First, as many
critics of diverse college campuses have claimed, undergraduates at UCLA
overwhelmingly believe that the campus is segregated by race and ethnicity.
Clustering, according to students, is not equivalent to interracial inter-
action. Only about half of the sample believe that their fellow students in-
frequently interact across race. Furthermore, more men than women tend
to perceive UCLA as a racially segregated campus. The same distribution
with respect to the racial and ethnic makeup of the friendship group indi-
cates no relationship to perceptions of campus balkanization (Table 5).

F RIENDSHIP G ROUP I NFLUENCE

Table 6 summarizes the results of the three regression analyses. It shows
regression coefficients for the independent variables when all precollege
characteristics are controlled (model 1) and when precollege characteris-
tics, friendship group characteristics, and student involvement variables are
controlled (model 2). Note that in the columns for model 1, the entries are
the standardized coefficients for each independent variable if it would have
been added to the movel next. Where model 1 variables are concerned,
friendship group diversity is positively associated with each of the three
dependent variables, after controlling for precollege characteristics. None
of the other measures of the friendship group environment exhibits such
consistent relationships.
78 THE REVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION FALL 2001

TABLE 5
STUDENT VIEWS ON RACIAL BALKANIZATION AT UCLA
BY FRIENDSHIP GROUP DIVERSITY

Percentage amonga
Homogeneous Predominantly Majority No
One Race One Race Majority
(n=109) (n=61) (n=175) (n=290)

Students on campus are 94.4 98.4 94.3 93.9

predominantly clustered
by race/ethnicity
Students rarely socialize across 51.9 59.0 56.6 49.3
racial lines

Notes: Data shown are weighted. No statistically significant relationships with “friendship group
diversity” were found.
a
Students who “agree strongly” or “agree somewhat.”

In fact, with respect to these diversity-related outcomes, group charac-

teristics other than diversity have only negative effects. Students whose
friendship groups are higher in materialism and social self-confidence tend
to report lower gains in cultural awareness in the first two years of college.
Furthermore, greater social self-confidence in the friendship group appar-
ently weakens commitments to racial understanding.
The model 1 coefficients also show a number of student behaviors that
are associated with interracial interaction, gains in cultural awareness, and
commitment to racial understanding. As in Astin’s (1993) multi-institu-
tional study, taking ethnic and/or women’s studies courses and participat-
ing in cultural awareness workshops are significantly related to each of three
outcomes. The additional variable developed for this study, Difference &
Diversity Conversations, exhibits the same pattern of consistent relation-
ships. Participating in an ethnic student organization, while associated with
gains in cultural awareness and commitment to racial understanding, indi-
cates neither greater nor lower frequency of interracial interaction outside
the friendship group. Two activities, commuting and involvement in Greek
organizations, are negatively related to engaging in interracial interaction.
As Milem (1994) has shown previously, Greek membership is also nega-
tively related to commitment to racial understanding.
ANTONIO / Diversity and Friendship Groups 79

TABLE 6
STANDARDIZED REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS FOR
FRIENDSHIP GROUP CHARACTERISTICS AND STUDENT
INVOLVEMENT VARIABLES
Interracial Cultural Promoting Racial
Interaction Awareness Understanding

Beta for modela Beta for modela Beta for modela

(1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2)

Friendship Group Characteristics

Friendship group size .01 -.03 .05 .04 .02 .02
Friendship group diversity .27*** .23*** .11* .03 .10* .03
Friendship group SES .03 .06 .02 .06 -.04 -.01
Friendship group academic ability -.07 -.11* .01 -.02 .02 -.01
Friendship group social self-confidence .01 .09 -.09* -.07 -.10* -.04
Friendship group social activism -.01 -.08 -.08 -.05 -.02 -.05
Friendship group materialism and status -.05 .06 -.13** -.09† -.07 -.03

Student Involvement Variables

Participated in a fraternity/sorority -.12* -.07 -.06 .02 -.15** -.06
Participated in an ethnic student
organization .06 .05 .20*** .18** .17*** .11*
Took an ethnic studies course .09† .05 .16** .06 .16*** .07
Took a women’s studies course .13* .03 .12** .04 .17*** .08
Attended a cultural awareness
workshop .14** .06 .14** .06 .14** .05
Commuted to campus regularly -.12* -.12** -.07 -.07 .06 .05
Difference and diversity conversations .28*** .25*** .13** .07 .24*** .19***
Interracial interaction outside
friendship group — — .26*** .18*** .18*** .09*

Adjusted R-squared .241 .218 .409

n 418 423 413

a
Entries are the standardized regression coefficients for each independent variable, controlling first
for all precollege characteristics (model 1) and second for all precollege characteristics, friendship
group characteristics, and student involvement variables (model 2). ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05,
†
p < .07

Analysis of the results for the full model (model 2) provides insight into
the dynamics of friendship group influence by illustrating the mediating
effects of behavior outside of the friendship group. In the analysis of inter-
racial interaction, the effect of friendship group diversity appears to be “di-
rect.” That is, the effect remains significant even after controlling for such
80 THE REVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION FALL 2001

behavioral correlates to interracial interaction as engaging in conversations

about political and social views, racism, and women’s rights. On the other
hand, racial diversity in the friendship group appears to affect cultural aware-
ness and commitment to racial understanding indirectly, losing statistical
significance when specific behaviors influencing socialization are controlled
for—particularly interracial interaction, participation in an ethnic student
organization, and engaging in conversations concerning difference and di-
versity. In other words, students who have racially diverse friendships are
more likely to engage in the types of interactions with students beyond that
circle of friends who contribute to greater cultural awareness and racial
understanding. The negative effects of friendship group social self-confi-
dence also appear to be mediated by student behavior. Two friendship group
characteristics, academic ability and materialism, exhibit direct, negative
effects on interracial interaction and gains in cultural awareness, respec-
tively.
Many of the involvement measures also lose significance in model 2, in-
dicating at least partial intercorrelations between these variables and friend-
ship group environments and among the behavioral measures themselves.
With regard to interracial interaction, however, two points are clear. First,
above and beyond other behaviors that previous research have shown are
important in developing increased cultural awareness and commitment to
racial understanding, socialization across race in a specific context—out-
side the comfortable, perhaps routine interactions with best friends—is not
only an important behavioral correlate to these outcomes but is also en-
hanced by having interracial friendships. Second, regardless of the degree
of diversity among a student’s best friends, commuting regularly to campus
and having a high-achieving friendship group apparently limit interracial
socialization beyond the friendship group and, therefore, also limit the de-
velopmental benefits of such interaction. The direct effects exhibited by
participation in ethnic student organizations and having conversations about
diversity replicate similar findings in previous research (Astin, 1993; Milem,
1994).

D ISCUSSION
Perhaps the most striking finding of this study is the discrepancy be-
tween perceptions of racial balkanization and the relatively high degree of
interracial friendship among students. Clearly, students experience diver-
sity on both a behavioral and perceptual level, and these experiences may
differ and even contradict each other. These two experiences contribute to
a distinctive racial context in which students are educated. Hurtado and
her colleagues (1998) have identified this context as the behavioral and psy-
chological dimensions of the campus climate for diversity.
ANTONIO / Diversity and Friendship Groups 81

The behavioral dimension is essentially the nature of intergroup rela-

tions and general interaction among students of different racial and ethnic
groups. In this study, the behavioral dimension of the climate for diversity
looks positive. Students exhibit what appears to be a general pattern of
strongly amicable interracial and interethnic relationships. Furthermore,
students on this multicultural college campus have numerous opportuni-
ties for interracial interaction beyond the comfort zone of the friendship
group—student organizations, dining halls, study groups, course laborato-
ries, campus jobs, student government, recreational sports, campus-spon-
sored events, and others. The psychological dimension of the climate for
diversity, however, may inhibit or discourage students from taking advan-
tage of these opportunities.
The psychological dimension includes institutional responses to diver-
sity, perceptions of racial conflict and intergroup behavior, and attitudes
toward people of different racial and ethnic groups. Like the study of diver-
sity at UC Berkeley (Duster, 1991), students in this study overwhelmingly
see their campus as racially and ethnically segregated. As a consequence,
students with diverse friendship groups frequently think of themselves as
the exceptions in an otherwise racially divided student community (Anto-
nio, 1998). In other words, the perceived norm is balkanization and a cam-
pus racial climate characterized by intergroup stereotyping, tensions, and
conflict over scarce campus resources (Duster, 1991). The potential effect
of this perception on socialization is disheartening. Even though a majority
of students in this study do not have racially homogeneous friendship
groups, the norms for socialization communicated by the psychological
dimension of the climate for diversity may attenuate the positive effects of
the behavioral dimension demonstrated in this study. Furthermore, a per-
sistent perception of balkanization may also have negative effects on be-
havior itself, reducing the prevalence of interracial friendship throughout
the campus (Duster, 1991; Loo & Rolison, 1986). Conceptually, this line of
reasoning supports the recommendation of Hurtado et al. (1998) that, even
though the psychological and behavioral dimensions of the climate for di-
versity are interrelated, campuses need to address each of element distinctly
and concurrently.
The striking discrepancy between perceptions of racial balkanization and
the prevalence of diverse friendships in this study highlights a tremendous
opportunity to improve campus racial climates and to reduce perceptual
barriers to interracial interaction. What many believe to be balkanization
on the campus studied here appears to be surface segregation. In a compan-
ion qualitative study to this quantitative one, all informants mentioned eth-
nic clustering on campus and identified specific areas where various ethnic
groups congregated (Antonio, 1998).
82 THE REVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION FALL 2001

The contradiction between these observations and the ubiquity of friend-

ship groups without a majority ethnic or racial group can be partially un-
derstood by simply “redefining” diversity. Using an alternate definition that
collapses Asian American ethnic groups into a single category and Chicano
and other Latino students into a single category significantly changes the
distribution of different types of friendship groups. Under this definition,
the proportion of friendship groups that are racially homogeneous increases
from 17 to 30%. Although the majority of friendship groups are still not
homogeneous, it may be that the normative expectation of balkanization is
easily validated by observing the outward appearances of this subset of the
population. The fact that students’ perceptions of segregation are not me-
diated by their own interpersonal experiences suggests how powerful cam-
pus images of a minority of the undergraduate student body can be in
shaping the psychological dimension of the campus climate. A more com-
plex and contextualized meaning of diversity may be lost to students if they
accept the surface imagery and popular wisdom that ethnic minority stu-
dents “self-segregate” into ethnic enclaves (Duster, 1991).
Previous research has shown that a strong institutional commitment to
diversity can substantially improve perceptions of race relations on a cam-
pus (Hurtado, 1992). Because the appearance of racial balkanization on a
diverse campus can have such a strong impression on the psychological
dimension of the campus climate, simply enrolling a diverse student body
may be viewed as a weak or even token institutional commitment to diver-
sity. The persistence of perceived segregation may further confirm to stu-
dents a limited or shallow institutional commitment to diversity and
exacerbate the climate further. The opportunity to improve the psychologi-
cal dimension of campus climate, therefore, lies in giving students infor-
mation about the actual extent and nature of interracial friendships on
campus and unambiguously supporting diverse student interaction. Stu-
dents and administrators together need to peel back the surface layers of
student interaction and discover the realities of student life beneath the
images of racial segregation and division. And administrators need to en-
sure that these realities are effectively communicated to students through
orientation programs, the campus newspaper, and other media. Adminis-
trators can also demonstrate commitment by clearly stating policies against
discrimination and harassment, offering ample opportunities for cross-
racial interaction, and regularly assessing the campus climate for diversity
(Hurtado et al., 1998).
In response to controversy over the racial balkanization of college cam-
puses and claims concerning the developmental aspects of a diverse cam-
pus, this study focused on the role of the friendship group in developing
three “diversity-related” outcomes—interracial interaction, cultural aware-
ness, and commitment to racial understanding. While the descriptive analysis
ANTONIO / Diversity and Friendship Groups 83

helps to clarify the extent to which interracial interaction (i.e., friendships)

occurs on a racially diverse campus, the multivariate results help to un-
cover the developmental benefits of student diversity. Simply put, diversity
in the student body appears to give students the opportunity to develop
close friendships with people of different races and ethnicities. The racial
and ethnic diversity that characterizes the interpersonal environment pro-
vided by these close peers clearly affects students in a unique manner. Com-
pared to aspects of a student’s interpersonal environment defined by
academic ability, socioeconomic status, values, and personality, racial di-
versity exhibits the most consistent, positive relationships with the three
outcomes studied here.
This study also improves our understanding of diversity with its focus
on socialization within friendship groups. Previous studies of student ex-
posure to diversity were limited primarily to (a) macroscopic approaches,
or a focus on the structural diversity of the student body, (b) studies of
interracial interaction of unspecified context, and (c) the impact of specific
interventions such as race dialogues and workshops. The results reported
here suggest that the impact of diversity in the student body operates through
the development of interracial friendship and socialization within a close,
interpersonal environment that is characterized by racial and ethnic diver-
sity.
The results also demonstrate how diversity might influence student val-
ues and learning. The strong relationship between friendship group diver-
sity and interracial interaction outside the friendship group suggests that
developing interracial friendships encourages students to venture more fre-
quently outside their circle of best friends to socialize across race. In other
words, diversity in the friendship group works to define interracial interac-
tion as a norm for expected behavior. Interracial interaction beyond the
friendship group, in turn, is strongly associated with another specific type
of interaction, discussing issues of difference and diversity. These interac-
tions with diversity and their positive effects are the “fruits” of efforts to
diversify college campuses and, as this study demonstrates, are born out of
the many interracial friendships that characterize a multicultural campus
community. Furthermore, unlike other positive correlates to the develop-
ment of cultural awareness and racial understanding (such as taking ethnic
and women’s studies courses, participating in ethnic student organizations,
and attending cultural awareness workshops), these interracial interactions
are informal and relevant to all students on a diverse campus, not just those
few who choose to participate in formal courses or workshops. The poten-
tial for student body diversity to positively affect cross-cultural knowledge
and understanding, through the mediating interpersonal context of best
friends, appears to be a promising effect of college within the reach of all
students.
84 THE REVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION FALL 2001

A PPENDIX
V ARIABLES IN THE R EGRESSION M ODELS
Precollege Characteristics
Racial diversity of precollege friends 3-point scale, “low” to “high”
Commitment to racial understanding (pretest) 4-point scale, “not important”
to “essential”
Gender-female 1 = male, 2 = female
Student of color (race) 1 = white, 2 = student of color
SES (composite, see Appendix Table 1) 3-item composite scale scored
3 to 30
Academic ability (composite, see 2-item composite scale scored
Appendix Table 1) 2 to 13
Social self-confidence (composite, see 5-point scale, “lowest 10%”
Appendix Table 1) to “highest 10%”
Social activism (composite, see Appendix Table 1) 10-item composite scale
scored 10 to 40
Materialism and status (composite, see 6-item composite scale scored
Appendix Table 1) 6 to 24

Friendship Group Characteristics

Friendship group racial diversity 4-point scale, “homogeneous”
to “no majority”
Friendship group SES Group average
Friendship group academic ability Group average
Friendship group social self-confidence Group average
Friendship group social activism Group average
Friendship group materialism and status Group average

Involvement Variables
Involvement in: (dichotomous) 1 = no, 2 = yes
Fraternity/sorority
Commuting
Ethnic student organization
Ethnic studies courses
Women’s studies courses
Cultural awareness workshop
ANTONIO / Diversity and Friendship Groups 85

Difference and diversity conversations 7 = item composite scale

(outside friendship group) scored 7 to 21 (see Appen-
dix Table 1)
Interracial interaction (outside friendship group) 4-item composite scale
scored 4 to 12 (not used in
analysis of interracial inter-
action)
APPENDIX TABLE 1
COMPOSITE MEASURES

Composite Variable Constituent Variables Factor Loading

Group: SES Mother’s educationa N/A

(a = .803) Father’s educationa
Family incomeb

Group: Academic Ability SAT composite scorec N/A

(a = .459) High school gradesd

Social Self-Confidence Social self-esteem self-ratinge .74

(a = .689) Popularity self-ratinge .70
Leadership self-ratinge .67

Social Activism Goal: participate in a community action programf .76

(a = .782) Goal: promote racial understandingf .69
Goal: become involved in programs to clean up the
environmentf .64
Goal: become a community leaderf .59
Goal: help others who are in difficultyf .58

Materialism & Status Goal: obtain recognition from colleaguesf .67

(a = .689) Goal: become an authority in my fieldf .65
Goal: be very well off financiallyf .60
Goal: have administrative responsibility over othersf .53
Goal: be successful in my own businessf .41

Difference & Diversity Conversations (outside friendship group)

(a = .843) Discuss your political and social viewsg .76
Discuss racism and discrimination in societyg .74
Discuss women’s rightsg .72
Discuss gay, lesbian, bisexual issuesg .69
Discuss national politicsg .68
Discuss points of view you disagree withg .63
Discuss the rights of the disabledg .62

a
8-point scale, “grammar school or less” to “graduate degree.”
b
14-point scale, “less than $6000” to “$200,000 or more.”
c
5-point scale, 400 points to 1600 points.
d
8-point scale, “A or A+” to “D.”
e
5-point scale, “lowest 10%” to “highest 10%.”
f
4-point scale, “not important” to “essential.” Racial understanding removed from composite when
used as a dependent variable.
g
3-point scale, “not at all” to “frequently.”
86 THE REVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION FALL 2001

APPENDIX TABLE 2
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF VARIABLES
Variable Mean Standard Deviation

Precollege Characteristics
Racial diversity of precollege friends 1.78 0.79
Commitment to racial understanding (pretest) 2.48 0.87
Gender-female 1.52 0.50
Student of color (race) 1.67 0.47
SES 20.10 6.59
Academic ability 10.21 1.25
Social self-confidence 10.87 1.81
Social activism 11.87 2.74
Materialism and status 13.23 2.76

Friendship Group Characteristics

Friendship group size 5.61 1.71
Friendship group racial diversity 2.95 1.12
Friendship group SES 20.91 4.18
Friendship group academic ability 10.21 0.99
Friendship group social self-confidence 10.82 1.38
Friendship group social activism 11.87 1.80
Friendship group materialism and status 13.33 1.61

Involvement Variables
Involvement in: (dichotomous)
Fraternity/sorority 1.26 0.44
Commuting 1.27 0.44
Ethnic student organization 1.43 0.50
Ethnic studies courses 1.50 0.50
Women’s studies courses 1.20 0.40
Cultural awareness workshop 1.24 0.43
Difference & diversity conversations 13.18 3.11
(outside friendship group)
Interracial interaction 7.39 2.04
(outside friendship group)
Cultural awareness 11.46 2.10
Promoting racial understanding 2.62 0.87
ANTONIO / Diversity and Friendship Groups 87

R EFERENCES
Allen, W. R. (1992). The color of success: African-American college student out-
comes at predominantly White and historically Black public colleges and
universities. Harvard Educational Review, 62(1), 26–44.
Allen, W. R., Epps, E. G., & Haniff, N. Z. (Eds.). (1991). College in Black and White:
African American students in predominantly White and in historically Black
public universities. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Altbach, P. G. (1991). The racial dilemma in American higher education. In P. G.
Altbach & K. Lomotey (Eds.), The racial crisis in American higher education
(pp. 3–17). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Altbach, P. G., & Lomotey, K. (Eds.) (1991). The racial crisis in American higher
education. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Anaya, G. (1992). Cognitive development among college undergraduates. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Antonio, A. L. (1996). Racial balkanization, multiculturalism, and student develop-
ment. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Los Angeles.
Antonio, A. L. (1998). The impact of friendship groups in a multicultural university.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher edu-
cation. Journal of College Student Personnel 25, 297–308.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W., & Molm, L. D. (1971). Correcting for response bias in follow-up surveys.
Unpublished manuscript, Graduate School of Education, University of Cali-
fornia, Los Angeles.
Botstein, L. (1991). The undergraduate curriculum and the issue of race: Opportu-
nities and obligations. In Altbach & Lomotey, pp. 89–105.
Burstein, L. (1980). The analysis of multilevel data in educational research and
evaluation. In D. Berliner (Ed.), Review of Research in Education (Vol. 8, pp.
158–223). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Chang, M. J. (1996). Racial diversity in higher education: Does a racially mixed stu-
dent population affect educational outcomes? Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion, University of California, Los Angeles.
Cohen, J. (1983). Commentary: The relationship between friendship selection and
peer influence. In J. L. Epstein & N. Karweit (Eds.), Friends in school (pp.
163–176). New York: Academic Press.
CPEC. (1995). Higher Education Performance Report, 1995. Sacramento: California
Postsecondary Education Commission.
Dalton, J. C. (1991). Racial and ethnic backlash in college peer culture. In J. Dalton
(Ed.), Racism on campus: Confronting racial bias through peer interventions
(pp. 3–12). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
D’Souza, D. (1991). Illiberal education: The politics of race and sex on campus. New
York: Free Press.
Duster, T. (1991). The diversity project: Final report. Berkeley: Institute for the Study
of Social Change, University of California, Berkeley.
88 THE REVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION FALL 2001

Feldman, K., & Newcomb, T. (1969). The impact of college on students. San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fleming, J. (1984). Blacks in college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gurin, P., & Epps, E. G. (1975). Black consciousness, identity, and achievement. New
York: Wiley and Sons.
Hively, R. (1990). The lurking evil: Racial and ethnic conflict on the college campus.
Washington, DC: American Association of State Colleges and Universities.
Hurtado, S. (1992). Campus racial climates: Contexts of conflict. Journal of Higher
Education 63(5), 539–569.
Hurtado, S., Carter, D. F., & Sharp, S. (1995, May). Social interaction on campus:
Differences among self-perceived ability groups. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Association for Institutional Research, Boston.
Hurtado, S., Dey, E. L., & Treviño, J. G. (1994, April). Exclusion or self-segregation?
Interaction across racial/ethnic groups on college campuses. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans.
Hurtado, S., Milem, J. F., Clayton-Pedersen, A. R., & Allen, W. R. (1998). Enhancing
campus climates for racial/ethnic diversity: Educational policy and practice.
Review of Higher Education, 21(3), 279–302.
Justiz, M. J. (1994). Demographic trends and the challenges to American higher
education. In M. J. Justiz, R. Wilson, & L. G. Björk (Eds.), Minorities in higher
education (pp. 1–21). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.
Levine, A., & Associates (1989). Shaping higher education’s future: Demographic re-
alities and opportunities, 1990–2000. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Loo, C. M., & Rolison, G. (1986). Alienation of ethnic minority students at a pre-
dominantly white university. Journal of Higher Education, 57(1), 58–77.
Milem, J. F. (1994). College, students, and racial understanding. Thought and Ac-
tion, 9(2), 51–92.
Milem, J. F., & Hakuta, K. (2000). The benefits of racial and ethnic diversity in
higher education. In D. Wilds (author), Minorities in higher education: Sev-
enteenth annual status report (pp. 39–67). Washington, DC: American Coun-
cil on Education.
Pascarella, E. T., Edison, M., Nora, A., Hagedorn, L. S., & Terenzini, P. T. (1996).
Influences on students’ openness to diversity and challenge in the first year
of college. Journal of Higher Education, 67(2), 174–195.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rudenstine, N. (1996, April 19). Why a diverse student body is so important.
Chronicle of Higher Education, 42(32), B1–B2.
Rudolph, F. (1965). The American college and university: A history. New York: Vin-
tage.
Smith, D. G., with Gerbick, G. L., Figueroa, M. A., Watikins, G. H., Levitan, T.,
Moore, L. C., Merchant, P. A., Beliak, H. D., & Figueroa, B. (1997). Diversity
works: The emerging picture of how students benefit. Washington, DC: Asso-
ciation of American Colleges and Universities.
ANTONIO / Diversity and Friendship Groups 89

Sowell, Thomas. (1989). Affirmative action: A worldwide disaster. Commentary,

88(6), 21–41.
Springer, L., Palmer, B., Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella, E. T., & Nora, A. (1996). Atti-
tudes toward campus diversity: Participation in a racial or cultural aware-
ness workshop. Review of Higher Education, 20(1), 53–68.
UCMI (University Committee on Minority Issues). (1989). Building a multiracial,
multicultural university community: Final report of the University Committee
on Minority Issues. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
University of California, Office of the President. (1991). Domestic student enroll-
ment tables, 1984–1990. Oakland: University of California.
Weidman, J. (1989). Undergraduate socialization: A conceptual approach. In J. Smart
(Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 5, pp. 289–
322). New York: Agathon.
Young, C. F. (1995, October 4). Young urges students to reach out in support of
alternative action. Daily Bruin. Retrieved May 6, 1996 from http://
www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/95/10.04/view.young.html.