promoting intercultural friendship among college students
TRANSCRIPT
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjii20
Journal of International and InterculturalCommunication
ISSN: 1751-3057 (Print) 1751-3065 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjii20
Promoting intercultural friendship among collegestudents
Elisabeth Gareis, Jeffrey Goldman & Rebecca Merkin
To cite this article: Elisabeth Gareis, Jeffrey Goldman & Rebecca Merkin (2018): Promotingintercultural friendship among college students, Journal of International and InterculturalCommunication, DOI: 10.1080/17513057.2018.1502339
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17513057.2018.1502339
Published online: 02 Aug 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 19
View Crossmark data
Promoting intercultural friendship among college studentsElisabeth Gareisa, Jeffrey Goldmanb and Rebecca Merkina
aDepartment of Communication Studies, Baruch College/CUNY, New York, NY, USA; bDepartment ofPsychology, Hauser Hall, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, USA
ABSTRACTThis study assessed the efficacy of a semester-long buddy project infacilitating intercultural friendship development. Results of pre-,post-, and follow-up surveys show significant improvements inknowledge and attitude; correlations between post-projectknowledge, attitude, and interest in continued contact; andcorrelations between interest in continued contact and actualcontact in the follow up. The majority of the participantsevaluated the project as effective for friendship formation. Of thefollow-up respondents, 23% developed friendships with theirformer buddies. The project serves as an example for assignmentswith the potential for friendship development, which is essentialfor optimal intergroup contact.
ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 12 December 2017Accepted 2 July 2018
KEYWORDSCross-cultural knowledge;cross-cultural attitude;intercultural friendship;buddy project; contacthypothesis
Pettigrew (1997) determined that the potential for friendship is crucial for positive inter-group attitudes. In particular, he showed that the causal path from intercultural friendshipto low prejudice is significantly stronger than the reverse path: The positive effects of inter-cultural friendship do not occur because the interactants start out less prejudiced thanothers; it is the intercultural friendship itself that affects prejudice reduction. Thus, “a situ-ation’s ‘friendship potential’ is essential for optimal intergroup contact” (p. 183).1
Interestingly, intercultural friendship exerts a positive influence not only on the friendsthemselves, but also on others who learn about such friendships. Page-Gould, Mendoza-Denton, and Tropp (2008) found that direct and indirect friendship (i.e., mere knowledgeof the intercultural friendships of one’s acquaintances, friends, and family members)reduces outgroup prejudice.
Intercultural friendship also has numerous other benefits. Studies focusing on intercul-tural friendship in the context of international higher education, for example, show thatintercultural friendship between international and domestic students lowers the inter-national students’ acculturative stress (Poyrazli, Kavanaugh, Baker, & Al-Timimi, 2004),promotes adjustment (Zhang & Goodson, 2011), and increases overall sojourn satisfaction(Rohrlich & Martin, 1991). It is also linked to stronger language skills (Gareis, Merkin, &Goldman, 2011), improved academic performance (Ward & Masgoret, 2004), and betterretention and graduation rates (Mamiseishvili, 2012). Additionally, intercultural friend-ship has been shown to facilitate the international outlook of both international and
© 2018 National Communication Association
CONTACT Elisabeth Gareis [email protected]
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATIONhttps://doi.org/10.1080/17513057.2018.1502339
domestic interactants (Todd & Nesdale, 1997) and enhance the international images of theinvolved countries (Yum, 1988). With its positive effect on prejudice reduction and tran-sition experiences, friendship is a powerful means for promoting interculturalunderstanding.
University settings abound with situations of potential intercultural friendship for-mation – not only between international and domestic students, but also between dom-estic students of differing racial and ethnic heritage – since students from diversebackgrounds, often removed from previously established networks, share space andhave the opportunity to interact. Unfortunately, students frequently prefer to socializewith people of the same ethnicity or nationality, which results in largely monoculturalstudent networks. For example, in a study conducted at a U.S. university (and aptlyentitled “Diverse by Name Only?”), Halualani, Chitgopekar, Morrison, and Dodge(2004) found that racial and ethnic groups engage in narrow interaction patterns.In another study at a U.S. college, Liang and Guest (2013) describe the tight-knit networksof the college-age children of immigrants from the Fuzhou region in China, with 80% ofthe students’ friendships being with other Fuzhounese, Chinese, and Chinese-Americans.The authors point out that such near-exclusive intra-ethnic networks limit opportunitiesfor English-language development, intercultural communication, and multi-ethnicnetwork building, thus jeopardizing the students’ upward social and economic mobilityafter graduation.
The banding together of racial and ethnic groups in the United States is mirrored by therelative lack of meaningful contact between international and domestic students at hostinstitutions worldwide. Peacock and Harrison (2009), for example, report that at an insti-tution in the United Kingdom, “the prevailing culture [of the host] student body … wasone of passive xenophobia. … Most international students were seen as culturally distantor self-excluding, with few points of reference on which to base interaction” (p. 506).Other studies have found that a third or more of international students have no host-national friends (e.g., Bochner, Hutnik, & Furnham, 1985; Gareis, 2012; Ward & Mas-goret, 2004), leading to concerns that the goal of student exchange, namely the promotionof international good will and cooperation, is not achieved and that neither sojourners norhosts derive maximal benefits.
In response, calls have been made for institutions to create appropriate infrastructuresand actively facilitate meaningful intercultural contact (e.g., European Association forInternational Education, 2012). The purpose of this study is to assess the efficacy of acollege-class assignment in facilitating interaction and intercultural friendship develop-ment. The study was conducted in an intercultural-communication class at a largeurban university in the United States.
Factors influencing intercultural friendship development
Scholarship on in-class measures fostering intercultural friendship formation is scarce.Studies may call for an increase in intercultural interactions via group assignments, aswell as for building on diversity as a resource to engage with content knowledge (e.g., Yefa-nova, Baird, & Montgomery, 2015; Zhao, Kuh, & Carini, 2005), but recommendations aremostly of a general nature and do not specify how measures should be carried out formaximum impact.
2 E. GAREIS, J. GOLDMAN AND R. MERKIN
With comprehensive data on the efficacy of specific measures still outstanding, modelsand theories related to intercultural interaction and relationship development providedirection for research design. Three key factors that are repeatedly identified as helpfulin facilitating interaction and friendship formation are knowledge, attitude, and contact(quality and quantity).
Knowledge and attitude
The Expectancy Violation Theory explains that, when people meet dissimilar others andlack knowledge about the other culture, expectations of verbal and nonverbal communi-cation behaviors may be violated (Burgoon, 1978). This can create uncertainty and dis-comfort. Similarly, the Integrated Threat Theory delineates threats perceived byinteractants in intercultural encounters (symbolic threats based on value differences; rea-listic threats to the power, resources, and well-being of the in-group; anxiety concerningsocial interaction with out-group members; and feelings of threat arising from negativestereotypes of the out-group) (Stephan, Ybarra, Martinez, Schwarzwald, & Tur Kaspa,1998). Two threats—anxiety concerning social interaction with out-group members andfeelings of threat arising from negative stereotypes of the out-group—have been shownto be especially powerful predictors of prejudicial attitudes. These threats are also mostconducive to being addressed by enhancing cross-cultural knowledge. The Anxiety/Uncertainty Management Theory (Gudykunst, 1993) and the Uncertainty ReductionTheory (Berger & Calabrese, 1975) focus on the reduction of anxiety and uncertainty inintercultural encounters; for example, by eliciting and providing self-disclosure. Knowl-edge about the other culture decreases misunderstandings and makes interpersonal inter-action attractive (Gudykunst, 1991).
In addition to cross-cultural knowledge, cross-cultural attitude has been identified as akey factor helping or hindering friendship formation (Gareis, 1995). A positive attitudetowards another culture can make interaction more likely; a negative attitude can makeit less likely. A positive attitude, however, can do more than function as a catalyst for inter-action; prejudice reduction and improved attitudes can also be the outcome of optimalinteractions.
Contact quantity and quality
Allport’s (1954) contact hypothesis outlines four conditions of optimal intergroup contactfor prejudice reduction: equal status of interactants, intergroup cooperation, commongoals, and support by the authorities. Adding to Allport’s four original contact conditions,Pettigrew (1997) determined that the potential for friendship is essential for positive inter-group attitudes. One explanation for this phenomenon is that friendship developmentrequires time and that extended engagement allows interactants to progress throughstages of categorization (i.e., full decategorization, salient categorization, and recategoriza-tion) (Pettigrew, 1998). The Common Identity Model (Gaertner, Dovidio, Anastasio,Bachman, & Rust, 1993) shows that extended contact is necessary until members of dis-parate groups recategorize (i.e., think of themselves as one larger group).
Likewise, with respect to quality, the Social Penetration Theory posits that interactantsmove from the initial to the affective and stable relationship stages as communication
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION 3
becomes increasingly personal (Altman & Taylor, 1973) and cultural dissimilarities retreatinto the background (Gudykunst, Nishida, & Chua, 1987). Investigating the intersectionbetween contact, knowledge, anxiety reduction, and empathy, Pettigrew and Tropp(2008) conducted a meta-analysis of over 500 studies on Allport’s (1954) contact hypoth-esis and determined that contact reduces prejudice by enhancing knowledge about theoutgroup, reducing anxiety about intergroup contact, and increasing empathy for the out-group. Of the three mediators, increased knowledge appeared less strong than anxietyreduction and empathy. The authors suggest that a causal sequence may be in operationwhereby initial anxiety must first be reduced through contact before increased empathy,perspective taking, and knowledge of the outgroup can contribute to prejudice reduction.
Previous contact with a target culture appears to moderate the effect on knowledge andattitude improvement. In a study on intercultural contact, knowledge, and acceptancebetween domestic and international students in Australia, Todd and Nesdale (1997)found that an intervention, consisting of orientation, recreational, and tutorial programs,had a greater effect on the domestic than international students. The authors theorize thatthe international students’ higher level of intercultural experience diminished the overallimpact of the intervention.
Analyzing the process further, Ward, Masgoret, and Gezentsvey (2009) contend thatcontact (quantity and quality) disperses stereotypes, thereby reducing interculturalanxiety and perceived threat, and finally leading to improved cross-cultural attitudes.Toward this end, universities should encourage classroom practices and programsdesigned to foster intercultural interactions.
Facilitating intercultural friendship development through collegeassignments
Considering Pettigrew’s (1997) findings that optimal contact should include the poten-tial for friendship development, the question, therefore, arises how to foster interculturalinteractions conducive to friendship development among students. One type of class-room practice promising the cross-cultural knowledge expansion, attitude improvement,and qualitatively rich and repeated contact conducive to intercultural friendship for-mation are projects, during which student dyads from differing cultures work collabora-tively and for an extended time on assignments encouraging culture-focusedinformation sharing and self-disclosure. The study at hand focuses on such a collabor-ation in form of a semester-long “ethnographic buddy” project in the context of anintercultural-communication class. The goal of the project was to enhance cross-culturalknowledge, improve intergroup attitudes, and foster friendship development throughrepeated contact and the culture-focused yet personal communication inherent in theproject.
Although pair-project assignments seem to be well-suited for facilitating interculturalfriendship development, it should be noted that they deviate partially from Allport’s(1954) conditions for optimal intergroup contact (i.e., the cooperation is between twointeractants and not two groups, and the goals are assigned and not voluntary). The prac-tical and theoretical implication of a study focused on pair-projects is therefore to deter-mine whether inducing extended intercultural contact in form of an assignment, in whichthe established conditions for optimal intergroup contact are only partially operative, can
4 E. GAREIS, J. GOLDMAN AND R. MERKIN
affect interest in continued contact beyond the semester and the formation of interculturalfriendships.
To gauge the effect of an ethnographic pair-project on knowledge and attitude, as wellas the impact of previous contact with the target culture (factors that had been explored inthe literature, but in other contexts), the following hypotheses were formulated.
H1: Participants’ knowledge about their buddy’s culture will increase over the pre to posttime span, and be maintained over the post to follow-up time span.
H2: Participants’ attitude toward their buddy’s culture will improve over the pre to post timespan, and be maintained over the post to follow-up time span.
H3: Participants’ knowledge about their buddy’s culture will increase over the pre to posttime span and be maintained at follow up, but this will occur more for those with a low com-pared to high amount of pre-project contact.
H4: Participants’ attitude toward their buddy’s culture will improve over the pre to post timespan and be maintained at follow up, but this will occur more for those with a low comparedto high amount of pre-project contact.
With scant scholarship on class practices and continued student contact or friendshipdevelopment, the following research questions were formulated.
R1: What is the relationship between the participants’ post-project knowledge, attitude, andinterest in continued contact with their buddy?
R2: What is the relationship between the participants’ pre-project contact with their buddy’sculture, post-project interest in continued contact with their buddy, and actual contact fol-lowing the semester?
R3: To what extent was the project successful in fostering intercultural friendship formation?
Method
Participants
This study was conducted during two semesters in an intercultural-communication courseat an urban U.S. college. The college has one of the most ethnically diverse student bodiesin the United States, with 18,000 students representing 160 countries (by birth orbackground).
The two sections of the course were taught in a jumbo/hybrid format: 111 and 112 stu-dents were enrolled in each class respectively, and class time was divided into 57% face-to-face and 43% online sessions, including asynchronous discussions on a discussion board.The demographics of the 223 participants are as follows (see Table 1).
The 223 students completed a pre-test at the beginning and a post test at the end of thesemester, and were contacted six months after the semester and offered a follow-up survey.Of the original 223 participants, 97 (43.50%) students completed the follow-up survey.
Project design
An assignment in the intercultural-communication course was for students to complete asemester-long ethnographic research project focusing on a culture other than their own.
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION 5
Each student filled out a demographic survey at the beginning of the semester (seeTable 1). In addition, students were asked to list one to three cultures with which theyidentified and for which they would be willing to serve as expert. Students were encour-aged to consider national, regional, ethnic, religious, professional, lifestyle, and other cul-tures for this project. Responses included cultural identities related to 53 countries, majorworld religions, organizational affiliations (such as fraternities and sororities), and life-styles (such as sexual orientations, veganism, snowboarding, and video gaming). The pro-fessor in the course then used this demographic and cultural information to matchstudents from dissimilar cultural backgrounds (e.g., a Chinese-American gay bartenderwas matched with an international student from Turkey, and an Orthodox Jewish Amer-ican with a recent immigrant from the Dominican Republic, etc.). In the case of one classwith an odd number of students (n = 111), 54 pairs of two students were formed, plus onegroup of three students (with students focusing on the culture of one of the others in thegroup).
Research design
Following Astin’s (1991) Input-Environment-Output (I-E-O) Model, the ethnographicproject consisted of questions that established the students’ background characteristics,such as levels of knowledge and attitudes (input); then exposed students to contact andpotential learning experiences (environment); and finally measured what students had
Table 1. Demographics.Frequency Percentage (%)a
GenderMale 97 43.50Female 121 54.26N/A 5 2.25
Age20 or less 71 31.8421–25 140 62.7826–30 3 1.3531 or more 6 2.69NA 3 1.35
Race/EthnicityAsian 61 27.35Black 17 7.62Latino 41 18.39White 76 34.08Other 26 11.66NA 2 0.90
Native LanguageEnglish 107 47.98Chinese 15 6.73Russian 10 4.48Spanish 28 12.56Other 63 28.25
Born & Raised in U.S.Yes 137 61.43No 86 38.57
Status of 86 Students not Born and Raised in U.S.International Students 12 13.95Permanent Residents and Immigrants 74 86.05
aPercentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
6 E. GAREIS, J. GOLDMAN AND R. MERKIN
gained (output). For the purpose of this study, input and output were assessed throughpre-, post-, and follow-up surveys that elicited quantitative and qualitative data.
Pre-survey. Each student was informed of his/her future partner’s cultures and, beforemeeting the partner or learning his/her name, filled out a survey with Likert-scale optionsindicating their level of knowledge about the partner’s cultures, their attitude toward eachculture, and the amount of previous contact with each culture.
Treatment. Following pre-survey completion, the partner pairs met briefly during classto exchange contact information and arrange for an informal, out-of-class meeting at theirconvenience to decide which one of the partner’s cultures they wanted to investigate. Inthe course of the semester, the partners then observed each other’s cultures (e.g., aChinese-American student may have taken his partner to Chinatown, a Jewish studentmay have invited her partner to a religious event, etc.), interviewed each other, wrote aliterature review comparing and contrasting an aspect of their cultures, and produced anarrated slideshow or video about this aspect together. The individual assignments werespaced 2–3 weeks apart.
Post-Survey. At the end of the semester, the students filled out a survey that mirroredthe pre-survey but had an additional question eliciting information on their interest inmaintaining contact with each other. All aspects of the ethnographic project also servedpedagogical purposes (i.e., the students wrote reports about each assignment segmentand reflected on their progress throughout the semester in a journal).
Follow-up survey. Six months after the respective semester, participants filled out afollow-up survey that again repeated questions from the pre-survey and added four ques-tions concerning the interest to remain in contact, the effectiveness of the project for pro-moting intercultural friendship, reasons why the project was or was not effective, and theircurrent relationship status with their buddy (e.g., close friend, friend, acquaintance,enemy).
Instrumentation
The surveys consisted largely of yes/no and Likert-scale items, but also included opportu-nities to comment and one open-ended question (on the project’s effectiveness). Thequantitative data were evaluated via t tests, repeated measures ANOVAs, and Pearsonproduct-moment correlations. The qualitative data were evaluated using the constant-comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The responses to the open-ended questionwere repeatedly read, compared, and coded. These coded data were analyzed to identifyand then refine categories. The resulting major themes were used to formulate theoriesabout the project’s effectiveness.
Results
Knowledge and attitude
The study first assessed changes in knowledge and attitude (i.e., factors known to pave theway for friendship formation). Pre and post measures were compared via t tests (N = 223);pre, post, and follow-up measures for knowledge and attitude were compared with the useof Repeated Measures ANOVAs for the students who completed all three surveys (n = 97).
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION 7
Knowledge. Hypotheses 1, predicting that participants’ knowledge about their buddy’sculture will increase over the pre to post time span and be maintained over the post tofollow-up time span, was supported. With a large effect size, participants’ knowledgeabout their buddy’s culture was significantly greater in the post- (M = 4.02, SD = .565) com-pared to the pre-condition (M = 2.34, SD = 1.13), t(203) =−20.43, p = .000, d = 1.43. Resultsalso showed a significant quadratic trend for buddy exercise, F(1, 82) = 97.74, p = .000, η2
= .54. As shown in Figure 1, participants’ knowledge about their buddy’s culture significantlyincreased when comparing the pre (M = 2.24, SD = 1.10) to post (M = 3.95, SD = .582) times,t(82) =−12.62, p = .000, d = 1.39. It then nearly remained the same when comparing thepost (M = 3.95, SD = .582) to follow-up (M = 3.94, SD = .717) times, t(90) = .155, p = .877.According to these findings, the buddy exercise seems to be effective because this acquisitionof knowledge was still maintained at the follow-up time.
Attitude. Hypothesis 2, predicting that participants’ attitude toward their buddy’sculture will increase over the pre to post time span and be maintained over the post tofollow-up time span, was substantiated. With a medium effect size, participants’ attitudestowards their buddy’s culture were significantly better in the post- (M = 4.39, SD = .638)compared to the pre-condition (M = 3.68, SD = 1.05), t(203) =−9.84, p = .000, d = .64.Results also found a significant quadratic trend for buddy exercise, F(1, 83) = 37.86,p =.000, η2 = .31. As shown in Figure 2, participants’ attitudes’ toward their buddy’s
Figure 1. Participants’ knowledge about their buddy’s culture: pre, post, and follow-up levels.
Figure 2. Participants’ attitude toward their buddy’s culture: pre, post, and follow-up levels.
8 E. GAREIS, J. GOLDMAN AND R. MERKIN
culture significantly improved when comparing the pre (M = 3.58, SD = 1.19) and post(M = 4.44, SD = .628) times t(83) =−6.22, p = .000, d = .68. It then significantly decreasedfrom the post (M = 4.44, SD = .628) to follow-up (M = 4.23, SD = .738) times, t(91) = 3.34,p = .001, d = .35. However, even though the improvements in attitudes dropped over the
Table 2. Mean amount of knowledge as a function of buddy exercise and pre-project cultural contact.Median in Low Contact Median in High Contact
Buddy Exercise Low Contact High Contact Low Contact High Contact
Pre 1.81 (.930) 2.97 (.983) 1.41 (.780) 2.69 (.987)Post 3.96 (.559) 3.94 (.629) 4.00 (.598) 3.93 (.578)Follow Up 3.96 (.739) 3.90 (.700) 3.86 (.875) 3.98 (.629)
Note: The values in parentheses are the standard deviations for the respective mean values.
Figure 4. Mean amount of knowledge as a function of buddy exercise and pre-project cultural contactplaced in the high contact group.
Figure 3. Mean amount of knowledge as a function of buddy exercise and pre-project cultural contactplaced in the low contact group.
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION 9
post to follow-up time span, the follow-up attitudes were still significantly more positivecompared to the pre time t(83) =−4.67, p = .000, d = .51. According to these findingsthe buddy exercise was effective given the improvements in attitude were maintained atthe follow-up time.
The moderating effect of pre-project cultural contact. We predicted that the buddyexercise would be more effective for those with a low compared to a high amount ofpre-project contact with the buddy’s culture. To explore these moderation effects,contact was dichotomized into low and high groups via median splits. The medianscore for contact was 2. Pre-contact was dichotomized in two ways, which were: (a) Par-ticipants with a pre-contact score of 2 and below were placed in the low contact group, and(b) participants with a pre-contact score of 2 and above were placed in the high contactgroup. The hypotheses regarding contact were explored with 3 (Buddy Exercise: pre,post, and follow up) X 2 (Contact: low vs. high) mixed ANOVAS. The buddy exercisewas the repeated-measures factor and contact was the between-subjects factor.
Contact and knowledge. Hypothesis 3 predicted an interaction between the buddyexercise and pre-project contact with the buddy’s culture, such that participants’ knowl-edge about their buddy’s culture would increase more over the pre to post time spanand be maintained at follow up, but this would occur more for those with a low comparedto high amount of pre-project contact. When median scoring participants were placed inthe low, F(1, 81) = 11.58, p = .000, η2 = .13, and high F(1, 81) = 22.35, p = .000, η2 = .21contact groups, significant interactions were found (see Table 2 and Figures 3 and 4).That is, knowledge increased over the pre to post time span and was maintained atfollow up, more for the low compared to high contact participants. In addition, the direc-tion and strength of the interactions did not vary as a function of median split categoriz-ations of contact. Based on this, Hypothesis 3 was supported.
Contact and attitude. Hypothesis 4 predicted an interaction between the buddy exer-cise and pre-project contact with the buddy’s culture, such that participants’ attitudestoward their buddy’s culture would improve over the pre to post time span and be main-tained at follow up, but more for those with a low compared to high amount of pre-projectcontact. Significant interactions were found when median scoring participants were placedin the low F(1, 82) = 6.15, p = .015, η2 = .07) and high F(1, 82) = 6.74, p = .011, η2 = .07contact groups. Both interactions were in the hypothesized direction (see Table 3 andFigures 5 and 6). Attitudes improved over the pre to post time span and were maintainedat follow up, more for low- than high-contact participants. In addition, the direction andstrength of the interactions did not vary as function of median split categorizations ofcontact. Consequently, Hypothesis 4 was supported.
Intercultural friendship development
The overarching focus of this study was the efficacy of the college pair-project assignmentin intercultural friendship development. With scant scholarship available, three researchquestions were formulated that focused on the relationship between knowledge, attitude,pre-project contact, and friendship development or interest in continued contact (as ameasure for friendship development potential).
Knowledge, attitude, and continued contact. Research Question 1 asked about therelationship between post-project knowledge, attitude, and interest in continued
10 E. GAREIS, J. GOLDMAN AND R. MERKIN
contact. Pearson’s product moment correlations showed significant positive relationshipsbetween the participants’ post-project knowledge, attitude, and interest in continuedcontact (see Table 4).
Pre-project contact, post-project interest in continued contact, and follow-upcontact. Research Question 2 asked about the relationship between pre-project contactwith buddy’s culture, post-project interest in contact with the buddy, and actual follow-up
Table 3. Mean attitude as a function of buddy exercise and pre-project cultural contact.Median in Low Contact Median in High Contact
Buddy Exercise Low Contact High Contact Low Contact High Contact
Pre 3.33 (1.26) 4.00 (.950) 3.24 (1.57) 3.76 (.902)Post 4.48 (.577) 4.38 (.707) 4.59 (.568) 4.36 (.649)Follow Up 4.25 (.763) 4.21 (.706) 4.28 (.797) 4.21 (.712)
Note: The values in parentheses are the standard deviations for the respective mean values.
Figure 5. Mean attitude as a function of buddy exercise and pre-project cultural contact placed in thelow contact group.
Figure 6. Mean attitude as a function of buddy exercise and pre-project cultural contact placed in thehigh contact group.
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION 11
contact. Significant positive relationships were found between the participants’ interest instaying in touch with the buddy at the post time with the amount of actual contact withtheir buddy at the follow-up time (see Table 4). No significant relationship was foundbetween pre-project cultural contact and post-project interest or actual follow-up contact.
Intercultural friendship formation. Research Question 3 asked to what extent theproject was successful in fostering intercultural friendship formation. Item 1 asked theparticipants in the post survey to indicate their interest in continued contact with theirbuddy beyond the semester. Of the 219 participants who responded to this item,72.15% were “very or somewhat interested,” 22.83% were “neither interested nor uninter-ested,” and 5.03% were “somewhat” or “very uninterested” (see Table 5).
Item 2 asked the participants in the follow-up survey how effective the buddy projectwas for promoting intercultural friendships. Of the 96 respondents, 82.29% describedthe project as “very” or “somewhat effective,” 13. 54% as “neither effective nor ineffective,”and 4.17% as “somewhat” or “very ineffective” (see Table 6).
Table 4. Knowledge, attitude, and continued contact.
Pre: Contactwith peoplefrom buddy’s
culture
Post:Knowledge
about buddy’sculture
Post:Attitudetowardbuddy’sculture
Post: Interest instaying in touchwith buddy inthe future
Follow up:Contact
with buddy
Pre: Contact withpeople frombuddy’s culture
PearsonCorrelation
1 .074 .072 −.030 .028
Significance(2-tailed)
.295 .305 .666 .798
N 206 204 205 204 84Post: Knowledgeabout buddy’sculture
PearsonCorrelation
.074 1 .368a .198a .158
Significance(2-tailed)
.295 .000 .003 .134
N 204 220 220 219 92Post: Attitudetoward buddy’sculture
PearsonCorrelation
.072 .368a 1 .373a .032
Significance(2-tailed)
.305 .000 .000 .764
N 205 219 221 220 92Post: Interest instaying in touchwith buddy inthe future
PearsonCorrelation
−.030 .198a .373a 1 .338a
Significance(2-tailed)
.666 .003 .000 .001
N 204 219 220 220 91Follow up: Contactwith buddy
PearsonCorrelation
.028 .158 .032 .338a 1
Significance(2-tailed)
.798 .134 .764 .001
N 84 91 92 91 92aCorrelation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 5. Interest in staying in touch with buddy.Frequency Percentage (%)a
Very interested 90 41.10Somewhat interested 68 31.05Neither interested nor uninterested 50 22.83Somewhat uninterested 10 4.57Very uninterested 1 0.46aPercentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
12 E. GAREIS, J. GOLDMAN AND R. MERKIN
An open-ended question (Item 3) asked respondents to elaborate on the precedingeffectiveness question. Six major themes emerged. What follows is a brief explanationof each theme, plus sample comments.
(1) Repeatedly, participants mentioned that the project had been effective because itforced them out of their comfort zone and put them in a situation with the potentialfor intercultural friendship formation.. “I found the buddy project effective because it forced us out of our comfort zone.
Pairing us with a buddy from a very different culture means that we need to form arelationship with someone whom we would probably not interact with muchotherwise.”
. “A lot of people tend to stick with their own race or culture, but this project helpedthem get away from that a little. It helped show that it is okay to be comfortablewith people outside of their norm.”
. “It kind of puts us in the situation to really get to know each other. Without thisproject, I never would’ve made the first move to get to know a classmate.”
(2) Participants also made reference to the role of knowledge expansion in improvingattitudes, addressing stereotypes, and clearing the path for friendship formation.. “When you get familiar with a different culture and find out reasons why they are
doing some things, you start to respect it. When you have more knowledge aboutdifferent cultures, there is less chance that you will be stereotyping. That is thereason why you would make friends from different cultures instead of thinkingstereotypically.”
(3) Likewise, participants commented that the project affected their attitude toward estab-lishing contact with culturally others.. “This project helped me to be more receptive and patient when meeting someone
from another culture, especially when there is a language barrier. It’s almost sad toadmit but before, I didn’t think it was possible or would take too much effort tohave a friend from a drastically different culture than mine. [The course] gaveme the tools and understanding to make an intercultural friendship possible. Ihave 3 new intercultural friends since taking this course.”
(4) Participants also pointed out that the semester-long duration of the project and mul-tiple assignment segments with separate deadlines were crucial for its effectiveness.. “It was effective because it forces you to communicate and spend time together.”. “I was eager to learn more about Colombian culture, and our different meetings
made us get closer.”. “This project, at first, looked like a way to force people to work in groups with a
stranger. However, through the entire semester-long process, you become more
Table 6. Rating of project as effective for promoting intercultural friendship.Frequency Percentage (%)a
Very effective 35 36.46Somewhat effective 44 45.83Neither effective nor ineffective 13 13.54Somewhat ineffective 3 3.13Very ineffective 1 1.04aPercentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION 13
and more involved and interested in your partner. Having all the different dead-lines really creates a way to connect with your buddy.”
(5) The quality of the interactions emerged as another theme. Especially the observationassignment, which required close and extended contact (with buddies visiting eachother’s cultural sites, houses of prayer, or even homes) was mentioned as aneffective element of the project.. “I would say the element of the Buddy Project that truly emphasized a growth in
relationship between my buddy and me was the observation aspect. I wouldgreatly encourage buddies to step out of their comfort zone and really embracetheir respective buddy’s culture through this observation element. Not only did Ilearn a bunch about my buddy’s culture but I truly feel I was able to express myown culture with more depth than simply reading about it could have accomplished.”
. “The project really pushed us to get to know another culture, by making it morepersonal. Making a friend and learning a culture through a new friend is a lotmore effective.”
. “The assignments were built in order to give you more understanding but alsoallowed us to get to know each other; and now I call him my friend.”
. “Having frequent conversations … helped us bond.”(6) Students who had a neutral or negative stance focused on incompatibilities or the
mandatory nature of the project.. “It was interesting to get to know someone from a culture I’ve never had any
contact with. However our beliefs and lifestyles differ so much that it is just notpossible to become closer friends. My buddy was really nice though!”
. “Because it was assigned, we had to force ourselves to work together, despite havingvery different schedules. Neither of us enjoyed the experience, it was more of ahassle.”
Item 4 asked participants in the follow-up survey six months after the end of the semesterto rate their current relationship with their buddy. Of the 92 participants who responded tothis item, 22.82% described their buddy as a “close friend” or “friend,” 60.87% as an“acquaintance,” and 16.40% as “other.” No pairs had become enemies (see Table 7).
Discussion
This study focused on the longitudinal effect of a semester-long ethnographic buddyproject on cultural knowledge, cross-cultural attitudes, post-project contact, and intercul-tural friendship development.
Table 7. Rating of relationship with buddy in follow-up study.Frequency Percentage (%)a
Close Friend 16 17.39Friend 5 5.43Acquaintance 56 60.87Enemy 0 0Other 15 16.30aPercentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
14 E. GAREIS, J. GOLDMAN AND R. MERKIN
Knowledge and attitude
Hypotheses 1 to 2 predicted that participants’ knowledge and attitude concerning theirbuddy’s culture will improve over the pre to post time span, and be maintained in thefollow up. The hypotheses were supported. Participants’ knowledge about their buddy’sculture significantly increased with a large effect size between the pre and post tests,and remained nearly the same six months after the end of the semester. Participants’ atti-tude about their buddy’s culture increased with a medium effect size between the pre andpost tests. Although the attitude measure dropped slightly in the follow-up condition, theimprovements were still significant compared to the pre results. Accordingly, the buddyexercise was effective in increasing cultural knowledge and changing long-term cross-cul-tural attitudes.
Results demonstrate that cross-cultural knowledge and attitudes can be improvedthrough collaborative assignments in the context of a college class, and that the experiencehas lasting effects. As evidenced by the participants’ open-ended responses, students didfeel initial discomfort about interacting with cultural others, but through rich culture-focused yet personal and repeated contact, they experienced reduced perceptions ofthreat, anxiety, and uncertainty, and acquired cross-cultural knowledge and improved atti-tudes. Together with the significant changes in knowledge and attitude, these responsesprovide support for the Expectancy Violation Theory (Burgoon, 1978), the IntegratedThreat Theory (Stephan et al., 1998), the Anxiety/Uncertainty Management Theory(Gudykunst, 1993), and the Uncertainty Reduction Theory (Berger & Calabrese, 1975).Likewise, results confirm the assertion by Ward et al. (2009) that qualitatively rich andrepeated contact facilitates the improvement of attitudes. Being able to visit culturalsites under the guidance of a partner who is familiar with the environment was singledout as an especially effective, qualitatively rich element of the project. Although the stu-dents did not comment on the other elements of the project (interview, literaturereview, slideshow and video) individually, they mentioned that the division of theproject into multiple segments and the ensuing repeated contact in meetings and conver-sations were effective in building knowledge, positive attitudes, and friendship (or thepotential for friendship) over time.
Moderating effect of pre-project cultural contact
Hypotheses 3 and 4 predicted that participants’ knowledge and attitude concerning theirbuddy’s culture will improve more for participants who had little prior contact with thetarget culture than for those with significant contact. Both hypotheses were supported.
The results echo Todd and Nesdale’s (1997) finding that an intervention (consisting oforientation, recreational, and tutorial programs), had a greater effect on domestic thaninternational students – presumably because international students had higher levels ofintercultural experience prior to the intervention. The fact that low pre-project contactresulted in greater improvements of knowledge and attitude in this study also resonateswith Allport’s (1954) contact hypothesis. Even though the project’s conditions deviatedpartially from Allport’s conditions (i.e., the cooperation was between two interactantsand not two groups, and the goals were assigned and not voluntary), the contact treatmentwas effective in increasing knowledge about and attitudes toward the target culture, and
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION 15
more so for the participants who had minimal exposure to the culture before the project.This leads to the conclusion that contact facilitated by an assigned class project can beeffective despite the slight deviations from Allport’s conditions.
Knowledge, attitude, and friendship development
Research Question 1 asked about the relationship between post-project knowledge, atti-tude, and interest in continued contact. The study showed that improvements in knowl-edge and attitude correlate with the interest in continued contact with the buddy beyondthe semester (i.e., that a friendship developed or that the possibility of such a developmentexists). Pettigrew (1997) demonstrated that the path from friendship to prejudicereduction is stronger than the path from low prejudice to friendship. Although thisstudy found a correlation, it had not set out to determine a causal relationship betweenknowledge, attitude, and friendship. Further research should assess this relationship.
Also interesting is the finding that, when pre-project knowledge and attitude were com-pared with post-project knowledge and attitude, the effect size, although significant forboth, was higher for knowledge than for attitude. One factor responsible for this differencemay be the fact that the project was part of a college class focused on cross-cultural knowl-edge expansion. Another factor may be the level of emotionality inherent in the variables.Knowledge is cognitively based and objective, whereas attitude is more emotionally drivenand thus subject to added complexities that could make them more difficult to alter. Like-wise, the correlation between post-project knowledge, attitude, and interest in continuedcontact on one hand, but the lack of correlation between post-project knowledge, attitude,and actual contact in the follow up may be explained by the increasing degree of emotion-ality as one moves from knowledge to attitude, and to friendship. While attitude is moreemotionally driven than knowledge, it is not as intimate as friendship and is also directedtoward a cultural group, not an individual. Friendship, as the most intimate variable, is themost delicate because it depends on a complex interplay of affection, mutuality, trust, andsimilarities in values and interests. Thus, simple correlations between knowledge, attitude,and actual contact in the follow up are difficult to achieve.
Some of the students’ open-ended responses hint at these dynamics in that they focusmore on learning about another culture than attitude change. When emotionality is men-tioned in the responses, it is done so cautiously and anchored in the context of the assign-ment. One student wrote, for example, that “through the entire semester-long process, youbecome more and more involved and interested in your partner.” Another student com-mented that “the project really pushed us to get to know another culture, by making itmore personal.” The complex matter of emotionality can also be inferred from commentsconcerning the time it takes to become true friends. The following two comments areexamples.
. “The buddy project was effective because it promoted a foundation for a (growing)friendship. Actually, it was more like an ice-breaker.”
. “We needed more time to interact with each other for us to become good friends.”
As the Social Penetration Theory (Altman & Taylor, 1973) posits, the formation of astable relationship is a multi-stage process. For some, it may take longer than a semester.
16 E. GAREIS, J. GOLDMAN AND R. MERKIN
Contact variables and intercultural friendship development
Research Question 2 focused on the relationship between the pre-project cultural contact,post-project interest in continued contact, and actual contact following the semester. Impor-tantly, there was no significant relationship between participants’ pre-project contact withtheir buddy’s culture and post-project interest in or actual contact with their buddy, but asignificant positive relationship between the participants’ post-project interest in stayingin touch with the buddy and the actual contact with their buddy at the follow-up time.This shows that interest in staying in touch and actual contact with the buddy is connectedto the treatment and independent of any previous contact the participants may have hadwith the target culture. One can conclude that even “forced” contact, imposed by beingmatched with another student in a college-class assignment, can be effective in creatinginterest in continued contact with the partner and in leading to long-term relationships.
Pettigrew (1997) found that the potential for friendship is an essential condition foroptimal intergroup contact. Research Question 3 asked to what extent the project was suc-cessful in fostering intercultural friendship formation. This study explored this question bygauging three related aspects: the participants’ interest in continued contact, their percep-tion of the project’s effectiveness in fostering friendship, and actual relationships formedbetween participants. Post-project results showed that 72% of the participants were “very”or “somewhat interested” in continued contact with their buddy following the project.Likewise, 82% found the project “very” or “somewhat effective” in promoting interculturalfriendship formation. One explanation for the higher rating of effectiveness than interestmay be that some students in the class also made friends with classmates other than theirbuddies, as is illustrated by the following quote from a student: “[The course] gave me thetools and understanding to make an intercultural friendship possible. I have 3 new inter-cultural friends since taking this course.”
Although 72% indicated continued interest and 82% found that the project promotedintercultural friendship formation, only 23% rated their relationship with their formerbuddy as a “close friendship” or “friendship” in the follow up. A couple of explanationsoffer themselves. For one, friendship formation takes time. Thus, it may be consideredpositive and promising that 61% rated the relationship with their buddy an “acquaintance-ship”; that is, a friendship may still develop. Another explanation is that a 23% rate ofintercultural friendship formation is an above-average outcome for a college class.Although no studies on this matter exist, anecdotal evidence based on student reports(n = 16) from other intercultural-communication classes at the same college (classesthat employed short-term group instead of semester-long pair-projects) suggests thatintercultural friendship formation as a result of being classmates may be relatively rare.The student reports in those classes add up to a total of one close friendship and threeregular friendships formed; but only one of the four friendships is intercultural (i.e.,6.25% versus 22.82% in the pair-project classes). These results may serve to explain theseeming contradiction with the finding by Chambliss and Takacs (2014) that most stu-dents do not make friends in classes, but instead through high-contact activities, suchas sports or choir. If class activities are high-contact (i.e., rich and repeated), they canbe effective in promoting friendships.
The effectiveness of the ethnographic pair-project for friendship development also findssupport in the participants’ qualitative responses. The majority of the students welcomed
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION 17
the opportunity to engage with a culturally different classmate, and references to the pro-ject’s creation of a fertile ground for friendship formation permeated the responses. Par-ticipants repeatedly commented that they “never would’ve made the first move to get toknow a classmate.” Some of the comments specify why participants did not initiate inter-cultural friendships out of their own volition prior to the project. The reasons werethresholds, including being stifled by stereotypes, leaving one’s comfort zone of monocul-tural networks, and having to make an undue effort. In addition to harking back to inter-cultural theories, such as the Expectancy Violation Theory (Burgoon, 1978) and theIntegrated Threat Theory (Stephan et al., 1998), these reasons echo findings of otherstudies focusing on complacency. Thus, Holmes and O’Neill (2012) speak of initial “feel-ings of fear and reluctance, often embodied in complacency in approaching a culturalother” (p. 714). Likewise, Kudo and Simkin (2003) explain that students tend to establishintercultural friendships in situations where efforts to initiate relationships are minimal.Imposing intercultural interaction through college assignments helps students to makethe effort and cross the thresholds. The students in this study largely seemed gratefulfor having being “forced” to do so.
Implications
Theoretical and practical implications. This study showed that a semester-long ethno-graphic project with assigned partners can improve cross-cultural knowledge and attitudesand that these improvements can be maintained beyond the end of the semester. It furtherdemonstrated that improvements in knowledge and attitude correlate with an interest incontinued contact, and that a pair-project can facilitate intercultural friendship formationor at least create interest in continued contact with the assigned partner and the potentialfor friendship formation later. Given the notorious and persistent lack of meaningfulinterethnic and intercultural contact in higher education (e.g., Bochner et al., 1985;Gareis, 2012; Halualani et al., 2004; Liang & Guest, 2013; Peacock & Harrison, 2009;Ward & Masgoret, 2004), the findings have the following implications.
Based on processes described in research on intergroup anxiety (Pettigrew & Tropp,2008) and perceived threat (Ward et al., 2009), an extended project that focuses on culturallearning addresses several factors aiding friendship development. It increases cross-cul-tural knowledge, thereby reducing intergroup anxiety; it defuses stereotypes, therebyimproving attitudes and diminishing the perception of intergroup threat; and it allowsfor the rich and repeated contact that makes friendship formation a possibility. Theeffects on knowledge, attitudes, and the potential for friendship formation are reciprocal.As knowledge and attitudes improve, friendship becomes more likely; and as friendshipsare formed, knowledge and attitudes improve further (Aberson, Shoemaker, & Tomolillo,2004). An extended pair-project also allows for increasingly personal communication,thus advancing social penetration (Altman & Taylor, 1973) and making friendship for-mation a possibility. Furthermore, culture-focused, extended collaborations permitstudent pairs to work as a single team, thus functioning as a catalyst for recategorizationby obscuring the we-versus-they boundary at the basis of intergroup bias (Perdue,Dovidio, Gurtman, & Tyler, 1990).
With the potential for friendship formation being essential for optimal intergroupcontact (Pettigrew, 1997), college faculty should consider creating assignments with the
18 E. GAREIS, J. GOLDMAN AND R. MERKIN
kind of contact between culturally dissimilar students that is conducive for friendship for-mation. Examples include long-term collaborations and activities that foster dialogue andinvite mutual sharing and self-disclosure. The project at hand required students to observetheir buddy’s culture off campus, to interview each other, and to write a literature reviewand produce a slideshow or video together. After each task, participants were asked toreflect on the experience and any changes in their cultural self- and other-awareness.The repeated pair contact and combination of tasks satisfied not only Pettigrew’s(1997) potential-for-friendship condition but also Allport’s four original conditions foroptimal intergroup contact (i.e., equal status of interactants, cooperation, commongoals, and support by institutional authorities). Of theoretical significance is that thebenefits occurred although the collaboration was between individuals and not groups,and that it was assigned and not voluntary. Beyond the college environment, versionsof the project could be carried out in schools, organizations, and communities. To maxi-mize effects on knowledge and attitude, participants should have little previous contactwith each other’s cultures.
Limitations. The study was conducted with students in an intercultural-communi-cation class; that is, the participants were exposed to intercultural concepts throughoutthe whole semester, not only during their ethnographic project. Anecdotal evidence inintercultural-communication courses without ethnographic pair-projects suggests thatthe benefits indeed derive from the pair-project. Future studies should formally test thishypothesis via larger control groups.
Less than half of the original participants (N = 223) completed the follow-up survey sixmonths after the end of the semester (n = 97). It would be advantageous to gather morefollow-up data – not only in terms of participants but also over a longer period of time.Results showed that 72% of the participants had interest in post-project contact and23% had formed a friendship with their ethnographic buddy in the follow up. Additionallongitudinal research should determine whether some of the expressed interest gave rise tofriendships later and also how long the friendships that do develop last.
Hruschka (2010) states, “being thrust together in the same context is necessary to get toknow a potential friend, but it is not sufficient for cultivating a friendship” (p. 149). Otherfactors, such as interpersonal similarity (e.g., McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001),compatible cultural and friendship patterns (e.g., Gareis, 2012), and communicationskills (e.g., Gareis et al., 2011) also play a role. An ethnographic pair-project may beenhanced by obtaining more demographic information from students at the outset, inan attempt to address some of these factors.
Conclusion
The rapid growth of globalization is leading to record numbers in temporary and perma-nent migration. Both international education and forced migration, for example, sawrecord highs in 2017. Thus, the number of international students in the United Statesreached 1,078,822 (Institute of International Education, 2018), and the number of dis-placed persons worldwide exceeded 68.5 million (United Nations High Commissionerfor Refugees, 2018). At the same time, intergroup tensions persist or are rising domesti-cally and globally. Reports on intergroup contact in various countries, especially inurban environments, paint a picture of, at best, parallel, and at worst, antagonistic lives
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION 19
(e.g., Arutiunian, 2006; Fossett & Waren, 2005). Improvements in intercultural relationsare an urgent and paramount matter.
Especially needed are practical measures of how to reduce intergroup prejudice andfoster meaningful and positive contact. Intercultural friendship is an ideal catalyst forprejudice reduction (Pettigrew, 1997) and has countless other benefits, including fasteradjustment (Zhang & Goodson, 2011) and overall sojourn satisfaction (Rohrlich &Martin, 1991) of international students, as well as a greater international outlook ofboth international and domestic interactants (Todd & Nesdale, 1997).
Decades of studies have shown, however, that in the context of higher education,meaningful intercultural interactions leading to friendship development do not occurautomatically and need to be actively facilitated (e.g., Bochner et al., 1985; Gareis,2012; Halualani et al., 2004; Liang & Guest, 2013; Peacock & Harrison, 2009; Ward& Masgoret, 2004). Educators and community leaders are called to increase theirefforts to foster cross-cultural knowledge, positive attitudes, and intercultural friendshipformation through relevant and effective assignments and activities in their institutionsand communities.
Note
1. The term “intercultural” was used for processes that focus on interaction (e.g., “interculturalcontact,” “intercultural friendship”); the term “cross-cultural” was used for a focus on com-parison and difference (e.g., the acquisition of “cross-cultural knowledge” or the assessmentof “cross-cultural attitudes”).
Notes on contributors
Elisabeth Gareis is a professor in the Department of Communication Studies at Baruch College/CUNY where she teaches courses related to intercultural communication. Her research focus ison intercultural friendship and its role in prejudice reduction and the success of internationalsojourns and migration.
Jeffrey Goldman is a doctoral student in Hofstra University’s Clinical Psychology Ph.D. Program.His research interests center on intercultural communication, prejudice reduction, and the mitiga-tion of anger and aggression.
Rebecca Merkin is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at BaruchCollege/CUNY where she teaches courses in business, interpersonal, and impression-managementcommunication. Her research focuses on intercultural communication in organizations and socialinteraction processes such as impression management, identity, and facework communication.
References
Aberson, C. L., Shoemaker, C., & Tomolillo, C. (2004). Implicit bias and contact: The role of inter-ethnic friendships. The Journal of Social Psychology, 144, 335–347. doi:10.3200/SOCP.144.3.335-347
Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley.Altman, I., & Taylor, D. (1973). Social penetration. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Arutiunian, I. V. (2006). On the potential of interethnic integration in the megalopolis of Moscow.
Sociological Research, 45, 26–50. doi:10.2753/SOR1061-0154450602Astin, A. W. (1991). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of assessment and evalu-
ation in higher education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
20 E. GAREIS, J. GOLDMAN AND R. MERKIN
Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. (1975). Some explorations in initial interactions and beyond. HumanCommunication Research, 1, 99–112. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00258.x
Bochner, S., Hutnik, N., & Furnham, A. (1985). The friendship patterns of overseas students andhost students in an Oxford University residence. Journal of Social Psychology, 125, 689–694.doi:10.1080/00224545.1985.9713540
Burgoon, J. K. (1978). A communication model of personal space violations: Explication and aninitial test. Human Communication Research, 4(1978), 129–142.
Chambliss, D. F., & Takacs, C. G. (2014).How college works. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.European Association for International Education. (2012). International student mobility charter.
Retrieved from http://www.eaie.orgFossett, M., & Waren, W. (2005). Overlooked implications of ethnic preferences for residential seg-
regation in agent-based models. Urban Studies, 42, 1893–1917. doi:10.1080/00420980500280354Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common
ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. European Reviewof Social Psychology, 4, 1–26. doi:10.1080/14792779343000004
Gareis, E. (1995). Intercultural friendship: A qualitative study. Lanham, MD: University Press ofAmerica.
Gareis, E. (2012). Intercultural friendship: Effects of home region and sojourn location. Journal ofInternational and Intercultural Communication, 5, 309–328. doi:10.1080/17513057.2012.691525
Gareis, E., Merkin, R., & Goldman, J. (2011). Intercultural friendship: Linking communication vari-ables and friendship success. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 40, 155–173.doi:10.1080/17475759.2011.581034
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitativeresearch. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Gudykunst, W. B. (1991). Bridging differences: Effective intergroup communication. Newbury Park,CA: Sage.
Gudykunst, W. B. (1993). Toward a theory of effective interpersonal and intergroup communi-cation: An anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) perspective. In R. L. Wiseman, & J.Koester (Eds.), Intercultural communication competence (pp. 33–71). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gudykunst, W. B., Nishida, T., & Chua, E. (1987). Perceptions of social penetration in Japanese-North American dyads. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 11, 171–189. doi:10.1016/0147-1767(87)90017-4
Halualani, R. T., Chitgopekar, A. S., Morrison, J. H. T. A., & Dodge, P. S. W. (2004). Diverse inname only? Intercultural interaction at a multicultural university. Journal of Communication,54, 270–286. doi:10.1093/joc/54.2.270
Holmes, P., & O’Neill, G. (2012). Developing and evaluating intercultural competence:Ethnographies of intercultural encounters. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36,707–718. doi:10.1016/j.jintrel.2012.04.010
Hruschka, D. J. (2010). Friendship: Development, ecology, and evolution of a relationship. Berkeley,CA: University of California Press.
Institute of International Education. (2018). Open doors: 2017 fast facts. Retrieved from https://www.iie.org/en/Research-and-Insights/Open-Doors/Fact-Sheets-and-Infographics/Fast-Facts
Kudo, K., & Simkin, K. A. (2003). Intercultural friendship formation: The case of Japanese studentsat an Australian university. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 24, 91–114. doi:10.1080/0725686032000165351
Liang, K., & Guest, K. J. (2013). CUNY’s new Chinese immigrants navigate a precarious path toupward mobility. CUNY Forum, 1(1), 15–22.
Mamiseishvili, K. (2012). International student persistence in U.S. postsecondary institutions.Higher Education, 64, 1–17. doi:10.1007/s10734-011-9477-0
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social net-works. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
Page-Gould, E., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). With a little help frommy cross-groupfriend: Reducing anxiety in intergroup contexts through cross-group friendship. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 95, 1080–1094. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1080
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION 21
Peacock, N., & Harrison, N. (2009). “It’s so much easier to go with what’s easy”: “Mindfulness” andthe discourse between home and international students in the United Kingdom. Journal ofStudies in International Education, 13, 487–508. doi:10.1177/1028315308319508
Perdue, C. W., Dovidio, J. F., Gurtman, M. B., & Tyler, R. B. (1990). Us and them: Social categor-ization and the process of intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 475–486. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.3.475
Pettigrew, T. F. (1997). Generalized intergroup contact effects on prejudice. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 23, 173–185. doi:10.1177/0146167297232006
Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65–85. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-ana-lytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 922–934. doi:10.1002/ejsp.504
Poyrazli, S., Kavanaugh, P. R., Baker, A., & Al-Timimi, N. (2004). Social support and demographiccorrelates of acculturative stress in international students. Journal of College Counseling, 7, 73–82.doi:10.1002/j.2161-1882.2004.tb00261.x
Rohrlich, B. F., & Martin, J. N. (1991). Host country and reentry adjustment of student sojourners.International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, 163–182. doi:10.1016/0147-1767(91)90027-E
Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., Martinez, C. M., Schwarzwald, J., & Tur Kaspa, M. (1998). Prejudicetoward immigrants to Spain and Israel: An integrated threat theory analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 559–576.
Todd, P., & Nesdale, D. (1997). Promoting intercultural contact between Australian and inter-national university students. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 19, 61–76.doi:10.1080/1360080970190108
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2018). Global trends: Forced displacement in2017. Retrieved from http://www.unhcr.org/5b27be547
Ward, C., & Masgoret, A. M. (2004). The experiences of international students in New Zealand:Report on the results of the national survey. Wellington, New Zealand: International Policyand Development Unit, Ministry of Education. Retrieved from http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/international/14700
Ward, C., Masgoret, A. M., & Gezentsvey, M. (2009). Investigating attitudes toward internationalstudents: Program and policy implications for social integration and international education.Social Issues and Policy Review, 3, 79–102. doi:10.1111/j.1751-2409.2009.01011.x
Yefanova, D., Baird, L., & Montgomery, M. L. (2015). Study of the educational impact of inter-national students in campus internationalization at the University of Minnesota. Retrievedfrom https://global.umn.edu/icc/documents/15_EducationalImpact-IntlStudents.pdf
Yum, J. O. (1988). Multidimensional analysis of international images among college students inJapan, Hong Kong, and the United States. Journal of Social Psychology, 128, 765–777. doi:10.1080/00224545.1988.9924555
Zhang, J., & Goodson, P. (2011). Predictors of international students’ psychosocial adjustment tolife in the United States: A systematic review. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,35, 139–162. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.11.011
Zhao, C. M., Kuh, G. D., & Carini, R. M. (2005). A comparison of international student andAmerican student engagement in effective educational practices. The Journal of HigherEducation, 76, 209–231. doi:10.1353/jhe.2005.0018
22 E. GAREIS, J. GOLDMAN AND R. MERKIN