Opinion To CUHK Mainland Students

中大學生對內地生的看法

• Group No.61:

• LUI, Vivian Wai-Yan (04735613)

• TONG, Christy Yun-Sum (04785863)

• TSANG, Sandra Yuen-Ling (04655183)

• WONG, Adrian Chun-Ting (04505693)

Presentation Outline

1. Introduction

• Reasons for Choosing the Topic

• Background Information

• Work Frame

• Literature Review and Domains Definition

Presentation Outline

2. Questionnaire Collection (Quantitative Approach)

• Questionnaire Construction

• Real Test

• Data Analysis

• Significant Results Obtained

Presentation Outline

3. Interview Conduction (Qualitative Approach)

• Interview Conduction

• Research Method

• Result Obtained

Presentation Outline

4. Project Reflection

• Data Interpretation

• Implications Found

• Suggestions to CUHK

Presentation Outline

5. Conclusion

6. Limitations

7. Reference

問題一• 你認為以下哪一位是內地生？

A

B

C

問題二

2005 年 3 月，湯若望宿舍女洗手間厠格發現排泄物，此時洗手間有三個人

A. 本地生 B. 國際生 C. 內地生

Reason for choosing the topic

• Mainland students

• Some negative Impression

What’s our opinion to mainland students?

Topic Definition

• OUR TOPICOpinion to CUHK Mainland Students

• CUHK Students: Undergraduate /Postgraduate

Topic Definition

•Mainland Students Unified National Colleges Admissions ( 全國普通高校統一招生計劃 )

Come from China( except Taiwan and Macau)

Undergraduate Student with scholarship /At his/her Own expense

Topic Definition

• Opinion A thought or belief about something or

someone (Cambridge Dictionary)

• 現代漢語辭典對客觀事物所抱的見解

Background Information• 1998

• Established Secretary Department of University Presidents of China Association 中國大學校長聯誼秘書處

• First recruitment of outstanding mainland students

Background Information

• 2004

• Internationalization

• High proportional mainland students of exchange

Background Information

• 2005

• Unified National Colleges Admissions

全國普通高校統一招生計劃

Comparision Between Admission and Exchange Students

0500

1,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,500

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

No.

Of S

tude

nts

Admission

ExchangeStudents

Comparison Between Mainland and Exchange Students

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2004 2005 2006Year

No. O

f Stu

dent

s

MainlandStudents

ExchangeStudents

Characteristic Of CUHK In the Past• Mainly Local students

Characteristic Of CUHK NOW• Exchange Students

Mainland students

International student

Work FrameDate Event Remarks

2/6-3/6 Topic Hunting Topic Found

4/8-10/8 Information Searching Topic Revision

20/8-22/8 Information Searching Relevant information found

30/8 Domains Defining 3 Domains Found

4/9 Questionnaire Preparation Questionnaire Confirmed

11/9-14/9 Piloting Questionnaire Refined

15/9-19/9 Questionnaire Distribution 131 Questionnaires Collected

Work Frame

20/9-21/9 Data Entry Data Entry Finished

27/9-28/9 Data Analysis Data Analysis Finished

1/10-7/10 Interview Conduction 5 Interviews Conducted

12/10-14/10 Interview Analysis Interview Analysis Finished

20/10-26/10 Editing and Presentation Preparation

PowerPoint Conducted

Part 1: Questionnaire

• Why prejudice?

- Intergroup Conflict

- Defects of Prejudice

Defects of Prejudice

• Destroy social harmonyresult in social loss

• Prevent integration of cultureunable to attain potential benefits

• Decelerate the process of globalization

What is prejudice?

Definition of Prejudice

“…an aversive or hostile attitude toward a person who belongs to a group, simply because he belongs to that group, and is therefore presumed to have the objectionable qualities ascribed to the group.”

(Allport, 1954 )

Literature Review

• Mere Exposure Theory (Zajonc, 1968)

• Propinquity Effect (Festinger, 1954)

• Contact Hypothesis (Allport, 1954)

Real Test – Hypothesis

• Hypothesis 1:

Participants of Workmate condition possess the lowest prejudice level

• Hypothesis 2:

The more time participants spend with mainland students, the less the prejudice level

Domains Definition

Attitude consists of 3 components: (McGuire, 1989 )

1. cognitive aspects

2. emotional aspects

3. behavioral/intentional aspects

Domains Definition

1. Cognitive aspects

Negative Stereotypes

2. Behavioral/intentional aspects

Willingness to interact

3. Emotional aspects Social Norm

• Domain 1: Negative Stereotype (S)

1 我覺得內地生習慣良好。 *

2 內地生積極參加課外活動。 *

3 我覺得內地生不主動與本地生接觸。 4 內地生較不懂得與人相處。 5 我覺得內地生較趕不上潮流。 6 我覺得內地生較高傲。 7 我覺得內地生較本地生有禮貌。 *

8 我覺得內地生較本地生守規矩。 * * Reversed Items

Domains Definition

1. Cognitive aspects

Negative Stereotypes

2. Behavioral/intentional aspects

Willingness to interact

3. Emotional aspects Social Norm

• Domain 2: Willingness to Interact (W)1 內地學生與我談話時，我希望盡快結束談話。 2 我希望與內地學生合作。 * 3 我願意和內地生做好朋友。 * 4 當內地學生遇到困難，我願意主動協助。 *

5 如果我住宿的話，我不希望和內地學生住同一間房。 6 我比較不接受內地學生的幫忙。 7 我會主動约內地生參加活動。 * 8 我渴望與内地生分享生活經驗。 * * Reversed Items

Domains Definition

1. Cognitive aspects

Negative Stereotypes

2. Behavioral/intentional aspects

Willingness to interact

3. Emotional aspects Social Norm

• Domain 3: Perceived Social Norm (N)

1.1 我經常從親密的朋友中聽到對內地生的負面討論。1.2 我贊同我朋友的意見。2.1 我的家人不喜歡內地學生。2.2 我贊同家人的意願。 3.1 我大多數朋友都喜歡內地生。 *

3.2 我很重視朋友的見解。 * Reversed Items

Pilot Test

Pilot Test - Objectives

• Number of Questions: 19

• Number of Participants: 14

• Objectives:

- to collect opinions

- to refine items

e.g. 我認為內地生目中無人 - to check the general pattern of data

collected

Real Test

Real Test

• Objectives:

1) to construct a questionnaire that is both reliable and valid

2) to obtain data and interpret the data

• 5 Procedures: - Method - Data Inspection - Item Extraction - Factor Extraction - Data Interpretation

• Random Sampling

- Time

- Place

- Rule

Real Test - Method

Real Test – Data Inspection

Number of participants: 131 (6 are discarded)

Condition

Gender

No Contact

Workmate Roommate

Male 24 28 17 69

Female 24 22 16 62

48 50 33

Correlation

Significant Coefficience

Mean Difference

Social Desirability

Social Desirability

• Definition

When we know that other people are watching us, we will tend to behave in a way we believe is socially acceptable and desirable.

(Fisher, 1993)

Social Desirability

• The effect of social desirability should be controlled

• 10-item-short-form of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Rudmin,1999)

• Reasonable reliability (alpha= .65)

Social Desirability Scale• 1 無論我和誰在討論 , 我都是一個優秀的聽眾 • 2 我曾經試過在他人身上得到好處 *• 3 我有時選擇報復也不願意忘記前仇 *• 4 當我不懂得某種事情時 , 我不會介意去承認• 5 有時我會覺得自己在破壞事情 *• 6 當別人拒絕幫助我 , 我都不會感到憤怒• 7 我大概從未有衝動去警告他人其行為已令我無法忍 受• 8 有時當人們叫我做事時 , 我會覺得憤怒 *• 9 有時我想人們的不幸是他們應得的 *• 10 我從未試過固意說一些話去傷害他人的感受

(*reversed item)  

• Questions that elicit the effect of Social Desirability should be discarded

Social Desirability Scale

Correlation matrixSocial Desirability

W1 .076

W2 .016

W3 .000

W4 .000

W5 .331

W6 .129

W7 .020

W8 .000

S1 .054

S2 .949

S3 .779

S4 .610

S5 .135

S6 .056

S7 .336

S8 .027

N1 .092

N2 .067

N3 .646

Discarded

13 questions remain

Discarded Discarded

Discarded Discarded

Discarded

• 6 Questions discarded我希望與內地學生合作。 *

我願意和內地生做好朋友。 *

當內地學生遇到困難，我願意主動協助。 *

我會主動约內地生參加活動。 *

我渴望與内地生分享生活經驗。 *

我覺得內地生較本地生守規矩。 *

• 13 Questions remain我覺得內地生習慣良好。*

內地生積極參加課外活動。*

我覺得內地生不主動與本地生接觸。 內地生較不懂得與人相處。 我覺得內地生較趕不上潮流。 我覺得內地生較高傲。 我覺得內地生較本地生有禮貌。*

當內地學生遇到困難，我願意主動協助。*

如果我住宿的話，我不希望和內地學生住同一間房。我經常從親密的朋友中聽到對內地生的負面討論。我贊同我朋友的意見。我的家人不喜歡內地學生。我贊同家人的意願。 我大多數朋友都喜歡內地生。*

我很重視朋友的見解。

Factor Analysis

Factor Analysis

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Component Number

0

1

2

3

4

Eigenvalue

Scree Plot

Factor Analysis

3.994 30.721 30.721 3.994 30.721 30.721

1.458 11.214 41.935 1.458 11.214 41.935

1.225 9.422 51.357 1.225 9.422 51.357

1.129 8.688 60.045 1.129 8.688 60.045

.901 6.929 66.974

.772 5.938 72.912

.746 5.740 78.652

.650 5.002 83.654

.586 4.508 88.162

.444 3.416 91.578

.412 3.168 94.746

.398 3.065 97.810

.285 2.190 100.000

Component1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Total Variance Explained

Reliability Test

Reliability Statistics

.792 13

Cronbach'sAlpha N of Items

> .6

Item-Total Statistics

30.7868 75.310 .455 .776

29.6544 71.924 .472 .773

30.9412 79.726 .319 .787

29.7059 73.257 .525 .770

29.4926 75.748 .460 .776

29.5662 74.255 .464 .775

30.1691 74.527 .503 .773

29.5809 76.519 .315 .787

29.8676 74.082 .490 .773

29.6103 76.447 .386 .781

33.2022 69.020 .473 .774

33.5331 71.116 .306 .799

33.0662 69.362 .487 .772

w1_

w5_

w6_

s1_r

s2_r

s3_

s4_

s5_

s6_

s7_r

n1

n2

n3

Scale Mean ifItem Deleted

ScaleVariance if

Item Deleted

CorrectedItem-TotalCorrelation

Cronbach'sAlpha if Item

Deleted

Reliability Test

Data Analysis

Real Test• Objectives:

1) to construct a questionnaire that is both reliable and valid

2) to obtain data and interpret the data

• 5 Procedures: - Method - Data Inspection - Item Extraction - Factor Extraction - Data Interpretation

Real Test – Data Analysis

• Analysis Tool: SPSS 12.0• Independent Variable:

1) Contact Condition

2) Time• Demographic Information 1) Age

2) Gender

3) College

4) Experience of travel or work in ML

Real Test – Hypothesis

• Hypothesis 1:

Participants of Workmate condition possess the lowest prejudice level

• Hypothesis 2:

The more time participants spend with mainland students, the less the prejudice level

Contact Condition

Data Analysis – Contact Condition

1036.685a 2 518.343 6.200 .003

131297.823 1 131297.823 1570.427 .000

1036.685 2 518.343 6.200 .003*

10199.987 122 83.606

149997.813 125

11236.672 124

SourceCorrected Model

Intercept

Contact Condition

Error

Total

Corrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = .092 (Adjusted R Squared = .077)a.

p. < 0.01

Analysis method: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

Data Analysis – Contact Condition

no contact workmate roommate

Contact condition

30.00

31.00

32.00

33.00

34.00

35.00

36.00

37.00

Score

Prejudice level of different contact conditions

Contact Condition

Data Analysis – Contact Condition

Analysis method: Post-hoc Test

4.9819* 1.89729 .035 .2802 9.68366.8073* 2.08674 .006 1.6361 11.97851.8253 2.11438 .690 -3.4143 7.0650

(J) groupworkmateroommate

roommate

(I) groupno contact

workmate

MeanDifference

(I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound95% Confidence Interval

Based on observed means.

The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

33.766 .952 35.485 .000

-.150 .078 -.174 -1.915 .058

(Constant)

time

Model1

B Std. Error

UnstandardizedCoefficients

Beta

StandardizedCoefficients

t Sig.

Dependent Variable: tota.

Time

Analysis method: Regression

Data Analysis – Time

Data Analysis – Time

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00

time

-10.00

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

tot

Data Analysis – Time

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

time

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

tot

36.664 1.241 29.549 .000

-2.277 .671 -.330 -3.394 .001

(Constant)

time

Model1

B Std. Error

UnstandardizedCoefficients

Beta

StandardizedCoefficients

t Sig.

Dependent Variable: tota.

p < 0.01

0 – 5 hours per week

Data Analysis – Time

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00

time

-20.00

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

tot

Coefficientsa

29.782 4.181 7.123 .000

-.004 .152 -.006 -.027 .979(Constant)

time

Model1

B Std. Error

UnstandardizedCoefficients

Beta

StandardizedCoefficients

t Sig.

Dependent Variable: tota.

p > 0.05

> 8 hours per week

Data Analysis – Other Factors

p > 0.05No significance for all other demographic information

Significant Results Obtained

1. Prejudicial level within groups

2. Prejudicial level with time

• No contact group > workmate group• No contact group > roommate group• Workmate group = roommate group

• contact time prejudice • contact time prejudice • Cutoff : 5-8 Hours per week

Part II

Interviews

InterviewAspect Local Student Mainland Student

Name Mr. Li Mr. Wong

Homeland Chongqing Hong Kong

Education Background

Have lived in HK for 1 month Economics Yr.1 student

History Yr.1 student

Language Mandarin as mother tongueSpeaks little Cantonese

Cantonese as mother tongueSpeaks Mandarin as well

Interview

Food Prefers spicy food whereas local food is sweet

No problem

Lecture Because language problem, focus on PowerPoint only

No problem

Rest •Sleeps at 11pm, wakes up 30 minutes before lecture•Different Sleeping Schedule

•Prefers sleep lately

•Feels discontent with the time schedule of mainland students

Interview

Activity Participates activities that have a majority of Mainland studentsDissatisfies with o’camp that uses Cantonese as medium of instruction

Participates activities that have a majority of local studentsThinks that Mainland Students are inactive in school

Entertainment Enjoys themselves in Shenzhen often

Mostly enjoys themselves in HK

Pajamas Sleeps with underwear Sleeps with casual wear

Mainland Student Opinion

Interpretation

Interpretation3 literatures• Mere Exposure Theory• Propinquity Theory • Contact Hypothesis

Merits of mainland students

Cosmopolitanism of CUHK students

Cultural awareness

Different in sources of information

Implications of our findings

Significance of our results

• It is found that workmates and roomates have lower level of prejudice

• Increased contact time, lower prejudice

• People seldom contact with mainlanders have highest prejudice

Implication of results

• Increase the chance of contact

• Increase time of contact

Should reduce prejudice level

Reflection on the current situation

activity allowing interaction between mainland and local students

UC College activities

• Putonghua table

• Language improvement project

• Orientation camp

Reflection (con’t)

University activity

• Orientation camp

• (association: CSSA 香港中文大學內地學生學者聯誼會 )

Significance of the result to CUHK

• Internationalization

Can make the university internationalized by just increasing quota of entrance?

Hardware VS SoftwareCultural integration problem

Suggestions

• Problem: lack chances for interaction

• PolyU: ‘Buddy Programme’

• a match-a-friend scheme

• local students are recruited as buddies of overseas students at PolyU.

Limitation of our research

Limitations

• Insufficient questionnaire

• Confined interviewee

• Insufficient interviews

Reference

• Zajonc, R. B: “Attitudinal effects of mere exposure”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (Washington: American Psychological Association, 1968),vol. 9, Monongraph supplement No. 2, Part 2.

• Festinger, L: “ A theory of social comparison processes”, Human Relations, (New York: Plenum Press, 1954), vol.7.

• Allport, Gordon W: The nature of prejudice, (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1958).

Reference

• Fisher, R. J.: “Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning”. Journal of Consumer Research, (Chicago, Ill.s.n., 1974.), vol. 20.

• 優秀學生雲集香港中文大學 (1/9/2006) http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/ipro/pressrelease/06090

1c.htm• 香港中文大學劉遵義校長勉勵新生 --融會中西 , 走向世界 (1/9/2005)

http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/ipro/pressrelease/060901c.htm

Reference

• 多元文化校園再添菁華 中大錄取 239 名非本地本科生 (8/9/2004)

http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/ipro/pressrelease/pressc.htm

Q & A