Presented to International Communication Association annual conference 2016.

1. Results
 Campus diversity index, the interaction of the living environment diversity index and
the year of living in that community, and the number of diversity courses taken in
college all had positive relationships with students’ cultural diversity awareness.
 Campus diversity index, ethnical identity, and cultural diversity awareness all showed
positive relationships with social trust, although the diversity of the community that
student once lived and the number of diversity courses taken in college had no
relationship with it. Higher level of informational media usage is also associated with
higher level of university internal brand identification.
 Students’ ethnical identity was positively associated with university internal brand
identification, but no other diversity related variables had a relationship with it.
 University internal brand identification was substantially and positively related with
university organizational citizenship behaviors. Ethnic identity, ethnic awareness,
informational media use, and social media use were all positively associated with
organizational citizenship behaviors.
Does Diversity Hurt Students’ Feeling of Oneness?
A Study of Social Trust, Internal Brand Identification, and Organizational Citizenship on Diversifying
University Campuses
Introduction
 Universities now need to polish their brands. Cornell, UT-Austin, University of Houston all
have used a tremendous amount of funds in their branding (Bunzel, 2007; Judson, Aurand,
Gorchels, & Gordon, 2009 ). Branding is also a trend in UK universities (Chapleo, 2010 ).
 Internal branding is an integrative part of branding that guide the internal public to meet
brand expectations (Baker, Rapp, Meyer, & Mullins, 2014 ). Whisman (2010) terms internal
branding “a university’s most valuable intangible asset.”
 Internal brand identification, part of self identity (Tajfel, 1981, Tajfel & Turner, 1985 ), is a
feeling of the “oneness.”
 Universities include diversity into their branding to respond to a diversifying student pool
and population (Howard-Hamilton, Cuyjet, & Cooper, 2011 ), and to prepare students for the
diversifying workplaces (Bollinger, 2003 ).
 Ethnic diversity, however, may impede social trust (Putnam, 2007). A group of studies tested
the relationship between diversity and social trust in different societies. Some find it
negative, some find it positive, and some find no relationship (Dincer, 2011; Kesler &
Bloemraad, 2010 ; Sturgis et al, 2010 ).
 Brand identification in the internal public has also been found a powerful predictor of its
organizational citizenship behaviors to protect and enhance the brand (Hughes & Ahearne,
2010; Lohndorf & Adamantios, 2014), in a way beyond formal requirements and
expectations (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990) .
Hs & RQs
 H1: Universities’ campus diversity enhances students’ awareness of
diversity.
 RQ1: Does campus diversity hurt students’ social trust?
 RQ2: Does campus diversity hurt university internal brand identification?
 H2: University Internal Brand Identification is positively associated with
university organizational citizenship behaviors.
Qingjiang (Q. J.) Yao, Ph.D., Department of Communication, Lamar University, Beaumont, Texas, 77710
Mary Martin, Ph.D., Department of Marketing, Scott Robson, Ph.D., Hsin-Yen Yang, Ph.D., Department of Communication Studies, Fort Hays State University, Hays, Kansas
Methodology
 Data: collected from an online survey of a representative sample of students from four
public universities in Kansas, during October 19-28, 2012. With a response rate of 14.9%,
1299 complete responses were collected. Data were weighted by student population and
gender ratios across the four universities.
 Major Variables:
 University internal brand identification. Two items, one textual and one visual
(Figure 1), asked respondents to indicate the degree their self-image overlapped
with their university image (α= .83, M = 8.74, SD = 3.22).
 University organizational citizenship behaviors. Eight items measured if
respondents had used their university names or logos, recommended their
universities to others, defended it, protected or encouraged other students or
people to protect their university image (α = .92, M = 23.66, SD = 8.7).
 Social trust: three items from Rosenberg’s (1957) “Faith in People” scale were
used to ask respondents if they believed most people were 1) trustworthy, 2)
helpful, and 3) cooperative (α = .76, M = 9.84, SD = 2.35 )
 Media variables: asking how often respondents consumed info on current
events from 1) television, 2). radio, 3) newspaper, 4) magazine, 5) Internet/web,
and 6) mobile devices. 0 = never and 7 = multiple times a day. Three items
measure social media usage (α = .78, M = 12.90, SD = 4.46 ).
 Ethnic identity: Phinney’s (1992) Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (α = .90, M
= 39.78, SD = 8.67 ).
 Ethnic diversity awareness: Miville-Guzman Universality-Diversity
scale (α = .85, M = 67.23, SD = 10.16 ).
 Campus diversity index: Sixe items asked respondents whether their
campus had a lot of people from different 1) ethnic, 2) racial, and 3)
cultural backgrounds and people from many different 4) ethnic, 5) racial,
and 6) cultural backgrounds (α= .97, M = 24.17, SD = 5.68).
 Living environment diversity index: Six questions asked how many
people from different 1) ethnical, 2) racial, and 3) cultural backgrounds
and people from how many backgrounds lived in the respondents’
community (α = .92, M = 25.46, SD = 7.30). A separate question asked
how long the respondent lived in that community (1-2, 3-4, 5-7, 8-10, 11-
15, or more years).
 Diversity course taken: The numbers of courses that respondents took,
with 0 = taking no, 1 = taking one required, 2 = taking one elective, and 3
= taking more than one diversity courses.
Figure 1