Running head: DECONSTRUCTING BROTHERHOOD: AN EXAMINATION OF MOREHOUSE CULTURE

DECONSTRUCTING BROTHERHOOD: AN EXAMINATION OF MOREHOUSE CULTURE 6

Deconstructing Brotherhood: An Examination of Morehouse Culture

Emanuel Waddell

Morehouse College

Deconstructing Brotherhood: An Examination of Morehouse Culture

College has become an intrinsic part of our culture, and one that has been analyzed and adjusted repeatedly due to its importance as a critical period of growth and development in an individual’s life. Different institutions have developed various traditions and pedagogical legacies over time, ones that have become unique and at times synonymous with various schools. This phenomenon is exemplified with Morehouse College, a historically black all male college in Atlanta, Georgia. Over the years, Morehouse has come to be associated with a “brotherhood,” an idea that all Morehouse Men are of one ilk and striving towards a singular goal. This brotherhood is entrenched to the point that it is drilled into new students during orientation, mentioned by institutional leaders during numerous speeches and events, and even mentioned as one of the defining characteristics on the school’s website (“Morehouse College About Morehouse,” n.d.). Clearly, the brotherhood is a unique facet of Morehouse culture that has contributed to its growth and prominence, and one that is inextricably linked to the institution.

It is possible, however, that the brotherhood may have its drawbacks. If the environment that the brotherhood creates also results in an excessively collectivist culture and lack of interpersonal competition, it may be harmful to the institutional goals of academic success.

Competition and culture have been seen to go hand in hand. Studies of global cultures have indicated that different styles of upbringing and values result in different approaches to goal setting, organizational commitment, in-group vs out-group perceptions, and many other areas (Hofstede, Van Deusen, & Mueller, 2002; Liou, Tsai, & Cheng, 2013; Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). Collectivist cultures have been linked, in particular, to the personality dimension of allocentrism, while individualistic cultures have been linked to the personality dimension of idiocentrism (Triandis et al., 1990). An individual leaning towards the allocentric end of the scale is usually more focused on group successes and identifies more as part of a whole, while an individual leaning towards idiocentrism is more focused on individual wants and desires and identifies as a distinct unit from the group. Although research has typically examined these constructs and their correlations on a broader societal level, it is possible they can operate on a smaller, localized level such as a collegiate environment as well. If collectivist cultures tend to foster more allocentrics and individualistic cultures more idiocentrics, then it stands to reason that spending a relatively large portion of one’s developmental period in an immersive environment such as a college will shape personality traits accordingly. A similar effect has been seen in business leaders and the goals that they select for their companies; different cultural values led to different goals being set and ideals being valued (Hofstede et al., 2002). However, it must be noted that idiocentrics can be present in collectivist cultures and allocentrics can be present in individualistic cultures. Although the culture one is raised in does strongly affect personality, it is not an absolute determinant.

The differences between collectivist and individualistic cultures and the personalities they foster are important in an academic context because of the respective effects these cultures have on many aspects of student life, including competition in the classrooms. It has been theorized and demonstrated that norms and ideologies can operate as informal constraints on growth, especially in a competitive context. For example, economists have noted how norms can cause individuals within situations such as markets to make suboptimal choices (North, 1992). If this is the case, then it is also possible that a normalized culture or cooperation over competition may also be harmful to academic success. However, before arriving at that conclusion, a greater exploration of competition as it relates to success is necessary.

Researchers have been deeply divided over whether competition is detrimental or beneficial to success, both in a group and individual context. Early research was firmly against any form of competition as compared to cooperation, deeming it destructive and counterproductive to success (Deutsch, 1949; Kohn, 1992). More recently, that thinking has evolved. One of the more influential studies leading to this shift established and thoroughly examined the idea of constructive competition (Tjosvold, Johnson, Johnson, & Sun, 2003). The researchers discovered that several factors could create an environment of competition that was beneficial to participants. These factors included having goals of high value, working on an intellectually demanding task, and having a perception of fairness regarding the outcomes of the competition. Other studies support these findings. For example, a study of orange pickers found that intergroup competition improved productivity more than cooperation, and an environment of constructive competition was found to improve test scores and classroom participation among students (Erev, Bornstein, & Galili, 1993; Rosol, 2013). It is clear, then, that not all competition is negative, and that some can even be beneficial to success. Multiple factors interact to determine whether or not a competitive environment will be useful, or a cooperative environment detrimental. In fact, it has been demonstrated that an environment that combines the two may be most effective (Tauer & Harackiewicz, 2004). If Morehouse has slipped too far to the cooperation side of the spectrum, it may be creating a harmful, or at least suboptimal, environment for its students. Slackers, free riders, and the unmotivated will be a problem at any institution, but is it possible that the school’s environment tends to foster such behavior.

All of this is extremely crucial for college students, who are at a unique developmental period in their lives. Different studies have observed the effect that a collegiate environment can have on student’s personal growth, and the way they think about the world. In some instances, these changes have even been attributed to deliberate choices made by the given academic institutions (Anderson & Lopez-Baez, 2011; Hope, Milyavskaya, Holding, & Koestner, 2014). This provides compelling evidence for a hypothesis that Morehouse’s choices about the academic and social environment it places its students in can have a tangible effect on their beliefs and behaviors.

If culture shapes competitive environments and attitudes, and these environments and attitudes affect success, than a critical examination of culture is important to maximizing success. Studies have demonstrated that both cooperative and competitive environments have their place, and that a balance struck between them is best when attempting to maximize outcomes. The purpose of this study is to examine that balance at Morehouse College and see if there are any signs that point to it being tipped too heavily in one direction or the other. Specifically, two questions are being asked. First, how do Morehouse students define and relate to the Morehouse Brotherhood? Second, does Morehouse foster a collectivist culture that leads to a diminished environment of competitiveness among students? These questions should be answered by asking open ended questions and using collectivism as a proxy for measuring brotherhood. It is expected that students that are more collectivist (and therefore identify more strongly with the brotherhood) will be less competitive and have lower GPAs.

Methods

Materials and Procedure

Data was collected using a three part survey instrument designed for this study (Appendix 2). In addition to the three parts, demographic data about the respondents was collected such as their major, classification, and GPA. The first part of the survey was an adapted version of David Matsumoto’s scale for measuring individualism and collectivism (Matsumoto, Weissman, Preston, Brown, & Kupperbusch, 1997). This scale (Crohnbach’s α = 0.86) was designed to be valid across cultures and so seemed particularly well suited for this study. The only changes that were made to the scale was the replacing of the words “family” and “friends” with the word “classmates” in order to improve its relevance. All questions in this section used a Likert scale for responses.

The second part of the survey was three questions designed by the researcher to determine competitiveness. These questions (also Likert) were straightforward and meant to determine how students felt about competing against their classmates in an academic context.

The final part of the survey consisted of several open ended questions asking about the Morehouse Brotherhood. These questions were designed to discover how students felt about the brotherhood, what they defined it as, and how strongly they identified with it. Respondents were free to respond to these questions as thoroughly as they felt was necessary to convey their thoughts. The entire survey was designed and distributed online, and data was aggregated and analyzed using SPSS.

Participants

Participation in the study was limited to current students at Morehouse College. Students of any age, major, or classification were accepted, but limiting the sample to current students helped provide some consistency regarding the current environment of Morehouse. The survey that was used was distributed via email and social media. Convenience sampling was used, so any current student who received the survey had the option to take it. The final number of valid survey responses was (N = 19), with a majority of students having at least 2 years at Morehouse.

Results

Participants were scored based on their survey responses in three areas: collectivism/individualism, competitiveness, and GPA. The three scores were analyzed using bivariate Pearson correlations and partial correlations to examine relationships between the three variables.

The first two variables examined were collectivism and GPA. The mean score for collectivism was (M = 81, SD = 17.04) on a scale from 0 – 114, and the mean GPA was (M = 3.17, SD = 0.50) on a 4 point scale (Table 1). A Pearson correlation (Figure 1) found a moderate, negative statistically significant relationship between the two variables (p = .007, r = -.642). In other words, as collectivism increased, GPA decreased. Next, competitiveness and GPA were examined. The mean score for competitiveness was (M = 15.7, SD = 3.89) on a scale from 0 – 21. A Pearson correlation (Figure 2) found a moderate, positive statistically significant relationship (p = .012, r = .576), indicating that as competitiveness increased, GPA increased. Finally, the relationship between collectivism and competitiveness was examined (Figure 3). No significant relationship was found between these two variables.

Next, partial correlation (Tables 3 and 4) was used to examine the relationship between the given variables and GPA while controlling for each other (competitiveness ad collectivism). Examining the relationship between GPA and collectivism while controlling for competitiveness yielded a strong, negative correlation (r = -.697, p = .006). Conversely, examining the relationship between GPA and competitiveness while controlling for collectivism yielded a strong, positive correlation (r = .645, p =.013).

Discussion

The results of the study partially supported the hypothesis, but more research is needed. Analyses found a significant negative correlation between collectivism and GPA, and a significant positive one between competitiveness and GPA. Both of these were as expected and indicate that students with the highest GPAs at the college are students who are more competitive and less collectivist. However, no significant correlation was found between competitiveness and collectivism. This contradicts the hypothesis that more collectivist students will be less competitive, and more importantly brings up the question of what is causing the relationship between both variables and student GPA. If collectivism is an adequate proxy for brotherhood, then either the brotherhood is not a significant determinant of competitiveness or more research is needed to determine a mediating variable. The exact nature of this mediator is unknown, but it could be several things such as the type of competition that students are engaging in, who students feel they are competing against, or some completely unrelated third variable. It is also possible that the variables (collectivism and competitiveness) are on two different spectrums, although the literature does suggest that there should be an inverse relationship between the two (Triandis et al., 1990).

The question of whether collectivism actually is an adequate proxy for brotherhood also went unanswered. Although there were several open ended questions designed to explore that theory and examine how students defined the Morehouse Brotherhood, the paucity of responses and their lack of depth made the exercise futile. It is possible that collectivism is an entirely separate construct from brotherhood, and more qualitative research is necessary to explore the constructs further.

Other possible limitations may also have affected survey results. Since the instrument was distributed via social networks and word of mouth, it is possible that only students likely to be in certain courses or similar social groups gave responses. A broader, more representative sample of the entire college population may gather more robust and accurate results. Similarly, time constraints prevented a robust exploration of the brotherhood construct. Although some students indicated interest in being part of a focus group to explore the construct further, lack of time and the small number of available students prevented such an opportunity from materializing.

All in all, this project was a good initial step towards examining practical implications of the Morehouse Brotherhood for students. Further research is necessary to confirm and expand results, but this preliminary analysis supports the notion that the brotherhood, although useful, may have its drawbacks for students

References

Anderson, W. P. J., & Lopez-Baez, S. I. (2011). Measuring personal growth attributed to a semester of college life using the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory. Counseling and Values, 56(1-2), 73–82. doi:10.1002/j.2161-007X.2011.tb01032.x

Deutsch, M. (1949). An experimental study of the effects of co-operation and competition upon group process. Human Relations, 2, 199–232. doi:10.1177/001872674900200301

Erev, I., Bornstein, G., & Galili, R. (1993). Constructive Intergroup Competition as a Solution to the Free Rider Problem: A Field Experiment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29(6), 463–478. doi:10.1006/jesp.1993.1021

Hofstede, G., Van Deusen, C. A., & Mueller, C. B. (2002). What Goals Do Business Leaders Pursue? A Study in Fifteen Countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(4), 785–803. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8491044

Hope, N. H., Milyavskaya, M., Holding, A. C., & Koestner, R. (2014). Self-growth in the college years: Increased importance of intrinsic values predicts resolution of identity and intimacy stages. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(6), 705–712. doi:10.1177/1948550613516875

Kohn, A. (1992). No Contest: The Case Against Competition (2nd, Revised edition.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Liou, S.-R., Tsai, H.-M., & Cheng, C.-Y. (2013). Acculturation, collectivist orientation and organisational commitment among Asian nurses working in the US healthcare system. Journal of Nursing Management, 21(4), 614–623. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2834.2012.01447.x

Matsumoto, D., Weissman, M. D., Preston, K., Brown, B. R., & Kupperbusch, C. (1997). Context-specific measurement of individualism-collectivism on the individual level: The Individualism-Collectivism Interpersonal Assessment Inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28(6), 743–767. doi:10.1177/0022022197286006

Morehouse College About Morehouse. (n.d.). Retrieved September 29, 2014, from http://www.morehouse.edu/about/

North, D. C. (1992). Institutions, ideology, and economic performance. CATO Journal, 11(3), 477.

Rosol, S. B. (2013). Adding Constructive Competition to Enhance a Cooperative Learning Experience: A Quest for Kudos. Journal of Management Education, 37(4), 562–591.

Tauer, J. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2004). The Effects of Cooperation and Competition on Intrinsic Motivation and Performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(6), 849–861. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.6.849

Tjosvold, D., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Sun, H. (2003). Can Interpersonal Competition Be Constructive Within Organizations? Journal of Psychology, 137(1), 63.

Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C. H. (1990). Multimethod Probes of Individualism and Collectivism. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 59(5), 1006–1020.

Appendix 1: Graphs and Tables

Figure 1: Collectivism and GPA (Pearson Correlation)

Figure 2: Competitiveness and GPA (Pearson Correlation)

Figure 3: Collectivism and Competitiveness (Pearson Correlation)

Table 1:

Descriptive Statistics

Mean

Std. Deviation

N

GPA

3.1779

.45845

19

Collectiveness without brotherhood scale

81.0625

17.04296

16

Competitiveness

15.7222

3.89276

18

Table 2: Pearson Correlations

GPA

Competitiveness

Collectivism

Pearson Correlation

-.642**

-.134

Sig. (2-tailed)

.007

.634

N

16

15

Competitiveness

Pearson Correlation

.576*

Sig. (2-tailed)

.012

N

18

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Table 3: Collectivism and GPA (controlling for competitiveness)

Control Variable

GPA

Competitiveness

Collectivism

Correlation

-.697

Significance (2-tailed)

.006

df

12

Table 4: Competitiveness and GPA (controlling for collectivism)

Control Variable

GPA

Collectivism

Competitiveness

Correlation

.645

Significance (2-tailed)

.013

df

12

Appendix 2: Survey Instrument

The following are questions designed to ascertain your experience with the Morehouse Brotherhood as a student at Morehouse. Please answer all questions to the best of your ability. All answers are confidential, and no personal information about you will be recorded.

Are you a current Morehouse student?

Yes

No

What is your current major?

What is your current classification?

Freshman

Sophomore

Junior

Senior

How many years have you attended Morehouse? (No spaces)

What is your current GPA? (No spaces)

Quantitative Survey

The following are values. Think about how important each value is to you when it comes to your classmates, and rate each value on a scale from 0 – 6, with 0 indicating not at all important and 6 indicating very important.

Maintain self control towards classmates

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Share credit for classmate's accomplishments

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Share blame for classmate's failures

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Respect and honor classmate's traditions and customs

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

The following are values. Think about how important each value is to you when it comes to your classmates, and rate each value on a scale from 0 – 6, with 0 indicating not at all important and 6 indicating very important.

Be loyal to classmates

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Sacrifice your goals for classmates

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Sacrifice your possessions for classmates

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Respect classmates

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

The following are values. Think about how important each value is to you when it comes to your classmates, and rate each value on a scale from 0 – 6, with 0 indicating not at all important and 6 indicating very important.

Compromise your wishes to act in unison with your classmates

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Maintain harmonious relationships with your classmates

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Nurture or help your classmates

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Maintain a stable environment (e.g. maintain the status quo) with your classmates

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

The following are values. Think about how important each value is to you when it comes to your classmates, and rate each value on a scale from 0 – 6, with 0 indicating not at all important and 6 indicating very important.

Exhibit "proper" manners and etiquette, regardless of how you really feel, towards your classmates

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Be like or similar to your classmates

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Accept awards, benefits, or recognition based only on age or position, rather than merit, from your classmates

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Cooperate with your classmates

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

The following are values. Think about how important each value is to you when it comes to your classmates, and rate each value on a scale from 0 – 6, with 0 indicating not at all important and 6 indicating very important.

Communicate verbally with your classmates

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

"Save face" for your classmates

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Follow norms established by your classmates

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Have better grades than your classmates

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

The following are values. Think about how important each value is to you when it comes to your classmates, and rate each value on a scale from 0 – 6, with 0 indicating not at all important and 6 indicating very important.

Attempt to outperform your classmates

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Compete with your classmates

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Qualitative Questions

The following questions are more in depth, feel free to write as much as you would like.

What comes to mind when you think of the Morehouse Brotherhood?

Is there a brotherhood at Morehouse?

How has your understanding of the Morehouse Brotherhood changed over time?

How has your time at Morehouse affected or changed your sense of community?

Would you be interested in participating in a one hour focus group to explore this topic further?

Yes

No

Please enter your email address so that you may be contacted about the focus group

Thank you for taking the time to complete the survey!