Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning Fall 2016, pp. 37–44 The Counter- Normative Effects of Service- Learning: fostering Attitudes toward Social Equality through Contact and Autonomy Margaret A. Brown Jared D. Wymer Cierra S. Cooper Seattle Pacific University Power dynamics are implicated in intergroup prosocial behavior (Nadler & Halabi, 2015). This research investigated two factors that influence the effect of intergroup prosocial behavior on views of social equal- ity: amount of direct intergroup contact and type of helping. Students in a social psychology course (N = 93) were randomly assigned to a service-l earning group or to a control group. The service-l earning group was further subdivided into an autonomy- oriented helping group or a dependency-o riented helping group. After participating in approximately 19 hours of community service over nine weeks, service-l earners had more positive views of social equality compared to the control group. This effect was strongest in autonomy- oriented helpers who had high levels of direct intergroup contact. The implications and mech- anisms of service- learning as a form of counter- normative intergroup prosocial behavior are discussed. Prosocial behavior is an integral, adaptive com- for this study’s design and hypotheses, focusing on ponent of human functioning. Prosocial behavior the intimate relationship between IPB and power. can take many forms, including spontaneous assis- Power dynamics are frequently implicated in tance offered in emergencies, sustained community IPB. The group offering assistance (i.e., the “help- service, and the billions of dollars given each year ers”) may possess some resource that the other in philanthropy. Communities richly benefit from group (i.e., the “recipients”) lacks, and thus the the time, resources, and talents of prosocial people. transaction is founded on a status differential. The Prosocial behavior also benefits helpers. Prosocial Intergroup Helping as Status Relations Model people become happier, healthier, and experience (IHSR; Nadler, 2002; Nadler & Halabi, 2006) is the a greater sense of purpose in life through their ser- most well- developed theory in social psychology vice to others (Piliavin, 2003; Smith & Davidson, to describe the connection between IPB and pow- 2014). er dynamics. The model is based on the assump- Prosocial behavior that is “intergroup” (i.e., tion that pervasive legitimation of social inequal- that occurs across different social groups) has the ity (Costa‐Lopes, Dovidio, Pereira, & Jost, 2013) added potential benefit of increasing people’s ex- operates within IPB, such that rather than promote posure to diverse group members and may result equality, prosocial behavior frequently serves the in an increased preference for social equality. ironic function of keeping high status and low sta- Brown (2011a, 2011b) found that participating in tus groups in their respective places (Cunningham service- learning, a form of intergroup prosocial & Platow, 2007; Halabi, Dovidio, & Nadler, 2008; behavior (IPB), reduced social dominance orienta- Jackson & Esses, 2000; Nadler & Chernyak-H ai, tion (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994). 2014). Social dominance orientation is an anti-e galitarian The IHSR differentiates between two types attitude that includes one’s preference for group- of prosocial behavior: autonomy- oriented and based social hierarchy and support for discrimina- dependency- oriented. Autonomy- oriented helping tion against lower status groups (Sidanius & Pratto, is aimed at assisting the recipient to help him or 1999). The conditions under which these benefits of herself by providing a partial solution such as tools intergroup prosocial behavior are most likely to ac- that can be used to resolve the issue or need. In con- crue have not yet been explored. The present study trast, dependency- oriented helping provides a full examines two variables hypothesized to influence solution to the recipient’s need. Autonomy- oriented the relationship between IPB and attitudes toward helping reflects the perspective that the recipient is social equality: the amount of direct, personal con- autonomous and efficacious, whereas dependency- tact that groups have with one another and the type oriented helping reflects a more negative view of of assistance offered. We begin with a brief review the recipient as dependent and incapable. The IHSR of the literature to provide the theoretical context predicts that higher status groups will be most apt 37 Brown, Wymer, and Cooper to provide dependency- oriented help to lower sta- oriented helping. In autonomy- oriented helping, tus groups. Dependency- oriented help keeps lower both groups share the goal of genuinely and more status group dependent and further entrenches ex- permanently improving the condition of the recip- isting social hierarchy. By extension, it legitimates ient group; in addition, autonomy-o riented helping and cements the prejudicial attitudes of high status relies on an agentic, positive view of the recipient, group members toward low status group members which deemphasizes status differentials between as incompetent and weak (Nadler, 2002; Nadler & groups. Chernyak- Hai, 2014; Nadler & Halabi, 2015). In the present study, college student participants While the IHSR model is useful for understand- were randomly assigned to a service- learning group ing typical instances of IPB, it does not apply to all or control group that did not take part in community forms of IPB. In a series of studies, Brown (2011a, service. Within the service-l earning condition, par- 2011b) found that college students randomly as- ticipants were subdivided into either autonomy- or signed to participate in service-l earning had a dependency- oriented helping groups, and the di- greater preference for social equality after the expe- rect contact hours that service- learners spent with rience than a control group, as indexed by reduced the clients at the community sites was measured. social dominance orientation scores. While it would have been ideal to randomly assign Service- learning is defined as: service- learners to high and low levels of direct contact, it was not possible to achieve this without a course- based, credit- bearing educational compromising the specific needs of the various ser- experience in which students (a) participate vice sites, which often varied from week-t o- week. in mutually identified and organized service The dependent measure was scores on the Equality activities that benefit the community, and (b) and Social Responsibility orientation scale (ESRo; reflect on the service activity in such a way as Bowman & Brandenberger, 2012), selected be- to gain further understanding of course content cause it assesses attitudes toward social equality and an enhanced sense of personal values and civic responsibility (adapted from Bringle & and the importance of social responsibility, and has Hatcher, 1996, p. 222). been validated in previous research examining the outcomes of college diversity experiences includ- Service- learning is an atypical, “counter- ing service- learning (Bowman & Brandenberger; normative” form of IPB for a variety of reasons Bowman, Brandenberger, Mick, & Smedley, 2010). (Clayton & Ash, 2004). Most salient to this re- our first hypothesis was that the service-l earning search, it is collaborative and democratic (Bring- condition would affect participants’ attitudes. le, Reeb, Brown, & Ruiz, 2016). Both groups par- We predicted that those engaged in autonomy- ticipate in defining the need as well as the nature oriented helping would develop more positive atti- and parameters of the interaction. Further, service- tudes toward social equality than those engaged in learning is predicated on the assumption that pro- dependency- oriented helping, and that both service- social interactions are reciprocal rather than uni- learning groups would have more positive attitudes directional. Both groups learn from one another, toward social equality than the control group. our and both groups benefit (i.e., are served) from the second hypothesis was that helping type would in- interaction. teract with direct intergroup contact to predict at- Although Brown’s (2011a, 2011b) research titudes toward social equality. Specifically, we ex- shows that IPB in the form of service-l earning can pected that those in autonomy- oriented placements promote more favorable attitudes toward social would be the most benefited by increased direct equality amongst high status group members, the contact with clients at their service sites. conditions under which this effect is most likely to occur have not yet been explored. The contact hy- Method pothesis (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006) suggests that direct, personal contact facilitates Participants more positive intergroup attitudes. Therefore, we predict that IPB with high levels of direct contact Ninety- three students enrolled in a social psy- between groups is likely to produce the best effects chology course at a small private university in an (Koschate, oethinger, Kuchenbrandt, & Van Dick, urban center of the Northwestern United States 2012). Further, research on the contact hypothesis participated in exchange for extra course credit. finds that the benefits of contact are enhanced when Using random assignment to conditions, 47 of the the groups have common goals and are of equal sta- participants (8 men, 39 women) were assigned to tus. Helping that is autonomy-o riented is much more the service- learning condition, while 46 of the par- likely to fit with these conditions than dependency- ticipants (6 men, 39 women, 1 not identified) were 38 The Counter-Normative Effects of Service-Learning assigned to the control condition. The gender im- sites as autonomy- or dependency- oriented based balance in the sample (83.9% women) was likely on descriptions of the placements provided by attributable to the high concentration of psychol- the community organizations. An example of an ogy majors in the course. At this university (and autonomy- oriented placement was the Empower- consistent with nationwide trends; Willyard, 2011), ing Youth and Family outreach organization, which women comprise the preponderance of psychology provides tutoring and mentoring to at-r isk youth. majors. Seven other students enrolled in the course A dependency- oriented placement involved provid- chose not to participate in the study. Three of the ing basic care to residents at a nursing facility (e.g., non- participating students were in the service- helping serve food to residents). There were 30 learning condition, and four were in the control service- learners in autonomy- oriented placements condition. The mean age of participants was 20.68 and 17 service- learners in dependency- oriented (SD = 1.66), with the following racial/ethnic self- placements. The unequal distribution of placements identification: White or European American, n = 66, was due to the greater number of university part- Asian or Asian American, n = 8, Hispanic or Lati- nerships with autonomy-o riented organizations, no, n = 6, American Indian or Alaskan Native n = 4, and therefore more placements were available at Black or African American, n = 2, and other, n = 5. those sites. Nevertheless, assignment to helping The sample had similar numbers of non- Hispanic type was randomized to reduce selection bias. At white/European Americans (71%) to the university the end of the quarter, service-l earners were asked population at the time of the study (68%), and to to indicate whether they felt their service was more the surrounding metropolitan area during the most autonomy- or dependency- oriented (definitions recent available census (year 2010; 72.7%). were provided), and their judgments aligned with those of the research team. The number of service Service- Learning and Control Group Procedures hours was not strictly controlled and direct contact was not randomly assigned, but a post- hoc analysis on the first day of the academic quarter, students revealed no significant differences between service were informed of the service project component groups regarding the amount of total service time of the course. They were told that understanding (p = .20) or hours in direct contact with clients (p the issues in one’s local community was critical to = .51). informed citizenship and that it would help them Even though service-l earning activities may in- to more deeply understand several of the concepts volve one- on- one interactions, service-l earning ex- presented in the course. They were also told that periences are considered to be an intergroup expe- the instructor was investigating the effectiveness rience because the service-l earning context makes of different pedagogical techniques for having group affiliations salient, and thus intergroup dy- students learn about community issues and course namics apply (Turner, Hogg, oakes, Reicher, & concepts, and they were randomly assigned to one Wetherell, 1987; van Dijk & van Engen, 2013). The of two groups: “service- learning” or “service re- clients at the service sites were different than the search” (control). Students were informed that both service- learners in a variety of salient demograph- groups were designed to take an equivalent amount ic characteristics. Student service- learners were of of time, approximately 18 hours across nine weeks. traditional college age, in relatively good health, Both required equal amounts of coursework (i.e., and most were white and of middle or upper middle weekly journal entries and a final paper discussing socio- economic status. The clients of the service their service or research project). organizations included persons who were children, Participants in the service- learning group were elderly, in poverty or working class, homeless, and subsequently randomly assigned to receive one of ethnic minorities. Students chronicled their service two lists of community organizations with service experiences each week in a journal, using the struc- placements. one of the lists had autonomy-o riented ture of the DEAL model (Ash & Clayton, 2009). placements to choose from, and one of the lists had The service research (control) group was given a dependency- oriented placements. The lists con- list of weekly research topics from their instructor tained several community organizations, including to investigate. For example: food banks, nursing homes, homeless shelters, and This week your journal entry will be about urban youth tutoring programs. The average total food insecurity, poverty, and racism. Research time that students reported being at their service this topic using the Internet, library, or oth- sites was 19.17 hours (SD = 4.97), and the average er sources. Below are some examples of the amount of direct contact they reported with the or- types of things that you could report on, but ganizations’ clients was 15.40 hours (SD = 4.83). ultimately it is up to you what you choose to The research team classified the service-l earning include: What is the poverty rate in your city? 39 Brown, Wymer, and Cooper In the United States? What income level qual- predict ESRo scores. The ESRo is comprised of ifies a person to be considered living in pov- seven subscales, which were presented in counter- erty? What are the characteristics of those in balanced order: Responsibility for Improving So- poverty in this region (e.g., gender, race/eth- ciety (Nelson Laird, Engberg, & Hurtado, 2005), nicity, age, etc.)? What is food insecurity? In openness to Diversity (Pascarella, Edison, Nora, your city, what forms of assistance are avail- Hagedorn, & Terenzini, 1996), Empowerment able to people who are facing food insecurity? View of Helping (Michlitsch & Frankel, 1989), Consider investigating specific organizations Situational Attributions for Poverty (Feagin, 1971), such as Solid Ground. What is their mission, Self- Generating View of Helping (Michlitsch & what services do they provide, and how are Frankel, 1989), Belief in a Just World (Dalbert, they funded? How do racism and other forms Montada, & Schmitt, 1987), and Social Dominance of prejudice and oppression relate to poverty? orientation (Pratto et al., 1994). The latter three Did you encounter anything particularly in- subscales were reverse- coded, such that higher teresting or surprising in your research? What scores indicated greater equality and social respon- new perspectives or ideas did you encounter sibility orientation. All subscales were z- scored and as a part of your research? What connections averaged into a single, overall index of ESRo. The are you able to draw between classroom learn- measure demonstrated acceptable internal reliabil- ing (e.g., theories on the sources of prejudice, stereotyping, and reducing prejudice) and your ity (α = .73). research? Participants were told that this study was investi- gating how experiences in social psychology cours- Both the service-l earning and the service re- es relate to students’ attitudes toward other people search (control) groups wrote and submitted week- and social groups. Participation was voluntary and ly journal entries, engaged in class discussion on extra credit was awarded for participation. An alter- service and its connection to course content, and native extra credit assignment was provided to avoid wrote a final paper relating what they had learned coercion. The survey was administered during the about service to the course material. The two tenth week of the quarter. Students received a full groups were as similar as possible except for the debriefing on the last day of the course. experiential aspect of serving in the community. Results Study Procedure and Materials The first hypothesis that service condition The study measures were given to students [Autonomy- oriented Service- learning (AoSL), during the final week of the quarter, after their Dependency- oriented Service- learning (DoSL), service projects were completed. Students were and Control] would influence ESRo was tested asked some standard demographic questions, and with a 3- group, one way ANoVA. There was a sig- a few questions about their service placement (for nificant main effect, F(2, 90) = 20.33, p < .001, η2 = the service- learning group). Service-l earners were p .31, and follow- up analyses confirmed that the con- asked to indicate the name of their service-l earning trol condition had significantly lower ESRo scores site, how much total time they spent during the (M = - .32, SD = .58) than the DoSL condition (M quarter at the service site, and how much time they = .06, SD = .36; p = .01) and the AoSL condition spent in direct contact with clients at the site. Ad- (M = .45, SD = .50; p < .001). Additionally, ESRo ditionally, they were asked to classify their service scores were lower in the DoSL condition than in as dependency- oriented (i.e., whether their service the AoSL condition (p = .02). Thus, as predicted, was geared to provide a full solution to the cli- service- learners developed more positive attitudes ents’ needs, without much input from the client), toward social equality than the control group, with autonomy- oriented (i.e., providing clients with the autonomy- oriented helpers displaying the most tools to help address their own needs), neither, or positive attitudes of the three groups. both. Post- hoc analyses examining the seven subscales All participants received the primary assessment of the ESRo individually as dependent variables of Equality and Social Responsibility orientation revealed that all seven 3-g roup, one- way ANoVAs scale (ESRo; Bowman & Brandenberger, 2012). had significant overall F values (all p’s < .05), con- Bowman and Brandenberger define ESRo as “a set sistent with the composite ESRo results described of attitudes and values pertaining to the recognition above. The specific pattern of differences between and denunciation of societal inequality and the im- the AoSL, DoSL, and Control groups was the portance placed on helping others” (p. 185). Their same as described above (i.e., the three groups sig- research finds that positive diversity experiences nificantly differed from one another, with AoSL 40 The Counter-Normative Effects of Service-Learning the most positive, DoSL in the middle, and Control Figure 1 the least positive) for all of the individual subscales Equality and Social Responsibility Orientation with the exception of the Responsibility for Im- (ESRO) as a Function of Helping Type and proving Society subscale. In this case, both DoSL Direct Contact and AoSL groups were superior to the Control con- dition (p’s < .01) but not different from one another (p = .89). In sum, use of the overall ESRo com- posite was a good representation of its constituent components. To examine the second hypothesis that helping type would interact with direct contact to predict ESRo, we used a moderated regression analysis, with helping type (AoSL and DoSL) and direct contact hours as predictors. Direct contact hours was treated as a continuous predictor, and was mean- centered prior to the analysis. Helping type was coded as: AoSL = - 1, DoSL = 1. An interac- tion term was modeled by creating a cross-p roduct. There was a main effect of helping type, F(1, 43) = 6.12, p = .02, η2 = .13, accompanied by a main p effect of direct contact, F(1, 43) = 6.06, p = .02, η2 p = .12, and a helping type by direct contact interac- tion, F(1, 43) = 3.91, p = .048, η2 = .08. p Simple effects tests to examine the nature of the interaction revealed that direct contact had no effect on ESRo scores among those in the DoSL con- dition (t < 1), but there was a significant effect of Note. Direct contact hours depicted are predicted values, one stan- dard deviation above and below the mean. direct contact among those in the AoSL condition, t(43) = 3.74, p = .001. Additionally, helping type had no effect when direct contact hours were low oriented placements. Further, direct contact hours (one standard deviation below the mean; t < 1), but interacted with helping type, such that higher lev- a significant effect when direct contact hours were els of direct contact with the clients of community high (one standard deviation above the mean; t(43) organizations increased positive attitudes toward = 3.05, p = .005). The nature of the effects can be social equality, but only amongst service- learners seen in Figure 1. engaged in autonomy- oriented helping. A post- hoc moderated regression analysis that These findings extend our knowledge of how IPB examined the effect of non- contact service hours and views on power are related in counter- normative (i.e., hours spent doing administrative/clerical work IPB situations such as service-l earning. Nadler and that did not involve direct contact with clients) colleagues’ IHSR model (Nadler, 2002; Nadler & found that the only significant predictor of ESRo Halabi, 2006, 2015) delineates what higher status scores was helping type, F(1, 43) = 5.47, p = .02, groups do in typical IPB situations, when they are η2 = .11. Independent of how many non- contact free to choose what type of help to offer lower sta- p service hours service-l earners spent at their orga- tus groups. In these instances, they are most like- nizations, those in Ao service sites (M = .42) had ly to provide dependency-o riented helping, which higher ESRo scores than those in Do service sites has the consequence of maintaining status hierar- (M = .09). In short, non-c ontact service hours did chies and reinforcing the prejudicial attitudes that not predict attitudes toward social equality. endorse such hierarchies. However, what happens when a higher- status group is assigned to partici- Discussion pate in autonomy- oriented helping? We found that participation in autonomy- oriented helping created our findings supported both hypotheses. Partic- greater endorsement of social equality, and that this ipants who engaged in service-l earning had more effect was most pronounced when service-l earners positive attitudes toward social equality than did had higher levels of direct intergroup contact. a control condition (replicating previous research While the mechanisms and benefits of con- by Brown, 2011a, 2011b), and this effect was tact in improving prejudicial attitudes are well- strongest amongst service-l earners in autonomy- documented, less is known about the benefits of par- 41 Brown, Wymer, and Cooper ticipation in autonomy- oriented helping. Research to learn about the process and outcomes of IPB that by Nadler and Chernyak-H ai (2014; Study 4) found is counter- normative. Extant research is encour- that low status persons who requested autonomy- aging. Help is more welcome by recipients when oriented help were viewed as more efficacious it is autonomy- oriented, and autonomy-o riented and motivated than those who sought dependency- helping is more likely to foster reconciliation be- oriented help, and their needs were perceived as tween groups (Fisher, Nadler, Little, & Saguy, transient rather than chronic. Perhaps in our study, 2008; Stürmer & Snyder, 2010). Service- learning assigning service-l earners to provide autonomy- is one type of counter-n ormative helping experi- oriented help created a more favorable impression ence that appears to have beneficial effects on in- of the clients at the community organizations, thus tergroup attitudes and relations (o’Grady, 2000; reducing some of the initial status differential. Also, Rosner- Salazar, 2003). Although service- learning it is possible that engaging in autonomy-o riented has received a fair amount of study, most of this helping triggers a self- perception process (Bem, research has used qualitative or non-e xperimental 1967) wherein participants come to believe that quantitative methods, rendering causal conclusions what they are doing (i.e., IPB that reduces status elusive (Bringle, Phillips, & Hudson, 2004; but see hierarchies) is appropriate and desirable, thus lead- Brown 2011a, 2011b for exceptions). ing to the development of more positive attitudes In addition to service-l earning, other forms of toward social equality. counter- normative IPB should be examined, partic- There were some limitations in our study that ularly instances where higher status groups spon- warrant consideration. The participants in this taneously choose to offer autonomy- oriented help study were primarily young white women from to lower status groups. Research on motives for a private college. The homogenous demographic intergroup helping (van Leeuwen & Täuber, 2012) of the sample limits its external validity. Howev- is a fruitful starting point. Although IPB by high er, this sample represents a relatively privileged status groups is at times guided by a sense of shared demographic, and privileged populations might community and civic engagement (omoto, Snyder, be especially benefited by having their views on & Hackett, 2010) or core personal values such as social equality challenged. Second, experimental generosity or social justice, more egoistic concerns control and uniformity were reduced because the such as impression-m anagement can also be moti- experimental manipulation of service- learning vating (van Leeuwen, & Täuber, 2010). Different took place in a naturalistic, field setting rather than motivations for IPB may well have different impli- in a lab. Participants in the service- learning condi- cations for intergroup power dynamics. tion served at a variety of placements with a vari- Another related model that future research on the ety of groups doing a variety of tasks. Despite this outcomes of IPB might consider is Morton’s (1995) variability, serving still had significant effects on work on community service paradigms and subse- views of social equality, and autonomy- oriented quent researchers’ analyses of his approach (Brin- placements still proved superior to dependency- gle, Hatcher, & McIntosh, 2006; Moely, Furco, & oriented placements. Presumably, the variability Reed, 2008). The description of charity, project, or “noise” would weaken the power of this inves- and social change types of service has some over- tigation to detect effects. A third limitation is that lap with the IHSR’s types of helping (i.e., roughly, the amount of direct contact was not experimental- the charity paradigm has some overlap with a de- ly manipulated, but rather was measured, making pendency orientation and the social change para- it difficult to draw causal conclusions about its ef- digm has some overlap with an autonomy orienta- fect on attitudes toward social equality. However, tion); however, Morton’s model emphasizes a more participants were generally not in control of this macro- level view of the service rather than percep- variable. They did not choose how much time they tions of the population or person being served. spent with clients; rather, the service site super- The present study found that being assigned to visors were responsible for assigning tasks. This engage in autonomy-o riented helping, combined mitigates the possibility that participants who al- with higher levels of direct intergroup contact, was ready had favorable views toward social equality the best recipe for improving service- learners’ en- would choose to spend more time in direct contact dorsement of social equality and social responsi- with clients of the organization. bility. Given that higher status groups are inclined While research on the IHSR has provided valu- to give dependency- oriented help to lower status able insights into key variables (e.g., legitimacy and groups, and given that people are inclined to affili- stability of status relations, threats to social domi- ate with similar others rather than with outgroups, nance and social identity, type of helping) involved compiling the full list of ingredients for this recipe in the power dynamics of typical IPB, much is left will require effort, intentionality, and a clearer un- 42 The Counter-Normative Effects of Service-Learning derstanding of the antecedents and mechanisms of Cunningham, E., & Platow, M. J. (2007). on helping counter- normative IPB. lower status out‐groups: The nature of the help and the stability of the intergroup status hierarchy. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 10(4), 258– 264. Doi: References 10.1111/j.1467– 839X.2007.00234.x Dalbert, C., Montada, L., & Schmitt, M. (1987). Glaube Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cam- an die gerechte Welt als Motiv: Validnering Zweier bridge, MA: Addison- Wesley. Skalen. Psychologische Beitrage, 29, 596– 615. Clayton, P. H., & Ash, S. L. (2009). Generating, deep- Feagin, J. R. (1971). Poverty: We still believe that God ening, and documenting learning: The power of crit- helps those who help themselves. Psychology Today, ical reflection in applied learning. Journal of Applied 6(6), 101– 110, 129. Learning in Higher Education, 1(1), 25– 48. Retrieved Fisher, J. D., Nadler, A., Little, J. S., & Saguy, T. (2008). from http://hdl.handle.net/1805/4579 Help as a vehicle to reconciliation, with particular ref- Bem, D. J. (1967). Self-p erception: An alternative inter- erence to help for extreme health needs. In A. Nadler, pretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psy- T. E. Malloy, & J. D. Fisher (Eds.), The social psy- chological review,  74(3), 183–2 00. Doi: 10.1037/ chology of intergroup reconciliation (pp. 447– 468). h0024835 oxford, UK: oxford University Press. Bowman N. A. & Brandenberger, J. W. (2012). Expe- Halabi, S., Dovidio, J. F., & Nadler, A. (2008). When riencing the unexpected: Toward a model of college and how do high status group members offer help: diversity experiences and attitude change. The Review Effects of social dominance orientation and sta- of Higher Education, 35, 179–2 05. Doi: 10.1353/ tus threat.  Political Psychology,  29(6), 841– 858. rhe.2012.0016 Doi: 10.1111/j.1467– 9221.2008.00669.x Bowman N. A., Brandenberger, J. W., Mick, C. S., & Jackson, L. M., & Esses, V. M. (2000). Effects of per- Smedley, C. T. (2010). Sustained immersion courses ceived economic competition on people’s willingness and student orientations to equality, justice, and social to help empower immigrants. Group Processes and responsibility: The role of short- term service- learning. Intergroup Relations, 3, 419– 435. Doi: 10.1177/1368 Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 430200003004006 17(1), 20– 31. Koschate, M., oethinger, S., Kuchenbrandt, D., & Dick, Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1996). Implementing R. (2012). Is an outgroup member in need a friend in- service learning in higher education. Journal of High- deed? Personal and task‐oriented contact as predictors er Education, 67, 221–2 39. Retrieved from http:// of intergroup prosocial behavior. European Journal www.jstor.org/stable/2943981. of Social Psychology, 42(6), 717– 728. Doi: 10.1002/ Bringle, R. G., Hatcher, J.A., & McIntosh, R. E. (2006). ejsp.1879 Analyzing Morton’s typology of service paradigms Michlitsch, J. F., & Frankel, S. (1989). Helping orienta- and integrity. Michigan Journal of Community Service tions: Four dimensions. Perceptual and Motor Skills, Learning, 13(1), 5– 15. 69, 1371– 1378. Bringle, R. G., Phillips, M. A., & Hudson, M. (2004). Moely, B. E., Furco, A., & Reed, J. (2008). Charity and The measure of service learning. Washington, DC: social change: The impact of individual preferences on American Psychological Association. service- learning outcomes. Michigan Journal of Com- Bringle, R. G., Reeb, R. Brown, M. A., & Ruiz, A. munity Service Learning, 15(1), 37– 48. (2016). Service learning in psychology: Enhancing Morton, K. (1995). The irony of service: Charity, project undergraduate education for the public good. Wash- and social change in service-l earning. Michigan Jour- ington, DC: American Psychological Association. nal of Community Service Learning, 2(1), 19– 32. Brown, M. A. (2011a). The power of generosity to Nadler, A. (2002). Inter- group helping relations as pow- change views on social power. Journal of Experimen- er relations: Maintaining or challenging social dom- tal Social Psychology, 47, 1285– 1290. Doi:10.1016/j. inance between groups through helping. Journal of jesp.2011.05.021 Social Issues, 58, 487– 502. Brown, M. A. (2011b). Learning from service: The effect Nadler, A., & Chernyak-H ai, L. (2014). Helping them of helping on helpers’ social dominance orientation. stay where they are: Status effects on dependency/ Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 850– 871. autonomy- oriented helping. Journal of Personality and Doi: 10.1111/j.1559– 1816.2011.00738.x Social Psychology, 106, 58. Doi: 10.1037/a0034152 Clayton, P. H., & Ash, S. L. (2004). Shifts in perspec- Nadler, A., & Halabi, S. (2006). Intergroup helping as sta- tive: Capitalizing on the counter-n ormative nature of tus relations: Effects of status stability, identification, service- learning. Michigan Journal of Community Ser- and type of help on receptivity to high-s tatus group’s vice Learning, 11(1), 59– 70. Retrieved from http://hdl. help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, handle.net/2027/spo.3239521.0011.106 91, 97– 110. Doi: 10.1037/0022– 3514.91.1.97 Costa‐Lopes, R., Dovidio, J. F., Pereira, C. R., & Jost, Nadler, A., & Halabi, S. (2015). Helping relations and J. T. (2013). Social psychological perspectives on the inequality between individuals and groups. In M. Mi- legitimation of social inequality: Past, present and fu- kulincer, P. R. Shaver, J. F. Dovidio, & J. A. Simpson ture. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(4), (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psy- 229– 237. Doi: 10.1002/ejsp.1966 43 Brown, Wymer, and Cooper chology, Volume 2: Group processes (pp. 371– 393). ty. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psy- Washington, DC: American Psychological Associa- chology, 86(2), 223– 241. Doi: 10.1111/joop.12014 tion. van Leeuwen, E., & Täuber, S. (2010). The strategic Nelson Laird, T. F., Engberg, M. E., & Hurtado, S. side of outgroup helping. In S. Stürmer & M. Snyder (2005). Modeling accentuation effects: Enrolling in (Eds.), The psychology of prosocial behavior: Group a diversity course and the importance of social action processes, intergroup relations, and helping (pp. 81– engagement. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(4), 99). oxford, UK: Wiley- Blackwell. 448– 476. Doi: 10.1353/jhe.2005.0028 Van Leeuwen, E., & Täuber, S. (2012). outgroup helping o’Grady, C. R. (Ed.). (2000). Integrating service learn- as a tool to communicate ingroup warmth. Personal- ing and multicultural education in colleges and uni- ity and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(6), 772– 783. versities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Doi:10.1177/0146167211436253 omoto, A. M., Snyder, M., & Hackett, J. D. (2010). Willyard, C. (2011). Men: A growing minority? grad- Personality and motivational antecedents of activism PSYCH Magazine, 9(1), 40. Retrieved from http:// and civic engagement. Journal of Personality, 78(6), www.apa.org/gradpsych/2011/01/cover-men.aspx 1703– 1734. Doi: 10.1111/j.1467– 6494.2010.00667.x Pascarella, E., Edison, M., Nora, A., Hagedorn, L., & Authors Terenzini, P. (1996). Influences on students’ openness to diversity and challenge in the first year of college. MARGARET A. BRoWN ([email protected]) Journal of Higher Education, 67, 174– 195. is a professor of Psychology, director of the Cen- Pettigrew, T., & Tropp, L. (2006). A meta- analytic test of ter for Scholarship and Faculty Development, and intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and assistant provost at Seattle Pacific University. She Social Psychology, 90, 751–7 83. Doi: 10.1037/0022– is an experienced service-l earning practitioner and 3514.90.5.751 has won multiple awards for excellence in teaching. Piliavin, J. A. (2003). Doing well by doing good: Ben- Dr. Brown also conducts rigorous, theory-b ased, efits for the benefactor. In C. L. M. Keyes & J. Haidt experimental research on service-l earning. Her re- (Eds.), Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well- lived (pp. 227–2 48). Washington, DC: American cent co- authored book, entitled Service Learning in Psychological Association. Psychology: Enhancing Undergraduate Education Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L., & Malle, B. (1994). for the Public Good, examines the importance of Social dominance orientation: A personality variable civic education within the undergraduate psychol- predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of ogy curriculum, and provides a wealth of practical Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–7 63. Doi: advice to faculty members and department chairs 10.1037/0022– 3514.67.4.741 for successful implementation. Rosner-S alazar, T. A. (2003). Multicultural service- JARED D. WYMER ([email protected]) is a doc- learning and community- based research as a model toral student in the Department of Industrial and approach to promote social justice. Social Justice, organizational Psychology at Seattle Pacific Uni- 30(4), 64– 76. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/sta ble/29768224 versity. His research interests include prosocial be- havior in organizations, the extent to which various Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. factors influence future self- continuity, short- and Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. long- term time horizons, and associated individual Smith, C., & Davidson, H. (2014). The paradox of gen- and organizational outcomes. He looks forward to erosity: Giving we receive, grasping we lose. oxford, candidacy and a career in industry. UK: oxford University Press. CIERRA S. CooPER ([email protected]) Stürmer, S., & Snyder, M. (Eds.). (2010). The psycholo- double- majored in psychology and political sci- gy of prosocial behavior: Group processes, intergroup ence at Seattle Pacific University. She was an Ames relations, and helping. oxford, UK: Wiley- Blackwell. Scholar, recipient of the Barnabas Service Award, Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & and president of the Black Student Union. Her Wetherell, M. S. (Eds.). (1987). Rediscovering the so- research interests are in psychological aspects of cial group: A self-c ategorization theory. oxford, UK: institutionalized racism, and she intends to pursue Blackwell. doctoral studies in human development and public Van Dijk, H., & van Engen, M. L. (2013). A status per- policy. spective on the consequences of work group diversi- 44