THE CASE AGAINST VALUE INDOCTRINATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION + James Waller + Associate Professor of Psychology Whitworth College Introduction Jacobsen and Jacobsen (1991) recently have argued that Christian colleges ". . . have not sufficiently been institutions of nurture in Christian ethics" (p. 65). Although acknowledging that most Christian colleges have dealt with ethics within the curriculum, Jacobsen and Jacobsen contend that our academies have been remiss in addressing ". . . the role of ethics in our institutions as a whole and in our lives as individuals" (p. 72). In a similar vein, one also may argue that Christian colleges have not sufficiently been institutions of nurture in Christian values. Historically, many Christian institutions of higher learning have addressed the task of nurturing Christian values by relying upon various forms of value indoctrination. Although value indoctrination may take many postures, its primary purpose remains to determine student behavior through the transmission of values, attitudes, and opinions with a view to unquestioning assent.1 In his renowned The Idea of a Christian College, Holmes (1991) clearly portrays this model of value transmission: . . . many suppose that the Christian college exists to protect young people against sin and heresy in other institutions. The idea therefore 1 is not so much to educate as to indoctrinate, to provide a safe environment plus all the answers to all the problems posed by all the critics of orthodoxy and virtue. (p. 4) Holmes then persuasively argues against this model by stating that: The mistake in cloistering young people to keep them from sin and heresy, as evangelicals-of all people-should realize, is that these things come ultimately not from the environment but out of the heart. The primary purpose of a Christian college is not to insulate and protect students, but to educate them as responsible Christians. (pp. 5, 85) The immediate educational implications of dogmatic value indoctrination are striking. The facile transmission of prepackaged answers leads to the obstruction of creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills in our students. Holmes states clearly the incongruency of value indoctrination in Christian higher education: "Christian indoctrination is a self-contradiction for the educator who purports to develop the individuality and intellectual powers of persons created in God's image." (p. 68) The stifling of these intellectual powers then becomes a taxing impediment to the emerging worldview of the student.2 I contend that value indoctrination-and the concomitant suppression of intellectual maturity-results in many students leaving our institutions with fragile formulations of a Christian worldview. It is as if they go into the world carrying an "egg" that represents their underdeveloped Christian worldview. In order to avoid 2 damage to this egg, many retreat to the safety and sanctuary of another religious cloister. Not preparing them to change the world, we have only taught them to live in a Christian world so that their fragile eggs may remain undamaged. Others run swiftly and full of naive confidence into the world only to have their fragile eggs cracked and ruined by competing religious and secular worldviews. It may take them years to relocate the pieces of their shattered Christian worldviews, if they relocate them at all. In the previous article, Migliazzo has suggested that the option of clearly articulating an orthodox Christian worldview without directly confronting the values and assumptions inherent in American culture is no longer an option. I further this argument by suggesting that it is only by confronting the values and assumptions inherent in American culture that we may effectively transmit an articulate, mature, and well-grounded Christian worldview. Implicit in this discussion is the affirmation that the Christian academy has nothing to fear from the culture in which it lives. We unfailingly adopt the tenet that all truth is God's truth and we seek to structure a Christian worldview that clearly exhibits this principle. Calvin's (1981) Institutes of the Christian Religion (2.2.15) offers a clear declaration of this belief: "The human mind, however much fallen and perverted from its original integrity, is still adorned and invested with admirable gifts from its Creator. . . . We will be careful . . . not 3 to reject or condemn truth wherever it appears." If we truly believe this, then fear is exempted as an excuse to avoid confrontation with other religious and secular worldviews. The remainder of this paper will present a method of value nurturance, termed value inoculation, that involves the transmission of a Christian worldview by confrontation with the values and assumptions inherent in opposing religious and secular worldviews. The efficacy of this procedure will be established by a presentation of relevant theoretical foundations and empirical evidence from the field of social psychology. Finally, several curricular and co-curricular implications of value inoculation will be presented. Theoretical Foundations Following the Korean War, William McGuire, a leading figure in the field of attitude formation and change, became very interested in reports of "brainwashing" of American prisoners of war by Chinese communists. A number of POWs had given public speeches denouncing the American government and several stated a clear desire to establish permanent residence in China when the war was over. McGuire speculated that some soldiers might have been especially vulnerable to the persuasive attempts of the Chinese communists because they were being attacked on matters about which they were quite inexperienced and ignorant. Many soldiers, especially the less educated ones, had never been 4 forced to defend the political policies of the United States against the level of sophisticated Marxist argumentation used against them by the Chinese. McGuire hypothesized that an important source of resistance to persuasion comes from one's degree of past experience with the issue. He suggested that persons who live in an ideologically monolithic environment tend to underestimate the vulnerability of their attitudes and the likelihood of those attitudes being attacked. As a result, these persons have little motivation or practice in developing supporting arguments to strengthen their attitudes or in preparing refutations for the unanticipated counterarguments. McGuire portrayed the individual faced with a persuasive communication as analogous to the individual attacked by a virus. The stronger the persuasive message (virus), the more damage it would do; the stronger the person's defenses, the better able he or she is to resist the persuasive message (virus). Following this medical analogy, we can acknowledge that there are two principal means of strengthening people's defense against a virus. First, we can strengthen their bodies by supportive therapy-good diet, vitamins, exercise, rest, etc. Second, we can strengthen their defenses by actually exposing them to a mild case of the virus. If people are given mild cases of a virus that they are able to fight off, their bodies produce antibodies which in the 5 future provide an effective and strong defense against more powerful attacks of the virus. McGuire (1964, 1985) argued that these two approaches are also applicable to the persuasive situation. The first means of strengthening resistance to persuasion, most similar to what we have called value indoctrination, is the use of "supportive defense." In supportive defense, the person's attitude is directly strengthened by providing additional arguments supporting the advocated position. This procedure of strengthening resistance to persuasion primarily relies on frequent repetition and forceful admonition. In the context of Christian higher education, we would bombard students with additional arguments which buttress the Christian worldview we espouse. The second approach to strengthening the individual's defenses against persuasion is termed "value inoculation." McGuire argued that, as with viruses, the most effective way of increasing resistance is to build up defenses. If a particular attitude has never been attacked, it is extremely vulnerable because no defenses have been built up around it. This vulnerability remains high regardless of the severity of the indoctrination procedures. When such an attitude is suddenly subjected to persuasive pressure, the individual does not have an adequate set of defenses, and the attitude tends to be relatively easy to change. However, someone whose opinion has been attacked, and successfully defended, should be able to resist later attacks because a relatively 6 strong defensive system will have been built up. In summary, inoculation theory argues that a weak dose of possible counterarguments can immunize the hearer against much of the effect that those counterarguments (later presently forcefully) might have. Value inoculation clearly stands as a form of education rather than a coercive manipulation or subtle variation of "brainwashing." Value inoculation theory suggests the efficacy of dealing with rather than ignoring the opposition in an ideologically competitive situation. Inoculation theory would suggest that one's Christian worldview must derive from more than simply supportive defense (that is, value indoctrination); it must include values that have been shaped so as to be able to stand up under the pressures of counterarguments and critical analysis. Empirical Evidence In a seminal empirical work, McGuire and Papageorgis (1961) compared the effectiveness of supportive defense and value inoculation. These investigators first identified a set of what they called cultural truisms, beliefs that were so widely shared that a person would never have heard them attacked, and might even think that they were immune from attack. The examples used included "Everyone should brush his teeth after every meal if at all possible"; "The effects of penicillin have been, almost without exception, of great benefit to mankind"; "Most forms of mental illness are not contagious"; and "Everyone should get a chest X-ray each 7 year in order to detect any possible tuberculosis symptoms at an early stage." (It should be noted that this latter issue would not be considered a truism today, because the medical risk from repeated X-ray exposure is now estimated to be higher than the risk of contracting tuberculosis.) The experiment involved two separate sessions. In the first session, participants were provided with one of three types of defenses for the truisms: (1) Group A received supportive defenses for their position. For example, if they believed it was a good idea to brush their teeth three times a day, they were shown a study by the United States Public Health Service which suggested that people who do so have fewer cavities than those who brush their teeth less often or not at all. (2) Group B had their position attacked weakly and read or wrote an essay in refutation of the mild attack (the inoculation condition). (3) Group C, a control group, received neither procedure. In the second session, two days later, each truism was restated and then attacked in detail. For example, participants were told that prestigious authorities were said to have discovered that too much tooth brushing can damage one's gums. The participant's final attitudes were measured at the conclusions of this second session. Table 1 (adapted from McGuire and Papageorgis, 1961) shows how much each group changed as a result of this final attack. 8 ____________________________________________________________ _____ Table 1. The Effects of Supportive or Inoculation Defenses on Resistance to Persuasion ____________________________________________________________ _____ CONDITION AMOUNT OF ATTITUDE CHANGE Supportive Defense (A) 5.87 Inoculation Defense (B) 2.94 Neither (C) 6.62 ____________________________________________________________ _____ The supportive defense method helped subjects resist persuasion only a little-the group receiving support (A) changed their attitudes nonsignificantly less than the group that had no preparation (C). But the inoculation method helped a great deal; subjects receiving this preparation (B) changed their attitudes significantly less (p < .001) than the other subjects. Subsequent research (McGuire, 1962) revealed that the value inoculation procedure conferred greater resistance to attacks that came several days after the defense than to immediate attacks. More recent research has demonstrated the effectiveness of inoculation to stress (Novaco, 1977) and of inoculating 9 children against peer pressure to smoke (McAlister, 1980; Evans et al., 1984; Flay et al., 1985) and against advertising influence (Feshbach, 1980; Cohen, 1980). In summary, the theory and research underlying value inoculation suggests that we should be wary of creating a "germ-free ideological environment" in our colleges. The strength of a belief shaped by value indoctrination may prove illusory and is a very poor indicator of conferred resistance to subsequent strong counterarguments. Belief imparted by exposure to a weakened form of the attacking material that is threatening enough to stimulate defenses but not so strong as to overwhelm them, however, may provide greater resistance. This prior exposure to counterarguments is theorized to produce resistance to later persuasion because (a) one becomes motivated to defend one's beliefs and (b) one gains practice in doing so. Curricular and Co-Curricular Implications In closing, three curricular and co-curricular areas where the practice of value inoculation may have an impact will be addressed: 1) Curricular Exposure to Competing Worldviews, 2) Community Service, 3) Faculty Recruitment. Curricular Exposure to Competing Worldviews-First, we may question the exposure students have to competing worldviews on our campuses. How open are our classrooms, lectures, books, and films to conflicting worldviews, values, attitudes, and opinions? How often are ideologically opposed speakers invited to chapel and other 10 campus forums? More importantly, after the invitation has been extended, how often do we provide a supportive community to address the difficult questions raised? How open are we to the religious diversities within our own student bodies? Do we restrict or champion certain forms of religious expression or Christian worldviews? In so doing, are we not also limiting the students' opportunity to fortify their own Christian worldview through comparison with other Christian worldviews? In a thoughtful response to Migliazzo's presentation, Dr. Gerald Miller of Asbury College urged that we recognize two tensions implicit in these questions. The first is the tension of a protective versus supportive environment. This tension is analogous to the visceral tightness that parents feel when they must let their children go. This tightness may be so constraining that we choose to protect and insulate our children-mistakenly thinking that this strategy is in their best interest. The frightening process involved in going beyond a protective environment to build a supportive environment involves releasing an untested length of that tether of love and concern that binds parents and their children. Similarly, in Christian higher education, we also must recognize the anxiety that will arise as we expose students to competing worldviews and allow them to wrestle with the reality of the tensions inherent in this exposure. This method of nurturing values requires that we be prepared to 11 deal with the issues that arise as students actively reformulate their own thinking. Again, Holmes (1991) eloquently describes this tension: Students need to gain a realistic look at life and to discover for themselves the questions that confront us. They need to work their way painfully through the maze of alternative ideas and arguments while finding out how their Christian faith speaks to such matters. They need a teacher as a catalyst and guide, one who has struggled and is struggling with similar questions and knows some of the pertinent materials and procedures. They need to be exposed to the frontiers of learning where problems are still not fully formulated and knowledge is exploding, and where by the very nature of things indoctrination is impossible. (p. 46) Implicit in this discussion is the recognition that the community afforded during the college experience is perhaps the single most powerful influence in shaping a person's values. Parks (1986) is just one of many voices to advocate the critical importance of community to the support and encouragement of students' searching, questioning, emerging, promising and vulnerable selves. The confrontation involved in inoculation theory must occur in the context of a supportive, but not ideologically isolated or cloistered, environment. It is not difficult for someone with years of undergraduate and graduate training to ravage and "deconstruct" the sketchy worldview of an eighteen-year-old freshman. Indeed, many argue that our secular colleges and universities do this regularly and without remorse. What is demanding, however, is to have the discernment to critically 12 analyze and contrast one worldview with others and then to provide the vital intellectual and spiritual support, in the context of a supportive community, as the student "reconstructs" their worldview. An ideologically compatible, yet not unanimous, community is essential to confirm the worldview that an undergraduate is (re)constructing during this time. The community promises a place of nurture. Miller's second caution was an awareness of the tension involved in maintaining our unique message in the face of the free exchange of ideas. The free exchange of ideas, inherent in opening our campuses to divergent worldviews, must never become the relativistic and muddled chaos seen in much of secular higher education. A resolute belief in Christian values is central to the value inoculation approach as described herein. Competing worldviews are given an audience, not to dissuade students from a Christian worldview, but to strengthen their commitment to a Christian worldview through exposure to competing worldviews. To restate, value inoculation is a deliberate attempt to strengthen Christian values by exposure to competing values- not a beginning step toward relativism. Community Service-A second implication recognizes the importance of exposure to people different from our students in race, sex, age, class, culture and life experience (see Kammer, 1988). Specifically, how much stress do our campuses place upon community service-outside of 13 state-legislated curriculum requirements such as student teaching and short-term practicums? Swezey (1990) suggests four programs of community service that allow for this exposure. First, she describes opportunities for direct service within community agencies or programs. These opportunities, such as "Habitat for Humanity," afford students direct short-term involvement with continuous programs. Swezey next discusses involvement with advocacy or social-justice organizations as another viable community service option. These programs, such as "Amnesty International," encourage active responses to social problems while also exposing the student to the concrete disparities resulting from differences in worldviews. As a third option, she offers more direct and intense immersion experiences. These programs, which can vary greatly in structure, include inner-city experiences and international service in developing countries. Finally, Swezey recognizes the importance of campus-wide programs that either (a) bring local communities together with the campus community or (b) involve the entire campus community. Examples of the former would include senior citizen dances or children's fairs; of the latter, hunger awareness weeks or food and clothing drives. It is clear from even this cursory discussion of community service that our campus communities have a wide range of options that allow for differing levels of involvement, commitment, and challenge. In the context of 14 value inoculation, we also must emphasize that each of the above programs grant students an opportunity to interact with different worldviews and return to the nurture of an ideologically compatible community to wrestle with the reality of tensions inherent in competing worldviews. As Swezey (1990) states: "While students are challenged by what they learn [in community service programs], they are supported by the safe environment of the campus" (p. 86). Faculty Recruitment-Thirdly, and finally, we must underscore the significance of faculty as catalysts and guides in the value inoculation procedure. An ideologically compatible community of scholars is an essential element of the nurturing mechanism of a Christian academy. Given this integral role, we may question the wisdom of a faculty recruitment and selection process biased in favor of recent graduates from our own institution. Could this subtle attempt to develop an ideologically unanimous community (masquerading as a search for a "known" quantity) hinder the diversity of Christian expression that is vital to the value inoculation procedure? Summary I have argued that nurturing Christian values through the practice of indoctrination leaves our students poorly prepared to resist the counterarguments stemming from competing religious and secular worldviews. I have advocated a method of value nurturance, termed value inoculation, that requires transmitting the concepts and 15 principles of a Christian worldview by confronting the values and assumptions inherent in opposing religious and secular worldviews. If our Christian worldview cannot withstand this confrontation, so much the worse for it. If it can, its effect on our students will be the more abiding for having done so. Notes 1The present paper defines values as broad collections of enduring attitudes concerning modes of conduct and states of existence; attitudes as beliefs and feelings about some person, object, or issue that determine a behavioral intention; and opinions as verbal expressions of attitudes. 2The present paper defines worldview as a comprehensive collection of values that determine one's basic philosophy of life. Bush (1991) suggests that one's worldview dictates the manner by which one orders one's thoughts, responds to one's experiences, and interprets reality. References Bush, L. R. A Handbook for Christian Philosophy. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991. Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion (trans. by H. Beveridge). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans (original work published 1559), 1981. Cohen, S. "Training to Understand TV Advertising: Effects and Some Policy Implications." Paper presented at the American Psychological Association convention, 1980. Evans, R. I., Smith, C. K., & Raines, B.E. "Deterring Cigarette Smoking in Adolescents: A Psycho-Social-Behavioral Analysis of an Intervention Strategy." In A. Baum, J. Singer, & S. Taylor (eds.), Handbook of Psychology and Health: Social Psychological Aspects of Health (vol. 4). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1984. Feshbach, N.D. "The Child as 'Psychologist' and 'Economist': Two Curricula." Paper presented at the American Psychological Association convention, 1980. Flay, B. R., Ryan, K. B., Best, J. A., Brown, K. S., Kersell, M. W., d'Avernas, J. R., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). "Are Social-Psychological Smoking Prevention Programs Effective? The Waterloo Study." Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 8 (1985): 37-59. 16 Holmes, A. F. (1991). The Idea of a Christian College (rev. ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991. Jacobsen, D., & Jacobsen, R. "College, Community, Atheism, and Ethics." Faculty Dialogue, 15 (Fall 1991): 63-81. Kammer, C.L. Ethics and Liberation. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1988. McAlister, A., Perry, C., Killen, J., Slinkard, L.A., & Maccoby, N. (1980). "Pilot Study of Smoking, Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention." American Journal of Public Health, 70 (1980): 719-21. McGuire, W. "Persistence of the Resistance to Persuasion Induced by Various Types of Prior Belief Defenses." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 64 (1962): 241-8. McGuire, W. "Inducing Resistance to Persuasion." In L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Academic Press, 1964, pp., 191-229. McGuire, W. "Attitudes and Attitude Change." In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (3rd ed.). New York: Random House, 1985. McGuire, W., & Papageorgis, D. (1961). "The Relative Efficacy of Various Types of Prior Belief Defense in Producing Immunity Against Persuasion." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62 (1961): 327-37. Novaco, R.W. Stress Inoculation: "A Cognitive Therapy for Anger and Its Application to a Case of Depression." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45 (1977): 600-8. Parks, S. The Critical Years: The Young Adult Search for a Faith to Live By. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986. Swezey, E.D. (1990). "Grounded in Justice: Service Learning from a Faith Perspective." New Directions for Student Services, 50 (1990): 77-90. 17