NC State logo

North Carolina State University
2010 Campus Climate Survey (Undergraduate)
Section F: Shaping Attitudes about Diversity

Tables of Results
by Student Demographic Profile

The following tables provide results to questions in Section F: Shaping Attitudes about Diversity, broken down by academic class, gender, race/ethnicity, residency, socioeconomic background, college generation, sexual orientation, disability status, and age1. Statistically significant differences (p>.05) between groups (e.g., between women and men) are noted with an asterisk (*). For exact question wording for this section, click here.

To download an MS Word document with results by demographic profile, click here.


Campus Climate Survey Table of Contents | Annotated Questionnaire | Section F by Academic College

F1a-d: Influences on thinking about diversity: Interactions at NC State F1k: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interactions with staff/administrators'
F1e: Influence on thinking about diversity: Course materials F1l: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interactions with/messages from administration
F1f: Influence on thinking about diversity: Friendships/acquaintances F1m: Influence on thinking about diversity: Family/home town experiences
F1g: Influence on thinking about diversity: Living in residence halls F2: Extent to which Common Reading contrib to appreciation/awareness of diversity
F1h-i: Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus orgs/clubs/activities/events F3a-f: Influence of NC State understanding of diversity and behavior related to diversity
F1j: Influence on thinking about diversity: College/department activities/events F3g-l: Influence of NC State: Working/interacting with people of diverse backgrounds

F1a: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interacation with students in class

  Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Total (N) 3.9 23.5% 48.2% 25.5% 2.2% 0.6% 2,618


F1a: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interacation with students in class Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Academic Class 4.0 25.4% 47.0% 26.1% 1.3% 0.3% 690
.....Freshman
.....Sophomore 3.9 24.5% 47.9% 24.8% 1.9% 0.9% 576
.....Junior 3.9 22.5% 50.3% 25.1% 1.6% 0.5% 573
.....Senior 3.9 22.0% 47.9% 25.8% 3.7% 0.6% 779


F1a: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interacation with students in class Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Gender* 3.8 19.8% 47.2% 29.8% 2.3% 0.9% 1,169
.....Male
.....Female 4.0 26.6% 48.9% 22.1% 2.1% 0.3% 1,449


F1a: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interacation with students in class Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity* 4.0 28.5% 47.2% 20.7% 2.6% 1.0% 193
.....African American/Black
.....Asian 4.1 32.4% 49.3% 15.4% 2.2% 0.7% 136
.....Hispanic/Latino 4.0 28.8% 45.8% 25.4% . . 59
.....White/Caucasian 3.9 22.2% 48.7% 26.6% 2.1% 0.5% 2,081
.....Multiple races/ethnicities 3.9 24.8% 46.3% 24.8% 3.3% 0.8% 121
.....Other/Unknown 3.6 28.6% 25.0% 32.1% 10.7% 3.6% 28


F1a: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interacation with students in class Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Residency 3.9 23.5% 48.1% 25.5% 2.2% 0.5% 2,591
.....U.S. resident
.....International student 3.9 22.2% 51.9% 22.2% . 3.7% 27


F1a: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interacation with students in class Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background 3.9 22.4% 47.1% 26.6% 2.6% 1.2% 575
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class 3.9 23.6% 49.5% 24.8% 1.8% 0.3% 1,269
.....Upper middle/Upper class 3.9 24.3% 47.1% 25.7% 2.5% 0.4% 760


F1a: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interacation with students in class Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
First Generation College Student 4.0 25.1% 49.7% 22.6% 1.5% 1.0% 195
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation 3.9 23.4% 48.2% 25.7% 2.2% 0.5% 2,393


F1a: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interacation with students in class Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Sexual Orientation 3.9 23.5% 48.2% 25.7% 2.0% 0.5% 2,412
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual 3.9 24.5% 48.3% 22.4% 3.5% 1.4% 143
.....Prefer not to answer 3.8 20.8% 47.2% 26.4% 5.7% . 53


F1a: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interacation with students in class Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Disability Status* 3.9 23.6% 48.9% 24.9% 2.1% 0.4% 2,337
.....No disability
.....Disability 3.8 22.8% 42.0% 30.6% 2.8% 1.8% 281


F1a: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interacation with students in class Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Age 3.9 23.5% 48.4% 25.4% 2.2% 0.5% 2,478
.....Traditional (18-27)
.....Non-Traditional (>27) 3.9 23.6% 44.3% 27.9% 2.9% 1.4% 140


F1b: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with students outside class

  Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Total (N) 3.9 24.9% 46.8% 24.5% 2.8% 1.0% 2,592


F1b: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with students outside class Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Academic Class 3.9 25.3% 46.8% 25.4% 1.9% 0.6% 688
.....Freshman
.....Sophomore 3.9 26.2% 46.6% 23.6% 2.3% 1.4% 569
.....Junior 3.9 23.8% 46.3% 25.7% 3.2% 1.1% 568
.....Senior 3.9 24.4% 47.3% 23.5% 3.8% 1.0% 767


F1b: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with students outside class Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Gender* 3.8 22.2% 44.8% 28.0% 3.5% 1.4% 1,160
.....Male
.....Female 4.0 27.0% 48.4% 21.6% 2.2% 0.7% 1,432


F1b: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with students outside class Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity* 3.9 32.3% 40.7% 20.1% 2.6% 4.2% 189
.....African American/Black
.....Asian 4.1 33.3% 49.6% 14.8% 0.7% 1.5% 135
.....Hispanic/Latino 4.0 27.1% 50.8% 20.3% 1.7% . 59
.....White/Caucasian 3.9 23.4% 47.3% 25.8% 2.9% 0.7% 2,062
.....Multiple races/ethnicities 4.0 27.5% 46.7% 21.7% 3.3% 0.8% 120
.....Other/Unknown 3.7 29.6% 25.9% 29.6% 11.1% 3.7% 27


F1b: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with students outside class Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Residency 3.9 24.8% 46.8% 24.6% 2.8% 1.0% 2,566
.....U.S. resident
.....International student 4.0 30.8% 46.2% 19.2% . 3.8% 26


F1b: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with students outside class Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background 3.9 23.2% 46.3% 25.7% 3.2% 1.6% 564
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class 4.0 25.5% 48.5% 22.7% 2.6% 0.6% 1,258
.....Upper middle/Upper class 3.9 25.1% 44.7% 26.3% 2.8% 1.1% 756


F1b: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with students outside class Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
First Generation College Student 3.9 27.2% 46.1% 22.0% 3.1% 1.6% 191
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation 3.9 24.7% 47.0% 24.7% 2.7% 0.9% 2,372


F1b: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with students outside class Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Sexual Orientation* 3.9 24.4% 47.1% 24.9% 2.7% 0.9% 2,389
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual 4.0 33.3% 39.7% 21.3% 2.8% 2.8% 141
.....Prefer not to answer 3.9 21.2% 55.8% 15.4% 5.8% 1.9% 52


F1b: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with students outside class Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Disability Status* 3.9 25.0% 47.3% 24.0% 2.9% 0.8% 2,316
.....No disability
.....Disability 3.8 23.9% 42.4% 29.0% 2.2% 2.5% 276


F1b: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with students outside class Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Age 3.9 24.9% 47.2% 24.2% 2.7% 0.9% 2,462
.....Traditional (18-27)
.....Non-Traditional (>27) 3.8 23.8% 38.5% 30.8% 4.6% 2.3% 130


F1c: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty in class

  Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Total (N) 3.9 21.2% 45.7% 30.8% 1.9% 0.4% 2,603


F1c: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty in class Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Academic Class 3.9 22.1% 45.2% 31.4% 1.3% . 679
.....Freshman
.....Sophomore 3.9 23.5% 43.5% 31.1% 1.4% 0.5% 575
.....Junior 3.8 20.0% 44.6% 32.8% 2.5% 0.2% 570
.....Senior 3.8 19.5% 48.5% 28.6% 2.4% 0.9% 779


F1c: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty in class Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Gender* 3.7 17.2% 43.3% 36.3% 2.6% 0.7% 1,163
.....Male
.....Female 3.9 24.4% 47.6% 26.4% 1.4% 0.2% 1,440


F1c: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty in class Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity* 3.9 27.0% 42.9% 27.0% 1.6% 1.6% 189
.....African American/Black
.....Asian 4.1 27.4% 53.3% 19.3% . . 135
.....Hispanic/Latino 3.9 22.0% 49.2% 27.1% 1.7% . 59
.....White/Caucasian 3.8 20.3% 45.7% 31.7% 2.1% 0.3% 2,069
.....Multiple races/ethnicities 3.8 20.3% 44.7% 32.5% 1.6% 0.8% 123
.....Other/Unknown 3.6 21.4% 25.0% 50.0% . 3.6% 28


F1c: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty in class Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Residency 3.9 21.2% 45.7% 30.8% 1.9% 0.4% 2,576
.....U.S. resident
.....International student 3.8 22.2% 40.7% 33.3% . 3.7% 27


F1c: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty in class Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background 3.8 19.8% 46.2% 31.0% 1.9% 1.1% 567
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class 3.9 21.6% 45.3% 31.5% 1.4% 0.2% 1,265
.....Upper middle/Upper class 3.9 21.7% 46.1% 29.3% 2.6% 0.3% 757


F1c: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty in class Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
First Generation College Student 3.9 22.8% 48.2% 25.4% 2.6% 1.0% 193
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation 3.9 21.0% 45.7% 31.2% 1.8% 0.3% 2,380


F1c: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty in class Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Sexual Orientation 3.9 21.1% 45.8% 30.9% 1.9% 0.4% 2,397
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual 3.9 25.9% 42.0% 31.5% . 0.7% 143
.....Prefer not to answer 3.7 11.3% 52.8% 28.3% 5.7% 1.9% 53


F1c: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty in class Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Disability Status 3.9 21.4% 46.4% 30.0% 1.8% 0.4% 2,323
.....No disability
.....Disability 3.8 19.6% 40.0% 37.1% 2.9% 0.4% 280


F1c: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty in class Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Age 3.9 21.1% 45.9% 30.7% 1.9% 0.4% 2,463
.....Traditional (18-27)
.....Non-Traditional (>27) 3.8 22.9% 41.4% 32.1% 2.1% 1.4% 140


F1d: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty outside class

  Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Total (N) 3.8 20.7% 42.4% 35.5% 1.2% 0.3% 2,396


F1d: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty outside class Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Academic Class 3.8 20.9% 40.2% 38.1% 0.8% . 599
.....Freshman
.....Sophomore 3.9 23.8% 40.4% 34.5% 0.8% 0.6% 525
.....Junior 3.8 19.4% 42.8% 36.6% 0.9% 0.2% 535
.....Senior 3.8 19.1% 45.2% 33.2% 1.9% 0.5% 737


F1d: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty outside class Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Gender* 3.7 17.3% 40.9% 39.4% 1.8% 0.6% 1,075
.....Male
.....Female 3.9 23.4% 43.5% 32.2% 0.7% 0.2% 1,321


F1d: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty outside class Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity* 4.0 29.8% 41.6% 26.4% 1.1% 1.1% 178
.....African American/Black
.....Asian 4.0 25.8% 52.4% 21.0% 0.8% . 124
.....Hispanic/Latino 3.8 21.8% 38.2% 36.4% 3.6% . 55
.....White/Caucasian 3.8 19.4% 42.2% 37.2% 1.1% 0.2% 1,905
.....Multiple races/ethnicities 3.8 21.5% 42.1% 35.5% . 0.9% 107
.....Other/Unknown 3.6 22.2% 25.9% 40.7% 7.4% 3.7% 27


F1d: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty outside class Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Residency* 3.8 20.7% 42.4% 35.4% 1.2% 0.3% 2,370
.....U.S. resident
.....International student 3.7 15.4% 42.3% 38.5% . 3.8% 26


F1d: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty outside class Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background 3.8 19.7% 43.1% 34.9% 1.5% 0.8% 522
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class 3.8 21.0% 42.0% 36.1% 0.8% 0.1% 1,164
.....Upper middle/Upper class 3.8 20.9% 42.6% 34.7% 1.4% 0.3% 697


F1d: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty outside class Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
First Generation College Student 3.8 22.2% 43.8% 31.3% 1.7% 1.1% 176
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation 3.8 20.5% 42.5% 35.7% 1.1% 0.2% 2,194


F1d: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty outside class Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Sexual Orientation 3.8 20.6% 42.1% 35.9% 1.1% 0.3% 2,212
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual 3.9 25.0% 45.3% 27.3% 1.6% 0.8% 128
.....Prefer not to answer 3.7 10.6% 48.9% 38.3% 2.1% . 47


F1d: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty outside class Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Disability Status 3.8 20.7% 43.0% 35.0% 1.1% 0.3% 2,139
.....No disability
.....Disability 3.8 20.6% 37.4% 39.7% 1.9% 0.4% 257


F1d: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interaction with faculty outside class Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Age 3.8 20.5% 42.6% 35.3% 1.2% 0.3% 2,268
.....Traditional (18-27)
.....Non-Traditional (>27) 3.8 22.7% 37.5% 38.3% . 1.6% 128


F1e: Influence on thinking about diversity: Course materials

  Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Total (N) 3.7 15.9% 40.5% 40.7% 2.1% 0.7% 2,540


F1e: Influence on thinking about diversity: Course materials Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Academic Class 3.8 17.9% 41.3% 39.3% 1.2% 0.3% 666
.....Freshman
.....Sophomore 3.7 17.6% 39.4% 40.4% 2.0% 0.7% 564
.....Junior 3.6 13.6% 40.0% 43.7% 1.6% 1.1% 558
.....Senior 3.6 14.6% 41.0% 40.0% 3.5% 0.9% 752


F1e: Influence on thinking about diversity: Course materials Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Gender* 3.5 12.1% 35.5% 48.2% 2.8% 1.4% 1,127
.....Male
.....Female 3.8 19.0% 44.4% 34.8% 1.6% 0.2% 1,413


F1e: Influence on thinking about diversity: Course materials Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity* 3.8 21.0% 40.9% 34.9% 2.7% 0.5% 186
.....African American/Black
.....Asian 3.9 24.2% 46.1% 27.3% 2.3% . 128
.....Hispanic/Latino 3.7 15.3% 45.8% 35.6% 1.7% 1.7% 59
.....White/Caucasian 3.7 14.9% 40.3% 42.1% 2.1% 0.7% 2,019
.....Multiple races/ethnicities 3.7 15.6% 38.5% 43.4% 0.8% 1.6% 122
.....Other/Unknown 3.5 23.1% 23.1% 42.3% 7.7% 3.8% 26


F1e: Influence on thinking about diversity: Course materials Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Residency 3.7 16.0% 40.5% 40.6% 2.1% 0.8% 2,514
.....U.S. resident
.....International student 3.6 11.5% 34.6% 53.8% . . 26


F1e: Influence on thinking about diversity: Course materials Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background 3.7 15.5% 42.2% 38.4% 2.9% 0.9% 554
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class 3.7 16.7% 40.8% 40.6% 1.3% 0.6% 1,235
.....Upper middle/Upper class 3.6 14.9% 38.5% 43.0% 2.8% 0.7% 737


F1e: Influence on thinking about diversity: Course materials Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
First Generation College Student 3.7 16.5% 42.0% 36.7% 3.2% 1.6% 188
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation 3.7 15.8% 40.4% 41.1% 2.0% 0.6% 2,323


F1e: Influence on thinking about diversity: Course materials Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Sexual Orientation 3.7 16.0% 40.4% 40.9% 2.1% 0.7% 2,339
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual 3.7 18.7% 38.1% 38.8% 2.9% 1.4% 139
.....Prefer not to answer 3.5 3.8% 48.1% 44.2% 1.9% 1.9% 52


F1e: Influence on thinking about diversity: Course materials Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Disability Status 3.7 16.2% 40.5% 40.7% 1.9% 0.7% 2,263
.....No disability
.....Disability 3.6 13.7% 40.1% 40.8% 4.3% 1.1% 277


F1e: Influence on thinking about diversity: Course materials Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Age 3.7 15.6% 40.7% 40.9% 2.0% 0.7% 2,404
.....Traditional (18-27)
.....Non-Traditional (>27) 3.7 20.6% 36.8% 38.2% 3.7% 0.7% 136


F1f: Influence on thinking about diversity: Friendships/acquaintances

  Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Total (N) 4.1 33.7% 46.9% 18.2% 0.9% 0.3% 2,611


F1f: Influence on thinking about diversity: Friendships/acquaintances Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Academic Class 4.1 31.3% 48.0% 19.7% 0.9% 0.1% 690
.....Freshman
.....Sophomore 4.1 35.4% 45.0% 18.5% 0.7% 0.3% 573
.....Junior 4.1 33.9% 45.4% 19.6% 1.1% . 570
.....Senior 4.2 34.6% 48.3% 15.6% 0.9% 0.6% 778


F1f: Influence on thinking about diversity: Friendships/acquaintances Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Gender* 4.0 29.9% 45.9% 22.2% 1.5% 0.5% 1,167
.....Male
.....Female 4.2 36.8% 47.6% 15.0% 0.4% 0.1% 1,444


F1f: Influence on thinking about diversity: Friendships/acquaintances Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity* 4.2 38.7% 45.0% 14.7% 1.0% 0.5% 191
.....African American/Black
.....Asian 4.3 40.1% 50.4% 8.8% . 0.7% 137
.....Hispanic/Latino 4.3 48.3% 34.5% 17.2% . . 58
.....White/Caucasian 4.1 32.2% 47.5% 19.2% 0.9% 0.2% 2,076
.....Multiple races/ethnicities 4.2 38.5% 45.1% 14.8% 0.8% 0.8% 122
.....Other/Unknown 3.9 33.3% 29.6% 29.6% 3.7% 3.7% 27


F1f: Influence on thinking about diversity: Friendships/acquaintances Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Residency 4.1 33.7% 46.9% 18.2% 0.9% 0.3% 2,584
.....U.S. resident
.....International student 4.2 37.0% 44.4% 18.5% . . 27


F1f: Influence on thinking about diversity: Friendships/acquaintances Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background 4.1 33.0% 48.9% 16.8% 0.7% 0.5% 570
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class 4.1 33.2% 47.9% 18.2% 0.6% 0.1% 1,268
.....Upper middle/Upper class 4.1 35.4% 44.0% 18.8% 1.3% 0.4% 759


F1f: Influence on thinking about diversity: Friendships/acquaintances Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
First Generation College Student 4.0 30.1% 48.2% 19.2% 1.6% 1.0% 193
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation 4.1 34.1% 47.0% 17.9% 0.8% 0.2% 2,388


F1f: Influence on thinking about diversity: Friendships/acquaintances Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Sexual Orientation* 4.1 33.2% 47.2% 18.5% 0.8% 0.2% 2,407
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual 4.2 43.4% 39.2% 14.7% 1.4% 1.4% 143
.....Prefer not to answer 4.2 33.3% 54.9% 11.8% . . 51


F1f: Influence on thinking about diversity: Friendships/acquaintances Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Disability Status* 4.1 34.2% 47.2% 17.5% 0.9% 0.2% 2,333
.....No disability
.....Disability 4.0 30.2% 44.2% 24.1% 0.4% 1.1% 278


F1f: Influence on thinking about diversity: Friendships/acquaintances Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Age 4.1 34.0% 46.9% 17.8% 0.9% 0.3% 2,473
.....Traditional (18-27)
.....Non-Traditional (>27) 4.0 28.3% 45.7% 25.4% . 0.7% 138


F1g: Influence on thinking about diversity: Living in residence halls

  Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Total (N) 3.9 25.7% 42.1% 26.8% 4.0% 1.4% 2,202


F1g: Influence on thinking about diversity: Living in residence halls Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Academic Class* 4.0 29.2% 43.2% 23.8% 3.0% 0.8% 643
.....Freshman
.....Sophomore 3.9 29.2% 40.2% 25.6% 3.8% 1.2% 497
.....Junior 3.8 22.5% 43.4% 27.3% 5.0% 1.7% 458
.....Senior 3.8 21.4% 41.4% 30.8% 4.6% 1.8% 604


F1g: Influence on thinking about diversity: Living in residence halls Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Gender* 3.8 22.0% 41.7% 30.9% 4.1% 1.3% 985
.....Male
.....Female 3.9 28.6% 42.4% 23.6% 4.0% 1.4% 1,217


F1g: Influence on thinking about diversity: Living in residence halls Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity* 3.9 28.4% 43.8% 17.0% 8.5% 2.3% 176
.....African American/Black
.....Asian 4.0 25.0% 54.5% 18.8% 1.8% . 112
.....Hispanic/Latino 4.0 36.2% 38.3% 21.3% . 4.3% 47
.....White/Caucasian 3.9 25.3% 41.1% 28.5% 3.9% 1.2% 1,739
.....Multiple races/ethnicities 3.9 23.8% 47.6% 23.8% 2.9% 1.9% 105
.....Other/Unknown 3.6 21.7% 26.1% 43.5% 4.3% 4.3% 23


F1g: Influence on thinking about diversity: Living in residence halls Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Residency 3.9 25.6% 42.2% 26.8% 4.1% 1.4% 2,180
.....U.S. resident
.....International student 4.0 31.8% 36.4% 31.8% . . 22


F1g: Influence on thinking about diversity: Living in residence halls Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background 3.8 23.8% 43.0% 26.5% 5.4% 1.3% 446
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class 3.9 25.6% 42.3% 27.4% 3.6% 1.1% 1,071
.....Upper middle/Upper class 3.9 27.4% 41.4% 25.8% 3.7% 1.6% 674


F1g: Influence on thinking about diversity: Living in residence halls Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
First Generation College Student 3.9 29.5% 39.6% 27.5% 2.0% 1.3% 149
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation 3.9 25.5% 42.3% 26.7% 4.1% 1.3% 2,030


F1g: Influence on thinking about diversity: Living in residence halls Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Sexual Orientation* 3.9 25.9% 42.4% 27.0% 3.5% 1.3% 2,041
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual 3.7 28.4% 29.4% 26.6% 11.9% 3.7% 109
.....Prefer not to answer 3.7 11.1% 60.0% 20.0% 8.9% . 45


F1g: Influence on thinking about diversity: Living in residence halls Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Disability Status 3.9 25.9% 42.7% 26.3% 3.8% 1.3% 1,990
.....No disability
.....Disability 3.7 23.6% 36.3% 31.6% 6.6% 1.9% 212


F1g: Influence on thinking about diversity: Living in residence halls Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Age* 3.9 25.8% 42.3% 26.5% 4.1% 1.3% 2,167
.....Traditional (18-27)
.....Non-Traditional (>27) 3.6 17.1% 31.4% 48.6% . 2.9% 35


F1h: Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus orgs/clubs

  Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Total (N) 3.9 26.6% 42.2% 28.3% 2.3% 0.6% 2,320


F1h: Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus orgs/clubs Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Academic Class* 4.0 29.4% 42.3% 26.8% 1.4% 0.2% 639
.....Freshman
.....Sophomore 3.9 27.0% 43.2% 27.4% 1.1% 1.1% 525
.....Junior 3.9 22.8% 44.3% 29.3% 3.0% 0.6% 492
.....Senior 3.9 26.4% 39.6% 29.8% 3.5% 0.8% 664


F1h: Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus orgs/clubs Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Gender* 3.8 21.4% 38.3% 36.1% 3.1% 1.1% 1,027
.....Male
.....Female 4.0 30.7% 45.2% 22.1% 1.6% 0.3% 1,293


F1h: Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus orgs/clubs Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity* 4.0 32.8% 43.5% 19.2% 3.4% 1.1% 177
.....African American/Black
.....Asian 4.1 33.9% 48.8% 14.2% 3.1% . 127
.....Hispanic/Latino 4.1 38.0% 40.0% 20.0% 2.0% . 50
.....White/Caucasian 3.9 24.9% 41.7% 30.6% 2.2% 0.6% 1,839
.....Multiple races/ethnicities 4.1 32.4% 45.1% 20.6% 1.0% 1.0% 102
.....Other/Unknown 3.7 24.0% 28.0% 44.0% . 4.0% 25


F1h: Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus orgs/clubs Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Residency 3.9 26.6% 42.3% 28.3% 2.3% 0.6% 2,298
.....U.S. resident
.....International student 3.7 27.3% 31.8% 31.8% 4.5% 4.5% 22


F1h: Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus orgs/clubs Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background 3.9 24.8% 42.0% 29.6% 2.3% 1.2% 483
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class 3.9 27.1% 43.5% 26.8% 2.3% 0.3% 1,117
.....Upper middle/Upper class 3.9 27.0% 40.5% 29.7% 2.1% 0.7% 708


F1h: Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus orgs/clubs Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
First Generation College Student 4.0 28.5% 43.7% 25.9% 0.6% 1.3% 158
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation 3.9 26.3% 42.3% 28.5% 2.4% 0.6% 2,137


F1h: Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus orgs/clubs Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Sexual Orientation 3.9 26.3% 42.3% 28.5% 2.3% 0.7% 2,140
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual 4.0 32.8% 40.0% 25.6% 0.8% 0.8% 125
.....Prefer not to answer 3.8 19.6% 47.8% 30.4% 2.2% . 46


F1h: Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus orgs/clubs Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Disability Status* 3.9 27.3% 42.8% 27.2% 2.1% 0.6% 2,079
.....No disability
.....Disability 3.7 20.7% 36.9% 37.8% 3.7% 0.8% 241


F1h: Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus orgs/clubs Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Age* 3.9 26.7% 42.5% 27.9% 2.3% 0.6% 2,247
.....Traditional (18-27)
.....Non-Traditional (>27) 3.7 23.3% 32.9% 39.7% 1.4% 2.7% 73


F1i: Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus-wide activities/events

  Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Total (N) 3.9 23.0% 42.9% 31.5% 2.0% 0.6% 2,387


F1i: Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus-wide activities/events Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Academic Class* 3.9 26.1% 43.7% 28.1% 2.0% 0.2% 662
.....Freshman
.....Sophomore 3.9 26.4% 42.0% 29.9% 1.1% 0.6% 531
.....Junior 3.8 20.2% 43.5% 34.3% 1.4% 0.6% 504
.....Senior 3.8 19.6% 42.3% 34.1% 3.0% 1.0% 690


F1i: Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus-wide activities/events Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Gender* 3.7 17.2% 39.7% 39.0% 3.0% 1.0% 1,061
.....Male
.....Female 4.0 27.7% 45.4% 25.6% 1.1% 0.2% 1,326


F1i: Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus-wide activities/events Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity* 4.0 31.5% 43.8% 21.9% 1.7% 1.1% 178
.....African American/Black
.....Asian 4.1 30.7% 47.2% 20.5% 1.6% . 127
.....Hispanic/Latino 4.1 30.2% 49.1% 20.8% . . 53
.....White/Caucasian 3.8 21.2% 41.9% 34.2% 2.1% 0.5% 1,896
.....Multiple races/ethnicities 4.0 28.4% 49.5% 20.2% 0.9% 0.9% 109
.....Other/Unknown 3.8 25.0% 41.7% 25.0% 4.2% 4.2% 24


F1i: Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus-wide activities/events Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Residency 3.9 23.0% 43.0% 31.6% 1.9% 0.6% 2,363
.....U.S. resident
.....International student 3.8 29.2% 33.3% 29.2% 4.2% 4.2% 24


F1i: Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus-wide activities/events Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background 3.8 20.4% 45.3% 30.6% 2.5% 1.2% 510
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class 3.9 23.7% 43.3% 30.8% 1.9% 0.3% 1,148
.....Upper middle/Upper class 3.9 23.9% 40.8% 33.2% 1.5% 0.6% 716


F1i: Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus-wide activities/events Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
First Generation College Student 3.9 24.6% 43.3% 29.2% 1.8% 1.2% 171
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation 3.9 22.9% 43.0% 31.7% 1.9% 0.5% 2,190


F1i: Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus-wide activities/events Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Sexual Orientation* 3.9 23.1% 43.2% 31.6% 1.6% 0.5% 2,195
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual 3.8 25.0% 37.9% 28.8% 6.8% 1.5% 132
.....Prefer not to answer 3.7 12.0% 46.0% 40.0% 2.0% . 50


F1i: Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus-wide activities/events Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Disability Status 3.9 23.7% 43.0% 30.8% 1.9% 0.6% 2,144
.....No disability
.....Disability 3.7 17.3% 41.6% 37.9% 2.9% 0.4% 243


F1i: Influence on thinking about diversity: Campus-wide activities/events Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Age* 3.9 23.2% 43.2% 31.2% 1.9% 0.5% 2,301
.....Traditional (18-27)
.....Non-Traditional (>27) 3.6 18.6% 34.9% 39.5% 4.7% 2.3% 86


F1j: Influence on thinking about diversity: College/department activities/events

  Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Total (N) 3.8 20.6% 42.2% 35.5% 1.2% 0.4% 2,352


F1j: Influence on thinking about diversity: College/department activities/events Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Academic Class* 3.9 23.4% 44.2% 31.5% 0.9% . 650
.....Freshman
.....Sophomore 3.9 23.4% 40.7% 34.9% 0.6% 0.4% 518
.....Junior 3.7 17.7% 41.0% 39.4% 1.2% 0.6% 502
.....Senior 3.8 18.0% 42.4% 37.0% 1.9% 0.7% 682


F1j: Influence on thinking about diversity: College/department activities/events Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Gender* 3.7 15.4% 37.8% 44.4% 1.8% 0.6% 1,050
.....Male
.....Female 3.9 24.8% 45.8% 28.4% 0.7% 0.3% 1,302


F1j: Influence on thinking about diversity: College/department activities/events Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity* 4.0 27.0% 46.6% 24.7% 1.1% 0.6% 178
.....African American/Black
.....Asian 4.0 27.3% 47.7% 22.7% 2.3% . 128
.....Hispanic/Latino 3.9 22.4% 46.9% 30.6% . . 49
.....White/Caucasian 3.8 19.3% 41.3% 38.0% 1.1% 0.4% 1,869
.....Multiple races/ethnicities 3.9 24.8% 44.8% 27.6% 1.9% 1.0% 105
.....Other/Unknown 3.7 21.7% 34.8% 39.1% . 4.3% 23


F1j: Influence on thinking about diversity: College/department activities/events Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Residency 3.8 20.7% 42.3% 35.5% 1.2% 0.4% 2,329
.....U.S. resident
.....International student 3.7 17.4% 34.8% 43.5% 4.3% . 23


F1j: Influence on thinking about diversity: College/department activities/events Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background 3.8 18.6% 44.1% 34.9% 1.4% 1.0% 499
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class 3.8 21.0% 42.7% 35.0% 1.2% 0.1% 1,140
.....Upper middle/Upper class 3.8 21.4% 40.4% 36.9% 0.9% 0.4% 701


F1j: Influence on thinking about diversity: College/department activities/events Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
First Generation College Student 3.9 22.9% 45.2% 29.5% 1.2% 1.2% 166
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation 3.8 20.4% 42.1% 36.0% 1.2% 0.3% 2,160


F1j: Influence on thinking about diversity: College/department activities/events Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Sexual Orientation* 3.8 20.9% 42.3% 35.4% 1.0% 0.4% 2,168
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual 3.7 18.5% 39.5% 37.9% 2.4% 1.6% 124
.....Prefer not to answer 3.6 8.0% 48.0% 38.0% 6.0% . 50


F1j: Influence on thinking about diversity: College/department activities/events Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Disability Status* 3.8 21.4% 42.3% 35.0% 1.0% 0.4% 2,113
.....No disability
.....Disability 3.6 13.8% 41.8% 40.6% 2.9% 0.8% 239


F1j: Influence on thinking about diversity: College/department activities/events Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Age 3.8 20.6% 42.6% 35.2% 1.1% 0.4% 2,262
.....Traditional (18-27)
.....Non-Traditional (>27) 3.7 20.0% 32.2% 44.4% 2.2% 1.1% 90


F1k: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interactions with staff

  Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Total (N) 3.8 19.0% 42.2% 37.1% 1.3% 0.4% 2,506


F1k: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interactions with staff Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Academic Class 3.8 19.8% 39.9% 39.2% 0.8% 0.3% 646
.....Freshman
.....Sophomore 3.8 22.2% 40.4% 35.1% 1.8% 0.5% 555
.....Junior 3.8 17.9% 42.4% 38.8% 0.9% . 552
.....Senior 3.8 16.7% 45.3% 35.5% 1.7% 0.8% 753


F1k: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interactions with staff Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Gender* 3.7 16.0% 39.6% 42.0% 1.7% 0.7% 1,120
.....Male
.....Female 3.9 21.4% 44.2% 33.1% 1.0% 0.2% 1,386


F1k: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interactions with staff Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity* 3.9 22.4% 48.1% 27.3% 1.6% 0.5% 183
.....African American/Black
.....Asian 4.0 27.7% 46.2% 24.6% 0.8% 0.8% 130
.....Hispanic/Latino 3.8 19.6% 44.6% 33.9% 1.8% . 56
.....White/Caucasian 3.8 17.9% 41.5% 38.9% 1.4% 0.4% 1,991
.....Multiple races/ethnicities 3.8 22.9% 40.7% 34.7% 0.8% 0.8% 118
.....Other/Unknown 3.6 17.9% 35.7% 42.9% . 3.6% 28


F1k: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interactions with staff Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Residency 3.8 19.0% 42.2% 37.1% 1.3% 0.4% 2,481
.....U.S. resident
.....International student 3.8 20.0% 44.0% 32.0% 4.0% . 25


F1k: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interactions with staff Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background 3.8 18.4% 42.2% 37.6% 0.9% 0.9% 543
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class 3.8 18.4% 42.7% 37.4% 1.3% 0.1% 1,210
.....Upper middle/Upper class 3.8 20.4% 41.4% 36.2% 1.5% 0.5% 741


F1k: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interactions with staff Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
First Generation College Student 3.8 16.6% 46.4% 34.3% 1.7% 1.1% 181
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation 3.8 19.1% 42.0% 37.3% 1.3% 0.3% 2,298


F1k: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interactions with staff Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Sexual Orientation 3.8 19.0% 42.0% 37.3% 1.3% 0.4% 2,311
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual 3.8 22.6% 40.9% 33.6% 1.5% 1.5% 137
.....Prefer not to answer 3.7 6.1% 55.1% 36.7% 2.0% . 49


F1k: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interactions with staff Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Disability Status 3.8 19.0% 42.8% 36.6% 1.3% 0.4% 2,228
.....No disability
.....Disability 3.7 18.7% 37.4% 41.0% 1.8% 1.1% 278


F1k: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interactions with staff Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Age 3.8 19.0% 42.3% 37.1% 1.3% 0.4% 2,372
.....Traditional (18-27)
.....Non-Traditional (>27) 3.7 19.4% 40.3% 36.6% 2.2% 1.5% 134


F1l: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interactions with/messages from admin

  Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Total (N) 3.7 16.9% 35.1% 45.2% 1.9% 0.9% 2,463


F1l: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interactions with/messages from admin Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Academic Class* 3.8 20.2% 37.4% 40.7% 1.4% 0.3% 642
.....Freshman
.....Sophomore 3.7 20.5% 33.0% 44.8% 0.7% 0.9% 542
.....Junior 3.6 14.1% 33.7% 48.9% 2.4% 0.9% 540
.....Senior 3.6 13.4% 35.6% 46.8% 2.8% 1.4% 739


F1l: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interactions with/messages from admin Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Gender* 3.5 12.6% 31.4% 51.4% 3.1% 1.6% 1,106
.....Male
.....Female 3.8 20.4% 38.1% 40.2% 1.0% 0.3% 1,357


F1l: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interactions with/messages from admin Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity* 3.8 24.6% 33.3% 37.7% 2.7% 1.6% 183
.....African American/Black
.....Asian 3.8 21.3% 40.2% 37.7% 0.8% . 122
.....Hispanic/Latino 3.8 18.9% 39.6% 41.5% . . 53
.....White/Caucasian 3.6 15.6% 35.0% 46.6% 2.0% 0.8% 1,962
.....Multiple races/ethnicities 3.7 20.0% 33.9% 44.3% . 1.7% 115
.....Other/Unknown 3.5 21.4% 25.0% 42.9% 3.6% 7.1% 28


F1l: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interactions with/messages from admin Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Residency 3.7 16.9% 35.1% 45.1% 1.9% 0.9% 2,439
.....U.S. resident
.....International student 3.6 16.7% 29.2% 54.2% . . 24


F1l: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interactions with/messages from admin Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background 3.6 16.4% 34.8% 46.2% 1.1% 1.5% 535
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class 3.7 17.0% 34.9% 45.3% 2.1% 0.7% 1,194
.....Upper middle/Upper class 3.7 17.2% 35.7% 44.4% 1.9% 0.7% 720


F1l: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interactions with/messages from admin Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
First Generation College Student 3.7 20.1% 37.5% 40.2% 0.5% 1.6% 184
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation 3.6 16.6% 34.9% 45.8% 1.9% 0.8% 2,252


F1l: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interactions with/messages from admin Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Sexual Orientation* 3.7 16.9% 35.1% 45.5% 1.7% 0.8% 2,275
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual 3.7 20.9% 33.3% 41.9% 3.1% 0.8% 129
.....Prefer not to answer 3.3 6.1% 34.7% 49.0% 4.1% 6.1% 49


F1l: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interactions with/messages from admin Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Disability Status 3.7 17.0% 35.1% 45.2% 1.9% 0.8% 2,197
.....No disability
.....Disability 3.6 15.8% 34.6% 45.9% 2.3% 1.5% 266


F1l: Influence on thinking about diversity: Interactions with/messages from admin Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Age 3.6 16.8% 35.1% 45.2% 2.0% 0.9% 2,335
.....Traditional (18-27)
.....Non-Traditional (>27) 3.7 18.8% 34.4% 46.1% . 0.8% 128


F1m: Influence on thinking about diversity: Family/home town experiences

  Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Total (N) 3.8 28.3% 37.9% 24.4% 7.3% 2.2% 2,623


F1m: Influence on thinking about diversity: Family/home town experiences Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Academic Class 3.9 30.7% 39.1% 22.9% 5.4% 1.9% 698
.....Freshman
.....Sophomore 3.8 30.6% 34.2% 26.1% 6.9% 2.2% 579
.....Junior 3.8 27.8% 39.0% 23.7% 8.0% 1.6% 575
.....Senior 3.7 24.8% 38.7% 24.9% 8.8% 2.9% 771


F1m: Influence on thinking about diversity: Family/home town experiences Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Gender* 3.8 26.7% 35.4% 28.4% 6.9% 2.6% 1,172
.....Male
.....Female 3.9 29.6% 39.8% 21.1% 7.6% 1.9% 1,451


F1m: Influence on thinking about diversity: Family/home town experiences Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity* 4.1 37.9% 40.5% 18.4% 2.1% 1.1% 190
.....African American/Black
.....Asian 4.3 41.9% 42.6% 14.7% 0.7% . 136
.....Hispanic/Latino 4.3 47.5% 35.6% 13.6% 3.4% . 59
.....White/Caucasian 3.8 25.5% 37.5% 26.1% 8.5% 2.4% 2,088
.....Multiple races/ethnicities 3.9 32.8% 38.5% 20.5% 5.7% 2.5% 122
.....Other/Unknown 4.0 42.9% 28.6% 21.4% 3.6% 3.6% 28


F1m: Influence on thinking about diversity: Family/home town experiences Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Residency 3.8 28.1% 37.9% 24.4% 7.4% 2.2% 2,598
.....U.S. resident
.....International student 4.3 48.0% 32.0% 20.0% . . 25


F1m: Influence on thinking about diversity: Family/home town experiences Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background 3.8 29.4% 33.9% 25.0% 9.4% 2.3% 572
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class 3.8 27.7% 39.3% 24.8% 6.5% 1.7% 1,276
.....Upper middle/Upper class 3.8 28.6% 38.5% 23.1% 7.0% 2.8% 761


F1m: Influence on thinking about diversity: Family/home town experiences Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
First Generation College Student 3.9 28.4% 38.7% 25.3% 5.7% 2.1% 194
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation 3.8 28.1% 38.0% 24.3% 7.5% 2.2% 2,398


F1m: Influence on thinking about diversity: Family/home town experiences Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Sexual Orientation* 3.8 28.6% 38.2% 24.4% 7.0% 1.8% 2,420
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual 3.6 26.1% 31.0% 23.9% 10.6% 8.5% 142
.....Prefer not to answer 3.6 17.6% 43.1% 23.5% 11.8% 3.9% 51


F1m: Influence on thinking about diversity: Family/home town experiences Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Disability Status 3.8 28.9% 37.9% 23.9% 7.2% 2.0% 2,342
.....No disability
.....Disability 3.7 23.1% 37.4% 28.1% 8.2% 3.2% 281


F1m: Influence on thinking about diversity: Family/home town experiences Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Age 3.8 28.2% 37.6% 24.8% 7.3% 2.1% 2,484
.....Traditional (18-27)
.....Non-Traditional (>27) 3.9 30.2% 42.4% 17.3% 7.2% 2.9% 139


F2: Extent to which Common Reading contrib to appreciation/awareness of diversity (among those who were assigned a Common Reading)

  5: Very
positive influence



4: Positive
influence



3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence


2: Negative
influence



1: Very negative
influence



Did not read
the book for
my year


Total (N)
Total (N) 15.6% 30.6% 29.2% 1.8% 1.2% 21.7% 2,053


F2: Extent to which Common Reading contrib to appreciation/awareness of diversity (among those who were assigned a Common Reading) 5: Very
positive influence



4: Positive
influence



3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence


2: Negative
influence



1: Very negative
influence



Did not read
the book for
my year


Total (N)
Classification* 22.9% 37.0% 24.1% 2.6% 1.0% 12.5% 690
.....Freshman
.....Sophomore 17.5% 33.0% 29.6% 1.8% 1.2% 16.9% 497
.....Junior 8.5% 25.5% 31.2% 1.0% 1.8% 32.0% 388
.....Senior 8.8% 23.2% 34.5% 1.0% 0.8% 31.6% 478


F2: Extent to which Common Reading contrib to appreciation/awareness of diversity (among those who were assigned a Common Reading) 5: Very
positive influence



4: Positive
influence



3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence


2: Negative
influence



1: Very negative
influence



Did not read
the book for
my year


Total (N)
Gender* 10.4% 26.1% 30.3% 2.9% 2.2% 28.0% 893
.....Male
.....Female 19.6% 34.1% 28.3% 0.9% 0.3% 16.8% 1,160


F2: Extent to which Common Reading contrib to appreciation/awareness of diversity (among those who were assigned a Common Reading) 5: Very
positive influence



4: Positive
influence



3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence


2: Negative
influence



1: Very negative
influence



Did not read
the book for
my year


Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity 20.3% 28.8% 28.1% . 2.0% 20.9% 153
.....African American/Black
.....Asian 23.3% 35.0% 22.3% 1.0% . 18.4% 103
.....Hispanic/Latino 15.2% 32.6% 26.1% 2.2% . 23.9% 46
.....White/Caucasian 15.0% 30.3% 29.7% 2.1% 1.2% 21.8% 1,647
.....Multiple races/ethnicities 8.1% 34.9% 30.2% . 2.3% 24.4% 86
.....Other/Unknown 22.2% 27.8% 33.3% . . 16.7% 18


F2: Extent to which Common Reading contrib to appreciation/awareness of diversity (among those who were assigned a Common Reading) 5: Very
positive influence



4: Positive
influence



3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence


2: Negative
influence



1: Very negative
influence



Did not read
the book for
my year


Total (N)
Residency 15.6% 30.7% 29.1% 1.8% 1.2% 21.6% 2,040
.....U.S. resident
.....International student 7.7% 23.1% 38.5% . . 30.8% 13


F2: Extent to which Common Reading contrib to appreciation/awareness of diversity (among those who were assigned a Common Reading) 5: Very
positive influence



4: Positive
influence



3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence


2: Negative
influence



1: Very negative
influence



Did not read
the book for
my year


Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background 16.8% 28.6% 29.1% 1.0% 0.5% 24.1% 399
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class 16.4% 31.5% 29.3% 1.9% 1.3% 19.6% 1,008
.....Upper middle/Upper class 13.7% 30.7% 28.9% 1.9% 1.4% 23.4% 636


F2: Extent to which Common Reading contrib to appreciation/awareness of diversity (among those who were assigned a Common Reading) 5: Very
positive influence



4: Positive
influence



3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence


2: Negative
influence



1: Very negative
influence



Did not read
the book for
my year


Total (N)
First Generation College Student 13.3% 41.3% 24.5% . 1.4% 19.6% 143
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation 15.7% 29.9% 29.5% 1.9% 1.1% 22.0% 1,887


F2: Extent to which Common Reading contrib to appreciation/awareness of diversity (among those who were assigned a Common Reading) 5: Very
positive influence



4: Positive
influence



3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence


2: Negative
influence



1: Very negative
influence



Did not read
the book for
my year


Total (N)
Sexual Orientation 15.7% 30.8% 29.2% 1.6% 1.2% 21.5% 1,908
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual 13.2% 30.2% 26.4% 3.8% 1.9% 24.5% 106
.....Prefer not to answer 15.2% 24.2% 39.4% . . 21.2% 33


F2: Extent to which Common Reading contrib to appreciation/awareness of diversity (among those who were assigned a Common Reading) 5: Very
positive influence



4: Positive
influence



3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence


2: Negative
influence



1: Very negative
influence



Did not read
the book for
my year


Total (N)
Disability Status* 15.7% 30.9% 29.1% 1.6% 0.9% 21.7% 1,872
.....No disability
.....Disability 14.4% 27.6% 29.8% 3.3% 3.9% 21.0% 181


F2: Extent to which Common Reading contrib to appreciation/awareness of diversity (among those who were assigned a Common Reading) 5: Very
positive influence



4: Positive
influence



3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence


2: Negative
influence



1: Very negative
influence



Did not read
the book for
my year


Total (N)
Age 15.5% 30.7% 29.3% 1.8% 1.1% 21.5% 2,033
.....Traditional (18-27)
.....Non-Traditional (>27) 20.0% 25.0% 15.0% . 5.0% 35.0% 20


F2: Extent to which Common Reading contrib to appreciation/awareness of diversity (among those who read book)

  Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence



4: Positive
influence



3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence


2: Negative
influence



1: Very negative
influence



Total (N)
Total (N) 3.7 19.9% 39.1% 37.3% 2.2% 1.5% 1,608


F2: Extent to which Common Reading contrib to appreciation/awareness of diversity (among those who read book) Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence



4: Positive
influence



3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence


2: Negative
influence



1: Very negative
influence



Total (N)
Academic Class* 3.9 26.2% 42.2% 27.5% 3.0% 1.2% 604
.....Freshman
.....Sophomore 3.8 21.1% 39.7% 35.6% 2.2% 1.5% 413
.....Junior 3.6 12.5% 37.5% 45.8% 1.5% 2.7% 264
.....Senior 3.6 12.8% 33.9% 50.5% 1.5% 1.2% 327


F2: Extent to which Common Reading contrib to appreciation/awareness of diversity (among those who read book) Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence



4: Positive
influence



3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence


2: Negative
influence



1: Very negative
influence



Total (N)
Gender* 3.5 14.5% 36.2% 42.1% 4.0% 3.1% 643
.....Male
.....Female 3.9 23.5% 41.0% 34.0% 1.0% 0.4% 965


F2: Extent to which Common Reading contrib to appreciation/awareness of diversity (among those who read book) Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence



4: Positive
influence



3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence


2: Negative
influence



1: Very negative
influence



Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity 3.8 25.6% 36.4% 35.5% . 2.5% 121
.....African American/Black
.....Asian 4.0 28.6% 42.9% 27.4% 1.2% . 84
.....Hispanic/Latino 3.8 20.0% 42.9% 34.3% 2.9% . 35
.....White/Caucasian 3.7 19.2% 38.7% 38.0% 2.6% 1.5% 1,288
.....Multiple races/ethnicities 3.6 10.8% 46.2% 40.0% . 3.1% 65
.....Other/Unknown 3.9 26.7% 33.3% 40.0% . . 15


F2: Extent to which Common Reading contrib to appreciation/awareness of diversity (among those who read book) Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence



4: Positive
influence



3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence


2: Negative
influence



1: Very negative
influence



Total (N)
Residency 3.7 19.9% 39.1% 37.1% 2.3% 1.5% 1,599
.....U.S. resident
.....International student 3.6 11.1% 33.3% 55.6% . . 9


F2: Extent to which Common Reading contrib to appreciation/awareness of diversity (among those who read book) Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence



4: Positive
influence



3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence


2: Negative
influence



1: Very negative
influence



Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background 3.8 22.1% 37.6% 38.3% 1.3% 0.7% 303
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class 3.7 20.4% 39.3% 36.4% 2.3% 1.6% 810
.....Upper middle/Upper class 3.7 17.9% 40.0% 37.8% 2.5% 1.8% 487


F2: Extent to which Common Reading contrib to appreciation/awareness of diversity (among those who read book) Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence



4: Positive
influence



3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence


2: Negative
influence



1: Very negative
influence



Total (N)
First Generation College Student* 3.8 16.5% 51.3% 30.4% . 1.7% 115
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation 3.7 20.1% 38.3% 37.8% 2.4% 1.4% 1,472


F2: Extent to which Common Reading contrib to appreciation/awareness of diversity (among those who read book) Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence



4: Positive
influence



3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence


2: Negative
influence



1: Very negative
influence



Total (N)
Sexual Orientation 3.7 20.0% 39.3% 37.2% 2.1% 1.5% 1,497
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual 3.7 17.5% 40.0% 35.0% 5.0% 2.5% 80
.....Prefer not to answer 3.7 19.2% 30.8% 50.0% . . 26


F2: Extent to which Common Reading contrib to appreciation/awareness of diversity (among those who read book) Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence



4: Positive
influence



3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence


2: Negative
influence



1: Very negative
influence



Total (N)
Disability Status* 3.8 20.1% 39.5% 37.2% 2.0% 1.2% 1,465
.....No disability
.....Disability 3.6 18.2% 35.0% 37.8% 4.2% 4.9% 143


F2: Extent to which Common Reading contrib to appreciation/awareness of diversity (among those who read book) Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence



4: Positive
influence



3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence


2: Negative
influence



1: Very negative
influence



Total (N)
Age 3.7 19.8% 39.1% 37.4% 2.3% 1.4% 1,595
.....Traditional (18-27)
.....Non-Traditional (>27) 3.8 30.8% 38.5% 23.1% . 7.7% 13


F3a: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of discussing diversity topics with friends

  Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Total (N) 3.8 20.8% 40.9% 35.7% 2.0% 0.5% 2,648


F3a: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of discussing diversity topics with friends Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Academic Class 3.8 20.7% 41.2% 36.8% 1.0% 0.3% 701
.....Freshman
.....Sophomore 3.8 23.8% 37.2% 37.0% 1.5% 0.5% 584
.....Junior 3.8 19.7% 42.5% 33.8% 3.1% 0.9% 583
.....Senior 3.8 19.5% 42.3% 35.3% 2.4% 0.5% 780


F3a: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of discussing diversity topics with friends Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Gender* 3.7 16.1% 39.8% 40.9% 2.2% 0.9% 1,185
.....Male
.....Female 3.9 24.6% 41.8% 31.5% 1.8% 0.2% 1,463


F3a: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of discussing diversity topics with friends Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity* 4.0 30.9% 40.3% 25.1% 3.7% . 191
.....African American/Black
.....Asian 3.9 20.9% 54.7% 23.0% 1.4% . 139
.....Hispanic/Latino 4.0 32.2% 39.0% 28.8% . . 59
.....White/Caucasian 3.8 19.0% 40.4% 38.1% 2.0% 0.5% 2,108
.....Multiple races/ethnicities 3.9 30.6% 37.9% 28.2% 0.8% 2.4% 124
.....Other/Unknown 3.6 18.5% 33.3% 40.7% 3.7% 3.7% 27


F3a: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of discussing diversity topics with friends Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Residency 3.8 20.8% 40.8% 35.8% 2.0% 0.5% 2,622
.....U.S. resident
.....International student 4.0 23.1% 50.0% 26.9% . . 26


F3a: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of discussing diversity topics with friends Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background 3.8 21.5% 42.0% 33.6% 2.1% 0.9% 578
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class 3.8 20.6% 42.2% 35.1% 1.7% 0.4% 1,289
.....Upper middle/Upper class 3.8 21.0% 38.3% 37.7% 2.5% 0.5% 767


F3a: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of discussing diversity topics with friends Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
First Generation College Student 3.9 25.0% 40.8% 31.1% 2.0% 1.0% 196
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation 3.8 20.4% 41.2% 35.9% 2.0% 0.5% 2,421


F3a: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of discussing diversity topics with friends Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Sexual Orientation* 3.8 20.4% 41.0% 36.1% 1.9% 0.5% 2,440
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual 4.0 31.7% 40.7% 23.4% 3.4% 0.7% 145
.....Prefer not to answer 3.5 7.4% 38.9% 50.0% 3.7% . 54


F3a: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of discussing diversity topics with friends Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Disability Status 3.8 20.7% 41.6% 35.2% 2.0% 0.4% 2,363
.....No disability
.....Disability 3.7 21.4% 35.1% 40.0% 2.1% 1.4% 285


F3a: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of discussing diversity topics with friends Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Age 3.8 20.9% 40.8% 35.8% 2.0% 0.5% 2,506
.....Traditional (18-27)
.....Non-Traditional (>27) 3.8 19.0% 43.0% 34.5% 2.1% 1.4% 142


F3b: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of abstaining from using offensive language

  Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Total (N) 3.8 23.1% 40.4% 33.4% 2.3% 0.8% 2,651


F3b: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of abstaining from using offensive language Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Academic Class* 3.9 23.0% 42.3% 33.5% 1.0% 0.1% 704
.....Freshman
.....Sophomore 3.9 25.3% 40.4% 30.8% 2.6% 0.9% 584
.....Junior 3.8 23.1% 38.2% 34.3% 2.8% 1.7% 581
.....Senior 3.8 21.6% 40.3% 34.5% 2.8% 0.8% 782


F3b: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of abstaining from using offensive language Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Gender* 3.6 17.6% 36.9% 39.7% 4.1% 1.7% 1,184
.....Male
.....Female 4.0 27.6% 43.2% 28.3% 0.7% 0.1% 1,467


F3b: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of abstaining from using offensive language Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity* 4.0 27.1% 44.3% 27.6% 0.5% 0.5% 192
.....African American/Black
.....Asian 4.0 26.1% 47.1% 25.4% 1.4% . 138
.....Hispanic/Latino 4.1 28.8% 49.2% 20.3% 1.7% . 59
.....White/Caucasian 3.8 22.3% 39.5% 34.9% 2.6% 0.8% 2,111
.....Multiple races/ethnicities 3.8 25.8% 39.5% 30.6% 0.8% 3.2% 124
.....Other/Unknown 3.7 22.2% 33.3% 40.7% . 3.7% 27


F3b: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of abstaining from using offensive language Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Residency 3.8 23.0% 40.4% 33.5% 2.3% 0.8% 2,625
.....U.S. resident
.....International student 4.1 34.6% 42.3% 23.1% . . 26


F3b: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of abstaining from using offensive language Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background* 3.8 22.1% 43.0% 32.0% 2.2% 0.7% 579
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class 3.8 23.1% 41.4% 33.3% 1.5% 0.7% 1,290
.....Upper middle/Upper class 3.8 24.1% 37.2% 33.9% 3.6% 1.2% 768


F3b: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of abstaining from using offensive language Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
First Generation College Student 3.9 25.4% 46.2% 25.4% 2.5% 0.5% 197
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation 3.8 22.9% 40.2% 33.8% 2.3% 0.9% 2,423


F3b: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of abstaining from using offensive language Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Sexual Orientation 3.8 22.7% 40.8% 33.5% 2.2% 0.8% 2,445
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual 3.9 31.5% 35.7% 28.7% 3.5% 0.7% 143
.....Prefer not to answer 3.7 18.5% 37.0% 42.6% . 1.9% 54


F3b: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of abstaining from using offensive language Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Disability Status* 3.8 23.0% 41.3% 32.9% 2.1% 0.7% 2,367
.....No disability
.....Disability 3.7 24.3% 32.7% 37.7% 3.5% 1.8% 284


F3b: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of abstaining from using offensive language Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Age 3.8 23.2% 40.7% 32.9% 2.4% 0.8% 2,509
.....Traditional (18-27)
.....Non-Traditional (>27) 3.8 22.5% 35.2% 41.5% . 0.7% 142


F3c: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of notifying others about offensive language

  Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Total (N) 3.7 17.4% 41.0% 38.8% 2.2% 0.7% 2,647


F3c: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of notifying others about offensive language Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Academic Class 3.7 17.5% 39.4% 41.5% 1.3% 0.3% 701
.....Freshman
.....Sophomore 3.8 19.7% 44.3% 33.2% 2.1% 0.7% 584
.....Junior 3.7 16.7% 40.0% 39.0% 3.1% 1.2% 582
.....Senior 3.7 16.0% 40.6% 40.3% 2.3% 0.8% 780


F3c: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of notifying others about offensive language Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Gender* 3.6 13.1% 35.2% 47.2% 3.0% 1.5% 1,184
.....Male
.....Female 3.9 20.8% 45.7% 31.9% 1.5% 0.1% 1,463


F3c: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of notifying others about offensive language Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity* 3.9 25.3% 40.0% 33.2% 1.6% . 190
.....African American/Black
.....Asian 3.8 16.5% 49.6% 33.1% 0.7% . 139
.....Hispanic/Latino 3.9 23.7% 44.1% 30.5% . 1.7% 59
.....White/Caucasian 3.7 16.3% 40.5% 40.1% 2.4% 0.7% 2,108
.....Multiple races/ethnicities 3.8 22.6% 40.3% 33.9% 1.6% 1.6% 124
.....Other/Unknown 3.6 11.1% 40.7% 44.4% . 3.7% 27


F3c: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of notifying others about offensive language Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Residency 3.7 17.3% 41.1% 38.7% 2.2% 0.7% 2,621
.....U.S. resident
.....International student 3.8 23.1% 30.8% 46.2% . . 26


F3c: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of notifying others about offensive language Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background* 3.8 17.7% 42.9% 36.8% 1.9% 0.7% 576
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class 3.7 16.8% 42.4% 38.8% 1.4% 0.5% 1,291
.....Upper middle/Upper class 3.7 18.1% 37.6% 39.6% 3.7% 1.0% 766


F3c: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of notifying others about offensive language Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
First Generation College Student 3.8 20.3% 46.7% 30.5% 1.5% 1.0% 197
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation 3.7 17.1% 40.9% 39.2% 2.2% 0.7% 2,421


F3c: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of notifying others about offensive language Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Sexual Orientation* 3.7 16.8% 41.2% 39.2% 2.2% 0.7% 2,441
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual 3.9 29.4% 37.8% 28.7% 2.8% 1.4% 143
.....Prefer not to answer 3.6 11.1% 42.6% 46.3% . . 54


F3c: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of notifying others about offensive language Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Disability Status 3.7 17.3% 41.3% 38.7% 2.1% 0.6% 2,362
.....No disability
.....Disability 3.7 18.2% 38.2% 39.3% 2.8% 1.4% 285


F3c: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of notifying others about offensive language Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Age 3.7 17.5% 41.1% 38.4% 2.3% 0.7% 2,508
.....Traditional (18-27)
.....Non-Traditional (>27) 3.7 14.4% 39.6% 45.3% . 0.7% 139


F3d: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of initiating conversation with student of different race/ethnicity

  Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Total (N) 3.8 20.9% 43.0% 34.2% 1.5% 0.4% 2,650


F3d: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of initiating conversation with student of different race/ethnicity Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Academic Class 3.8 21.2% 43.2% 34.3% 1.0% 0.3% 703
.....Freshman
.....Sophomore 3.8 22.1% 41.0% 35.3% 1.2% 0.3% 583
.....Junior 3.8 19.2% 43.2% 34.1% 2.7% 0.7% 583
.....Senior 3.8 20.9% 44.2% 33.4% 1.3% 0.3% 781


F3d: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of initiating conversation with student of different race/ethnicity Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Gender* 3.7 16.9% 40.1% 40.2% 2.1% 0.8% 1,186
.....Male
.....Female 3.9 24.1% 45.4% 29.4% 1.0% 0.1% 1,464


F3d: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of initiating conversation with student of different race/ethnicity Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity* 4.0 28.3% 44.0% 25.7% 2.1% . 191
.....African American/Black
.....Asian 3.9 21.6% 47.5% 30.2% . 0.7% 139
.....Hispanic/Latino 4.0 32.2% 40.7% 25.4% 1.7% . 59
.....White/Caucasian 3.8 19.3% 43.3% 35.4% 1.6% 0.4% 2,110
.....Multiple races/ethnicities 3.9 30.6% 33.1% 34.7% 0.8% 0.8% 124
.....Other/Unknown 3.7 14.8% 40.7% 40.7% 3.7% . 27


F3d: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of initiating conversation with student of different race/ethnicity Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Residency 3.8 20.8% 43.1% 34.2% 1.5% 0.4% 2,624
.....U.S. resident
.....International student 3.9 26.9% 38.5% 34.6% . . 26


F3d: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of initiating conversation with student of different race/ethnicity Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background 3.8 20.6% 42.9% 33.2% 2.6% 0.7% 578
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class 3.8 21.1% 43.5% 34.3% 0.9% 0.2% 1,289
.....Upper middle/Upper class 3.8 20.8% 42.7% 34.3% 1.7% 0.5% 769


F3d: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of initiating conversation with student of different race/ethnicity Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
First Generation College Student 3.9 24.4% 46.7% 26.4% 2.0% 0.5% 197
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation 3.8 20.6% 43.0% 34.5% 1.5% 0.4% 2,423


F3d: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of initiating conversation with student of different race/ethnicity Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Sexual Orientation* 3.8 20.5% 43.7% 34.1% 1.4% 0.3% 2,443
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual 3.9 29.9% 35.4% 31.3% 2.1% 1.4% 144
.....Prefer not to answer 3.6 13.0% 35.2% 48.1% 3.7% . 54


F3d: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of initiating conversation with student of different race/ethnicity Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Disability Status* 3.8 21.1% 43.2% 34.0% 1.4% 0.2% 2,365
.....No disability
.....Disability 3.7 18.6% 41.4% 36.1% 2.1% 1.8% 285


F3d: Influence of NCSU: Likelihood of initiating conversation with student of different race/ethnicity Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Age 3.8 21.1% 43.0% 34.0% 1.6% 0.4% 2,509
.....Traditional (18-27)
.....Non-Traditional (>27) 3.8 17.0% 44.0% 38.3% . 0.7% 141


F3e: Influence of NCSU: Comfort working with students from diverse backgrounds

  Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Total (N) 3.9 24.0% 45.4% 29.3% 0.9% 0.5% 2,648


F3e: Influence of NCSU: Comfort working with students from diverse backgrounds Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Academic Class 3.9 23.6% 44.0% 31.6% 0.3% 0.4% 702
.....Freshman
.....Sophomore 4.0 26.4% 44.8% 27.6% 0.9% 0.3% 583
.....Junior 3.9 23.1% 44.8% 29.6% 1.7% 0.9% 581
.....Senior 3.9 23.1% 47.4% 28.3% 0.8% 0.4% 782


F3e: Influence of NCSU: Comfort working with students from diverse backgrounds Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Gender* 3.8 19.4% 43.5% 34.7% 1.4% 0.9% 1,183
.....Male
.....Female 4.0 27.7% 46.8% 24.9% 0.4% 0.1% 1,465


F3e: Influence of NCSU: Comfort working with students from diverse backgrounds Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity* 4.0 31.9% 41.9% 25.1% 0.5% 0.5% 191
.....African American/Black
.....Asian 4.0 26.8% 50.7% 21.7% 0.7% . 138
.....Hispanic/Latino 4.1 35.6% 40.7% 23.7% . . 59
.....White/Caucasian 3.9 22.3% 45.8% 30.5% 0.9% 0.5% 2,109
.....Multiple races/ethnicities 4.0 30.6% 43.5% 24.2% 0.8% 0.8% 124
.....Other/Unknown 3.7 25.9% 29.6% 40.7% . 3.7% 27


F3e: Influence of NCSU: Comfort working with students from diverse backgrounds Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Residency 3.9 24.0% 45.3% 29.3% 0.9% 0.5% 2,622
.....U.S. resident
.....International student 4.0 26.9% 46.2% 26.9% . . 26


F3e: Influence of NCSU: Comfort working with students from diverse backgrounds Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background 3.9 23.2% 46.1% 28.2% 1.2% 1.2% 577
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class 3.9 24.4% 45.7% 29.2% 0.5% 0.2% 1,289
.....Upper middle/Upper class 3.9 24.1% 44.5% 29.7% 1.2% 0.5% 768


F3e: Influence of NCSU: Comfort working with students from diverse backgrounds Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
First Generation College Student 4.0 27.9% 46.2% 23.4% 1.0% 1.5% 197
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation 3.9 23.6% 45.6% 29.5% 0.9% 0.4% 2,421


F3e: Influence of NCSU: Comfort working with students from diverse backgrounds Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Sexual Orientation 3.9 23.9% 45.7% 29.1% 0.8% 0.5% 2,441
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual 3.9 29.2% 39.6% 28.5% 1.4% 1.4% 144
.....Prefer not to answer 3.7 14.8% 44.4% 40.7% . . 54


F3e: Influence of NCSU: Comfort working with students from diverse backgrounds Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Disability Status* 3.9 24.2% 46.1% 28.6% 0.8% 0.3% 2,364
.....No disability
.....Disability 3.8 22.2% 39.4% 34.9% 1.8% 1.8% 284


F3e: Influence of NCSU: Comfort working with students from diverse backgrounds Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Age 3.9 24.1% 45.4% 29.1% 0.9% 0.5% 2,507
.....Traditional (18-27)
.....Non-Traditional (>27) 3.9 21.3% 44.7% 32.6% 0.7% 0.7% 141


F3f: Influence of NCSU: Understanding of diversity

  Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Total (N) 3.9 25.0% 45.2% 27.9% 1.4% 0.4% 2,648


F3f: Influence of NCSU: Understanding of diversity Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Academic Class 4.0 25.7% 45.1% 28.2% 0.9% 0.1% 703
.....Freshman
.....Sophomore 4.0 28.3% 44.0% 26.0% 1.4% 0.3% 580
.....Junior 3.9 22.9% 45.5% 29.9% 1.0% 0.7% 582
.....Senior 3.9 23.6% 46.1% 27.6% 2.3% 0.4% 783


F3f: Influence of NCSU: Understanding of diversity Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Gender* 3.8 20.2% 42.0% 34.5% 2.5% 0.8% 1,183
.....Male
.....Female 4.1 28.9% 47.8% 22.6% 0.5% 0.1% 1,465


F3f: Influence of NCSU: Understanding of diversity Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity 4.0 31.4% 43.5% 23.6% 1.0% 0.5% 191
.....African American/Black
.....Asian 4.0 26.6% 51.8% 19.4% 2.2% . 139
.....Hispanic/Latino 4.0 29.3% 44.8% 25.9% . . 58
.....White/Caucasian 3.9 23.8% 45.2% 29.3% 1.4% 0.4% 2,109
.....Multiple races/ethnicities 4.0 31.5% 45.2% 20.2% 2.4% 0.8% 124
.....Other/Unknown 3.9 33.3% 29.6% 33.3% 3.7% . 27


F3f: Influence of NCSU: Understanding of diversity Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Residency 3.9 24.9% 45.2% 28.0% 1.4% 0.4% 2,622
.....U.S. resident
.....International student 4.2 34.6% 46.2% 19.2% . . 26


F3f: Influence of NCSU: Understanding of diversity Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background 3.9 25.7% 43.5% 28.8% 1.6% 0.3% 579
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class 4.0 25.2% 46.3% 27.1% 1.1% 0.3% 1,288
.....Upper middle/Upper class 3.9 24.3% 45.2% 28.0% 2.0% 0.5% 767


F3f: Influence of NCSU: Understanding of diversity Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
First Generation College Student 4.0 26.8% 46.5% 25.8% 0.5% 0.5% 198
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation 3.9 24.9% 45.5% 27.7% 1.5% 0.4% 2,419


F3f: Influence of NCSU: Understanding of diversity Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Sexual Orientation* 3.9 24.6% 45.6% 28.1% 1.3% 0.4% 2,440
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual 4.1 36.6% 37.9% 21.4% 3.4% 0.7% 145
.....Prefer not to answer 3.7 13.0% 50.0% 35.2% 1.9% . 54


F3f: Influence of NCSU: Understanding of diversity Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Disability Status* 3.9 25.2% 45.9% 27.3% 1.3% 0.3% 2,365
.....No disability
.....Disability 3.8 23.7% 39.9% 32.9% 2.8% 0.7% 283


F3f: Influence of NCSU: Understanding of diversity Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Age 3.9 25.2% 45.2% 27.8% 1.5% 0.3% 2,506
.....Traditional (18-27)
.....Non-Traditional (>27) 3.9 21.8% 46.5% 29.6% 0.7% 1.4% 142


F3g: Influence of NCSU: Ability to work in job with people of diverse backgrounds

  Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Total (N) 4.0 26.1% 45.3% 27.9% 0.5% 0.2% 2,647


F3g: Influence of NCSU: Ability to work in job with people of diverse backgrounds Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Academic Class 4.0 26.3% 44.1% 29.2% 0.3% 0.1% 703
.....Freshman
.....Sophomore 4.0 27.5% 46.1% 26.0% 0.2% 0.2% 581
.....Junior 3.9 24.2% 45.7% 29.0% 0.7% 0.3% 582
.....Senior 4.0 26.2% 45.6% 27.3% 0.6% 0.3% 781


F3g: Influence of NCSU: Ability to work in job with people of diverse backgrounds Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Gender* 3.8 21.1% 43.3% 34.3% 0.8% 0.5% 1,183
.....Male
.....Female 4.1 30.1% 47.0% 22.7% 0.2% . 1,464


F3g: Influence of NCSU: Ability to work in job with people of diverse backgrounds Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity* 4.1 34.0% 45.5% 19.9% 0.5% . 191
.....African American/Black
.....Asian 4.1 26.6% 53.2% 19.4% 0.7% . 139
.....Hispanic/Latino 4.2 39.0% 44.1% 16.9% . . 59
.....White/Caucasian 3.9 24.7% 45.0% 29.6% 0.5% 0.2% 2,108
.....Multiple races/ethnicities 4.1 30.9% 46.3% 22.0% . 0.8% 123
.....Other/Unknown 3.9 29.6% 29.6% 40.7% . . 27


F3g: Influence of NCSU: Ability to work in job with people of diverse backgrounds Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Residency 4.0 25.9% 45.4% 28.0% 0.5% 0.2% 2,621
.....U.S. resident
.....International student 4.3 46.2% 38.5% 15.4% . . 26


F3g: Influence of NCSU: Ability to work in job with people of diverse backgrounds Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background 3.9 24.9% 46.4% 27.7% 0.7% 0.3% 578
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class 4.0 27.2% 45.5% 27.0% 0.2% 0.1% 1,286
.....Upper middle/Upper class 3.9 25.4% 44.7% 28.9% 0.7% 0.4% 769


F3g: Influence of NCSU: Ability to work in job with people of diverse backgrounds Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
First Generation College Student 4.0 29.8% 46.5% 22.7% 0.5% 0.5% 198
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation 4.0 25.8% 45.5% 28.0% 0.5% 0.2% 2,418


F3g: Influence of NCSU: Ability to work in job with people of diverse backgrounds Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Sexual Orientation 4.0 25.9% 45.7% 27.8% 0.4% 0.2% 2,439
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual 4.0 33.1% 37.9% 26.9% 1.4% 0.7% 145
.....Prefer not to answer 3.8 16.7% 48.1% 35.2% . . 54


F3g: Influence of NCSU: Ability to work in job with people of diverse backgrounds Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Disability Status* 4.0 26.5% 46.1% 26.9% 0.4% 0.2% 2,363
.....No disability
.....Disability 3.8 22.9% 39.1% 36.3% 1.1% 0.7% 284


F3g: Influence of NCSU: Ability to work in job with people of diverse backgrounds Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Age 4.0 26.3% 45.3% 27.7% 0.5% 0.2% 2,505
.....Traditional (18-27)
.....Non-Traditional (>27) 3.9 22.5% 45.8% 31.0% . 0.7% 142


F3h: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different race/ethnicity

  Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Total (N) 3.9 25.3% 45.4% 28.1% 0.8% 0.3% 2,648


F3h: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different race/ethnicity Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Academic Class 4.0 25.5% 44.7% 29.2% 0.4% 0.1% 702
.....Freshman
.....Sophomore 4.0 26.6% 45.5% 26.5% 1.2% 0.2% 582
.....Junior 3.9 23.9% 44.5% 29.7% 1.0% 0.9% 582
.....Senior 4.0 25.2% 46.7% 27.2% 0.6% 0.3% 782


F3h: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different race/ethnicity Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Gender* 3.8 20.2% 43.8% 33.8% 1.5% 0.8% 1,184
.....Male
.....Female 4.1 29.4% 46.8% 23.6% 0.2% . 1,464


F3h: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different race/ethnicity Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity 4.1 31.9% 47.1% 19.4% 1.6% . 191
.....African American/Black
.....Asian 4.0 28.8% 46.8% 24.5% . . 139
.....Hispanic/Latino 4.2 33.9% 47.5% 18.6% . . 59
.....White/Caucasian 3.9 23.9% 45.5% 29.4% 0.9% 0.4% 2,109
.....Multiple races/ethnicities 4.0 30.9% 41.5% 26.8% . 0.8% 123
.....Other/Unknown 4.0 29.6% 37.0% 33.3% . . 27


F3h: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different race/ethnicity Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Residency 3.9 25.2% 45.5% 28.2% 0.8% 0.3% 2,622
.....U.S. resident
.....International student 4.2 38.5% 42.3% 19.2% . . 26


F3h: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different race/ethnicity Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background 3.9 25.0% 44.6% 28.7% 1.4% 0.3% 579
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class 4.0 26.1% 45.9% 27.1% 0.7% 0.2% 1,289
.....Upper middle/Upper class 3.9 24.3% 45.7% 28.9% 0.5% 0.7% 766


F3h: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different race/ethnicity Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
First Generation College Student 4.0 29.3% 43.9% 25.8% 0.5% 0.5% 198
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation 3.9 25.1% 45.8% 28.0% 0.8% 0.3% 2,419


F3h: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different race/ethnicity Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Sexual Orientation 3.9 25.1% 45.8% 27.9% 0.8% 0.3% 2,441
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual 4.0 32.6% 37.5% 29.2% . 0.7% 144
.....Prefer not to answer 3.8 14.8% 50.0% 33.3% 1.9% . 54


F3h: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different race/ethnicity Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Disability Status* 4.0 25.6% 45.9% 27.5% 0.8% 0.3% 2,363
.....No disability
.....Disability 3.8 22.5% 41.8% 33.7% 1.1% 1.1% 285


F3h: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different race/ethnicity Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Age 3.9 25.4% 45.5% 27.9% 0.8% 0.3% 2,506
.....Traditional (18-27)
.....Non-Traditional (>27) 3.9 23.2% 43.7% 32.4% . 0.7% 142


F3i: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different sexual orientation

  Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Total (N) 3.8 23.4% 37.4% 35.9% 2.0% 1.2% 2,649


F3i: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different sexual orientation Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Academic Class 3.8 22.5% 36.4% 38.0% 2.1% 1.0% 703
.....Freshman
.....Sophomore 3.9 26.0% 38.2% 33.0% 1.5% 1.2% 584
.....Junior 3.8 22.4% 36.9% 37.4% 2.1% 1.2% 580
.....Senior 3.8 23.0% 38.0% 35.2% 2.3% 1.5% 782


F3i: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different sexual orientation Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Gender* 3.6 18.2% 32.3% 43.7% 3.3% 2.5% 1,182
.....Male
.....Female 4.0 27.6% 41.4% 29.7% 1.0% 0.2% 1,467


F3i: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different sexual orientation Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity 4.0 29.7% 39.1% 28.6% 2.6% . 192
.....African American/Black
.....Asian 3.9 23.0% 45.3% 29.5% 0.7% 1.4% 139
.....Hispanic/Latino 3.9 27.1% 39.0% 32.2% 1.7% . 59
.....White/Caucasian 3.8 22.5% 37.0% 37.1% 2.2% 1.2% 2,108
.....Multiple races/ethnicities 3.8 28.2% 32.3% 35.5% 0.8% 3.2% 124
.....Other/Unknown 3.7 22.2% 37.0% 37.0% . 3.7% 27


F3i: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different sexual orientation Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Residency 3.8 23.3% 37.5% 35.9% 2.1% 1.3% 2,623
.....U.S. resident
.....International student 4.0 38.5% 23.1% 38.5% . . 26


F3i: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different sexual orientation Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background 3.8 22.8% 38.3% 35.4% 2.1% 1.4% 579
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class 3.8 23.4% 38.7% 34.9% 1.9% 1.1% 1,288
.....Upper middle/Upper class 3.8 24.1% 34.9% 37.5% 2.2% 1.3% 768


F3i: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different sexual orientation Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
First Generation College Student 3.9 27.4% 40.6% 29.4% 0.5% 2.0% 197
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation 3.8 23.1% 37.4% 36.1% 2.2% 1.1% 2,421


F3i: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different sexual orientation Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Sexual Orientation* 3.8 22.6% 37.8% 36.2% 2.2% 1.2% 2,442
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual 4.0 38.2% 29.2% 30.6% . 2.1% 144
.....Prefer not to answer 3.8 18.5% 42.6% 37.0% 1.9% . 54


F3i: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different sexual orientation Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Disability Status 3.8 23.4% 37.9% 35.7% 1.8% 1.2% 2,364
.....No disability
.....Disability 3.7 23.9% 32.6% 38.2% 3.9% 1.4% 285


F3i: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different sexual orientation Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Age 3.8 23.5% 37.4% 35.8% 2.1% 1.2% 2,508
.....Traditional (18-27)
.....Non-Traditional (>27) 3.8 22.0% 36.9% 39.0% 0.7% 1.4% 141


F3j: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people with disabilities

  Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Total (N) 3.8 21.9% 40.7% 36.7% 0.5% 0.2% 2,652


F3j: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people with disabilities Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Academic Class 3.9 23.3% 41.2% 35.4% 0.1% . 704
.....Freshman
.....Sophomore 3.8 22.8% 40.4% 36.0% 0.7% 0.2% 584
.....Junior 3.8 19.4% 42.1% 38.1% 0.3% . 582
.....Senior 3.8 21.9% 39.5% 37.5% 0.8% 0.4% 782


F3j: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people with disabilities Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Gender* 3.7 17.7% 38.3% 43.1% 0.6% 0.3% 1,186
.....Male
.....Female 3.9 25.3% 42.7% 31.6% 0.4% . 1,466


F3j: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people with disabilities Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity* 3.9 26.6% 38.5% 33.9% 1.0% . 192
.....African American/Black
.....Asian 3.9 20.1% 48.9% 30.2% . 0.7% 139
.....Hispanic/Latino 3.9 30.5% 35.6% 30.5% 3.4% . 59
.....White/Caucasian 3.8 21.3% 40.9% 37.4% 0.4% 0.1% 2,111
.....Multiple races/ethnicities 3.8 23.4% 35.5% 39.5% 0.8% 0.8% 124
.....Other/Unknown 3.8 22.2% 37.0% 40.7% . . 27


F3j: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people with disabilities Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Residency 3.8 21.9% 40.7% 36.8% 0.5% 0.2% 2,626
.....U.S. resident
.....International student 4.0 26.9% 46.2% 26.9% . . 26


F3j: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people with disabilities Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background 3.9 21.9% 42.1% 35.3% 0.5% 0.2% 580
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class 3.9 22.5% 40.9% 36.3% 0.3% . 1,289
.....Upper middle/Upper class 3.8 21.1% 39.8% 38.0% 0.8% 0.4% 769


F3j: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people with disabilities Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
First Generation College Student 3.9 24.7% 45.5% 28.8% 0.5% 0.5% 198
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation 3.8 21.7% 40.6% 37.1% 0.5% 0.1% 2,423


F3j: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people with disabilities Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Sexual Orientation* 3.8 21.6% 41.1% 36.7% 0.5% 0.1% 2,444
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual 3.9 29.7% 33.1% 35.2% 0.7% 1.4% 145
.....Prefer not to answer 3.7 13.0% 44.4% 42.6% . . 54


F3j: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people with disabilities Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Disability Status* 3.8 21.8% 41.6% 36.0% 0.5% 0.1% 2,367
.....No disability
.....Disability 3.8 22.8% 33.3% 42.8% 0.4% 0.7% 285


F3j: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people with disabilities Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Age 3.8 22.0% 40.8% 36.6% 0.5% 0.1% 2,510
.....Traditional (18-27)
.....Non-Traditional (>27) 3.8 21.1% 39.4% 38.7% . 0.7% 142


F3k: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different religion

  Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Total (N) 3.9 24.6% 41.4% 32.3% 1.2% 0.5% 2,650


F3k: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different religion Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Academic Class 3.9 24.9% 41.0% 32.9% 0.9% 0.3% 702
.....Freshman
.....Sophomore 3.9 26.2% 42.7% 29.5% 1.0% 0.5% 583
.....Junior 3.9 23.3% 41.3% 33.6% 1.2% 0.5% 583
.....Senior 3.9 23.9% 40.9% 32.7% 1.8% 0.6% 782


F3k: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different religion Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Gender* 3.8 20.4% 37.7% 39.3% 1.7% 0.8% 1,185
.....Male
.....Female 4.0 27.9% 44.4% 26.6% 0.9% 0.2% 1,465


F3k: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different religion Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity 4.0 29.2% 40.6% 29.2% 1.0% . 192
.....African American/Black
.....Asian 4.0 24.5% 49.6% 24.5% 1.4% . 139
.....Hispanic/Latino 4.1 33.9% 40.7% 23.7% . 1.7% 59
.....White/Caucasian 3.9 23.6% 41.3% 33.3% 1.4% 0.5% 2,109
.....Multiple races/ethnicities 3.9 29.0% 38.7% 30.6% . 1.6% 124
.....Other/Unknown 3.9 25.9% 33.3% 40.7% . . 27


F3k: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different religion Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Residency 3.9 24.5% 41.5% 32.3% 1.3% 0.5% 2,624
.....U.S. resident
.....International student 4.0 30.8% 38.5% 30.8% . . 26


F3k: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different religion Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background 3.9 23.3% 43.1% 31.6% 1.6% 0.5% 580
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class 3.9 25.3% 42.1% 31.1% 1.2% 0.3% 1,288
.....Upper middle/Upper class 3.9 24.5% 39.6% 34.0% 1.2% 0.8% 768


F3k: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different religion Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
First Generation College Student 3.9 27.3% 43.4% 26.8% 1.5% 1.0% 198
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation 3.9 24.4% 41.6% 32.4% 1.2% 0.5% 2,421


F3k: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different religion Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Sexual Orientation* 3.9 24.3% 41.8% 32.4% 1.1% 0.4% 2,442
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual 3.9 31.7% 35.2% 28.3% 3.4% 1.4% 145
.....Prefer not to answer 3.7 16.7% 46.3% 33.3% 1.9% 1.9% 54


F3k: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different religion Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Disability Status 3.9 24.5% 42.2% 31.7% 1.1% 0.5% 2,366
.....No disability
.....Disability 3.8 25.0% 35.2% 37.0% 2.1% 0.7% 284


F3k: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different religion Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Age 3.9 24.7% 41.7% 31.9% 1.3% 0.5% 2,508
.....Traditional (18-27)
.....Non-Traditional (>27) 3.8 21.8% 37.3% 39.4% 0.7% 0.7% 142


F3l: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different country-of-origin

  Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Total (N) 4.0 27.3% 43.9% 27.8% 0.7% 0.4% 2,649


F3l: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different country-of-origin Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Academic Class 4.0 26.6% 43.5% 29.4% 0.6% . 704
.....Freshman
.....Sophomore 4.0 29.8% 43.1% 26.2% 0.2% 0.7% 583
.....Junior 3.9 25.8% 43.7% 29.3% 0.9% 0.3% 581
.....Senior 4.0 27.0% 44.9% 26.4% 1.2% 0.5% 781


F3l: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different country-of-origin Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Gender* 3.8 21.8% 42.9% 33.3% 1.1% 0.8% 1,186
.....Male
.....Female 4.1 31.6% 44.6% 23.3% 0.4% . 1,463


F3l: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different country-of-origin Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Race/Ethnicity* 4.1 31.3% 46.4% 21.4% 1.0% . 192
.....African American/Black
.....Asian 4.1 28.8% 47.5% 23.7% . . 139
.....Hispanic/Latino 4.1 35.6% 40.7% 22.0% 1.7% . 59
.....White/Caucasian 4.0 26.3% 44.0% 28.7% 0.7% 0.3% 2,108
.....Multiple races/ethnicities 4.0 32.3% 37.9% 28.2% . 1.6% 124
.....Other/Unknown 3.7 25.9% 33.3% 33.3% 3.7% 3.7% 27


F3l: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different country-of-origin Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Residency 4.0 27.1% 43.9% 27.8% 0.7% 0.4% 2,623
.....U.S. resident
.....International student 4.2 38.5% 38.5% 23.1% . . 26


F3l: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different country-of-origin Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Socioeconomic Background 3.9 25.1% 44.3% 29.2% 0.9% 0.5% 578
.....Poor/Working class
.....Middle class 4.0 28.2% 44.6% 26.5% 0.5% 0.2% 1,289
.....Upper middle/Upper class 4.0 27.5% 42.8% 28.3% 1.0% 0.4% 768


F3l: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different country-of-origin Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
First Generation College Student 4.0 27.3% 45.5% 25.3% 1.5% 0.5% 198
.....First generation student
.....Not first generation 4.0 27.3% 44.0% 27.7% 0.6% 0.3% 2,420


F3l: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different country-of-origin Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Sexual Orientation 4.0 27.0% 44.1% 27.8% 0.7% 0.4% 2,444
.....Heterosexual or straight
.....Gay, lesbian, or bisexual 4.0 34.5% 37.3% 25.4% 2.1% 0.7% 142
.....Prefer not to answer 3.9 18.5% 50.0% 31.5% . . 54


F3l: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different country-of-origin Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Disability Status* 4.0 27.4% 44.5% 27.2% 0.6% 0.3% 2,366
.....No disability
.....Disability 3.9 25.8% 38.9% 32.9% 1.4% 1.1% 283


F3l: Influence of NCSU: Comfort interacting with people of different country-of-origin Mean Rating 5: Very
positive influence
4: Positive
influence

3: Neither
positive nor
negative influence
2: Negative
influence

1: Very negative
influence

Total (N)
Age 4.0 27.5% 43.9% 27.6% 0.7% 0.4% 2,509
.....Traditional (18-27)
.....Non-Traditional (>27) 3.9 23.6% 43.6% 30.7% 1.4% 0.7% 140
Back to Top

View These Results by Academic College

To download an MS Word document with results by demographic profile, click here.

Endnote:
Academic class, gender, residency, and age are based on information obtained from official university records. Race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, college generation, sexual orientation, and disability status are based on self-reported survey data. Race/ethnicity was obtained from official university records for those who chose not to self-identify. (back)


For more information on the 2010 Campus Climate Survey contact:
Dr. Nancy Whelchel, Associate Director for Survey Research
Office of Institutional Planning and Research
Box 7002
NCSU
Phone: (919) 515-4184
Email: Nancy_Whelchel@ncsu.edu

Posted: January, 2011

Return to Student Demographic Profile Table of Contents

Return to 2010 Campus Climate Survey Table of Contents

Return to OIRP Survey Page

Return to OIRP Home Page